Did Adam and Eve eat?

[EternalDragon]

He can always call me.

He already texted you. It's called the bible.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you're out of luck because it's all they have.

It usually goes something like this........
You can take my word for it because I read it in a book so it must be true.
I was raised to believe it so it must be true, would I believe it if it wasn't true? ask anyone in my church.
I believe it and I know lots of other people who also believe it so it must be true.
"What evidence do you have that it's true?" I have just given you a load of evidence, what more do you want?

Creationists are raised to believe that words and faith are all the evidence they need,
of course that only applies to their religion, when it comes to their daily life.......different rules apply.

I was not raised to believe it. I believed it in my teens, doing my own research and reading. Mind you, I was also into some dark research as well.

"It" meaning the eyewitness, historical reports about Jesus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"It" meaning the eyewitness, historical reports about Jesus.

What about the "eyewitnesses" and "historical reports" about Mohammed, Krshna, Buddha, alien abduction, a living Elvis, bigfoot, loch ness, the Krakken, etc?


It's actually kind of funny that the "historical reports" about Mohammed are a lot more trustworthy then those about jezus, since they are contemporary.

 

[EternalDragon]

What about the "eyewitnesses" and "historical reports" about Mohammed, Krshna, Buddha, alien abduction, a living Elvis, bigfoot, loch ness, the Krakken, etc?


It's actually kind of funny that the "historical reports" about Mohammed are a lot more trustworthy then those about jezus, since they are contemporary.

So you will only trust the newest and latest writings? How do you function in history class? Not well, I would guess.

What is your criteria for what anyone should trust as far as what is true or not? Just the age of the document?

 

[lasthero]

So you will only trust the newest and latest writings? How do you function in history class?

Not everything in a history class is based on what a single source wrote, or even any source at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you will only trust the newest and latest writings?

No. *I* don't trust ANY writings by default.

But you apparently do. I was just wondering why you think the bible is special while you simply dismiss all the other "eyewitness accounts" and "historical documents", probably at face value.

How do you function in history class? Not well, I would guess.

I'm well in my 30s. History class was a long time ago.
And I got an A+, if you must know. Well... the equivalent thereof, we don't use letters for grades in Belgium.

What is your criteria for what anyone should trust as far as what is true or not?

Supportive evidence.

Just the age of the document?

No. Independent evidence that confirms the claims of the document.

This can be a bunch of other independent / contemporary documents, it can be artifacts found in a place as expected if the content of the document is true, etc.

Again: confirming independent evidence.

 

[ChetSinger]

What about the "eyewitnesses" and "historical reports" about Mohammed, Krshna, Buddha, alien abduction, a living Elvis, bigfoot, loch ness, the Krakken, etc?

It's actually kind of funny that the "historical reports" about Mohammed are a lot more trustworthy then those about jezus, since they are contemporary.

I suppose we're getting away from creation & evolution, but I wanted to add that the New Testament is by far the best-attested work from the ancient world.

Nothing else even comes close. We have 5,000+ manuscripts in the original Greek, and 10,000+ more in Latin. They range in size from fragments smaller than a playing card to entire bound books. The timespans between the original events and the early manuscripts is as short as 100 to 200 years.

Contrast this with other ancient historians such as Livy, Herodotus, or Tacitus, where the number of manuscripts are typically in the dozens and the timespans typically range from 400 to 800 years.

If we use the same criteria to evaluate the New Testament as we do other ancient literature, as we must, then the New Testament combines the highest quality, the greatest number of manuscripts, and the nearest proximity to the original events.

The early Christians were obsessed with maintaining their writings, even in the face of persecutors like Diocletian. And it shows in the results.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I suppose we're getting away from creation & evolution, but I wanted to add that the New Testament is by far the best-attested work from the ancient world.

That's simply not true.

Nothing else even comes close. We have 5,000+ manuscripts in the original Greek, and 10,000+ more in Latin.

Copies of copies of copies of copies...
Copying a manuscript 27 thousand times doesn't make the manuscript any more supported then 0 copies.

Contrast this with other ancient historians such as Livy, Herodotus, or Tacitus, where the number of manuscripts are typically in the dozens and the timespans typically range from 400 to 800 years.

The quran was compiled within 20 years after mohammed died, by the people that traveled with him.

Your own logic dictates that the quran should be the most trustworthy.

