Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Read-only
Total: 263
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ? 

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

" as the scripture has said"  

Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?

What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?

Topic's author
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
It appears that the claim by Jesus appears to be false. 
#3
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
There really is very little point in arguing the obscurities and inconsistencies and sheer volume of dumb stuff in the bible with believers, you know, you're wasting your time. There's more than one believer here who can demonstrate just how contorted they can be in order to believe it's all actually true. My point is believers don't believe, in general, based on the bible, just as atheists don't disbelieve based on the bible. 
#4
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
There's more than one believer here who can demonstrate just how contorted they can be in order to believe it's all actually true.

Of course of course, because it's all a big absurdity right Ludo? that we have to contort ourselves? how dare anyone conclude there is a Creator, when atheism is obviously the answer. How dumb of any Theist. And how dumb any religious forum exist for such a stupid proposition.

Actually, anyone arguing for or against the perfection or imperfection of the Bible are silly, and then missing the things that matter in the mean time. It's a vicious cycle when the simplicity and understanding of what scripture is about resides in neither the perfection or imperfection of that particular book or any spiritual book. There are things that make sense and there are also imperfections and things that may not make much sense because it was put together over a long period of time by imperfect humans.
The information given within the Bible is like any other source of information you acquire from using what is usable and setting aside what is inaccurate or not useful. The Bible need not be perfect in order to gather information that works or that is useful, any other approach is nonsensical.

Having said that many times what Stephen believes are contradictions I have found unconvincing and I'm not even considered a fundamentalist Christian or Jew. In this particular topic I would say if Jesus did not quote that passage verbatim then I would suggest it was his interpretation of what He read in the OT prophecies but even then who cares? how does that suggest what he said was any less true lol if it were true? If the scripture claims that the "living water" can be forsaken in the OT it stands to reason that it also can be obtained and "belly" indicating the "innerman". To me yet again, this imperfection or error simply is irrelevant because it disturbs nothing being taught. Jesus obviously got living water from the OT and equated his mission to that analogy.

Jer 2:13
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters"


#5
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
I can think of two explanations off the top of my head.
1. It wasn't a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase or a summary.
2. It was a direct quote from the Greek Septuagent, the most commonly available translation of the OT at the time. It was notoriously inaccurate, so we would be unlikely to find those exact words in today's more accurate copies of the OT. This happens frequently throughout the NT. The NT authors usually cited the Septuagent, so the wording in their quotes, even the direct quotes, is almost always different than what we see today.
#6
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course of course, because it's all a big absurdity right Ludo? that we have to contort ourselves? how dare anyone conclude there is a Creator, when atheism is obviously the answer. How dumb of any Theist. And how dumb any religious forum exist for such a stupid proposition.

So you take this argumentative stance and then basically agree that there's no point to arguing the inaccuracies, inconsistencies or absurdities, but okay. THe bible doesn't argue for a creator. It argues for one specific version of the Creator. And the reason people like Stephen quibble with it is because at varying points it's described as the inerrant word of the perfectest perfecto and demand it's taken literally, at other points it's poetic and to be interpreted by whoever's reading it to make it fit with the rest of whatever they want it to fit with. That's why there's no point in arguing it. If I told you Dr. Doolittle was to be taken literally, you'd say ridiculous, that's a story about a guy who talks to animals. Except there's talking animals in the bible and somehow that's not ridiculous.

I'm not saying there's not good moral lessons in the bible. I'm saying the bible is far from the only source for moral lessons. I'd rather Aesop's Fables, they're more direct and feature less mass beheadings and daughters fucking their dads. And no one beats each other up over believing they're true, we all agree they're false but worthy. 
#7
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
There really is very little point in arguing the obscurities and inconsistencies and sheer volume of dumb stuff in the bible with believers, you know, you're wasting your time. There's more than one believer here who can demonstrate just how contorted they can be in order to believe it's all actually true. My point is believers don't believe, in general, based on the bible, just as atheists don't disbelieve based on the bible. 
Not really. The Scriptures verify themselves to a great extent. 

