My two favorite arguments for creation

[w81minit]

But we can find mechanisms by which life can form and diversify, without the presence of an intelligent designer.

Just an innocent bystander asking a question: What would the purpose of getting a designer out of the process be?

w81minit

 

[Dexx]

I'll take you up on predictive nature of the Bible.

Please present your opening argument.

I have read some convincing material regarding the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Some of the prophecies in Daniel refer to Alexander the Great, his conquest, and the division of his empire into four following his death. There are also specific prophecies pertaining to Egypt and Rome.

Has anyone read any convincing arguments against Daniel being written during the Babylonian exile?

 

[Tachocline]

Just an innocent bystander asking a question: What would the purpose of getting a designer out of the process be?

w81minit

Because any theory that maintains a supernatural element cannot be of any use for further study. It's a case of putting your hands up and quitting.

 

[w81minit]

The inevitable problem is that eventually the arguement falls back on faith.
I.E The rabbit does no chew cud (Lev 11.6) But one can argue this is a mistranslation, or a misunderstanding or even if neccesary a metaphor.

If the gospels claim that Christs last words were different (Luke 23:46 or John 19.30) then one could argue that Christ said both, or that the writers heard a different part, or both but only mentioned one.

The same is true in the oppoisite direction too. I find that the skeptic annotated bible often stretches the text to try and find a contradiction where the isn't an obvious one.

If one is willing to hypothisize and extend then all contradtictions can be explained in some manner.

For example: 1 + 1 = 4 and all sheep are green.
This is innerant, so long as you accept that 1 refers to one unit of two, sheep is a metaphor for people who are easily led and green refers to naivity.

Anything can be inerrant is you approach it that way. The question is, why should we approach the Bible as being inerrant?
Is it an important spiritual text? Yes.
Is it the foundation text for a widespread religion? Yes.

But there are many other texts that fit this description.
If you claim that the Bible is more true or more holy and that the others a false, what is your criteria for this? If you cite it's innerancy then you have fallen back into the circular logic trap.

The Bible cannot be used as a means of proving the merits of the Bible.
Personally, I believe it is an accumulated text of stories and myths, some based on reality, some not. The stories are changed and accumulated over millenia, cut and changed by the beliefs of those who copy them, who disturute them. Altered to fit the agenda's of those who believed that they were holy.
It has some good morals. It has some bad morals. It gets some things correct and make some mistakes.
I do not believe that it is a testament to the nature of God.
But it is certainly an interesting testament to the nature of man.

Ryal Kane

Spoken like a true truth seeker. Pardon my interruption. Here would be my stab at what is important in this matter (again I did apologize) - Regardless of whether you believe the Bible to be infallible (sp?) the truth is that men who knew Christ more closely than any others died for their strict belief in his risen state and his claim on heaven and earth as God and Creator. It is their eye witness testimony that comprises much of the scripture we now understand - and sheds light on the old testiment written by Moses and the Prophets.
It is that truth that guides us yet today - for all believers - that Christ is risen, that he alone has conquered sin and death, thereby filling the breach between God and man.
Many moons after you and I are worm food the debate on the infalibility of the scripture may rage on, but the position of Christ is as it will be: iminently clear.

 

[Tachocline]

It is their eye witness testimony that comprises much of the scripture we now understand - and sheds light on the old testiment written by Moses and the Prophets..

There is no eyewitness testimony despite the wishes of Conservative Theologians.

 

[w81minit]

Here are a few of the contradictions we find within the text itself. While there are some "work-arounds" for some of these if you are willing to twist things around, but for some it is simply impossible. Since both can't be true, there is an error somewhere.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

AND

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.



GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

AND

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[man first v. animals first]

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

AND

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

[seven or two?]



Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

AND
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."



Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

AND

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."



II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

AND

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;



God CAN be seen:

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)



"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

AND

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

[Judas’ death]



"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

AND

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)



ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

AND

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

[the reason for the name "field of blood"]



PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

AND

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.



SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

AND

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:



KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

AND

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.



ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

AND

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.



MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

AND

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

[was there one angel or two?]

When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

OR

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

color of the robe put on Jesus during His trial:

scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple - John 19:2

A few at a time to digest and not go on forever:

Point One: The geneologies are rendered in several ways, directly and according to progenerature. In both instances both Joseph and Mary were decendants of David. There are also recordings of children that were not born of the true mother, but were counted as her children because she reared them. Read Genesis account of Isaac and Rebecca and the odd wife out.

Point two: To reverse the order in summary is not a contradiction. It is common in the OT to hear repetition for emphasis, and order for emphasis. This is not a contradiction so much as it is a distinction between the two classes of creation. Man vs. everything else.

Point three: I wasn't there and I have seen this question before - If they entered the ark in rows how would you describe it? Or rather if God called for seven of the clean but the description served better for the unclean what is that to make it an error? Minor - not at all what I would consider a contradiction.

Point four: I would want to be sure these are the parallel verses, but even so it would be an obvious advantage to be above the people who were on a lower or the same level lower. I would tend to believe that is what happened. If the teaching began in one place and continued to another it could be explained. I still don't see a true contradiction here.

