Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood)

Sounds good to me. Except you forgot one thing: you are an atheist and haven't accepted jesus as your saviour so you couldn't possibly understand the bible since you won't allow god to speak to you, thus rendering any possible interpretation you provide as incomplete.

---

We have enough actual idiots round here.Parody is superfluous.

Care to show this back up?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I am quite sure a response to this will be along the lines of the "no true Scotsman".

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hey Huntard,Sorry I've been AWOL. I'll try to post a little more here later. Been real busy at work and 8 month old admitted to hospital last week so my posting time is almost nill....Anyway, in reference to this issue....there is still a correct way to interpret Scripture. I don't see anything wrong in jaywill's post...I'll have to reread it and further analyze it but on a cursory reading he seems accurate.If one understands the character of God, which is revealed through the bible, one will know that God is not a relavist. There are rights and wrongs and ways to interpret Scripture.

Hi Flyer, Don't sweat it. You are one of the more rewarding people to talk to around here at the moment. People will wait.I hope that your kid's medical problems are all minor and will be dealt with as soon as possible. It's always very stressful when kids get ill. Best wishes to all the Flyer family. Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Don't sweat it mate, I'm sue your reply will be worth it. And how do we determine this correct way? More interpretation? That's probably because you agree with it. However, let's not look at that issue now. Whether you agree with him or not, do you not agree that there is no way which you can be sure how the bible must be interpreted? Look at my example in Message 30 That's an interpretation of a passage from the bible that won't be shared by many, but how can you (a fallible mere mortal human) tell me (the same), that my interpretation is any less valid than yours, except with "I don't believe that's what it says". Now pardon me, but I don't find that a very convincing argument, you see I believe i does. And then what, do we reach a stalemate, how do we go from there? Look closely at what you wrote here, please. I'll try and break it down for you: "If you know what god thinks of everything". Isn't that a bit arrogant of you, claiming to know the mind of god? "That can be interpreted from the bible.". Already you need to interpret stuff, I interpreted god from the bible in my Message 30, but that's not an interpretation you'll agree with. What makes my interpretation less valid than yours? "I interpreted god to be not a relativist". Ok, I interpreted that he is. Now what? Who is right? How do we determine that objectively? "And mine is the correct way". How do you know? Are you not fallible? Do you know everything? Isn't it possible Satan deceived you?Are you beginning to see the problem Flyer? How can we determine which is the correct interpretation objectively?

Or maybe I picked exactly the right one. It can show the knee-jerk emotion that often immediately goes into high gear on these types of atheist forums. WHERE DID I REFERENCE A GLOBAL FLOOD? I have evidence, but only for what I actually said, not for the straw man that you built.http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/joseph.htm

quote:

---

In a word, it appears that the biblical, historical, and archaeological data are best served by theorizing that it was a Hyksos monarch before whom Joseph stood as an interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:14-37) and who later ceded a choice parcel of land (Goshen) to Joseph's family (Gen. 47:6). According to such a theory, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 would have been one of the native Egyptian monarchs of the New Kingdom who, as part of his Hyksos purge, resolutely refused to recognize the validity of the Goshen land grant. Discerning in the Israelites a multitude who might very well join with his Asiatic enemies in war, this new king moreover acted quickly to enslave the Israelites.

---

When it comes to analyzing history of several thousand years ago, archaeological evidence is useful in determining influences in building design, town layouts, pottery styles, and burial practices. Bones from animal sacrifices have actually been found in places that the Bible indicates they should be found. That supports the statement I made above. Again, I did not refer to the flood.

This is all well and good, if you believe that the realms of time and rearrangement can explain all of reality. That if humans can’t understand something, it doesn’t exist/never did exist. That there can’t be a realm above and beyond time, or that matter can’t have an origin without some type of rearrangement, an explosion, or 'big bang'. You’re right — it wouldn’t. Biblical literalists don’t consider themselves little gods. They believe that some things go beyond human understanding. And other humans don’t convince them otherwise, no matter how loudly those other humans claim "science is right and religion is wrong".

