|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And all I am doing is pointing out that the real situation might be that you have decent evidence for A, weak circumstantial evidence for B and your "evidence" for C is based on falsehoods or even lies. And on top of that the jump from A, B and C to X, Y and Z is likely to be invalid to say the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Huntard,
Fair question and for the record, I don't consider your question as a cheap shot, it's a legitimate question to ask. For one, the Illiad doesn't claim to be the Word of God and lay out the plan of salvation. The Iliad pretty much just claims (without so much as saying it) to be just that. You may say the same thing about the Bible, but the Bible CLAIMS to be the Word of God. A christian believes the Bible to be inspired by God himself through man...another claim the Iliad does not make...clearly being written by a fallable human being. That, in a nutshell, is the main difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I call BS on this.
No one doubts the existence of Pontius Pilate. But this in no way validates the bible. If you read this link, you'll see that other things have been found, such as written letters confirming that Pilate had Jesus crucified just as the Bible says.
Letters? Do you mean Tacitus, written over 50 years after the event? This is no evidence for anything. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's stretching the truth somewhat. The Quran claims to be the literal word of God, but the Bible does not. There are sections of the texts where the author claims to be relaying God's work, and there's that one vague reference to "inspiration" (which is unclear on the meaning and even which texts it refers to), but there is nothing that even clearly covers the whole of the Bible as we have it today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Theodoric,
As I said, it validates that PART of the Bible. I did not say it proved Adam and Eve, Eden, ect. I thought I was clear in that. I also hope you realize that 50 years after the event is sooner then what the Gospels were written. The earliest reference to the book of Matthew is probably in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch around 110 AD. Some have dated it as early as 50 AD but many critics of that date do so because of the destruction of Jerusalem between 80 and 100 AD. Mark is probably the earliest gospel written around 70 AD so if you accept the 50 years mark for the letter, or for anything prior to any of the gospels that independently validate portions of the Bible then you are admitting to an independent source outside of the Bible. Justin Martyr didn't write any of the gospels either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
I wasn't referring to the Quaran...I was addressing Huntard's question about the Illiad.
By your post I get the impression that for the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, it probably should have said so in every single verse???? The Bible as we know it today? The NT was put together, all 27 books by 363 AD. Almost 1800 years ago. So since their writings, not a whole lot has changed with them. There's certainly more controversy surrounding the OT due to the amount of years since their writings but the NT has been a part of western culture since well, since the beginning of western culture. Edited by Flyer75, : added last paragraph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I thought I explained this?? The text is our "data" and its grammatical structure can be considered evidence. We analyze the grammatical structure using reason, and conclude that the GS rule applies to it. We apply the GS rule, and through reasoning we conclude that Paul viewed Jesus as God. What I am interested in is the logic and reason Paul used to reach this view. The GS rule only allows us to discern what Paul believed, not why he believed it. Again, defining the claim is not the same as using reason and logic to arrive at a claim. If I gave you a specific definition for "leprechuan" would that be a logical and well reasoned argument for the existence of leprechuans?
I believe you asked me for an example of evidence and reason in THEOLOGY. I did. What you gave me was reason and evidence as it is applied in linguistics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Now, as far as evidence goes, if you're looking for laboratory tested evidence for the Bible, you won't get but there is more then enough historical evidence that validates many parts of the Bible. If I can believe that C was written X amount of years ago by Y author, and that fact can be validated through archaeology, the fulfillment of prophecy, the structure of scripture, and ancient history, then I can logically and reasonably believe other parts of the Bible. This is not a well reasoned argument. What you are saying is that once someone is correct that they can never be wrong. This fails every test of logic and reason.
Yes, archeology is a science, no, it's not mixing chemical A with chemical D to get a result in a lab. This is just one small example where you can see that LOGICALLY and without "blind faith", one can believe the Bible (this part at least for the sake of the example). From what I have seen, no one has unearthed archaeological evidence for the existence of God. Yes, there is archaeological evidence for groups of people who believe in God, but not of God himself (or herself ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The Bible as we know it today? The NT was put together, all 27 books by 363 AD. Almost 1800 years ago. So since their writings, not a whole lot has changed with them. You do know that many books were excluded from the NT, and that groups pushing apocryphal texts were strongly persecuted by the Roman Catholic church, right? At a minimum there were at least two to three gnostic gospels that were excluded. The books that did make it in were voted on, and the vote wasn't unanimous. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Theodoric writes: Letters? Do you mean Tacitus, written over 50 years after the event? This is no evidence for anything. Well, I hate to use Huntard's argument on this, but I will. So letters written 200 years ago from John Adams to his wife Abigail aren't evidence of events that happened around them? Any historian shy of a conspiracy theorist counts these letters, over 200 years old, to be historically reliable. Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I was wrong about Tacitus. He wrote in the 2nd decade of the 2nd century. That would 90 years after. Post the first gospels.
There is no contemporary corroboration of the christ of the bible. Tacitus is not contemporary, Josephus is not contemporary(and probably did not even write the pro-christ comments attributed to him). Show me something contemporary. Anything. Just in Martyr was even later than Tacitus. He wrote mid 2nd century. None of these people help your argument. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Taq writes: You do know that many books were excluded from the NT, and that groups pushing apocryphal texts were strongly persecuted by the Roman Catholic church, right? At a minimum there were at least two to three gnostic gospels that were excluded. The books that did make it in were voted on, and the vote wasn't unanimous. Yes, I do know all this. Quite frankly, 3 books that are in the NT now were originally left out in 170 AD or around there in the first cannon...that's why I used the 363 AD date and not the earlier date. Many people were persecuted over the cannon. During the reign of Emperor Diocletian from 284 to 305, the Bishop of Carthage, was ordered to hand over his books of the Bible and hid them instead, offering the authorities heretical writings instead. Persecution forced the church to be clear on the books that would be accepted as "scripture". From 200 AD to the time of the cannon the Roman Catholic church as you call it was not the Roman Catholic church as we think of today. It was in it's initial stages but was the church that had been started on Pentecost. It had obviously become more organized and was starting to have politics creep in. There was no Reformed Church yet, no Methodist Church, no Lutheran Church as we have today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Well, I hate to use Huntard's argument on this, but I will. So letters written 200 years ago from John Adams to his wife Abigail aren't evidence of events that happened around them? Any historian shy of a conspiracy theorist counts these letters, over 200 years old, to be historically reliable.
What a stupid argument. John and Abigail were writing about events contemporary to them. They were not writing about events 90-150 yeas in the past.Fail. Try again. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So letters written 200 years ago from John Adams to his wife Abigail aren't evidence of events that happened around them? Do we have verified letters written by Pilate to his wife that not only speak of the crucifixion but also Pilate's first hand account of the resurrection? You can't compare first hand accounts with second hand accounts written 50 years after the event. And even then, the simple act of writing something down does not make it true. You need verification from several primary sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2452 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
You are correct. Tacitus and Josephus are the two earliest writings we have of Christ, outside of the Bible of course. Obviously you don't believe that Christ was the Son of God but if you don't believe he was actually a person, based on writings of Tacitus, who was not a believer then why do you believe that Galileo invented the telescope 400 years ago?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024