Taking Questions on Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's actually been shown that counting ice layers is as scientific as putting your ear to the ground to guess how many soldiers are marching into battle. Several layers are known to be laid down within one year as a result of ice storms. Also the deeper you go down in the cores the more the counting becomes guessing rather than actual counting due to one layer becoming less and less distinguishable from the other.


Considering they don't count layers by "storms" I'd chalk this up to an empty claim from someone who has no idea how ice core dating works.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Who he knew would become Satan...not sure how that changes anything.
Did you ever see a son raised right, in the way he should go,
and live right before all men , up until he was say 30 years old,
then
turn to the dark side, and destroy all that his father had built,
and rebel against his father, and violate moral and civil laws throughout the land,
and murder 37 people in cold blood ?
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Did you ever see a son raised right, in the way he should go,
and live right before all men , up until he was say 30 years old,
then
turn to the dark side, and destroy all that his father had built,
and rebel against his father, and violate moral and civil laws throughout the land,
and murder 37 people in cold blood ?

This is relevant how? Humans don't create universes, with foreknowledge, exactly the way they want them to pan out...
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's not hard to understand. Most of us have been around creationists long enough to be familiar with that interpretation. What's hard is for you to convince us that it is the only possible interpretation.

I fear that those who have trouble here do so because they want to. The original books didn't have chapter divisions so there was no chapter one and then chapter two. There was only one parchment containing the entire book. It would have read like this:
...And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being... (Genesis 1:29 - 2:7)​
We can see how the story flows from giving us the basic creation order to going back and giving us an enlarged look at what God did on the day He created man. Its very well written and very easy to comprehend.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I don't have to look at your post, I have actually studied the evidence for Christ for many years and found it beyond any question. There are so many extra biblical references to Jesus Christ that we could piece together His entire life death and resurrection without ever opening the Bible. People such as Cornelius Tacitus "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome (55-120 AD), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), Flavius Josephus court historian for Emperor Vespasian (37-97 AD), Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, Emporer Hadrian in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul (117-138 AD), Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing from prison to his son (around 70 AD), Clement elder of Rome in a letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD), and many others.

We can also trust the Gospel accounts themselves. The sheer number of copies that come to us from all over the region which all date to within that first and second century when these events are claimed to have taken place. Had the claims been about a made up Jesus that never existed there would have been someone leaving a record as such. However not one such contemporary rebuttal to the claims of the Gospels exists.

There is the writings of Papias Hierapolis (125 AD) which confirms the authorship of the Gospels by the Apostles of Christ. Likewise Irenaeus of Lyons (180 AD) confirms the authorship. Even in your own post you admit to the authorship of Mark and hold to the liberal view of it being written in 70 AD. Most of the liberal scholars are forced to at least date Matthew and Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's. But look, even if we accepted those dates, that's still well within the lifetime of various eyewitnesses to the time of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around, yet as I said there are none. This tells us it was just not ever in dispute.

These late dates for the gospels really aren't all that late when you consider other ancient texts that historians regard as generally trust worthy. For example two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians have no issues with them being trust worthy.

However there is reason to believe that the gospels were written down much earlier than the liberal scholars say. The book of Acts which was written by Luke, documents the ministry of Paul. However it ends without telling about his execution. Had it been written after his execution it certainly would have accounted it. We know that this event took place around A.D. 62 so the writing of Acts had to have ended before 62 when Paul was executed.

Also consider the fact that in 70 A.D. the Temple was destroyed just as Jesus had predicted, yet there is no mention of that in the text either. A Christian author writing after this would have certainly been excited to promote this fulfilled prophecy. The fact that it’s not there demonstrates it certainly was written in the sixty’s. Having established that, we can move backwards from there. Since Acts is the second of a two part work, Luke being the first part, then Luke must have been written earlier than that. Since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means that Mark is even earlier. If you allow a year or two for each of these gospels to be written, you wind up with Mark being written in the 50's and not later than A.D. 60. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or 33 then we are talking about a maximum gap of less than 25 years. Compared with Alexander the Great, that's like a news flash.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did Adam and Eve know good and evil before eating from the three of knowledge of good and evil?
Yes.

Adam & Eve were created having maturity without history.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't have to look at your post, I have actually studied the evidence for Christ for many years and found it beyond any question. There are so many extra biblical references to Jesus Christ that we could piece together His entire life death and resurrection without ever opening the Bible. People such as Cornelius Tacitus "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome (55-120 AD), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), Flavius Josephus court historian for Emperor Vespasian (37-97 AD), Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, Emporer Hadrian in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul (117-138 AD), Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing from prison to his son (around 70 AD), Clement elder of Rome in a letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD), and many others.

We can also trust the Gospel accounts themselves. The sheer number of copies that come to us from all over the region which all date to within that first and second century when these events are claimed to have taken place. Had the claims been about a made up Jesus that never existed there would have been someone leaving a record as such. However not one such contemporary rebuttal to the claims of the Gospels exists.

