Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TySixtus · 03-27-2005, 03:45 AM

As I often asked TBT, how is it that light came before the sun, WRT creation?

This is extremely historical, as far as I'm concerned. It deals with the creation of history, namely the beginning of time.

But I don't want to derail this into a Creation bashing thread. I'll settle for:

1) The Lucan Census
2) Conflicting geneologies
3) The fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus
4) No evidence for global flooding
5) No evidence of the Exodus

If anyone can satisfactorily explain the above occurences (or non-occurences, as they are) then I'll seriously reconsider my position that the Bible is damn near useless when it comes to proving it's own reliability.

Ty

Chili · 03-27-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The Bible claims in Mark's Gospel that Jesus was crucified ay the third hour, yet solid historical evidence (namely John's Gospel), says that the judgement was made at the 6th hour.

But that is good since Mark ends with the third hour where religion is added in Luke to have judgement at the sixth hour where yang changes to yin . . . which has to be midway in life. For Mark to show the sixth hour would remove the very purpose of the Gospels as a Galilean event.

LeeBuhrul · 03-27-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

According to Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona:

"In the past, the Bible has demonstrated that its accounts are trustworthy as far as they have been verified. Moreover, the Bible has never been controverted by solid historical data. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt should go to the Bible in places where it cannot be verified, when there is no evidence to the contrary, and when it seems clear that the author intended for us to understand the event as historical." (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 31, emphasis mine)

Would anyone like to provide a counter-example to the bolded statement?

best,
Peter Kirby

The entire Genesis has been thoroughly discredited...

and the suggestion that because it hasn't been refuted in its entirity it should be presumed accurate comes awfully close to a Liar Paradox

Even the title of the OP is inconsistent in that it demands evidence to be "solid" (whatever that means in the OP's mind) while making no such demand of the assertions in the bible

Chili · 03-27-2005, 09:13 AM

Give it some time Lee. Gen. doesn't make sense until we arrive there for the second time and know the place as if for the first time. Would it not be wrong for you to destroy the vineyard before it comes of age to bear fruit?

John A. Broussard · 03-27-2005, 10:55 AM

If someone believes that a given bit of writing is the word of an all-powerful, all-knowing god, how can there be ANY evidence to refute any part of the writing? If the good book says Jonah swallowed the whale, then that's what happened--period.

On the other hand, if someone believes that inconsistencies are possible, then the writing can't be the word of god--or could he be deceiving us?

Chili · 03-27-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

If the good book says Jonah swallowed the whale, then that's what happened--period.

--or could he be deceiving us?

Could we not be deceiving ourselves by reading it wrong? If the sign of Jonah will be the only sign given to us for the second coming of Christ would it not be wise to save the whales and make sure there is always one swimming close to shore?

ecco · 03-27-2005, 11:54 AM

From this forum's home page

Chili · 03-27-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecco

From this forum's home page

To the conclusion of this speach (cited below) would I add that there is no other world except our own world. The fact is that the world around us just is as it is and only our perception of this world can be different among us.

Quote:

Yet, if one returns to what was probably Paul's conception of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, then the resurrection becomes no longer a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, but an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ--not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself. Though I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us,[44] I leave it to the Christians here to consider a spiritual resurrection as a different way to understand their faith. But I don't see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.

Emphasis added for your convenience.

Avatar · 03-27-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

How is having no evidence to prove any Biblical events proof that they never happened?

Part of the problem is that there should be evidence of certain things the Bible says happened, yet there is none. For example, if the Hebrews fled Egypt en masse and wandered around for a few decades before getting to Cannann, there should have been plenty of traces of such a large migration all over the place. Campsite ruins, pottery, defication, and all kinds of things. Anthropologists and archaeologists have tracked large-scale before and know what to look for. Yet there is no trace anywhere of Moses and his directionally-challenged flock of several hundred-thousand. No graves, no tracks, nothing. Moreover, there is no trace of Egyptian influence in Cannaan art, pottery, or archetecture...something one would expect to find if they had in fact been enslaved by Egypt for generations.

Sensei Meela · 03-27-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

How is having no evidence to prove any Biblical events proof that they never happened?

As per a recent discussion, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is expected."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2005, 03:45 AM	#11
TySixtus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rachacha NY Posts: 4,219	As I often asked TBT, how is it that light came before the sun, WRT creation? This is extremely historical, as far as I'm concerned. It deals with the creation of history, namely the beginning of time. But I don't want to derail this into a Creation bashing thread. I'll settle for: 1) The Lucan Census 2) Conflicting geneologies 3) The fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus 4) No evidence for global flooding 5) No evidence of the Exodus If anyone can satisfactorily explain the above occurences (or non-occurences, as they are) then I'll seriously reconsider my position that the Bible is damn near useless when it comes to proving it's own reliability. Ty

03-27-2005, 09:13 AM	#14
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Give it some time Lee. Gen. doesn't make sense until we arrive there for the second time and know the place as if for the first time. Would it not be wrong for you to destroy the vineyard before it comes of age to bear fruit?

03-27-2005, 10:55 AM	#15
John A. Broussard Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,629	If someone believes that a given bit of writing is the word of an all-powerful, all-knowing god, how can there be ANY evidence to refute any part of the writing? If the good book says Jonah swallowed the whale, then that's what happened--period. On the other hand, if someone believes that inconsistencies are possible, then the writing can't be the word of god--or could he be deceiving us?

03-27-2005, 11:54 AM	#17
ecco Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: SE Posts: 4,845	From this forum's home page

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.