Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Cauality does not point to any supernatural origin of this universe at all.

Which isn't what I asked. I asked why something (God, Odin, or whatever.) that by definition would exist outside of space-time (cause and effect, etc.) would need a creator?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
You tell me.

I asked first though.

[monkspider]

That can be answered Loinburger, however it would be a long typing, so be patient

[monkspider]

God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted, "If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a...defensible...argument from morality to the existence of a god.

But in order to deny God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution." Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains:

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, `Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless,... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,... and any deeper meaning is illusory....

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right. But we've got to be very careful here. The question here is not, "Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question, "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can. Rather, the question is, "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I just don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective existence of moral values than to deny the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five." Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good.

But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

In regards to God's Omnipotence, God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities In addition to tangible, concrete objects like people and trees and chairs, philosophers have noticed that there also appear to be abstract objects, things like numbers, propositions, sets, and properties. These things have a sort of conceptual reality, rather like ideas in your mind. And yet it's obvious that they're not just ideas in any human mind. So what is the metaphysical foundation of such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer to that question. They are grounded in the mind of God. Alvin Plantinga, one of America's foremost philosophers, explains:

It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine, omnipotent mind.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Please say what you think don't just post links...Tell WHY YOU think the links are important. Tell us what YOU think. Just posting links is not debate. I can post them just as well.

I already did say what I thought. I just wanted to post these links because I found one of the articles I found through them to be interesting.

And I am glad to see that you have been elected Debate Regulator of Apolyton; I will have to be more careful not to deviate from your prescribed guidelines in the future.

But in truth, I am not trying to convince anyone anyhow (as doing that here at Apolyton is nigh an impossibilty).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC

That's correct, but it hardly is a prophecy. Considerinf that the enemies of Assyria were bearing down on Nineveh around the time where Nahum wrote his book, it wouldn't take much to predict a grim outcome for that country.

Originally posted by monkspider
2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC

From Biblical Prophecy by Tim Callahan:

"Actually, the period from the fall of Jerusalem to the Chaldeans in 586 BCE to the proclamation by Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE, allowing the Jews to return to Judah, is not quite 49 years."

Originally posted by monkspider
3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC

Originally posted by monkspider
When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult.

Hmm, since Tyre had been rebuit many times, that makes (26:14) wrong. It seems that when Ezekiel wrote this part, Nebuchadrezzar was seiging Tyre, and might have destroyed the mainland portion already. Taken into context, Ezekiel was predicting Nebuchadrezzar was going to destroy Tyre utterly, which, unfortunately for him, didn't happen.

Originally posted by monkspider
4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC

Hm, how would that be surprising considering the original site of the city was swampy?

Originally posted by monkspider
5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

That's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing interesting about that.

Originally posted by monkspider
6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948

How is this different from the previous one?

Originally posted by monkspider
7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

Originally posted by monkspider
Here is Isaiah 44:28
who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

[Emphasis my own.]

Note the use of the present tense. This alone indicates said passage is not a prophecy.

Originally posted by monkspider
8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC

Considering that

1. The NT was written long after the OT
2. The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth has no external source
3. Only in Matthew that Jesus was said to be born in Bethlehem.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is the author of Matthew fabricated the so-called fulfillment.

Originally posted by monkspider
9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

How, eh, God destroyed their enemies?

Originally posted by monkspider
10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD

Considering that

1. The NT was written long after the OT
2. The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth has no external source
3. Only in Matthew that Jesus was said to be crucified with criminals.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is the author of Matthew fabricated the so-called fulfillment.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which isn't what I asked. I asked why something (God, Odin, or whatever.) that by definition would exist outside of space-time (cause and effect, etc.) would need a creator?

That is not what you asked. This is what you asked:

"How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?"

Your original question is different from your modified question.

Get back your your second question:

1. There is nothing in this universe that points to an outside creator.

2. By what definition that your god is outside of spacetime? Clearly, by any scientific definition there is no god, full stop. Theological definitions that are based on the bible do not put the Judeo-Christianity god outside of spacetime.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world.

If god is omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? Part of the bible said god created evil. How does these two reconcile?

Originally posted by monkspider
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

There is no evidence that objective moral values exist.