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

" as the scripture has said"  

Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?

What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?
This is a metaphorical language. We are not going to have literal streams or rivers of water coming out of our bellies or inner being. 

Jesus likens Himself as the water of life, that those who drink from Him will never thirst.

but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Water meant life and Jesus was saying that those who believe in Him would have an abundance of water, so much water that out of his/her inner being or belly there would be an abundance of life. 

Next, the argument could be made for the wrong emphasis placed on the John 7:39 passage above. There are two nuances that can be derived from this passage.  The emphasis may not so much be on the water but on Jesus and the Spirit. He is the source and is likened to water. The emphasis can also be placed on "he who believes in Me" [Jesus] as the teaching that Jesus wants the reader to understand. The Scriptures speak of Jesus in many places as the only means God has given of eternal life. It also speaks of the Spirit of life. The Spirit gives life.

“The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

His word is the truth and believing in it gives life. Out of believing in Him and what He has said (His word) pours forth rivers of living water that fills the belly or the innermost being of the believer. 

Now for the passage and its greater context:

33 Therefore Jesus said, “For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. 34 You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come.” 35 The Jews then said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we will not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is He? 36 What is this statement that He said, ‘You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come’?”
37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 

Jesus tells His disciples and the Jews He is only with them for a little longer. He tells the crowd that if anyone is thirsty come to Him and drink. He and the Spirit are the subject and object of quenching their thirst. Jesus says those that believe in Him that He is the source of life, to come to Him to drink and He will satisfy them. The living waters reference the Spirit who elsewhere is said to be the Spirit of life. He gives life to many, thus the source is like a river of life that fills our innermost being and extends to many. The Spirit was to be poured out on many. Jesus is also likened to be poured out like water.

I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.  

Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Jesus poured out His life that others may have life. 

Now for the Spirit references:

Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high, And the wilderness becomes a fertile field, And the fertile field is considered as a forest.

I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,” declares the Lord God.

All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Titus 3:5-7 
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The new birth also has references to water. 

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 

Thus you get rivers of living waters poured out by God through the Spirit on those who believe in Jesus who fills the innermost being. 

but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

John the Baptist said,

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

***

Finally, 

[ The River and the Tree of Life ] Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.


#8
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Stephen
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ? 

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

" as the scripture has said"  

Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?

What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?

Perhaps your misunderstanding stems from a grammatical issue. You're assuming the clause, "as the scripture hath said," modifies and informs the following one, rather than the preceding one. Take this for example:

"If you listen to me, as Mother told you, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat."

Now if we examine this statement, the clause "like Mother told you" is modifying the preceding statement. Why? It's the only position in which the clause can be placed that informs the preceding statement. Let's rearrange the statement to get a clearer picture:

"As Mother told you, if you listen to me, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat."

This suggests that "Mother told you" to listen to me in order to get all the ice cream you can eat.

"If you listen to me, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat, as mother told you."

This suggests the very same thing.

The "as the scripture hath said" informs the preceding statement "He that believeth on me" not "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." It's not the Jesus "appears" to have made a false claim--not that you can render such a conclusion based on that which you've presented; it's an issue of syntax.


#9
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm saying the bible is far from the only source for moral lessons

I would say fine, I have no issue with that at all. But does the Bible shed light on another possible reality? If it does then no one should be reading it just to find contradictions and absurdities like Steve. 
The Bible shouldn't even be treated as a moral source necessarily, it should be treated as a source that expresses another way of observing the world and the self. Because if atheism is false then we need to become aware of what the alternative is. And I'm not claiming that the Bible is the only alternative rather another way of learning and observing. 

described as the inerrant word of the perfectest perfecto and demand it's taken literally,

Well then perhaps wait until one of those people comes along rather than directing it at all Theists or even all Christians? because I never see anything that distinguishes his assumptions from all believers. 
A lot of times us Theists get blamed for things we never do or accept. 
#10
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
But does the Bible shed light on another possible reality?

