Evidence for the Biblical Record

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?

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.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.

The literal text doesn't menntion anything remotely similar to television. 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.

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.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

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.

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.

It's also what you would expect if the stories haven't got the slightest thimg to do with one another.

No no no Peg, that's wrong. What it actually say is "Dust +moving into+(god's) moutn+(means he'll shit out) life"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

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? 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.

Replied to wrong message, see Message 285 for real responseEdited by Huntard, : Replied to wrong message

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.

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: 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. 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 understood it perfectly, doesn't seem to be any problems with it so far.

Why? No, and in fact, I think he's too much of a dick at times. Why? 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. So? I can make the exact same prediction, it will always come true. This is not a prophecy to be awed at. It's convincingint he least.

They're still wrong, the flood, for example, has long since been disproven. As has the Exodus.

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. So? And has been doing so for a very very long time. We're just better at it now. But we have had dominion long before now. From before Genesis was written, in fact. 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? Of course. They could draw conclusionsand extrapolate. Of course. Again, they could draw conclusions and extrapolate. 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.