If we use the same criteria to evaluate the New Testament as we do other ancient literature, as we must, then the New Testament combines the highest quality, the greatest number of manuscripts, and the nearest proximity to the original events.

This is not true.

The early Christians were obsessed with maintaining their writings, even in the face of persecutors like Diocletian. And it shows in the results.

The same goes for all religions. In Islam, they even go so far that a lot of them know it completely by heart.

The thing is however, that none of these religions have any independent and contemporary evidence confirming any of the supernatural bits.

If you only look at independent records, you'll have an easier time finding information on a random roman citizen rather then jezus, supposedly god in the flesh.

Not a single independent or contemporary source mentions the dude.

 

[ChetSinger]

That's simply not true.

Then which other document is? And I won't consider the Quran because it's not ancient enough.

Copies of copies of copies of copies...
Copying a manuscript 27 thousand times doesn't make the manuscript any more supported then 0 copies.

Actually, it does. Historians use various criteria to determine likelihood of truthfulness, including the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of coherence, criterion of multiple attestation, etc. Multiple and early manuscript support helps with this analysis. That's why even those historians who aren't Christians are nearly unanimous that he lived, preached, and died where and when the gospels say he did.

The quran was compiled within 20 years after mohammed died, by the people that traveled with him.

Your own logic dictates that the quran should be the most trustworthy.

I have no reason to doubt that Mohammed dictated the Quran just as tradition says he did.

This is not true.

Then which other ancient document is?

The same goes for all religions. In Islam, they even go so far that a lot of them know it completely by heart.

Good for them.

If you only look at independent records, you'll have an easier time finding information on a random roman citizen rather then jezus, supposedly god in the flesh.

Not a single independent or contemporary source mentions the dude.

You're starting to sound like a Christ-myther. Are you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

He already texted you. It's called the bible.

No, the bible was written by human hands, so you can't know for sure it is the word of any god.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, the bible was written by human hands, so you can't know for sure it is the word of any god.

By what is written. It's not written like men normally
write with "I" , "me" or "My" in each sentence.

Plus it tells the truth about man an reveals motives for everything.
Normal writing doesn't accomplish that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why on earth would you allow yourself to believe such ridiculous nonsense?

Do all animals..

I have discovered it to be true and correct. I am a researcher.
Humans are not animals. Though we suffer the same fate as them.
That was our fault and it's a hard rip between us and God to mend.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evidence of this claim?
Evidence of this claim?
Errr... the flying horse part is not something that happened after mohammed died. This was during his life.

"Evidence" accompanies the physical life.
The Spiritual life has only experiences to support it.

Visions happen during life as well.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have discovered it to be true and correct. I am a researcher.

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then which other document is? And I won't consider the Quran because it's not ancient enough.

First, I have to ask, where do you draw the arbitrary line of when something is "ancient enough"?

As for which document is... Well, any document that has no supernatural claims and is actually supported by independent corroborating evidence is better attested then any religious text that has no supportive independent evidence.

So, take your pick.

Actually, it does. Historians use various criteria to determine likelihood of truthfulness, including the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of coherence, criterion of multiple attestation, etc. Multiple and early manuscript support helps with this analysis. That's why even those historians who aren't Christians are nearly unanimous that he lived, preached, and died where and when the gospels say he did.

First, there is no real consensus at all about the existence of a historical jezus among secular circles. A lot are under the assumption that the character is based on an actual historical human, but it is pretty thin ice.
For example, we know Romans were pretty obsessed with keeping records about just about everything. If jezus existed and did some of the things the bible says he did (like raging havoc in the temple etc), it's very very strange that not a single contemporary roman source mentions him.

Having said that, you've left out a very important (perhaps even the most important) criteria out of your list: corroborating evidence. Independent and contemporary. That is what makes historical claims a LOT more likely. That's when things reach a level of being undeniable.

If we find a document that states that a roman legion fought against gallic tribes and it mentions the exact place where this battle took place... if we then go to that spot, start digging and uncover plenty of artifacts of roman and gallic war equipment as well as a bunch of death soldiers with physical evidence of violent deaths.... Then the document just became incredibly likely. Undeniably likely.

Not a single one of the remarkable claims in the bible have this kind of backing. Sure, it mention places and people that we know existed, but that is to be expected. Spiderman also mentions New York and central park.

I have no reason to doubt that Mohammed dictated the Quran just as tradition says he did.

Do you have reason to doubt that before he dictated it to his followers, it was dictated to him by an angel that was send to him by Allah?