[monkspider]

1. Good question UR, my commie comrade, The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God for most people. However, let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil and, secondly, the probabilistic problem of evil.
Logical Version
According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

However, the problem with this argument is that there is no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. After all, there is no explicit contradiction between them. And if the atheist means that there is some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be presupposing some hidden premises to bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that, we can actually prove that God and evil are logically compatible. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And therefore I am pleased to report to you that it is widely recognized among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The coexistence of God and evil is logically possible.

probabilistic Version

But we’re not out of the woods yet, for we now confront the probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it is highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world are so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that God exists. This is a much more powerful argument. Thus, I will address this matter in particular detail.
In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three points.

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.

A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God. One reason the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But on the Christian view this is false. Man’s end is not happiness as such, but the knowledge of God--which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which seem utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or perhaps those around him. Whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering all depends on how we freely respond.

B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the human evils in the world. On the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen. He does not interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.

D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good--the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God--no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain--can still say, "God is good to me" simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good and has been granted existence.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.

However, all this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. I think that most people who reject God because of the evil in the world don’t do so because of intellectual difficulties. Rather, it’s an emotional problem: they just don’t like a God who permits suffering, and therefore they want nothing to do with Him. Theirs is simply an atheism of rejection. Does the Christian faith have something to say to these people?

It certainly does! It tells us that God is not a distant Creator or an impersonal Ground of Being, but a loving Father Who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Professor Plantinga has written,

As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooling observing the suffering of his creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his Son, the second Person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. . . Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself . . . in order to overcome sin and death and the evils that afflict our world and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. . . he was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.{6}

So, paradoxically, even though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day, God is the only solution to the problem of what we, as human beings objectively interpret as evil.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (most atheists will agree on this point)

2. Evil exists.

3. Therefore, objective values exist. (Some things are really evil.)

4. Therefore, God exists.

And thus evil only calls into question God's existence on a superficial level. On a deeper philosophical level evil actually demonstrates the existence of God because evil, as such, could not exist without God.

2. Another good point here comrade, but here the atheist is clearly in a deep existential dilemma The atheist affirms that morality is not objective--it is the invention of human beings--, but he cannot bring himself to say that therefore anything goes. He wants to cling to moral values. But, you see, for an atheist these values are floating in the air: they have no objective basis. On atheism moral values are just social conventions. You could have chosen to go on the red and stop on the green. They're just human inventions, the byproducts of socio-biological evolution. But that means that a society like Nazi Germany or South Africa, where apartheid was practiced, or what happened in Cambodia in the killing fields, that those aren't morally wrong, that is, they are morally indifferent. And I, at least, cannot bring myself to believe that. It seems to me far more plausible that there is objective right and wrong; for example, torturing babies for fun is wrong. And if you agree with me that that is objectively morally wrong, then you would agree with me that therefore God exists. For most any atheist would agree that if we have no God, these things are not objectively wrong, but they're human conventions.

[Capt Dizle]

As far as I know there is no logical, rational or scentific reason to believe God exists; no proof. My belief in God is based on faith in the spirtual realm which must by its nature be taunted and scorned by those who dwell only in the physical.

I have no animosity towards those who doubt God or despise Him. I hope for them and for them I can only say, "God loves you".

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
As far as I know there is no logical, rational or scentific reason to believe God exists; no proof. My belief in God is based on faith in the spirtual realm which must by its nature be taunted and scorned by those who dwell only in the physical.

I have no animosity towards those who doubt God or despise Him. I hope for them and for them I can only say, "God loves you".

And don't forget that there is also no logical, rational or scientific reason to DISPROVE the existance of a God.

I'm not here to question what is perceived as existance, I'm just saying that a huge slogging of "God exists!" "No he doesn't" "Yes he does", etc. is futile, because neither side can win. Neither side has enough proof to gain the upper hand.

And people who taunt and scorn those who have spirituality, dismissing them as narrow-minded, are ironically being narrow-minded themselves.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
And don't forget that there is also no logical, rational or scientific reason to DISPROVE the existance of a God.

First of all, I am dismayed by such a display of old refuted and desperate defense. Let me remind you that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of an assertion, not those who oppose it.

Secondly, depending the definition of your god, it is possible to refute it logically. If your god is just some vague notion, no. However if your god has attributes like that of YHWH, it can be refuted.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
And people who taunt and scorn those who have spirituality, dismissing them as narrow-minded, are ironically being narrow-minded themselves.

