My theory on creation.

[Subduction Zone]

So where, in Genesis, does it say when the flood happened? Also, there's a lot of ways that the flood account can be interpreted. Some say it wasn't really a global flood, some say it was. I don't really care, God says it, in an authoritative way, and I believe it. That's faith. The earth is constantly changing.
The Geological Society

Wrong again, "God" does not say anything in the Bible. It is a work of man. And a link that you did not understand is not evidence for you. And the Bible says that the flood happened after man was here.

It is geological fact that the subcontinent of India collided with the Eurasian Continent and as they did so, helped the Himalayas form. So no, Everest wasn't always 5.5 miles tall. And it's probable that the deepest parts of the ocean weren't as deep as they are now. So all things considered, a worldwide flood is possible.

Did I say that Everest was always 5.5 miles high? I said that during man's time on this planet it was over 5 miles high. And we can tell from basic geology that at no time of the Earth's history was it totally underwater.

Your opinion, welcome to it.In other words, you see things your way, and I see things my way. You tend not to understand the nature of coming to a conclusion, be it right or wrong. You tend to stick to your conclusion, right or wrong.

Now you are bearing false witness against your neighbor by trying to claim that I have only "opinion". One of the reasons that I offer to help literalists to understand the nature of evidence is because of the sort of false claim that you just made.

My wife's love for me is faith based. I see her actions toward me and our home and interpret that as love. She could be doing it just to keep busy, though, no?

In other words you do have evidence that supports your beliefs. You simply do not know what "faith" is and you are ready to include thoughts that are not faith based along with faith based ideas. "Faith" is the last and worst reason to believe anything. Stalkers have faith that the object of their desire really loves them.

We have evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and Luke wrote Luke, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote independently of each other. We do not know for certain that Herod died in 4 BC. Flavius Josephus says he died in 1BC. A transcription error in 1544 moved it. It is also Josephus who misdated the census.
but once again, you're talking about how the world calculated the date, not an error in Scripture...

You need some strong evidence to support that claim. Apologist sites are not valid. And, no you have no evidence about who wrote the Gospels. You appear to be many years behind the times.

You do also realize that Luke's story about the census requiring a return to one's ancestral home was made up out of whole cloth and that he contradicted himself without even realizing it, don't you?

 

[bhsmte]

Whatever happened to the OP?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wrong again, "God" does not say anything in the Bible. It is a work of man. And a link that you did not understand is not evidence for you. And the Bible says that the flood happened after man was here.

Yeah, it does, and I'll take that over Subduction Zone's opinion. Who is to say there wasn't human life before the flood? Why must there be evidence for some things, like a flood, and yet you take on faith the theory of evolution and the Q source for Scripture?

Did I say that Everest was always 5.5 miles high? I said that during man's time on this planet it was over 5 miles high. And we can tell from basic geology that at no time of the Earth's history was it totally underwater.

No, that's what mankind's view of the evidence suggests, but as with global warming, mankind's view of the evidence doesn't necessarily make it true.

Now you are bearing false witness against your neighbor by trying to claim that I have only "opinion". One of the reasons that I offer to help literalists to understand the nature of evidence is because of the sort of false claim that you just made.

Well, first, I'm not a literalist, and second, any scientific theory is an opinion, scholarly or otherwise. The Bible doesn't offer opinions. It offers Truth.

In other words you do have evidence that supports your beliefs. You simply do not know what "faith" is and you are ready to include thoughts that are not faith based along with faith based ideas. "Faith" is the last and worst reason to believe anything. Stalkers have faith that the object of their desire really loves them.

This is a Christian forum, and thus faith plays a strong role. Faith is a belief in something you cannot touch. that's what love is, that's what belief in God is. If you want to reduce your being with only things you can feel or touch, then I feel sorry for you, for you cannot know love without it.

You need some strong evidence to support that claim. Apologist sites are not valid. And, no you have no evidence about who wrote the Gospels. You appear to be many years behind the times.

Actually, we have writings of those who learned from the Apostles themselves that proves it.

You do also realize that Luke's story about the census requiring a return to one's ancestral home was made up out of whole cloth and that he contradicted himself without even realizing it, don't you?