I understand all that — it doesn’t contradict what I said at all. You said Miller’s theologyis irrelevant to science. You didn’t say it, but I’m sure you would also say that Dawkins atheism is also irrelevant to science. So both their theologies are minor details, in how they relate to Dawkins and Millers intersection of factual knowledge and study of science. But their differing worldview beliefs are not minor details to them personally. If we’re talking about members of two different Christian denominations that believe in salvation through Christ’s works as being central to Christianity, yes that’s what I’m saying. If one likes to drink beer and the other thinks it’s sinful to drink beer, those differences are comparable to the scientific differences in Dawkins vs Miller’s worlviews. They could sit side by side at a Catholic church service without throwing punches. I’m sure there’s nothing I could say that would keep you from calling me names. When it comes to behavior requirements, it's important to recognize the differences in how a person chooses to behave, or advise he/she chooses to give others, vs. politically/societally mandated behavior. These issues are traditional/political, more than they are religious. There are probably many atheists who agree that new social experimentation - new and more special rights than ever before for things like abortion and homosexuality may not be good for a society. They are not minor to me in how I live my life personally, but they are minor to me in how they are applied politically. I have no desire for my exact religious beliefs to be the central part of societal structure. Some people do, from every belief system, be it religious or non-religious. But I believe they’re in the minority. I think most U.S. citizens like the neutrality that is established in the U.S. founding documents.To answer your question, I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I very occasionally attend a service at a Catholic, Baptist, or Methodist church. For no real reason other than to join a friend or relative, or satisfy a minor curiosity about a minor detail. Now you’ve gotten a positive answer. Most all the denominations you specify have gathered peacefully at Billy Graham crusades at huge stadiums, and have visited the Answers In Genesis museum in Kentucky at one time or another. If you can describe more volume and numbers at scientific meetings/conferences than I can in multi-denominational Christian meetings/conferences, it’s because public funding isn’t involved in religious meetings to the extent that it is in scientific meetings. There is a difference between personal belief schisms, vs profit seeking scientific schisms. You can say that there’s politics and profit in the personal belief promotion business, and I can say there’s even bigger politics and profit in the atheist scientific promotion businesss. Why is it bigger? Because it’s not separated from state.

I didn’t misconstrue it - the word absolute has nothing to do with being damned. I thought you were using the word absolute the way I’ve seen atheists use it against religion many times, that religion is an unchangeable conclusion reached by faith. Evolution combined with some form of godless abiogenesis is an unchangeable conclusion reached by faith throughout most of the scientific community.

No it isn't. Show evdience that refutes evolution and shows abiogenesis is impossible and be amazed how quickly the scientific community will drop them. This will never happen with creationism. No matter how many times it is shown to be wrong, it just keeps on claiming the same things.

No, you didn't mention a flood. What you claimed is:

quote:

---

Scripture is considered pretty strong evidence by many, especially when some of it is backed up by archaeology.

---

I responded, dealing with what is perhaps the biggest scriptural claim that can be checked by archaeology--a global flood some 4,350 years ago. In this case the scriptural claim fails miserably. My own archaeological research directly addresses this claim and disproves it, although that is just icing on the cake as it has been disproved for about 200 years based on other evidence.When you make sweeping statements such as you did, you can expect to have them challenged. And you don't get to pick and choose which evidence you accept, nor do you get to deal only with evidence supporting your statement while ignoring huge amounts of evidence which contradict it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I noticed in all of his rants he never did back this up with any evidence.

quote:

---

Scripture is considered pretty strong evidence by many, especially when some of it is backed up by archaeology.

---

I guess there is none.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And there you go again, conflating 'abiogensis' with 'godlessness.' Mixing up science and religion does not do you any credit.And when it comes to 'archeological evidence', it seems you have a 'pick and choose' mentality about that. Of course, people writing 2500 years ago will know a little bit about the towns and politics of the time frame they are writing. That does not mean the 'extra special' and supernatural claims are true.It appears you wish to ignore the pieces of evidence that show that the Bible is not historically accurate, and your pick up your bible and wave it on every little bit that might indicate it got something right. You ignore the fact that the pieces that are shown to be accurate are very mundane and unimpressive too.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.