So is that it? Only those who somehow believe in a supernatural creator have monopoly on this "spirituality?"

Will you accept the existance of, say, Umguf the Purple with Pink Polka Dot Unicorn? Or an invisible, non-corporeal dragon in my basement? If you don't, are you narrowminded?

[Urban Ranger]

Monkspider,

Will get back to you later.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

First of all, I am dismayed by such a display of old refuted and desperate defense. Let me remind you that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of an assertion, not those who oppose it.

Secondly, depending the definition of your god, it is possible to refute it logically. If your god is just some vague notion, no. However if your god has attributes like that of YHWH, it can be refuted.

I'm not saying that I'm on the creationists side. I'm not even saying that I worship any "God". I am saying that while both theories are in some places flawed, both theories DO have areas which cannot possibly be disproven, and that includes Creationism. And creationism doesn't simply revolve around YHWH, Jehova or Allah (those three are pretty much the same anyway). The purest form, the true form of creationism means that a supreme being of some sort somehow created the world. This supreme being could be a superior race of extra-terrestrials experimenting with sentient life for all we know.

So is that it? Only those who somehow believe in a supernatural creator have monopoly on this "spirituality?"

Will you accept the existance of, say, Umguf the Purple with Pink Polka Dot Unicorn? Or an invisible, non-corporeal dragon in my basement? If you don't, are you narrowminded?

No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. What do unicorns and dragons have to do with spirituality? Another example of narrow-mindedness is your "assumptions" of spirituality. Have you even read into anything to do with Spirituality? Have you ever heard out people like the Dalai Lama? Spirituality is the path to enlightenment, and development of the soul. To some, the worship of a "god" is a means to that end. To others, it isn't. The rest, don't have it, or it lies dormant within their being, creating the illusion that it doesn't.

I'm not saying that those who believe in a supernatural creator hold a monopoly on spirituality. I am a Buddhist. Whether or not a supreme being created the universe means absolutely nothing to me at all. It has no effect on how I live my life. And I don't see the sense in people hurting each other over this.

I say that those who insult the spiritual ones are narrow-minded because they aren't letting them believe what they want. You are an evolutionist. Fine. That's no problem. Stop ramming your beliefs down everyone's throats. Sure the creationists do it too, but AN EYE FOR AN EYE IS NOT JUSTICE!!!

That's what my side of the argument is. You can't just whack insults around like a tennis-ball in a heated match between Sampras and Agassi. It can and will hurt some people. And don't think I'm only saying this to evolutionists. Again, Creationists do it too, and they should also stop it.

Again, don't dismiss me as one of the Creationists. I believe in a combination of both theories, yet also believe that it really has no bearing on how I live my life. I'm simply a third party trying to talk sense into BOTH sides. You can all believe what you want to believe, but just leave it at that.

[Ethelred]

Ethel, I had an extremely long post typed out that was accidentally closed out when my internet kept booting me, so I will try to salvage what I could of it. I know this sounds like a cop-out, I appologize.

Guess what happened to me halfway through my reply to this. I am now typing in Notepad.

Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

Your misquotation is going beyond the bound of accident. I didn't say that and I am through responding to the falsified version of what I said. Do it again I won't pretend its an accident.

The Bible is wrong. Its that simple. There is no reason to believe in a god that is a book that describe some sort of fantasy world. Jehovah has all the reality of Zuess or Odin and the stories in the other religions are better anyway.

I said the predicted must have happened after the Bible was assembled. Few of your prophecies meet that and those are not proved prophecies. The Bible was assembled from parts after the Diaspora. Any disproven prophecies were left out. Others might have been adjusted to fit the facts better. I will go over all of them anyway but you did not try to meet the challenge.

1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

May have had dates massaged after the fact as well. You certainly do that yourself so I see no reason to think others that believe wouldn't do the same.

3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

Failed prophecy in any case. Tyre has been found many times. You even point it out yourself. This shows the blindness belief can cause. Denial of the obvious to such a degree that you posted a failed prophecy.

4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

Not much of prophecy either. Babylon started as a swamp. Take away the city and swamp remains.

5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

This is the first to try to meet the challenge. Not proven yet.

Your version of the Bible has been altered.