Actually, it wasn't. What you don't understand is that there are lots of things in the Gospels that are not literally true, yet are Truth. All of the parables are not literally true, yet are Truth. The Gospels were written for different reasons by different people-some never met Jesus himself. Luke experienced Jesus through the eyes of Paul and Mary. The point of Luke's statement is that in a certain place at a certain time, God became man.
BTW, God did speak in the person of Jesus. God also spoke the person of Jesus, and His love for Jesus begot the Holy Spirit.
Look, I don't care whether you agree with me or with the OP. I am only here because I don't believe the Bible contradicts science. Your geological evidence can only take you so far, and as far as it takes you, I can agree. I believe the Bible takes us further than your geological evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, it does, and I'll take that over Subduction Zone's opinion. Who is to say there wasn't human life before the flood? Why must there be evidence for some things, like a flood, and yet you take on faith the theory of evolution and the Q source for Scripture?

I can tell by your rudeness that the facts I have been relating to you are getting to you. And once more you are breaking the Ninth Commandment Not very "Christian" behavior on your part.

No, that's what mankind's view of the evidence suggests, but as with global warming, mankind's view of the evidence doesn't necessarily make it true.Well, first, I'm not a literalist, and second, any scientific theory is an opinion, scholarly or otherwise. The Bible doesn't offer opinions. It offers Truth.

Nope, the Bible is far from the Truth. I have already shown that. And you don't even know what an opinion is. If you want the truth you need to be honest yourself.

This is a Christian forum, and thus faith plays a strong role. Faith is a belief in something you cannot touch. that's what love is, that's what belief in God is. If you want to reduce your being with only things you can feel or touch, then I feel sorry for you, for you cannot know love without it.

This part of the forum is dedicated for real science. And, no, faith is not needed for love. You don't even seem to understand what faith is. But then you have to pretend that your beliefs are true and that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in a debate.

Actually, we have writings of those who learned from the Apostles themselves that proves it.

Nope, that does not "prove" anything. You use an amazingly lax definition of "proof" when the Bible is the topic and a ridiculous rigorous one when it comes to science. You need to be consistent in your application of definitions.

Actually, it wasn't. What you don't understand is that there are lots of things in the Gospels that are not literally true, yet are Truth. All of the parables are not literally true, yet are Truth. The Gospels were written for different reasons by different people-some never met Jesus himself. Luke experienced Jesus through the eyes of Paul and Mary. The point of Luke's statement is that in a certain place at a certain time, God became man.
BTW, God did speak in the person of Jesus. God also spoke the person of Jesus, and His love for Jesus begot the Holy Spirit.
Look, I don't care whether you agree with me or with the OP. I am only here because I don't believe the Bible contradicts science. Your geological evidence can only take you so far, and as far as it takes you, I can agree. I believe the Bible takes us further than your geological evidence.

Wow! That is some desperate double talk.

You do realize that none of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. Luke definitely was not. His nativity story was written so that it appeared that certain prophecies came true. How is that "Truth"?

 

[miknik5]

I can tell by your rudeness that the facts I have been relating to you are getting to you. And once more you are breaking the Ninth Commandment Not very "Christian" behavior on your part.



Nope, the Bible is far from the Truth. I have already shown that. And you don't even know what an opinion is. If you want the truth you need to be honest yourself.



This part of the forum is dedicated for real science. And, no, faith is not needed for love. You don't even seem to understand what faith is. But then you have to pretend that your beliefs are true and that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in a debate.



Nope, that does not "prove" anything. You use an amazingly lax definition of "proof" when the Bible is the topic and a ridiculous rigorous one when it comes to science. You need to be consistent in your application of definitions.



Wow! That is some desperate double talk.

You do realize that none of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. Luke definitely was not. His nativity story was written so that it appeared that certain prophecies came true. How is that "Truth"?

What do you mean none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts?

Exactly that. It is rather well known that none of them were written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

 

[Jimmy D]

What do you mean none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts?

They don't even pretend to be.

 

[lesliedellow]

What do you mean none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts?

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The phrases in bold clearly imply that Luke was not an eyewitness, even by his own account.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I can tell by your rudeness that the facts I have been relating to you are getting to you. And once more you are breaking the Ninth Commandment Not very "Christian" behavior on your part.

Well, your very idea that I'm being rude is very telling about your other opinions. Nor am I coveting your wife.

Nope, the Bible is far from the Truth. I have already shown that. And you don't even know what an opinion is. If you want the truth you need to be honest yourself.

I know that this is your opinion.

