Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 04-02-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Sorry to be a bummer here, but the sun never moved stopped relative to us. And if we stopped (which would make the sun appear to stop) then we would all be space particles by now.

What I keep looking for are explanations of the stopping of the sun by those who believe in the inerrancy of the bible.

Anyone out there willing to explain?

macha · 01-26-2007, 05:36 AM

I'm not sure if the question is

Quote:

"the Bible was never examined with solid experience of History ?"

or if the question is

Quote:

"does a chronoloy exist to compare to so called historical data in Bible ?"

In my opinion, History as "science" begins in the 19th century. But the examination of Bible againts historical data began in the 16th century with Cappel, keeping in ming that History in the 16th is not exactly the same thing that History today.

I have only 1 reference and the book is in French :
Auteurs : François Laplanche (1928-....), Auteur
Editeur : Albin Michel (Paris)
Date de publication : 1994
Collection : L'évolution de l'humanité, ISSN 0755-1843
Nombre de pages : 315 p.
Langue : Français

Euphen · 01-26-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The earlier destruction of Jericho and other places was probably the work of the Hyksos on their expulsion from Egypt. In fact, it is the Hyksos who I see as the historical kernel behind the exodus/conquest traditions.

spin

Spin, do you have a source for this, or is it your own idea? I find this theory very interesting. I could be wrong here, but aren't the Joseph stories set around the time of the Hyksos invasion?

Clivedurdle · 01-26-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event.

Why are we wasting our time on him when he fails the David Hume miracle test?

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

spin · 01-26-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphen

Spin, do you have a source for this, or is it your own idea? I find this theory very interesting. I could be wrong here, but aren't the Joseph stories set around the time of the Hyksos invasion?

Clouded memory. I read an article once in a Jordanian archaeology journal about a Hyksos burial there. Also stuff elsewhere about Hyksos related destruction in the Levant at the time the Egyptians liberated their land. But it is all stuff I read long ago.

spin

MadMez · 01-26-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I know this is an old chestnut, but isn't there solid historical data all over the place that indicates there never was a day when the sun stood still--as clearly stated in the bible?

Going from memory, Galileo's findings were attacked as not only did they prove the bible in error as to the Sun going round the Earth, but also as if it's not going round us, then you can't stop it (as in Joshua) but would have to stop the Earth. Which is plainly fixed in the bible.

Nice to reflect on those quaint old beliefs, good job no one believes all that shit anymore, eh?

Brother Daniel · 01-27-2007, 10:39 AM

I hate to find myself "defending" an obviously bullshit biblical story, but in all seriousness, the following arguments are of zero value:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crucifiction

If the sun "stopped" {meaning if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning}, one would have no problems finding evidence for it; as thousands of species of flowers that depended on the sun rising and setting at precise times would have totally died off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

Not to mention the fact that the entire surface of the Earth would be reduced to a near-molten state from the energy released in the process of the Earth stopping...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Not to mention the fact that everything on the surface would be hurled off. Object in motion tends to stay in motion...

These arguments are essentially circular, because they use natural law against a claim that, once upon a time, natural law was suspended for a little while. And that won't fly.

You're better off going with Hume.

spin · 01-27-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

I hate to find myself "defending" an obviously bullshit biblical story, but in all seriousness, the following arguments are of zero value:

Why claim to defend something when you don't actual do what you claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

These arguments are essentially circular, because they use natural law against a claim that, once upon a time, natural law was suspended for a little while. And that won't fly.

Assuming incoherence of action certainly won't fly. Let's set up a bunch of laws that will continue for eternity if let continue... ooops, I've gotta suspend them for a little while because there's something that needs to be done. Yeah, sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

You're better off going with Hume.

Hume's always good value. I think he'd go for coherence.

spin

Roger Pearse · 01-27-2007, 12:24 PM

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?

It would appear, judging from this thread, that no-one can, certainly against the NT anyway. Isn't that curious?

All that seems to be produced so far is some very tired-sounding polemic against the OT (I was glad to see that at least one person recognised how worthless it was). Worse yet, all of it was premised on the idea that the OT must be read as a specimen of the historical writing school of the early 20th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 01-27-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It would appear, judging from this thread, that no-one can, certainly against the NT anyway. Isn't that curious?

All that seems to be produced so far is some very tired-sounding polemic against the OT (I was glad to see that at least one person recognised how worthless it was). Worse yet, all of it was premised on the idea that the OT must be read as a specimen of the historical writing school of the early 20th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What would it take for the bible to be "controverted" for an apologist?

The question doesn't make sense to the apologist, but it does to most others.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.