KJV
Amo 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

It says captivity in the Hebrew as well. You have a very questionable translation there. Still the verses put together can be construed that way.

In any case the Jews have been kicked out of Israel many times. There is no certainty that it won't happen again. Give a few hundred years and I would call it a fulfilled prophecy. However again it is exactly the sort of prophecy that could be expected of a downtrodden people. You have a lot of those. Have a hard time finding others?

6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948

False. As even you say the prediction was for 430 years. Thats a failed prophecy. It matters not what excuses someone comes up with later the fact of the matter is that it didn't happen.

I am equally unimpressed by the massageing of the time by a modern man who knew the times he wanted ot match. He just played mix and match with numbers till he manufactured the date he wanted. He ignored a lot of time as well. His manufactured number wouldn't start up till after the Jews were kicked out of Rome in 70 AD. if we were to accept any of the rest of his rewriting.

The propecy was wrong twice at that. The Jews returned in less that 430 year and then took millenia to return again later.

7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

Does not fit the challenge.

Subject to alteration over time. Who knows if it originaly said Cyrus. Its clear that believers are willing to make changes to the Bible if they feel it can't stand on its own. You certainly did that with the flood. You are not unique in that willingness. That is why I gave the time frame I did for the challenge. So far there are only two prophecies that fit the challenge and one is open to question still and the other was a failed prophecy.

Cyrus did not rebuild the temple in any case. The Jews did that.

8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC

Does not fit the challenge. There is no reason except the claim in the New Testament to believe Jesus was born is Bethalem. The claim looks suspiciously like it was added to match the prophecy. Not fulfilled in any case. It said the Messiah. The ruler of Israel. Hasn't happened yet. Requires a dead man to rise from the dead to fulfill it. Not very likely. The descent from David has problems as well. Its not possible to check and the version that is in the Bible require that Joseph be the father which denies the Virgin Birth claim.

We can pretend its unfulfilled but it looks like failure to me. Jesus is long dead.

9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

That seven of nine that are the same kind of prediction. You must have had a REALLY hard time finding prophecies.

The Jews have been beaten many times as well. There enemies are still legion. Indeed it was legions that Jehovah failed to save the Jews from in 70AD. It wasn't Jehovah that saved any remaining Jews in Europe from the Halocaust. It was Brits, Americans, and godless Communists. Mostly the Communists by the way.

10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD

You sure have a strange version of the Bible.

I don't see a mention of any of what you claim there. Its not at all like what you have purported it to be. Its beyound just straining credulity to see anything of Jesus in there.

This is what I call backwards filtering. A christian find a passage in the Bible that with enough use of mind altering substances they can pretend has some relevance to a later event. What drugs were involved in seeing crucifiction in there?

Here is a failed prophecy from the chapter before that I spoted while checking number 10.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Has anyone noticed that lots of uncircimcised people are walking through the streets of Jerusalem on a daily basis? Failed prophecy.

There are plenty more failed prophcies. Perhaps as many as the claimed numbers of fulfilled ones.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think that God would have a face, as such.

Well in Genesis Jehovah meets with Abraham face to face. In other parts of the Bible there are claims that no one has seen the face of god. The mention of the Trinity is because most christians believe that Jesus is god so all that saw Jesus saw the face of god but I had no need to go that way because of Abraham seeing Jehovah.

I assume you are making this into a contradiction of some sort, so visit here to have his last words explained.

It is a contradiction and no patch will cover over it.

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spririt with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved.

Nothing reasonable about rewriting the Bible that way. Obviously the author of that thought it was a contradiction so he had to add to the Bible in his attempt to patch it. John wasn't at the crucifiction either so that another they have added to try to patch it. None of the Apostles were there. They were all in hiding. Interesting the way the use a chapter that doesn't menition John as being there as evidence that he was.

Heck no one even knows if the John in the Bible is that same as the John that is supposed to have written that gospel. It didn't show up till around 150 AD. It was thought by many to be a fake at the time and there was great controversy about putting into the Bible.

I said the was failed prophecy in Genesis. Posting this got me on Zelots ingnore list a couple of weeks ago. Still its what the Bible really says.

In the first Jehovah says Cain will be a vagabond forever.

Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear.

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon

Then

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

This is not a vagabond being described there. He get married, has children and founds a city. If that isn't a failed prophecy nothing is.