|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for the Biblical Record | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
But they aren't stars, Buz. So, either Jesus was wrong about them being stars, or, stars will actually fall from the sky. Which one do you pick? Was Jesus wrong, or will stars actually fall from the sky to earth?
I tend to regard Jesus's prophecy of stars falling to earth as relative to satelites and other man made craft which are lights in the sky looking like stars capable of falling to earth; these all to mention a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Buz is great in some areas, but regarding prophecy interpretations, those interpretations, for the most part come from his own unevidenced assertions with which he wants to take it upon himself to change the meaning of the wording to suit his falacious notion that he can spiritualize away observed reality. Peg is great in some areas, but regarding prophecy interpretations, those interpretations, for the most part come spoonfed from liberal Jehovah Witness scholars who take it upon themselves to change the meaning of the wording to suit their falacious notion that they can spiritualize away observed reality. So, the only way to now determine who is right, is by showing evidence. Got any evidence, Buz? Remember, assertion that something is so is not evidence. For example, you saying that this must refer to television, or asseting that the other prophecies must refer to current monetary systems, is not evidence that it is indeed so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
The literal text doesn't menntion anything remotely similar to television.
That's just not true, Huntard. I'm the one who has argued for the literal rendition of the wording evidenced by observed 21st century techy phenomena. Your refusal to acknowledge the evidence is a blatant unsupported blind assertion that evidence has not been cited.
Since alot of people have told you you haven't cited any evidence, but have done alot of asserting, I'm wondering who the the blatant denier here is, Buz. And once more, your interpretation is not evidence. I could just as easily claim that this refers to a time yet to come, where everybody has a personal broadcast device installed i their eyes, and they receive these signals across the entire galaxy. There is just as much evidence for that assertion as there is for yours. Why should we believe you are telling the truth here. You've got no evidence to show. You assert that what you say is true, you provide no evidence, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
So, for you it's just an easy cop-out by saying "I did show the evidence!", when in fact everyone on this thread (including Peg), has said you haven't. This is as irrevelant as the EvC rating system, Huntard, in which the biased concensus of the secularist majority POV consistently rates high. Great debate tactic there, Buz.
{ABE}: Got anything to say on the fact that the literal text doesn't imply television in the slightest? Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg, if you don't know, then how can you be so entusiastic about the fact it syas "eight people in a vessel"? When in fact you don't know if it says that. It could say "eight mouths in a vessel", in which the mouths include animal mouths, which would mean it's nothing like the ark. There are even other explanations. Maybe traditional chinese boats were managed by a crew of eight (I admit I don;t know this to be true, it could be an explanation though), point is, without looking into it, how can you be so sure it supports your position? Just because you happen to agree with it doesn;t mean it's true.
This is what we mean when we say you should check your sources better. The way it seems to work now is this: You hear/read something you like/agree with/sounds to you like good evidence for your beliefs, and then you run with it, without checking if the thing you heard/read is in fact true. You then go to an online board, and proudly proclaim you have more evidence. People look into the evidence, and find out it's completely wrong. What "disturbs" me the most about this is the fact that this doesn't seem to hinder you in the least, you'll do the exact same thing next time. Why don't you check out the evidence, even when you agree with it? Doing it like this only undermines your cause. I will admit, that even before people came with the explanations for the evidence, I thought: "That's probably going to turn out to be false". Why? Because it ususally is with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
I think he emphasized "woman" becuase Noah is a male. So Nu Wa being female is rather a big difference from that story to the ark tale.
Not to be picky but, is 'hero' strictly masculine in english ? Because you put an emphasise that Nuwa was a women, when they don't really precise the gender in the creation paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
It's also what you would expect if the stories haven't got the slightest thimg to do with one another.
Anyways there are plenty of flood myth's where the protagonist is a male, but with other differences from the biblical account. You'd expect this to happen with a couple thousands years of divergence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
No no no Peg, that's wrong. What it actually say is "Dust +moving into+(god's) moutn+(means he'll shit out) life" Creation is comprised of the following componentsdust + (breath of) life + (from God's) mouth + motion = Creation Reread my Message 223 again, and realize you are again doing what I warned you against doing. Your position is weakened everytime you do this stuff Peg, it's weakened again with this post. Edited by Huntard, : Typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
You do realize that the earliest documents we have describing this event are dated well after the known origins for the egyptian and phoenician written languages, yes?
