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.
It depends upon what one means by truth. Were there ever only two people? No, we know that is not the case. Was there ever a worldwide flood while man was alive? Again no, we know that never happened. Do those stories have a lesson to teach? Possibly.Allegory still works as Truth.
It depends upon what one means by truth. Were there ever only two people? No, we know that is not the case. Was there ever a worldwide flood while man was alive? Again no, we know that never happened. Do those stories have a lesson to teach? Possibly.
The person who wrote about a "Worldwide flood" had not traveled the world, so the story was true. The Ark didn't even have a sail. The first two people were re-created in the image of God. They were no longer animals.
Scripture is focused on the children of God, not the animals of the world.
That is some fancy reinterpretation there. Now you need some evidence for it. The problem with your approach to the Flood story is that one must make the Flood so small that there was no need for an Ark.The person who wrote about a "Worldwide flood" had not traveled the world, so the story was true. The Ark didn't even have a sail. The first two people were re-created in the image of God. They were no longer animals.
Scripture is focused on the children of God, not the animals of the world.
If any part of scripture is correct, then I assume the story is 100% accurate as repeated by Noah. Once I assume one sentence is true, then assuming it all is true is a logical exercise.That is some fancy reinterpretation there. Now you need some evidence for it. The problem with your approach to the Flood story is that one must make the Flood so small that there was no need for an Ark.
According to you, which humans are "people" and which humans are "animals"?
Adam and Eve were the first to be born of the Spirit.
What the atheist was doing, was comparing knowledge acquired back then, with knowledge on hand now.
And that's not a fair comparison.
I think they're wrong.Tell me what do you think of the Flat Earth believers?
But their interpretations are in error.Subduction Zone said:Their translations are accurate.
Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.You dont understand what ”ignorant” means.
Not a science book, science still hadn't been invented by the Greeks when the Old Testament was written. The first five books of the Old Testament, like the New Testament are historical narratives, you either believe it or you don't.Then what does it matter if I treat the Bible as a science book or not?
If it didn't happen, it didn't happen.
Recently someone posted a two-hour video of an atheist debating Kent Hovind.
The atheist started his rant describing the [human] authors of the Bible as 'ignorant.'
I disagree.
If you make a ratio of knowledge acquired to knowledge available, it's hard to call them "ignorant."
What the atheist was doing, was comparing knowledge acquired back then, with knowledge on hand now.
And that's not a fair comparison.
Let's see a scientist ... any scientist ... make a boomerang without the use of computers.
Just curious TLK, among the ancient Greeks, which ones would you identify as scientists? Aristotle perhaps? I assume you have read him.Since we know next to nothing about the true identities of the [human] authors of the Bible, it's hard to say exactly how much knowledge they had available to them.
Actually, it kind of is.
Considering that the boomerang far predates the invention of computers, I'd say your challenge has retroactively been accepted and passed.
Just curious TLK, among the ancient Greeks, which ones would you identify as scientists? Aristotle perhaps? I assume you have read him.
Again just curious, could you identify scientists (as you would define the term) other then Greeks from antiquity?How are we defining "scientist?"
Anyone who attempted to use what we now call "the scientific method" certainly technically qualifies; the ones who did so and achieved some notable result are the ones we tend to remember.
Yes, Aristotle fits the bill... as does Pythagoras, Archimedes, Euclid, Eratosthenes, Aristharchus, Hippocrates...
Again just curious, could you identify scientists (as you would define the term) other then Greeks from antiquity?
The same applies to your beliefs. When it looks as if God lied or one's interpretations of the Bible are wrong I would think that it would be wise to take another look at one's interpretations.I think they're wrong.
But their interpretations are in error.
They need to know when science has the upper hand.
Thanks TLK, I was just curious.How about Muslims from antiquity? Ibn Bassal, Jamshid al-Kashi, Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Ahmad Al-Biruni, Al-Zahrawi...
That is not how logic works. For example the Noah's Ark story falls apart when investigated. How small are you willing to make the Flood? Large floods, and I am talking about what would be a minuscule flood compared to the Biblical one, leave marks. All we can find are local floods. And that is not the only evidence that tells us that it did not happen. Biologically we would see massive evidence as well.aIf any part of scripture is correct, then I assume the story is 100% accurate as repeated by Noah. Once I assume one sentence is true, then assuming it all is true is a logical exercise.
Aristotle stunted the growth of science for two thousand years.Yes, Aristotle fits the bill...
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?