<br>

Does Lord of the Rings also shed light on another possible reality? Song of Ice and Fire? Harry Potter? The Lion, The WItch, and the Wardrobe? Beowulf? The Greek or Roman Pantheistic Legends? 

My answer is no. They're stories. What we draw from them is a reflection on the only demonstrable reality, ours, not "maybe Hogwarts is real."
 

Because if atheism is false then we need to become aware of what the alternative is. 
Or what happens?
#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The Scriptures verify themselves to a great extent. 
<br>
So does The Matrix, Star Wars and Harry Potter. That doesn't mean what they verify about themselves is real. We've had a very long discussion on claims versus evidence, specifically the problem with using the claim as the evidence. This is what you usually are doing, in my experience. If you have extra-biblical verification of any of the bible's supernatural claims, I'd be interested. 
#12
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Does Lord of the Rings also shed light on another possible reality? Song of Ice and Fire? Harry Potter? The Lion, The WItch, and the Wardrobe? Beowulf? The Greek or Roman Pantheistic Legends?
My answer is no. They're stories. What we draw from them is a reflection on the only demonstrable reality, ours, not "maybe Hogwarts is real."

If you don't know the difference between that which is proposed as fantasy and or fiction and that which is proposed as a real proposition you are lost in a religion forum, what can I say? this is how you belittle others of different beliefs and don't consider other possible worldviews. Would anyone suggest you are closed-minded? that comparing Hogwarts with the proposition of a Creator is comparable? that's childish and downright bias. Too bad really, makes one wonder why you come here to discuss fairy tales and fictional stories...

Or what happens?

You remain ignorant, unaware of what reality contains. Can you? of course why would I care other than I believe you have more options? if you don't care then go play somewhere where they are proposing fantasy, this is the forum to discuss reality not comics.

#13
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
that comparing Hogwarts with the proposition of a Creator is comparable? that's childish and downright bias.

The only difference I can see is one is older than the other. If I proposed the spells in Harry Potter were real, if you only believed in them the right way, how is that different than the proposition in the bible exactly? Am I not allowed to believe Planetos exists, and the true gods are the old gods of the North? Or the many faced god? Would you ridicule me for that?
#14
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
The only difference I can see is one is older than the other. If I proposed the spells in Harry Potter were real, if you only believed in them the right way, how is that different than the proposition in the bible exactly?

Harry Potter is posited as fiction, whereas creation and a Creator is posited as reality, non-fiction. Simple stuff. The fact you believe or think Theism is absurd is irrelevant to it being proposed as non-fiction. You only equate the two because you have assumed creation is absurd, that is idiotic. Sorry.

Am I not allowed to believe Planetos exists, and the true gods are the old gods of the North? Or the many faced god? Would you ridicule me for that?

You may believe whatever you correlate reality with, even now you mock me with a statement you know you don't believe in. I never did that to you, would you like me to mock your worldview? I'm pretty witty when I feel like making someone look stupid...

#15
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
The Scriptures verify themselves to a great extent. 
<br>
I'm not familiar with this abbreviation although I see you cut the rest of my reply. 

So does The Matrix, Star Wars and Harry Potter.
Are you serious? We know they are all fictional works. Can you prove the Scriptures are fiction? Not only this, I've only seen Star Wars but I doubt the rest claim themselves to be the authority of authorities nor our Creator to my knowledge.

That doesn't mean what they verify about themselves is real. We've had a very long discussion on claims versus evidence, specifically the problem with using the claim as the evidence. This is what you usually are doing, in my experience.
The thing is I'm not trying to present evidence at the moment. I'm just responding to your claims as unreasonable.

If I wanted to present evidence I would start with prophecy and the reason to believe the dating of the biblical writings was before the evidenced prophesied and match them up with what we know historically. There are hundreds of different avenues I could go to in presenting reasonable evidence for the biblical position. One of these avenues I use to show the inconsistency of a particular worldview - atheism -  is by trying to get those who hold this view to make sense of morality.

Evidence
1.
a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications
2. Law
a. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
b. The set of legal rules determining what testimony, documents, and objects may be admitted as proof in a trial.