If yes, what is that reason?

You're starting to sound like a Christ-myther. Are you?

I don't know if a historical jezus existed. There's no extra-biblical evidence to suggest he did. I have no problem assuming a historical figure on which the new testament is based did exist. I also have no problem assuming that he didn't and that the whole story is just made up. I also have no problem assuming that it was based on an actual historical human, but exaggerated and/or altered so much that if we would actually meet this human, he would be barely recognizable.

I consider all 3 to be pretty much equally likely. No, wait, that's not true.
I consider 2 and 3 to be a bit more likely. Assuming a historical human existed around which this religion was built, I think it's quite likely that his character was blown greatly out of proportion. Meaning that the actual human was quite different from the descriptions of him in the text.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Evidence" accompanies the physical life.
The Spiritual life has only experiences to support it.

Visions happen during life as well.

Evidence is the key to differentiate truth from fiction.

How do you differentiate a "vision" from a "hallucination" or a "delusion"? Or just a dream?

How do you know that "visions" are real?
And do you trust all "visions" or just some of them? If only some of them, what is the criteria, the methodology to decide which one to trust and which one to discard (as delusion? dream? hallucination?)? How do you explain hallucinations/delusions/dream etc that are mistaken for visions?

How to tell the difference?

Looking forward to your answers...

 

[Sayre]

First, I have to ask, where do you draw the arbitrary line of when something is "ancient enough"?

As for which document is... Well, any document that has no supernatural claims and is actually supported by independent corroborating evidence is better attested then any religious text that has no supportive independent evidence.

So, take your pick.



First, there is no real consensus at all about the existence of a historical jezus among secular circles. A lot are under the assumption that the character is based on an actual historical human, but it is pretty thin ice.
For example, we know Romans were pretty obsessed with keeping records about just about everything. If jezus existed and did some of the things the bible says he did (like raging havoc in the temple etc), it's very very strange that not a single contemporary roman source mentions him.

Having said that, you've left out a very important (perhaps even the most important) criteria out of your list: corroborating evidence. Independent and contemporary. That is what makes historical claims a LOT more likely. That's when things reach a level of being undeniable.

If we find a document that states that a roman legion fought against gallic tribes and it mentions the exact place where this battle took place... if we then go to that spot, start digging and uncover plenty of artifacts of roman and gallic war equipment as well as a bunch of death soldiers with physical evidence of violent deaths.... Then the document just became incredibly likely. Undeniably likely.

Not a single one of the remarkable claims in the bible have this kind of backing. Sure, it mention places and people that we know existed, but that is to be expected. Spiderman also mentions New York and central park.



Do you have reason to doubt that before he dictated it to his followers, it was dictated to him by an angel that was send to him by Allah?

If yes, what is that reason?



I don't know if a historical jezus existed. There's no extra-biblical evidence to suggest he did. I have no problem assuming a historical figure on which the new testament is based did exist. I also have no problem assuming that he didn't and that the whole story is just made up. I also have no problem assuming that it was based on an actual historical human, but exaggerated and/or altered so much that if we would actually meet this human, he would be barely recognizable.

I consider all 3 to be pretty much equally likely. No, wait, that's not true.
I consider 2 and 3 to be a bit more likely. Assuming a historical human existed around which this religion was built, I think it's quite likely that his character was blown greatly out of proportion. Meaning that the actual human was quite different from the descriptions of him in the text.

Why do you say jezus instead of Jesus? It puts a veneer of antagonism over your words.

 

[TLK Valentine]

By what is written. It's not written like men normally
write with "I" , "me" or "My" in each sentence.

Riiiiight... because all men write in the first person. TLK Valentine is not impressed.

^^ Hey! God must've written that!

Plus it tells the truth about man an reveals motives for everything.
Normal writing doesn't accomplish that.

Shakespeare does -- you should read him sometime.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you say jezus instead of Jesus? It puts a veneer of antagonism over your words.

That's how you write it in my language and I'm terrible at remembering that it's different in other languages.

You know who I mean, don't you?
Might I add that I don't appreciate the ad hominim you turned it into.

 

[Sayre]

That's how you write it in my language and I'm terrible at remembering that it's different in other languages.

You know who I mean, don't you?
Might I add that I don't appreciate the ad hominim you turned it into.

That isn't an ad hominim . There is nothing "against the person". I said it puts a veneer over your words, not over you as a person.