Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, the Bible is a collection of allegory, legend and myths, with a smattering of history. It gets quite a few historical claims wrong.
Upvote
0
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.
No, the Bible is a collection of allegory, legend and myths, with a smattering of history. It gets quite a few historical claims wrong.I NEVER said "I JUST KNOW IT".
I've said more than once that my faith is based on reason.
I don't know where you're getting your information from....but I'm not debating this with you.
John's gospel, for instance, shows no evidence of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD which means it would have had to be written earlier.
It was customary to use names of teachers at that time,,,for instance, you're correct in stating that Mathew was not written by Mathew but by a pupil or follower of his.
The bible is not a history book, which is what many think. It's the story of a man. One can accept it or not.
DID King Arthur exist?If all it takes for someone to exist is the fact there are tales written about them, then yes.
I think you missed my point. The fact religions exist, in no way is evidence for their claims. In fact, I'm willing to bet you feel the same way about every other non-Christian religion as I do.
Sounds good.
I don't like to learn from the internet.I don't know where you are getting your ideas from. Modern scholars put John at 90 CE at the earliest:
Gospel of John - Wikipedia
The above is a more secular source, but this Christian source has the same dates:
When was the Gospel of John written?
And sorry for the lack of a copy and paste of quotes. Using my tablet and I am not as practiced on it as on my PC.
As to who wrote Matthew, we do not really know.
Hi K,No, but if you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.
P.S.No, but if you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.
I don't like to learn from the internet.
It matters not, in the final analysis, WHO wrote the N.T.... or WHEN, what matters is if it's true or not.
I like Acts 5:29-36
Hasta Luego
You do not seem to realize that the burden of proof directly relies upon a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have a friend that you trust and he told you that he bought a dog you would probably take him at his word. No strong evidence would be required. If he claimed that his new dog sang The New Carioca and drove a care you would be correct to demand strong evidence:P.S.
WHY do 2 + 2 = 4 ?
Who determined that it would?
Does it always work out that way?
That means it must be a law...
Who made that law?
Did it come about by chance?
Did I say Gamaliel was an eyewitness?Oh my, you do realize that that is not an eyewitness statement, don't you? The author of Acts is repeating something that he heard. What can't be found are statements by any that saw Jesus resurrected making the claim themselves. The author of Acts may have been Luke, but any site that says it is Luke are overstating what is known. I would be wary of any of them.
And the plain fact is that the tales of the resurrection probably are not true. All that Christians have for that are poorly formed arguments.
Use the intelligence you have...You do not seem to realize that the burden of proof directly relies upon a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have a friend that you trust and he told you that he bought a dog you would probably take him at his word. No strong evidence would be required. If he claimed that his new dog sang The New Carioca and drove a care you would be correct to demand strong evidence:
The problem with most Christian "studying" of the Bible is that it is not proper studying. Did you text it in any meaningful way at all?Did I say Gamaliel was an eyewitness?
At least give me some credit for understanding what I read...besides the fact that I've been studying the bible for about 35 years.
Then you are staying my that you have an irrational belief. And you misunderstand what has been said about gods. Some versions of God are testable. It is the general concept of God that is not testable. Do you understand the difference?Use the intelligence you have...
How can God be proven?
He's not a scientific experiment.
Everyone knows God cannot be proven scientifically.
You musta missed that class...
What is studied is the culture of the time,The problem with most Christian "studying" of the Bible is that it is not proper studying. Did you text it in any meaningful way at all?
No SZ,,,I don't understand the difference.Then you are staying my that you have an irrational belief. And you misunderstand what has been said about gods. Some versions of God are testable. It is the general concept of God that is not testable. Do you understand the difference?
No SZ,,,I don't understand the difference.
What do you mean SOME VERSIONS of god are testable?
You have versions of God?
There is only one God.
Sorry, I was using my tablet with its wonderful "autowrong" feature. That was supposed to be "test" not text. At times the autowrong changes a correct word and puts in an incorrect one for no fathomable reason.What is studied is the culture of the time,
What a particular verse could mean using hemeneutics,
and how it would apply to us today.
Then there are the difference concepts one should be familiar with - by texting I think you must mean exegeting (not sure). If so, yes, that's done all the time.
The bible says many things that are true...There are countless versions of God. There are thousands of different sects of Christianity alone, all of them are different versions of God. Now if on has a God that made a Flat Earth that God is testable. If the Earth is proven not to be flat then that God does not exist. Many theists have a problem understanding this concept because they have the mistaken belief that their version is the correct version. All of those other versions are "not God". I suppose this might be called a category error by theists.
Nothing would disprove God to me SZ.Sorry, I was using my tablet with its wonderful "autowrong" feature. That was supposed to be "test" not text. At times the autowrong changes a correct word and puts in an incorrect one for no fathomable reason.
How would you test your version of God to see if he was the "right version" or not? For a test to be proper there has to be a possibility of negation. For example you seem to believe in a creationist God of some sort. In that case evolution would disprove that "God" but not all gods.
Yes, the Bible says many things that are true. It also says many things that are not true.The bible says many things that are true...
I told you that I can believe God is real because He's real TO ME. I've been "told" things that are true in MY life.
The bible says there was a first man and a first woman before anyone was interested in knowing where we come from...so does this make "my" God real?
I don't think you're expressing yourself properly,,,if you are, then you're saying there's proof for God?
The only proof we have for God is the affect He has on persons and the effects He causes in both persons and nature. And, of course, our own personal experiences.
Must go do some cooking for Easter.Yes, the Bible says many things that are true. It also says many things that are not true.
And if you interpret that part of the Bible literally since there is very clear evidence that is wrong that tells us that your "God" does not exist. This does not mean that the Christian God does not exist, but your version of God appears to be as real as the Flat Earth version of God.
And no, one can disprove some ideas, but not necessarily prove others. This is a logical error think that disproving A proves B. To prove B one must do so based upon B's merits, not upon A's flaws.
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?