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.
None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.
@roman2819 said:
"There are three levels i based my faith on:"
And line item B was:
"B. The Scriptures which is backed up by history, archaeology, science and prophecies that have been fulfilled".
Meaning that part of his faith is based on historicity of scripture.
@Bungle_Bear said in response:
"B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.".
Meaning that, in his opinion, scripture was not supported in any significant way with relation to history or even archaeology. In response, I made post 1550, stating the following:
On point number 2, as far as I can tell, many scholars, if not most, who study the history of Christianity, recognize that locations in which Jesus was said to speak at, were real places. Many scholars, if not most, also recognize that Jesus was likely a real person as well.
Here is an example of a historian from 60CE who writes of Jesus as a real person:
Josephus - Wikipedia
He describes the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus (found only in the Slavonic version of the Jewish War).[47] Josephus represents an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia
It also references other figures of the New Testament as well.
"Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]"
The point of the above being that according to many scholars, the Bible is historically supported in significant ways relating to the life of Jesus and the resurrection, as well as Jesus's journey etc.
Today’s labour day holiday give me time to view the entire video, it is an informative and interesting findings, and even though I don’t have the technical knowledge to understand all the terms and implications, it is still possible to follow what he was getting what, ie the lecture material was not rocket sciene.
Some questions and my beliefs:
If evolution is happening on a large scale, then we should see many more fossil evidence of such in-between creatures. After T, if evolution continued, then we would see more fossils of amphibians-mammals on land. But we hardly see any. So far there are only bits and pieces, nothing conclusive. I cannot say findings support evolution because it is just one specie.
Second, I always maintain that a limited kind of changes is possible. Horses living on different terrain have different traits to adapt to the needs. There was a report of a giant insect almost two feet and there are many findings of giant mammoth skeletons. And there are even dinosaur skeletons in various continents. But All these could mean that there is a Creator who made them. It is also possible God made the T too.
In this thread, most evolutionists do not say how life begin . They try to explain how life evolve. But no one explain how life begins (though I notice a few deviations last month).
How life begins is still the fundamental question. If life starts by itself and change, it wouldn’t turn out so well, with millions of lifeforms so perfectly formed.
None of which supports the assertion being made, that the precise historical accuracy of the Bible--particularly with regard to the OT texts--is objectively demonstrable.
Overwhelming circumstantial evidences are the millions of likeforms, ecosystem and universe we see arond us. They pointed to a creatot if we don't deny such truth.
You were saying: People from different religions claim that their religion is special, and distinct from all others.
I do not see people of other religions sharing uch about thwir walk with their gods,, thats the difference
Many people around me has various religions and gods. Today I walk past the shop, and this guy displace images of mang gods at shop wingows: buddha, confucious (who never claimed to be god). chinese goddess of mercy , hindu gods etc He hopea to get all the help he can. From time to time, people mention their god but it is easy to see they are not convinced.
I looked for three levels of proof as i mentioned, not just a relationship based on feeling and secuirty. THere is Bible to back up exitence of Christian God.
Willing to die per se does not mean their god is true. They could be misled.
It is because we don't know. We do know with great certainty that evolution happens.In this thread, most evolutionists do not say how life begin . They try to explain how life evolve. But no one explain how life begins (though I notice a few deviations last month).
How are life forms so perfectly formed? How do you know if everything started by itself it would turn out differently?How life begins is still the fundamental question. If life starts by itself and change, it wouldn’t turn out so well, with millions of lifeforms so perfectly formed.
Most people will accept some of the supporting evidence for the history of the bible where there is good evidence. But just because one thing in the bible is correct does not mean that everything is correct. Each claim needs to be supported on its own.Yes, these places and people certainly exist without a doubt.
Why people ignore that history and archealogical confirmations add up to support the Bible, is something I dpn't understand.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.
But just because one thing in the bible is correct does not mean that everything is correct. Each claim needs to be supported on its own.
.... As far as I can make out, Evangelical Christianity is not based on faith in Christ, but on the objectively demonstrable accuracy of Scripture which compels acceptance of Christ.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that belief in God is purely an act of faith? There is nothing for a Christian to be ashamed of in that.
The conversation has not gone like that. It's been:By leaving out ice cream, the person isn't saying that I don't like ice cream, nor is the person claiming that it is all that I said.
Let's review.
Person A: I like cookies, ice cream and cake.
Person B: You said "I like cookies". You're crazy, cookies are horrible.
Person A: you're quote mining me! You left out ice cream and cake!
No, it doesn't work like that. The meaning of your quoted words "I like cookies" isn't altered by the removal of "ice cream".
Your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.And if you wrote three separate sentences: "I like ice cream.", " I like cake." and "I like cookies", your words would still hold the same meaning. It's just that using commas is common when listing individual subjects. So if I quote one of the three, that's not twisting anything, it's just an observation of your words as they truly are. You typed correctly by using good Grammer to combine multiple ideas into one sentence. But by breaking your sentence, the context is not changed, nor is the meaning of the words.
