How Did Fire Survive Noah's Flood?

[AV1611VET]

If you have to say "What evidence" it is rather clear that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. You probably need to learn that first then you can begin to ask your questions.

IF you don't have evidence, and evidence exists, then you're wrong to say there's evidence that the Flood didn't happen.

Put another way: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

HOWEVER, that's not what you're saying.

You're saying "evidence says there was no Flood."

So by your own admission, you have evidence.

You're just interpreting it wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF you don't have evidence, and evidence exists, then you're wrong to say there's evidence that the Flood didn't happen.

Put another way: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

HOWEVER, that's not what you're saying.

You're saying "evidence says there was no Flood."

So by your own admission, you have evidence.

You're just interpreting it wrong.

Once again, you don't even understand the concept of evidence. If you want to learn I will help you. If you want to keep making silly mistakes I will simply correct you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, you don't even understand the concept of evidence.

You do though, I take it?

And you use it against what God says in the Scriptures?

Is that why you want me to understand its concept?

So I can be like that?

God certainly understands it, yet He put it in writing that the Flood occurred.

So there must be something He knows that you don't.

And I know what it is: you're wrong.

 

[Abraxos]

lol this has to be the stupidest thread I've ever read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do though, I take it?

And you use it against what God says in the Scriptures?

Is that why you want me to understand its concept?

So I can be like that?

God certainly understands it, yet He put it in writing that the Flood occurred.

So there must be something He knows that you don't.

And I know what it is: you're wrong.

You could not use evidence "against God" even if he existed. You have to get over the idea that the fact that life evolved, the fact that there was no Flood, does not mean that a god does not exist. Your personal version is wrong, but that does not mean that even the "Christian" god does not exist.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, you definitely do not have to believe that God was lying if there was no Flood. When you are reading the Bible, you are reading what the authors, mostly male, and conditioned by living in a semi-barbaric, prescientific, racist, sexist culture, had to say.

 

[Jay Follett]

IF you don't have evidence, and evidence exists,
then you're wrong to say there's evidence that the Flood didn't happen.

Put another way: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

HOWEVER, that's not what you're saying.

You're saying "evidence says there was no Flood."

So by your own admission, you have evidence.

You're just interpreting it wrong

This goes beyond even twisted thinking.

Because there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed he must have existed.
With religion you get to have your cake and eat it, if there is no evidence for something happening then this doesn't mean it didn't happen, you can make up anything you like and no one can disprove it because there is no evidence that it didn't happen, it's the logic of fools.
Get into this ducking stool, if you drown then you're innocent, if you don't drown you're a witch and we'll kill you, that's the kind of minds religions came from.

You killed a woman, "when, where, how? there's not even a body", the absence of evidence doesn't mean you didn't kill a woman, you will be shot at dawn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This goes beyond even twisted thinking.

Because there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed he must have existed.
With religion you get to have your cake and eat it, if there is no evidence for something happening then this doesn't mean it didn't happen, you can make up anything you like and no one can disprove it because there is no evidence that it didn't happen, it's the logic of fools.

You killed a woman, "when, where, how? there's not even a body", the absence of evidence doesn't mean you didn't kill a woman, you will be shot at dawn.

A clear understanding of evidence runs contrary to a literal translation of Genesis. Very very few creationists understand how to use evidence.

 

[Abraxos]

Because there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed he must have existed.
With religion you get to have your cake and eat it, if there is no evidence for something happening then this doesn't mean it didn't happen, you can make up anything you like and no one can disprove it because there is no evidence that it didn't happen, it's the logic of fools.

We have more evidence for the person Jesus of Nazerath than any other major figures in all antiquity. Very rarely will you have 4 biographies of the same person, as well as many references of him in these early letters from Paul, references from Roman extra-biblical literature, Jewish references to Jesus. The idea that Jesus of Nazerath never existed is an idea that no serious historian entertains. It's by these left wing fringe elements of Jesus mythism that they propagate these baseless accusations, really no scholar takes seriously.

Richard Dawkins even admitted that Jesus existed. So either you seriously in lack of knowledge on such things or just intentionally stupid like this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you definitely do not have to believe that God was lying if there was no Flood.

Do you believe there was a Flood?

 

[Jay Follett]

We have more evidence for the person Jesus of Nazerath than any other major figures in all antiquity. Very rarely will you have 4 biographies of the same person, as well as many references of him in these early letters from Paul, references from Roman extra-biblical literature, Jewish references to Jesus. The idea that Jesus of Nazerath never existed is an idea that no serious historian entertains. It's by these left wing fringe elements of Jesus mythism that they propagate these baseless accusations, really no scholar takes seriously.

Richard Dawkins even admitted that Jesus existed. So either you seriously in lack of knowledge on such things or just intentionally stupid like this thread.

I think Richard Dawkins said he may have existed, but as for the other stuff you have sadly been told lies, outside of the Bible there are no references to a man named Jesus anywhere.
As for the 4 biographies they all say different things, if we both saw a road accident but you said it happened in New York and I said it happened in Miami would you say we were both describing the same accident even though both involved cars and accidents? They were 4 different versions of the stories that had been told and added to at the time, every time those stories were told they were changed in order to convince the listener that the story was true.
Even the resurrection was added to the Bible hundred of years later because it was not in the oldest versions we have, 12 verses were added much much later.

Christians all want there to be lots of evidence of Jesus but there is none outside of the Bible.

That's why faith is needed to be a believer because there is no evidence.

