Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 64 of 100 (562513)
05-29-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:06 PM


I don't see a lot of difference between twisting the Bible to try to make myths fit the facts and twisting the Bible to "explain" contradictions" or make prophecies "successful".
It seems that nobody is able to believe that the Bible is entirely true without misrepresenting it in some way. Which pretty much proves that it isn't entirely true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 71 of 100 (562520)
05-29-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:43 PM


Re: Believing the Bible
quote:
But here's the difference between you and OEC. You probably, in fact I know you don't, accept Christ's resurrection. I can live with that. But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ?
You clearly don't understand what greentwiga is doing. He's just trying to interpret the Bible to fit with the facts. And I have no doubt that you do much the same thing in interpreting the Bible to fit with your beliefs.
quote:
I have actually heard TE say that the miracles, such as the casting out of demons in the NT, were nothing but natural sicknesses that people had. Now, if an atheist says that, so be it, they have a reason to say that. What reason does a supposed Christian have to say about that? If Christ was incapable of casting out demons or turning water into wine, then he surely was not capable of raising himself from the dead, was he?
Isn't a miraculous cure of a natural illness still miraculous ? And if mental illness is not caused by demons now, why believe that it used to be ? That's not denying miracles - that's just not believing that mental illness is caused by demons. How can you hope to argue against their view when you refuse to even recognise that instantly curing a mental illness would be a miracle ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 89 of 100 (562723)
06-01-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
quote:
My problem is not with you and what you believe science tells you about a global flood.
But you do have a problem with accepting it as true. However people that even the ICR calls "Bible believing scientists" - Cuvier and Agassiz - played a major role in disproving the myth of a global flood. Cuvier's study of the fossils of the Paris basin showed a number of drastic changes in the occupying fauna - more than could be explained by a single flood wiping out everything and starting again. Agassiz showed that the last piece of evidence attributed to the flood was in fact the result of glaciation.
quote:
For a second I'll digress; haven't many scientists begin to take a position (s) that yes indeed, catastrophic events did take place, more so then what was originally thought years ago, and that is what can explain many geological structures/strata that we see today. Whether one believes a Genesis Noah flood is not the issue in this, just the fact that something big did occur??
Ignoring those who convert to creationism for religious reasons, the answer is no. The most that can be said is that geologists have assigned a slightly larger role to catastrophes in explaining geology. But definitely NOT to one big catastrophe, something firmly ruled out by the evidence. Scientifically speaking Noah's flood has been a dead issue since the 19th century, and the evidence is so strong that there is no realistic prospect of it ever making a comeback.
quote:
But anyway, again, when I brought this up the other day, my intention was to debate the TEs here on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Maybe there aren't as many here as I thought.
Probably there aren't. But your attitude isn't exactly helpful. If you won't admit that the only difference between them and you is that they accept the clear evidence of geology and the other sciences - if you accuse them of going against Jesus, rather than admitting that they are simply interpreting the Bible differently than you then why should they want to talk to you ? Why would they think it worthwhile debating someone who wishes only to attack their position but can't even take the time to understand it ?
And if OECs and TEs strain the text to make it fit the facts, I have no doubt that you would happily do the same if it was your beliefs in question. I've seen it often enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 91 of 100 (562729)
06-01-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
quote:
So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets?
No, there's no definite problem with comets. Just the possibility that there might be a problem.
quote:
At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.
Not in science there isn't. All you have is religious apologists trying to force the evidence to fit their dogma. And talking of apologists weren't you going to start a thread presenting Josh McDowell's "evidence" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024