To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen
2. Law As legal evidence

All these definitions apply to biblical evidence. What is your objection?



Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

Legal definition - HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
     2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.
     3. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. 1. Hearsay is admissible when it is introduced, not as a medium of proof in order to establish a distinct fact, but as being in itself a part of the transaction in question, when it is a part of the res gestae.

 
If you have extra-biblical verification of any of the bible's supernatural claims, I'd be interested.

I've gone down this road too many times and no one sticks with the discussion. I'm involved in a debate right now but if you are interested in disputing the reasonableness of biblical prophetic evidence I will set up a formal debate after the current debate I am involved in is done.  
#16
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I only have one question.

When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?

It cannot be what Stephen is "searching" as it would be more than 300 years before the bible would exist when Jesus said this.

In fact, when Jesus said this, the Torah had not even been divided into verses yet.

So Jesus was clearly not referring to the thing Stephen is searching.

The confusion stems from ignorance about how the bible came about, and what "scripture" is.

Scripture is every word that has come out of the mouth of God, but not every word out of the mouth of God is in the Bible.

Because he is ignorant (I do not mean that in a pejorative way) he thinks the word Jesus used, "scripture", means "Bible", it doesn't, and cannot. The bible did not exist then, and would not exist for hundreds of years.

Now given this, look at how ludo posts. Another ignorant validating the ignorant. And this is why Stephen posts, for the uninformed comments he'll get from the choir.
#17
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
I've gone down this road too many times and no one sticks with the discussion. 
Because none of them are interested in actual debate. All they want is a podium to spew invectives at God.
Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Actually, anyone arguing for or against the perfection or imperfection of the Bible are silly, and then missing the things that matter in the meantime,
And what would they - "the things that matter" be?

There are things that make sense and there are also imperfections and things that may not make much sense because it was put together over a long period of time by imperfect humans.

Well I have recently been informed that these gospels are the inspired work of god himself. At least we appear to agree that they certainly are not.


.....but who cares

  Another wave of the hand and away the problem goes. Forever trying to play down these "imperfections" aren't you .

 To me yet again, this imperfection or error simply is irrelevant......

Yes, I have noticed on many occasions when Christians are stumped and flummoxed for an answer to an enigmatic biblical verse, they will simply wave it away as minutia, irrelevant and not even important to the Christian story.


 Jesus obviously got living water from the OT and equated his mission to that analogy. 
Jer 2:13
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters"

 And it obviously don't read or sound like Jesus's actual saying:

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

 

It appears to me that you are desperately trying to make the "analogy" on behalf of the Christ.  Putting words into the mouths of biblical characters  is yet another ploy the Christian will often use when desperate for a answer.


Topic's author
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not saying there's not good moral lessons in the bible.

I agree.  But the thing about the religious is that they believe they have the monopoly on morals and that the irreligious  cannot be moral, possess morals or are capable of being of good, living clean or even sinless lives simply because they do not believe in god, Jesus or the words bible.



I'm saying the bible is far from the only source for moral lessons. I'd rather Aesop's Fables, they're more direct and feature less mass beheadings and daughters fucking their dads. And no one beats each other up over believing they're true, we all agree they're false but worthy. 

10/10






Topic's author
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
If it does then no one should be reading it just to find contradictions and absurdities like Steve. 

I read the scriptures/bible just as I would any other ancient history. I believe all the characters existed and I believe all the events including the so called miracles. I just don't believe it in the fawning  sycophantic manner in which you do. Because thankfully, I am not religious.

I have said here many times that I believe that there is an underlying story in the scriptures that the gospellers are desperately trying to hide.

These gospel writers, in trying to hide so much , reveal much more than they hide.  And this is why that there are hundreds of contradictions in these works.  And I will keep highlighting them even if its just to watch you wave them away as not important or struggle to explain them. 


Topic's author
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I only have one question.

When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?


You tell me Popoff.

When Jesus said these words did those he was directing them towards understand which " scripture" he was referring to?  Was it common knowledge to his audience.