And what you thought in your independent mind, may have been of a different context than what you physically typed, but it isn't my personal mission to translate everyone's thoughts whenever they aren't clear with their words, and I'm not a mind reader. You could have simply chosen better words.
The conversation has not gone like that. It's been:
Topic - food person A likes.
Person A: I like cookies, ice cream, pasta and vegetables.
Person B: Your claim to only like chocolate cookies is ridiculous.
I know you can see how a) removing the ice cream, pasta and vegetables is pertinent in a conversation about food person A likes and b) making a claim that person A never made is a misrepresentation.
Your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.
I'll repeat myself one last time : your misunderstanding is obvious and noted.Let's go back to your original statement again:
B. I'll say the Scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history, archaeology, science and failed prophecies.
So if If I quoted you saying "scriptures are not supported in any meaningful way (and are often contradicted) by history"
My exclusion of archeology and prophecies doesn't change the meaning of the quoted statement. it is simply a reflection on that particular statement pertaining to history.
And it doesn't state anything nor suggest anything about these other topics nor does it need to. As the subject of my response was with respect to history.
This is not a quote mine it is simply a quote.
And remember that when you use commas youre listing independent subjects. And so it is fair game for a comment to examine those independent subjects listed with your commas.
And again, If you meant something more or beyond what you actually said, I am not a mind reader. when Christians speak of historical accounts and history in support of scripture, 99% of the time they're talking about The historicity of Jesus or the historical backing of jesus's journey or the crucifixion. And this is what was being referred to by Roman. Roman was not referring to historical support for Adam and Eve (for which there is none), he wasn't referring to historical evidence for the breaking of 5,000 loaves, and even when he mentioned archeology right after history he wasn't talking about archaeological evidence for miracles. he was talking about historical and archaeological evidence in support of scripture in regards to the historicity of Jesus. And obviously the question of if Jesus existed and if he was crucified is very meaningful and significant to the discussion of if Christianity is true. As a matter of fact we cannot even begin to discuss if Jesus conducted miracles without first asking the question of if he even existed.
Which means that meaningful historical evidence does in fact exist in support of scripture. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said.
And again, I am not at mind reader. I am sorry that you said something that you didn't literally mean and that I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I think that there's a difference between me removing context from your words, and you simply not clarifying on the context of your words to begin with. And your response to Roman didn't accurately reflect his statement. The context of your response was different than the context of his initial statement.
It would have been better to say that history doesn't provide scientifically objective support for scripture as it pertains to extraordinary claims. Rather than just making a broad and sweeping statement that history doesn't support scripture in any meaningful way.
Either way it appears that neither of us will admit fault to this and I think we both understand the positions that we each have so I'll leave this discussion to your closing statement.
I never said there was only one correct thing in the bible. My point was that just because something is correct in the bible does not mean something else is as well. All claims need to be supported on their own, especially the supernatural ones.You really think there is just one cotrect thing in the Bible? You will be surpised that are 100-1000x times more correct statements
This is a terribly wrong and terribly ignorant statement. There is endless evidence for evolution, for deep time. For all of the science that you do not understand.I click of couple of the 5 links you provided, and they led me to previous postings by yourself, you were answering questions from others, giving them your opinion and interpretations of things. There was NOTHING credible from you to try to provide explanation on how life begin.
So as I said, there is still no credible explanation about how life begins. No proof that eons of time ago, a tiny amoeba or cell or whatever started to breathe and very gradually transform to two, then 20, then the millions of diversities we see around us.
The reason I took almost 3 weeks to click on the links is I have other priorities and more importantly, I didn’t expect you to have good theories to offer – because this area is still very much at a work-in-progress stage among scientist and microbiologists, nothing conclusive, far from it.
It depends on what you mean by "support the Bible." There is no doubt that the Bible contains historical narratives about real people, places and events; some of it can be supported by archaeological findings as well. No scholar--religious or secular--would seriously dispute such an assertion. Even secular scholars regard biblical texts as important sources of historical information. If that is all you mean by "support the Bible" then of course you are correct. But it seems to me that you have made claims about the biblical texts which go well beyond that, claims which are not supported by history and archaeology.You made a sweeping claim .
Can you demontrate why hisory and archeology do not suppprt the Bible? I believe you are not saying taht hostorians and archeloists made false claims. But if you are, you imply that many of them are unreliable? what make your words better than theirs?
Why people ignore that history and archealogical confirmations add up to support the Bible, is something I dpn't understand.
What I meant was, that I have some suspicion that Evangelicals don't have faith in Christ, they have faith in their ideas about the Bible from which they deduce belief in Christ. Nothing you have said so far contradicts that suspicion.What you claimed sound new to me. I thought many people in this thread have said evangelical Christians exercise blind faith , that they don't know their scriptures is true or falso. I don't know if you say the same before.
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?