Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

I thought to myself I wonder if somebody will be stupid enough to try to pass off a piece of historical fiction as an example?. and I answered myself, Nah, these are smart people here, these are people who really want to get to the bottom of things. I was wrong.

Logic-chopping niggling quibbling frivolous nuisance posts seem to be the standard on this subject at EvC -- and not only this subject I must add.Everything about the Bible presents itself as fact, every author of every historical book. Those who try to pretend it is really fiction are the fiction-makers.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-29-2005 12:12 PM

That's a nuisance topic if there ever was one. What, some scientistic presupposition suggests that such a flood would have burnt everything up and we're supposed to take seriously what is obviously just another unprovable untestable unfalsifiable unreplicable evo wild guess, and this one not even an intelligent one?Yes, EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-29-2005 12:37 PM

Sure "basic physics," as calculated by fallen human minds, and extrapolated by fallen human minds back to a time none of them witnessed, and announced dogmatically by fallen human minds to be the Absolute Truth about What Would Have Happened, the same fallen human minds who ignore the only actual witness testimony to the actual event that we have. Absolutely NO interest in such a silly idea, thanks anyway.

We can't KNOW what WOULD HAVE happened. That's the problem with ALL evo speculations. They CANNOT be proved, tested, falsified or replicated. They are NOT subject to scientific method. There is no way to be sure about anything in the past. You CAN'T invalidate the Biblical report with speculations even based on physics. Sorry. The Biblical account stands as the only witness account of the Flood. Funny how you all scream that "it's not science!" on the one hand and then turn around and insist when it suits you that we must take it as if it were a completely detailed report by the National Weather Service that makes scientific judgments about it from 5000 years in the future minutely accurate. (And the weather people are usually studying past storms even within the last few months after the fact to figure out how they happened anyway).

I have not read it but I do know that archaeologists found the city of Troy where the poem indicated it had been, that had previously been regarded as fiction invented by Homer, so it has at least some historical references. But otherwise I believe it presents itself only as a romantic fiction.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-29-2005 04:19 PM

quote:

---

How can the "way the Bible presents itself" be evidence of its factuality? I mean, how gullible are you? Are we to trust every single claim presented as fact? Isn't that how lies are presented, too? As fact? (Isn't that what makes them lies?)

---

The gullibility in your statement is what is staggering. Have you ever read any C.S. Lewis? He could show you how to distinguish between history and fiction. I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?

You guys are a riot. What a joke. By your standards nothing whatever is proof EXCEPT your own sometimes somewhat scientific guesses extrapolated from the present to the distant past which can't be tested, proved, replicated or falsified. Alice through the looking glass every minute. Entertaining if depressing.I guess it's too much to ask that anyone be literate enough around here to KNOW that it's been taken as true history by great Bible teachers all the way back, so I'd have to find one in each century at least get quotes from voluminous writings to prove it and then if I found them all agreeing that the Flood was history you'd demand that I prove they all agreed that the parting of the Red Sea was history TOO, and so on.The "pretty recent" way of dealing with the Bible is not the way that believes it and trusts it as written, that's the old way, that's the way of the apostles and all the believers who were willing to die for the God who died for them, and went on dying for Him through the centuries. It's the "liberal" mangling of it that's recent, that really got going in the 19th century with the Tubingen seminary in Germany, although it goes back to Jefferson and the Deists and Enlightenment crowd originally, the "enlightened" approach that declares the supernatural couldn't have happened and whatever else offends the personal sensibilities of today's "advanced" and "progressive" elites. They think somebody or other - Hume - PROVED that miracles couldn't happen. What a laugh. It's really all according to personal taste however as they've eliminated all rational standards for determining anything about it. The "Jesus Seminar" makes subjective guesses about what Jesus "really" said and this is considered "proof." This stuff is so irrational while considering itself the epitome of rationality I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Some will accept this or that miracle though, just 'cause they think it's probably true. Just 'cause, no need to be reasonable or expect to find rational grounds for believing it true, for heaven's sake, it's all just "religion."

That's too bad. I'm sorry to hear it, although I did find some flaws in Lewis myself. Oh well, heroes are hard to come by.

I don't know Crash. Should I distrust every word you might tell or write down about your own life and experience? This is basically what you are saying. When somebody tells you they are telling you the truth about something they have experienced and have reason to know about, it is not only rude, it is destructive of everything we all depend on, to barrage them with doubts about their veracity. It is in THIS sense that I mean the Bible presents itself as history. The greater part of it is presented as FACTUAL REPORTAGE.Everybody here pounces on words and nitpicks them to death, as if "presents itself" could possibly include OBVIOUS creative works such as an epic poem or Tolkien's fantasy. This is an abuse of the intellect frankly and I don't know how you all rationalize it to yourselves.Sorry, I realize I already answered you. Well, here's another answer anyway.

Of course. What has such a track record apart from the Bible? A civilization is not a book of history, need I point out. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a poem is it not? Does it purport to be true history or creative imagining of historical events? Has it been accepted as history for 3000 years? Or at all? It may certainly have some historical value, for all I know. Do you have a point?

No. Perhaps you are thinking of the book of Jude, where he says that Satan disputed with an angel about the body of Moses after Moses died.

quote:

---

The bible makes extraordinary claims - we can't even find proof for many of the "ordinary" things in there!

---

Father, I thank you that you have revealed these things to children and not to the wise of this world.In other words, God presents you with a testimony of witnesses to His reality, including written testimony of many to the extraordinary events that show He is really God (and why wouldn't you expect the true God to be able to perform extraordinary things?) and He thwarts all human attempts to find Him by any other means than the means He has given -- written testimony by trustworthy witnesses of everything needed to believe in Him.You take it or leave it.

Yes, and if it had been verified beyond that first day and continued to be believed by millions for 3000 years we could classify it with the Bible for veracity.

Oh dear, one can't even make a wry remark on this forum without being taken literally.