My Ignorant Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

According to you, which humans are "people" and wich humans are "animals"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

According to you, which humans are "people" and which humans are "animals"?

Adam and Eve were the first to be born of the Spirit.

 

[VirOptimus]

Adam and Eve were the first to be born of the Spirit.

I meant today.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What the atheist was doing, was comparing knowledge acquired back then, with knowledge on hand now.

And that's not a fair comparison.

Isn`t the Bible supposed to have some divine guidance going for it so knowledge should be available ?

Or are you alluding that God did not have anything to do with it and it was purely a human endeavour ?

If we agree that it was written purely by humans we can agree it is an unfair comparison. However if we tag any measure of divinity on the process I do not see it being unfair at all. God knows everything after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me what do you think of the Flat Earth believers?

I think they're wrong.

Their translations are accurate.

But their interpretations are in error.

They need to know when science has the upper hand.

 

[AV1611VET]

You dont understand what ”ignorant” means.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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."

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.

What the atheist was doing, was comparing knowledge acquired back then, with knowledge on hand now.

And that's not a fair comparison.

Actually, it kind of is.

Let's see a scientist ... any scientist ... make a boomerang without the use of computers.

Considering that the boomerang far predates the invention of computers, I'd say your challenge has retroactively been accepted and passed.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just curious TLK, among the ancient Greeks, which ones would you identify as scientists? Aristotle perhaps? I assume you have read him.

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...

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again just curious, could you identify scientists (as you would define the term) other then Greeks from antiquity?

How about Muslims from antiquity? Ibn Bassal, Jamshid al-Kashi, Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Ahmad Al-Biruni, Al-Zahrawi...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think they're wrong.

But their interpretations are in error.

They need to know when science has the upper hand.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

How about Muslims from antiquity? Ibn Bassal, Jamshid al-Kashi, Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Ahmad Al-Biruni, Al-Zahrawi...

Thanks TLK, I was just curious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 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.a

Exactly how small are you willing to make the Flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, Aristotle fits the bill...

Aristotle stunted the growth of science for two thousand years.