The words  "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."  are certainly  not from OT and I have not found this verse in any extra biblical material that I have read  in over 40 years.

So, off you  pop, Popoff. 

#22
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you prove the Scriptures are fiction?
It's not on me to prove that a book wherein the entirety of earth's animal and insect populations were somehow herded two by two into a boat and survived for forty days is TRUE. As all scientific knowledge we have today would show this as impossible, it'd be on the person who says that no, it actually happened (this is you, now), to prove how this extraordinary claim is true. Is there any other book wherein someone comes back to life and you believe it's real, or is the bible the only one?

According to you and to EtnrlView, it seems if someone had thought ow rite"Based on a true story" in front of the first Harry POtter book, you'd have to at least allow for the possibility that it's true. That seems a dangerous way to go through life. 

#23
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I only have one question.
When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?

You tell me Popoff.
Again, you can't answer a question about your own post. Is it ignorance or deception?

When Jesus said these words did those he was directing them towards understand which " scripture" he was referring to?
Did any of them question Him?

Was it common knowledge to his audience.
Of course. But that is not what you started out saying is it? Do you wish to move the goal posts again?

If the bible did not exist when Jesus said that, why are you searching the bible for it? Does that not strike you as stupid?

This is like searching a history book written in 1720 looking for a country that came into existence in 1960. Dumb.

Now watch the genius do his shuck and jive again. Pretend he doesn't see the answer, post the verse in bold again, and repeat his silly conclusion.

Go Jethro. Jesus was referring to the bible, 500 years before there was a printing press. Lol.

Maybe Jesus should have used the verse numbering system that would not be invented for 300 years when he spoke. That may have helped you find it in the book that did not exist then.

Scripture is every word that has come out of the mouth of God, but not every word out of the mouth of God is in the Bible.
This silliness reminds me of an old joke.

A man comes home one evening to find his neighbor on his hands and knees searching his lawn.

"Did you lose something neighbor?" Says the man.
"My car keys" replies his neighbor. So he gets down on the lawn and searches too.

After several minutes of fruitless searching, the man, a little exasperated, says, "where exactly did you lose your keys neighbor?"

"Over on my lawn" replies the neighbor.

"If you lost your keys over there, why are you searching for them on my lawn?"

The neighbor replies with a shrug, "The light is better here."

Stephen is searching for the verse in the wrong place because he needs to hop up a fake dilemma for the bible.

Keep searching Jethro. The light is better in the bible.
#24
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
I've gone down this road too many times and no one sticks with the discussion. 
Because none of them are interested in actual debate. All they want is a podium to spew invectives at God.

Of course, just like the Democrats, many sway public opinion with nonsense, IMO. 
#25
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you prove the Scriptures are fiction?
It's not on me to prove that a book wherein the entirety of earth's animal and insect populations were somehow herded two by two into a boat and survived for forty days is TRUE.
When you compare Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Matrix to the Bible I challenge you on your assertions.  

As all scientific knowledge we have today would show this as impossible, it'd be on the person who says that no, it actually happened (this is you, now), to prove how this extraordinary claim is true. Is there any other book wherein someone comes back to life and you believe it's real, or is the bible the only one?
Only the biblical account regarding the resurrection. 

According to you and to EtnrlView, it seems if someone had thought ow rite"Based on a true story" in front of the first Harry POtter book, you'd have to at least allow for the possibility that it's true. That seems a dangerous way to go through life. 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What does this mean - "if someone had thought ow rite"Based on a true story" in front of the first Harry POtter book, you'd have to at least allow for the possibility that it's true."


#26
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
When you compare Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Matrix to the Bible I challenge you on your assertions.  

I didn't assert that these were true. I said the only material I see between these stories and the biblical story is age. You have not disputed that save by essentially saying "No one believes those are true." The majority of the planet does not believe the bible's true either. 

Only the biblical account regarding the resurrection. 
Exactly my point. You pick one that you believe, while eschewing any others that make the same claim because you recognize it as impossible in every other situation. It seems to me that it's on you to prove that it actually happened once, in the book of myths you choose, and never happened in any of the other myths / religions who make the same claim (resurrection). There must be some compelling reason. 