 

[Abraxos]

https://www.youtube.com/user/InspiringPhilosophy/featured

Here's an insightful few videos to help you further.

 

[The Cadet]

Ancient non-Christian sources
- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD)
- Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian
- Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD
- Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD
- Emperor Trajan
- Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul
- The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
- Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
- Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria

Note that not a single one of these sources is contemporary. Most of these people weren't even alive during Jesus's lifetime. Even beyond that, even the clearest of them has some serious problems. Iron Chariots goes into quite a lot of detali on Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and more.

 

[Extraneous]

You do though, I take it?

And you use it against what God says in the Scriptures?

Is that why you want me to understand its concept?

So I can be like that?

God certainly understands it, yet He put it in writing that the Flood occurred.

So there must be something He knows that you don't.

And I know what it is: you're wrong.

Everyone has evidence.

 

[Extraneous]

A clear understanding of evidence runs contrary to a literal translation of Genesis. Very very few creationists understand how to use evidence.

Same goes with Evolutionists.

 

[Abraxos]

Note that not a single one of these sources is contemporary. Most of these people weren't even alive during Jesus's lifetime. Even beyond that, even the clearest of them has some serious problems. Iron Chariots goes into quite a lot of detali on Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and more.

Since when do historians demand contemporary evidence?

Who demands contemporary evidence to establish the historicity of an event or person of antiquity?

Also, If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors, after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

 

[The Cadet]

Also, If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer.

Except that the writings of most of those men were never meant as histories. Nobody today thinks that Sirens are real, that Charbydis ate ships, or that Atlantis actually existed. Well, okay, nobody except very stupid people. These books were clearly written either as parable or outright myth. Caesar is the exception here, and at that point, I'm fairly sure you can find contemporary sources backing that up (although looking into it just gave me page after page of "Did Jesus exist?").

To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

Who cares? The point of Plato's writing is not and never was "there was this guy named Socrates, this is his true story". They were meant as philosophic lessons, where the specific facts mattered far less than the parables and arguments contained therein. It fundamentally doesn't matter very much if a man named Socrates actually existed, or whether Plato made him up wholesale. It matters quite a bit if the New Testament is actually a testament, or merely parables meant to teach certain lessons - or would you say that the thrust of the New Testament is reduced if Jesus never existed, and it's merely stories about how faith is important?

Also, there's a second place where these analogies typically fail. The New Testament contains not just the work of men, but explicit references to miracles and impossible events - men walking on water, water turning into wine, men rising from the dead... There's a fundamental difference between an ancient historical document talking about a king who accomplished astonishing, albeit fundamentally possible things (like, say, the battle of Thermopylae), and a historical document talking about things which are physically impossible without suspending the laws of nature.

On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors, after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others.

...Really. The evidence supporting the claims of a miraculous virgin birth and multiple miraculous healings and ressurections is far greater than the evidence supporting the existence of the Gallic wars? Really?

 

[Jay Follett]

The only sad thing here is your resounding ignorance.
Secondly, the only lies here is your baseless and ignorant claims that their are no evidence outside of the Bible (which in itself is stupid). These primary sources for the life of Jesus, the letters of Paul, the other letters in the new testament, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, these are not the only documents that mention Jesus.
I would like an explanation, how does the fact that these early documents, these primary sources were assembled hundreds of years later by the church into an anthology called the New Testament, how does that do anything to impune their value as historical sources?

Just to educate your ignorance, here are a few outside biblical sources:

Ancient non-Christian sources
- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD)
- Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian
- Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD
- Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD
- Emperor Trajan
- Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul
- The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
- Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
- Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria

Gnostic sources
- The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD
- The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD
- The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD
- The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos

Lost works quoted in other sources
Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD)
"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

- Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.

Ancient Christian sources (extra-biblical)
- Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD)
- Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD)
- Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD)
- Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)
- Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD
- (Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD
- Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD
- Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD

Lastly, 4 different eye witnesses that essentially say the same thing but from different angles. If they were all saying the exact same thing on an event word for word then these witnesses would be questionable. The fact that their interpretations of Jesus Christ life, death and resurrection are written from different viewpoints in no way impeaches the word of God. Unless you have some fantastical point to prove that they are I'd like to see it.

There is absolutely nothing I could say that would have any impact on what you want to believe so it's all down to you.

If it makes you happy to believe as you do then please don't stop believing it, it's my opinion however that the truth of what you believe does not concern you, you are happy to believe what you want to believe regardless of truth.

Please do not check to see if what you believe is true because what you will find out will be life changing for you.
Where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise so let sleeping dogs lie.

Here is another thing in the Bible that was not in it until about 1000 years after it was written, the story of Jesus saying, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", 1000 years later that was added to the Bible.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

But as I said don't delve too deeply or you will find out things you do not want to know.

 

[Abraxos]

If it makes you happy to believe all of that please don't stop believing it, it's my opinion however that the truth of what you believe does not concern you, you are happy to believe what you want to believe regardless of truth.

Please do not check to see if what you believe is true because what you will find out will be life changing for you.
Where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise so let sleeping dogs lie.

You made a bold claim that there was no evidence that Jesus existed. If you want to back track and brush it off as 'whatever makes you happy, it's my opinion' is disingenuous to the point I made that there are sources that support Jesus existed, even more so than most historical figures of antiquity. You haven't provided any sound arguments to back-up your claims and yet expect to be taken seriously.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:2

 

[SkyWriting]

No, the evidence says that there was no flood.

All miracles have that same problem of not being able to be reproduced
or analyzed after the fact.
Miracles, including list of biblical miracles