Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you show me irrefutable proof that it happened?Would that then constitute a miracle?
It is mathematically impossible to feed 5000 with five barley loaves and two small fishes?
It would but it would not be something that should have left massive evidence that it happened all over the world. Do you think God erased the evidence of the alleged global flood? Why would he do that and then have his "chosen people" record it in their holy book?Would that then constitute a miracle?
Can you show me irrefutable proof that it happened?
The bible is not a valid historical sourceThere were eight witnesses to it, and they are no longer with us. One of them, however, put it down in writing, which was preserved and translated into my language.
Excellent question. In order to feed 5000 people with 5 barley loaves and 2 small fishes it would require a miracle.
Since most miracles are usually pretty easy to explain away by physical processes or plain misinterpretation by the viewer, it is therefore highly unlikely that miracles happen.
It is, however, known that stories get made up and passed around and editted and altered over the course of time. So when it came down to the actual "transcription" of this story, probably at least decades after the fact and probably without anyone who was an actual witness to the fact, the story was probably made up!
Thanks for bringing that up! It's an excellent thought exercise.
The Flood is another example of a miracle that left no evidence for its existence and is far more likely to have been an allegorical tale or simply "made up".
Excellent comparison.
It would but it would not be something that should have left massive evidence that it happened all over the world. Do you think God erased the evidence of the alleged global flood? Why would he do that and then have his "chosen people" record it in their holy book?
Thank you --- but you're overlooking something: Jesus Himself confirmed the Flood, His Father promised to keep the story preserved, and even one of His disciples wrote about it.
The bible is not a valid historical source
That does not make it a valid historical sourceJesus treated it as such --- so did all the NT writers.
No he didn't. What you mean, of course, is that it is written in the Bible that..., which is something completely different. And that's assuming what you claim is not some conservative, far-fetched interpretation.
That does not make it a valid historical source
You do understand the Christian Geologists who first falsified the global flood were doing exactly that don't you? I assume you know that not only is there no evidence for this alleged global flood, it is falsified by geology, paleontology, biogeography, archeology, biodiversity and other branches of science. If there was a global flood God thoroughy covered it up by poofing away all the evidence of his horrible crime. Which brings up the question, why did He have His chosen people record it?My suggestion Frumious, is that if you can't find physical evidence of something you want to find in the Bible --- keep looking.
Thank you --- but you're overlooking something: Jesus Himself confirmed the Flood, His Father promised to keep the story preserved, and even one of His disciples wrote about it.
Jesus treated it as such --- so did all the NT writers.
If you want to look at it as a history book, then I would say it has more detail in it than our best text books.
Detail does not mean accuracyIf you want to look at it as a history book, then I would say it has more detail in it than our best text books.
And even if you can't show that your co-author exists, you'll assert that he does and that part of what went into the translation should be credited to him -- thereby, attempting to garner greater authority for your own opinions and beliefs.Translation and interpretation are two different things.
I had nothing to do with translating the Scriptures. My job is to (with the help of the Holy Spirit) correctly interpret it, since I am going to be held accountable for what's written therein.
Are you attempting to insinuate that men 2,000 years ago didn't have perfect recall for things they heard, (or claimed to have heard), someone say over 40-years before they bothered to think them important enough to write them down?There you go again! Tut tut! What you mean, naturally, is that the Bible says that Jesus treated it as such. In fact, given that this same collection is all you have to support the idea that Jesus' word is worth anything at all, I don't know what the fuss is about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?