Point five: He did both one was emphasized in one gospel the other in the other. In any conversation or monologue the reporter determines what to use as a snippet. That two men chose different things is no contradiction.

Point six: That is a good one. OTTOMH I do not have a direct answer other than to say if you have read or studied the Old Testiment there are a lot of references to 7s and 3s. That there could be confusion or a reasonable explanation I am uncertain. Doesn't change the meaning of the scripture however. David chose to be in God's hand, because he trusted God above man.

The rest another time.

Nicely done. I appreciate the homework.

 

[w81minit]

There is no eyewitness testimony despite the wishes of Conservative Theologians.

Well I guess that clears that up. Hmmmm.....

Ohmygosh! There is no evidence of the existence of eye witness testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. My faith is a sham.

I need a lottery ticket, some skittles, and a large orange drink.

 

[w81minit]

Because any theory that maintains a supernatural element cannot be of any use for further study. It's a case of putting your hands up and quitting.

So you must leave out altogether the possibility of divine intervention in your study of Evolution so as to validate it?

 

[Brahe]

Well I guess that clears that up. Hmmmm.....

Your sarcasm aside, it does indeed clear it up. I'm sorry, but if there is no evidence to support your position, then I think we can all agree that it is unreasonable to hold your position unless supporting evidence comes along.

 

[Tachocline]

One can argue that positing a Divine intervention is an added structure that is not required until needed. So far it has not been needed. That is not the same as your paraphrasing of what I typed.

 

[Tachocline]

Well I guess that clears that up. Hmmmm.....

where do I sign up to smoke your brand?

And there is no God and the devil was made up too.

When we die there is only nothing. Grab all you can - because when you punch out you go empty handed!

I am normally much more patient

Your sarcasm is duly noted, however the fact remains that aside from diehard Conservative theologians the academic historians & archeologists do not accept that the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses and hence they are anecdotal at best.

 

[Brahe]

So you must leave out altogether the possibility of divine intervention in your study of Evolution so as to validate it?

No scientific theory includes gods, w81minit. If one were to toss in ad hoc divine intervention, then no idea would be disproven and we'd still be left in a geocentric solar system. After all, maybe the planets really do orbit the Earth, but God intervenes to make it look differently! And maybe the Earth really was created last Thursday, but God intervened to make it look billions of years old! Or hey, maybe I really do have a rocket car, but God makes it look like a Nissan Sentra through divine intervention!

 

[w81minit]

Your sarcasm aside, it does indeed clear it up. I'm sorry, but if there is no evidence to support your position, then I think we can all agree that it is unreasonable to hold your position unless supporting evidence comes along.

Not to get too far into this for now - I will return later.
On what basis can the claim be supported that there is no evidence of eye witness testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?
Maybe I am a newcomer.
You very matter of factly swept aside centuries of accepted dogmatic truth based on fact.
Where is your evidence?

 

[Tachocline]

The basis that the Gospels date from too late a time period.

 

[w81minit]

No scientific theory includes gods, w81minit. If one were to toss in ad hoc divine intervention, then no idea would be disproven and we'd still be left in a geocentric solar system. After all, maybe the planets really do orbit the Earth, but God intervenes to make it look differently! And maybe the Earth really was created last Thursday, but God intervened to make it look billions of years old! Or hey, maybe I really do have a rocket car, but God makes it look like a Nissan Sentra through divine intervention!

You're taking quite an attitude with someone who was an innocent bystander asking a question to gain understanding.

Is it that important to you to make yourself feel better at the expense of costic responses to people seeking to understand what someone believes?

 

[w81minit]

The basis that the Gospels date from too late a time period.

So because someone writes after an event - that rules out eye witness accounts?

Does that also mean that because a World War II book was written last year that there could in no way be eye witness testimony?

 

[gluadys]

I have read some convincing material regarding the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Some of the prophecies in Daniel refer to Alexander the Great, his conquest, and the division of his empire into four following his death. There are also specific prophecies pertaining to Egypt and Rome.

Has anyone read any convincing arguments against Daniel being written during the Babylonian exile?

I've read some pretty convincing arguments that Daniel was written during the Seleucid oppression of the Jews in the second century BCE and contains very little prophecy, if by that you mean foretelling the future. The second half is mostly an apocalyptic description of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The first half recounts episodes in the life of Daniel and his companions which are carefully selected to match the oppressions AE was visiting on the Jews, and to encourage them to resist as Daniel, et al had.

 

[pureone]

So because someone writes after an event - that rules out eye witness accounts?

Does that also mean that because a World War II book was written last year that there could in no way be eye witness testimony?

no, but if someone writes a gospel 70 years after the crucifixion and the average life span was~ 40 years (+ or -), then we get some long lived eyewitnesses.

 

[troymartin]

Why don't we all just agree to disagree..

No-one can be proved right or wrong, the attitude should be tolerance of other beliefs.

Any arguments that take place should be in good spirit with no intent to disprove but to discuss.

This is a christian site so it is innapropriate for this sort of squabling.

 

[Nathan David]

On what basis can the claim be supported that there is no evidence of eye witness testimony to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?

The lack of any eyewitness accounts. The Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts.

An eyewitness account of the life of Christ, written during the time he was alive, would be a huge historical find. No one has found anything like that.