This part of the forum is dedicated for real science. And, no, faith is not needed for love. You don't even seem to understand what faith is. But then you have to pretend that your beliefs are true and that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in a debate.

So then, what verifiable data must there be to prove 'love'?

Nope, that does not "prove" anything. You use an amazingly lax definition of "proof" when the Bible is the topic and a ridiculous rigorous one when it comes to science. You need to be consistent in your application of definitions.

The Bible does not require proof, it is proof. So, no.

Wow! That is some desperate double talk.

You do realize that none of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts. Luke definitely was not. His nativity story was written so that it appeared that certain prophecies came true. How is that "Truth"?

You mean Luke wasn't there when Jesus was born??? No! Really??? Well, the eye witness was Mary, the mother of God. Luke had a close relationship with her. Matthew obviously had a source who was an eyewitness as well, to the birth of Jesus, too. As someone else asked, what do you consider 'eye-witness'?

 

[Root of Jesse]

They don't even pretend to be.

Exactly. They don't claim to be, at all. They are written according to those who were eyewitnesses, though.

What they are is the written down Tradition of the apostles, as requested by those who became believers. Those who became believers realized that those who walked with Jesus would die, and wanted to preserve their knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, your very idea that I'm being rude is very telling about your other opinions.

Once again, not opinion. When you go out of your way to remove spaces between lines it makes it harder to respond. That is being rude. I have done so here so you can see what you did. I appears that you use the word "opinion" when others have evidence of your false beliefs or bad behavior.

Nor am I coveting your wife.

And I forgot that you are Catholic and have a messed up order of the Commandments.

I know that this is your opinion.

In other words you have no response for the facts that I have presented. Now that I am getting to know you better I can recognize when you tacitly admit that you are wrong.

So then, what verifiable data must there be to prove 'love'?

You can't 'prove love'. You are making the mistake of treating an emotion that is supported by evidence with a mathematical concept. This is the sort of error that one without any training in logic would make.

The Bible does not require proof, it is proof. So, no.

Wrong again. Everything needs "proof". Again a word that you do not seem to understand. The Bible is just a man written book that is shown to be so by the countless errors in it. By the bad morals in it. By self contradictions in it.

You mean Luke wasn't there when Jesus was born??? No! Really??? Well, the eye witness was Mary, the mother of God. Luke had a close relationship with her. Matthew obviously had a source who was an eyewitness as well, to the birth of Jesus, too. As someone else asked, what do you consider 'eye-witness'?

How do you know that the author of Luke knew Mary? Now you are just making up nonsense that you can't support. Odds are that the author of Luke never met Mary since it is thought to have been written around the year 70 AD. And with an age in the high 80's Mary might not have been the most reliable "witness" even if she was alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. They don't claim to be, at all. They are written according to those who were eyewitnesses, though.

What?

What they are is the written down Tradition of the apostles, as requested by those who became believers. Those who became believers realized that those who walked with Jesus would die, and wanted to preserve their knowledge.

In your opinion. You do realize that there were quite a few different gospels, don't you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What?



In your opinion. You do realize that there were quite a few different gospels, don't you?

It's not opinion to those in authority. This proves exactly what I've been trying to say to you, but which I will not continue after this post. Authority to discern facts is important. Regarding most of the sciences, most of what we learn is theory, which by definition, is not fact. We assume, based on what we can see, what we believe to be fact. Often, though, assumptions are proven to be wrong.
This isn't necessarily true in things such as events. Witnesses saw, witnesses either wrote or told what they saw, and then it was written. Sometimes, witnesses see things that nobody else sees. Does that mean they didn't really see the event, or that it was made visible to them and not to others, maybe for a reason?
The fact is that there is only one Truth, and anything that seems to contradict it is wrong.
To answer your question about the gospels:
Yeah. Four. Others were false gospels. We know which ones were the true ones based on the same documents that tell us who wrote them, in what order, and provide context as to their meaning.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Once again, not opinion. When you go out of your way to remove spaces between lines it makes it harder to respond. That is being rude. I have done so here so you can see what you did. I appears that you use the word "opinion" when others have evidence of your false beliefs or bad behavior. And I forgot that you are Catholic and have a messed up order of the Commandments. In other words you have no response for the facts that I have presented. Now that I am getting to know you better I can recognize when you tacitly admit that you are wrong.You can't 'prove love'. You are making the mistake of treating an emotion that is supported by evidence with a mathematical concept. This is the sort of error that one without any training in logic would make.Wrong again. Everything needs "proof". Again a word that you do not seem to understand. The Bible is just a man written book that is shown to be so by the countless errors in it. By the bad morals in it. By self contradictions in it.How do you know that the author of Luke knew Mary? Now you are just making up nonsense that you can't support. Odds are that the author of Luke never met Mary since it is thought to have been written around the year 70 AD. And with an age in the high 80's Mary might not have been the most reliable "witness" even if she was alive.