There is the writings of Papias Hierapolis (125 AD) which confirms the authorship of the Gospels by the Apostles of Christ. Likewise Irenaeus of Lyons (180 AD) confirms the authorship. Even in your own post you admit to the authorship of Mark and hold to the liberal view of it being written in 70 AD. Most of the liberal scholars are forced to at least date Matthew and Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's. But look, even if we accepted those dates, that's still well within the lifetime of various eyewitnesses to the time of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around, yet as I said there are none. This tells us it was just not ever in dispute.

These late dates for the gospels really aren't all that late when you consider other ancient texts that historians regard as generally trust worthy. For example two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians have no issues with them being trust worthy.

However there is reason to believe that the gospels were written down much earlier than the liberal scholars say. The book of Acts which was written by Luke, documents the ministry of Paul. However it ends without telling about his execution. Had it been written after his execution it certainly would have accounted it. We know that this event took place around A.D. 62 so the writing of Acts had to have ended before 62 when Paul was executed.

Also consider the fact that in 70 A.D. the Temple was destroyed just as Jesus had predicted, yet there is no mention of that in the text either. A Christian author writing after this would have certainly been excited to promote this fulfilled prophecy. The fact that it’s not there demonstrates it certainly was written in the sixty’s. Having established that, we can move backwards from there. Since Acts is the second of a two part work, Luke being the first part, then Luke must have been written earlier than that. Since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means that Mark is even earlier. If you allow a year or two for each of these gospels to be written, you wind up with Mark being written in the 50's and not later than A.D. 60. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30 or 33 then we are talking about a maximum gap of less than 25 years. Compared with Alexander the Great, that's like a news flash.

Oh dear. I wish I had time for this Gish Gallop. I, too, have studied the "evidence" for Christ for many years, and find them not nearly as strong as do you. But there are a few whoppers of exaggeration in your post I'd like to point out:

1. "There are so many extra biblical references to Jesus Christ that we could piece together His entire life death and resurrection without ever opening the Bible."

Utterly false. For example, name ONE source which establishes, say, the temptation of Christ by Satan. Or even the first 12 years of his life (I'll even let you use the gospels for that one). In addition, all we do find is repetition of what Christians said when THEY opened the Bible, or repetition of the Bible itself. There is absolutely nothing about Christ's life from any source that can be found without SOMEBODY opening the Bible.

2. "The sheer number of copies that come to us from all over the region which all date to within that first and second century when these events are claimed to have taken place. "

This is a lie (not saying you are lying, just that whoever told you this is). There are ZERO copies which date to the first century, and the VAST majority of copies date from several centuries later. We have no copies of complete books before the year 200. A whole New Testament is not found until 400 (granted, the NT was not canonized until the early 4th century). MOST manuscripts are from the 9th and 10th centuries or later.

3. "There is the writings of Papias Hierapolis (125 AD) which confirms the authorship of the Gospels by the Apostles of Christ."

The gospels were not written by the Apostles. Heck, even Luke specifically states he was not an eyewitness. It's not just liberal scholars who deny apostolic authorship, it is the consensus of New Testament scholarship. Are there fringe scholars who claim the opposite? Yes, of course. But by and large, it is well understood that the authors of the gospels were not written by those for whom they are named.

4."... including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around, yet as I said there are none."

How can you say that they WOULD HAVE written corrective documents, when THE most important historian of that time, Philo-Judaeus, who lived the entire lifetime, and more, of Jesus, says absolutely nothing about Jesus? If you can say hostile witnesses WOULD HAVE written something, I can say Philo-Judaeus WOULD HAVE written something, ANYTHING about Jesus. He gives no commentary whatsoever, pro or con. If you want to go absence of evidence, there is no bigger omission.

5. "For example two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians have no issues with them being trust worthy."

Actually, there is ALWAYS issues with trustworthiness of ancient texts. Christians like to claim that other ancient works are just taken at face value, while the gospels are unduly interrogated. First of all, this is an exaggeration. The works of all ancient texts are scrutinized and with skepticism. Secondly, OF COURSE claims of magical events are going to be questioned. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's just common sense.

There is so much more wrong with your post, but I've spent all the time I'm going to spend on it for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, so why was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil a problem then, if they already knew good from evil?
Because knowing good from evil isn't a guarantee that you'll always choose good.

Just ask any alcoholic.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes.

Adam & Eve were created having maturity without history.

They got a moral education without the hassle of actually learning?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
They were created mature without history.

Yes, you said that already. I'm asking if that "maturity" included an embedded education.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did Adam and Eve know good and evil before eating from the three of knowledge of good and evil?

The Bible doesn't say, exactly, but it implies that they did just not in the sense of experience. When the Bible says to "know" something it means in the sense of experience. Many places it will say something to the effect of, So and so didn't "know" his wife before he died...etc. Obviously Adam and Eve had mental understanding that to die was an evil thing, and also to disobey God was an evil thing. In 2:17 God warned the Adam that if he eats of the tree he will die. He obviously must have understood that this was something bad or evil. In 3:5 Satan capitalized on this and implied that Adam and Eve's eyes were not open to good and evil, but just because he said they weren't doesn't mean they had no understanding of it at all. It only means they had not yet experienced the sting of it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.