The genesis account shows that people were writing well before the tower incident Moses got his information from either oral tradition or from existing writings.
I'll try telling you this again: There is no evidence Moses wrote any of the bible. Even so, if he got them from oral tradition, that still doesn't prove hebrew writing is older than egyptian or phoenician. All this is irrelevant though, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Buz, and which he failed to answer:
Where is the evidence for your assertions? You can ignore everything I've said in this post, except for that point. Show me the evidence for what you are asserting, Peg. And remember, evidence does not mean doing more asserting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Replied to wrong message, see Message 285 for real response
Edited by Huntard, : Replied to wrong message
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
rockondon writes:
But the punishment wasn't for the act of reaching heaven. It was for the hubris of the human race for even attempting such a thing.
I don't think I made my point clear. God didn't have to do anything - they would have failed without his intervention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello wkward and welcome to EvC!
Thanks for that explanation! Should make it very clear that Peg's arguments are based on nothing (in this case, at least) Now, some of the questions you asked:
wkward writes:
Because that was probably the only one they could twist enough to make it look like there was some merit to Noah's story. You'll tend to see that alot with apologetics.
Another question is there are many word to describe ship, why only choose one and explore on it? By what standard did the author define the stroke as a "(breath of) life"? I am deeply trouble and would like some clarification.
There's probably none, beyond the same fact of what I said above. They just twist it to suit what they want it to say, and rely on the ignorance of the people they tell it to (I mean, how many people can read Chinese? Aside from actual Chinese people that is). Again, that's what apologetics do. They twist everything to suit their goal, which is to convince ignorant people of the accuracy of their pet belief system (in this case aparticular interpretation of Christianity).
I want to apologize for any error I have with English, as anyone could have guessed by now it is not my native language.
I understood it perfectly, doesn't seem to be any problems with it so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Why?
Yet another thread where the emphasis is incorrectly placed on evidence. Where is the evidence for this, where is the evidence for that is all that I hear from the Dawkins brigade. (Does he pay you to do this?)
No, and in fact, I think he's too much of a dick at times.
I think the discussion has to be on how plausible the ideas and prophecies are that are contained within the bible. eg.
Why?
1) Genesis states that man would have dominion over the animals. This is clearly true. Anyone who asks for evidence at this point should visit a zoo.
So? Man had dominion over the animals long before Genesis was written, so whether or not God said this is irrelevant, it was the case when it was written down, so saying god said it would be so is not a prophecy. Also, nobody is saying the bible is not correct on this point.
2) Revelation predicts that a scorching ball would hit the earth in the future. We have records to show that objects have hit the earth and that another could possibly hit in 2029 or 2036. (Apophis).
So? I can make the exact same prediction, it will always come true. This is not a prophecy to be awed at.
Not an extensive list granted but compelling.
It's convincingint he least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
They're still wrong, the flood, for example, has long since been disproven. As has the Exodus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Genesis wasn't written 6000 years ago, by the time it was written, there were some people with lions and all sorts of creatures as pets. Also, nobody keeps whales as pets today as well. Man having dominion over animals does not mean he can keep them all as pets.
I am not sure what your definition of dominion is? Certainly some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years. I doubt very much if people kept whales as pets or lions as pets during the genesis period. Today however, you can go and watch killer whale shows or lions in circuses which haven't yet banned the practice.
So?
The human race is also in the process of eradicting many species if not all from the face of the earth.
And has been doing so for a very very long time. We're just better at it now.
If that isn't dominion I don't know what is.
But we have had dominion long before now. From before Genesis was written, in fact.
The issue here is not the prediction. Ofcourse, comets and asteroids are always likely to hit the earth in the future and we are all capable of making the prediction. The point here is that someone understood the concept of comets and asteroids 2000 years ago.
Of course, since they were already falling back then and had been for way before then. Are you saying there is no way that stories about "a ball of fire from the sky" would not have survived until 2000 years ago?
The also understood that one could come crashing to earth.
Of course. They could draw conclusionsand extrapolate.
They further determined that such an event could wipe out a percentage of life here on earth.
Of course. Again, they could draw conclusions and extrapolate.
Considering that most of the advances in astronomy have been made within the last 300years, the fact that early humans had access to this information is staggering.
No it isn't. If you know that there are things such as comets/asteroids (or big balls of fire from the sky), it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to extrapolate this to bigger proportions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024