I want to address your issue of rudeness. What's really rude is you trying to change people who have the courage of conviction. I'm not here trying to change you, just to explain my position. All I hear from you is, basically, 'you're just wrong.'
As for formatting, it appears something is wrong with the software. I keep putting quotes to separate what I'm responding to. I've never deleted anything you wrote.
Regarding love, you made my point. You can't prove love, but love exists. By the same token, other things can't be proven that do exist. I didn't, nor have I, tried to say that faith is, necessarily, logical. It may not be, though most of Catholicism is logical, taken as a whole.
The Bible, to me, is a book inspired by God, and proven to be Truth. Written by the hand of man, inspired by the love of God. The purpose of the 'bad morals' in the Bible is to show how being immoral affects one.
I can support what I've written, but it would take more than what you're willing to give to show it to you. Seems like my knowledge of Christian History is as deep as your knowledge of Geology, maybe? You're God is Geology, mine is Christ.
Questions: WHO thinks the gospel of Luke was written around 70 AD? "It is thought" doesn't necessarily fly. It's sort of like "my theory..."

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Loudmouth]

Regarding most of the sciences, most of what we learn is theory, which by definition, is not fact.

Facts by themselves don't tell us anything. The entire point of science is to construct theories that explain the facts, and to do so in a way that is testable and falsifiable. I really have to wonder why you object to the process of explaining how facts relate to one another.

We assume, based on what we can see, what we believe to be fact.

We don't assume facts. We observe facts. We then construct theories to explain those facts, and test those theories further when new facts come to light.

Often, though, assumptions are proven to be wrong.

The very fact that you think assumptions can be proven wrong means that you agree with the process of science. That is exactly what science is, testing theories using observations (i.e. facts).

Witnesses saw, witnesses either wrote or told what they saw, and then it was written. Sometimes, witnesses see things that nobody else sees. Does that mean they didn't really see the event, or that it was made visible to them and not to others, maybe for a reason?

Eyewitnesses can also lie, or falsely remember events that never happened. Authors can also make up stories that no eyewitness ever told them. Authors can also copy other gospels.

The fact is that there is only one Truth, and anything that seems to contradict it is wrong.

If you have the truth, then you wouldn't have to ignore facts that contradict it.

To answer your question about the gospels:
Yeah. Four. Others were false gospels. We know which ones were the true ones based on the same documents that tell us who wrote them, in what order, and provide context as to their meaning.

How does knowing who wrote them and in what order support the claim that the stories in the gospels are true?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Facts by themselves don't tell us anything. The entire point of science is to construct theories that explain the facts, and to do so in a way that is testable and falsifiable. I really have to wonder why you object to the process of explaining how facts relate to one another.

Right. Sort of like models as to where Hurricane Irma might go. The point is that they're seldom correct.
Science used to be where you tested x to see if you could get to y. What it is now is to postulate y and see if you can get there from x.

We don't assume facts. We observe facts. We then construct theories to explain those facts, and test those theories further when new facts come to light.

My bad. Again, theories are not facts, though.

The very fact that you think assumptions can be proven wrong means that you agree with the process of science. That is exactly what science is, testing theories using observations (i.e. facts).

You're exactly right, because science today works differently than it did classically. Facts are facts, theories and assumptions are opinions as to what the facts tell us.

Eyewitnesses can also lie, or falsely remember events that never happened. Authors can also make up stories that no eyewitness ever told them. Authors can also copy other gospels.

They can, but we know that they didn't because we have faith that Jesus said what he said and did, and that those around him related that. It's funny that you think Christianity is made up, yet people were offered a choice to live prosperously or die because of what they believed. Most never apostasized, and died. Most people will not give up their lives for a lie.

If you have the truth, then you wouldn't have to ignore facts that contradict it.

I don't ignore the facts, I just disagree with your conclusions from those facts.

How does knowing who wrote them and in what order support the claim that the stories in the gospels are true?