"if someone had thought ow rite"Based on a true story" in front of the first Harry POtter book, you'd have to at least allow for the possibility that it's true."

Your main argument seems to be that "no one believes those are real / everyone knows those are stories." My point is that if someone had claimed them true, you'd see that as evidence that they were true. 
#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Of course, just like the Democrats, many sway public opinion with nonsense, IMO. 
And like the democrats, they will find that the public isn't nearly as dumb as they think it is.
Topic's author
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I only have one question.
When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?
You tell me Popoff.

Again, you can't answer a question about your own post. Is it ignorance or deception?

I have indicated to you that I do not know. If you want it in plain English , I will clearly state that  I do not know, popoff.  The WHOLE REASON  for this thread is  - BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW -.


That is why I asked you to tell me.  LOOK>>>>


Post # 21 above

When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?

You tell me Popoff.
When Jesus said these words did those he was directing them towards understand which " scripture" he was referring to?  Was it common knowledge to his audience.The words  "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."  are certainly  not from OT and I have not found this verse in any extra biblical material that I have read  in over 40 years.

So, off you  pop, Popoff. 


So  Popoff, are you going to answer my questions instead of posting your own in reply . Or is it  a case that yet again you have no possible answer. 


Was it common knowledge to his audience.
Of course. But that is not what you started out saying is it? 

And your evidence for this is what exactly. And why can you not answer the question then? , Popoff?



Do you wish to move the goal posts again?


I am not moving anything. My question still stands clear, there at post ONE (1) above; UNANSWERED!!!!!.  It is only your evasive and pathetic replies that raises more questions. 

And please stop your deceitful habit of laying quotes at my door that I haven't said, Popoff, this is clear doctoring of posts and I am sure it is against the rules.







Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Was it common knowledge to his audience.
Of course. But that is not what you started out saying is it? 


And your evidence that it was common knowledge as to his audience comes from where?  And if this be the case, why is it that you are just filibustering for the sake of saying something instead of just simply answering my question? 



If the bible did not exist when Jesus said that, why are you searching the bible for it? Does that not strike you as stupid?

This is like searching a history book written in 1720 looking for a country that came into existence in 1960. Dumb.


You must have missed these .

  I actually state very clearly at post ONE!!!!

"What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture? or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers"?

And again at post #21 I clearly state :

"The words  "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."  are certainly  not from OT and I have not found this verse in any extra biblical material that I have read  in over 40 years".

Maybe you missed that first time around or just ignored it, Popoff.



Pretend he doesn't see the answer, post the verse in bold again, and repeat his silly conclusion.

And with good reason, Popoff.  If anyone pretends not to see replies it is you. You pretend not to even see my replies often and especially when they have backed you into a corner. You are simply incapable of debate yet accuse others of being incapable of debate. You accuse others of telling lies, when it is you who often makes things up once you have painted yourself into a corner with  lies of your own. This is why I repeat in  bold, underlined and CAPITALS.  

But still you continue to pretend not to have seen my replies and answers and further questions that have arisen from your pure unadulterated   BULLSHITE.     As I have proven above.

Now answer the question/s Popoff or leave the thread.
#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I have indicated to you that I do not know.
I know you don't know. You're ignorant, remember?

This is why I repeat in  bold,  underlined   and CAPITALS.
You repeat because your argument is fakery and think repetition will sway the audience where facts and logic couldn't.

And you use bolding, underlining and caps because that is what internet loons do. I think it's in your contract when you join the troll association.

Now answer the question...
I've answered it twice now. It isn't in the bible. Of course, you cannot answer why you think it should be in the bible.

You can't answer why you're searching the bible.

I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is. But your silliness requires you to pretend not to see that.

Maybe you should ask Mike if he can make font color an option. Bolding, caps, and underlining isn't working for you. Wouldn't your lying spam be spectacular in say, red or orange?