How does knowing Dan Brown and his agenda support that his books are pure, made-up fiction?

 

[Loudmouth]

Right. Sort of like models as to where Hurricane Irma might go. The point is that they're seldom correct.

Once again you confirm that science works. We can test theories using facts.

Science used to be where you tested x to see if you could get to y. What it is now is to postulate y and see if you can get there from x.

Examples?

My bad. Again, theories are not facts, though.You're exactly right, because science today works differently than it did classically.

How so?

Facts are facts, theories and assumptions are opinions as to what the facts tell us.

That is false. Opinions are subjective. Theories are objective and testable.

They can, but we know that they didn't because we have faith that Jesus said what he said and did, and that those around him related that.

If I have faith that the Harry Potter books are real history, then can I say that we know they are true?

It's funny that you think Christianity is made up, yet people were offered a choice to live prosperously or die because of what they believed.

The same applies to believers of other faiths which you probably think are made up. The Mormons are a good example.

I don't ignore the facts, I just disagree with your conclusions from those facts.

Can you justify your disagreement with facts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not opinion to those in authority. This proves exactly what I've been trying to say to you, but which I will not continue after this post. Authority to discern facts is important. Regarding most of the sciences, most of what we learn is theory, which by definition, is not fact. We assume, based on what we can see, what we believe to be fact. Often, though, assumptions are proven to be wrong.

You clearly lack that ability. Your viewpoint is far too biased for you to arrive a the truth. And I see that you do not understand what a theory is either. In the world of science theories explain facts. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Theories also enable scientists to test facts.

This isn't necessarily true in things such as events. Witnesses saw, witnesses either wrote or told what they saw, and then it was written. Sometimes, witnesses see things that nobody else sees. Does that mean they didn't really see the event, or that it was made visible to them and not to others, maybe for a reason?

Perhaps they did and perhaps they did not. There is no reason at all to assume that the gospels were eyewitness accounts and quite a few reasons to doubt them. Eye witnesses are the worst sort of evidence that one can have in a trial. It has been shown to be unreliable. People will often think that they saw something that never happened.

The fact is that there is only one Truth, and anything that seems to contradict it is wrong.
To answer your question about the gospels:
Yeah. Four. Others were false gospels. We know which ones were the true ones based on the same documents that tell us who wrote them, in what order, and provide context as to their meaning.

Sorry but those "documents" are lacking. That is why serious biblical scholars do not think that the gospels were written by the people that they are traditionally ascribed to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to address your issue of rudeness. What's really rude is you trying to change people who have the courage of conviction. I'm not here trying to change you, just to explain my position. All I hear from you is, basically, 'you're just wrong.'
As for formatting, it appears something is wrong with the software. I keep putting quotes to separate what I'm responding to. I've never deleted anything you wrote.

You can "explain" your position. You will still be wrong And no matter how much you protest you know that you were rude.

Regarding love, you made my point. You can't prove love, but love exists. By the same token, other things can't be proven that do exist. I didn't, nor have I, tried to say that faith is, necessarily, logical. It may not be, though most of Catholicism is logical, taken as a whole.

Holy cow! The explanation went right over your head. You are now guilty of ignoring a clear explanation and you are making an equivocation fallacy. You are using different definitions of "faith". Faith of the sort that leads you to believe the Bible is not the same sort of "faith" that leads you to conclude that someone loves you. The second is evidence based, the former is not.

The Bible, to me, is a book inspired by God, and proven to be Truth. Written by the hand of man, inspired by the love of God. The purpose of the 'bad morals' in the Bible is to show how being immoral affects one.

Yet you hide your head in the sand when the Bible is shown to be wrong. It is not proven. It is not even close.

I can support what I've written, but it would take more than what you're willing to give to show it to you. Seems like my knowledge of Christian History is as deep as your knowledge of Geology, maybe? You're God is Geology, mine is Christ.

I doubt that. Many Catholics have a very one dimensional knowledge of Christian history. They won't allow themselves to see that flaws in the Bible so their understanding is limited.

Questions: WHO thinks the gospel of Luke was written around 70 AD? "It is thought" doesn't necessarily fly. It's sort of like "my theory..."

That is about as early as scholars think that it was written. Most actually think it was written in the 80's or 90's:

The Dating of the Gospels

All you will find that support our claim are apologists, and they are about the worst sources possible.