Weather during the Global Flood

[night2day]

Exactly the point I was making: What they found was not in dispute with the Scriptures. But it was in dispute with the way Scriptures were INTERPRETED.

Genesis 6
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of : The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons'wives with thee.

In short, God declares he will destroy the earth and all thereon, how. and why. Yet, one family who had remained faithful; Noah, his wife, their sons and their wifes will be spared. He also gives exact extructions on just how this massive ark will be built.

Genesis 7
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah' life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Not only was there massive flooding due to rain, but to massive earthquakes and upheavels. The Tsunumi which devestated Asia this past December was nothing compared to the Genesis flood. And ironically, scientists in NASA who are studying photos beamed back by their satellites and probes who make hypothesis and assertions that planets like Mars, and various other planets in our solor system, were probably covered in water. Yet, those same would vehimently deny such a thing ever occured on earth.


16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.**
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. **

(**15 cubits are = 20 feet)

20 feet above all the mountains. 20 feet. Anyone willing guess just how much water that is?

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land , died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive , and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Pretty stressful about everyone and everything which was on land and air except what was within the ark died isn't it?

Chapter 8
1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

After the water receeded enough, the ark finally landed on Ararat. Just how tall is Ararat anyway?

It just seems soooo difficult to get some people to see that the "Global Flood" is not actually what The Bible says, but that it their interpretation of what The Bible says.

Cop-out. The Bible stands on it's own accord by it's own authority because of the authority God Himself gave of it as it's Author. The Bible defines and interprets itself.

Saying anything else is simply an excuse to take the Bible and make it whatever one wills and toss out the rest.

In the end, it's either faith in what God says and has declared, or unbelief and defining ones truth to one's own personal preferance.

 

[gluadys]

There are 12 pagan sources that record a man named Jesus. They refer to Him as Christos, which is a transliteration of Christ in Greek. They state how He was crucified and how the followers of Christos are preaching and dying for Him.

And every one of them relies on the hearsay testimony of Christians who were not there to see Christ crucified, but were only repeating what they had heard from others. Now if one of them had recorded Paul's testimony before Festus and Agrippa, you would have a case.

There is no reason for these pagan historians to lie about Jesus being crucified. They don't mention much about Him, just that He lived and was killed by the Romans.

There are always those who will deny such historical records.

There is no need for them to lie, nor is there any need to deny the records. The pagans who made those records did not know whether Jesus existed or was crucified. They only knew that this is what Christians claimed. And that is what they actually say---that this is what they heard from Christians--not that they had verified this as a fact.

You cannot even confirm that the global flood is false.

Geologists have confirmed that there is no evidence of a global flood.

God brought the flood waters in, and He took them out, according to Genesis. If it was God's will to remove this evidence of this supernatural event, who are you or anyone to judge Him for it?

Now you are making the same point I was making. The only way there could have been a global flood, consistent with the evidence, was for God to miraculously remove the evidence. And if you re-read my earlier posts on the subject you will see this involves much more than removing the water.


My first point is that if God removed the evidence, you can not come back and say there is evidence of a global flood. No referring to the Grand Canyon or polystrate trees or any other supposed remnant of the flood. None of that is evidence of the flood, because God removed all evidence of this global flood.

My second point is that if God did remove the evidence, no blame can attach to scientists for not finding any. They are seeing correctly what God intends them to see and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence he re-made to replace the evidence he removed.

My final point is that I don't believe the God revealed in scripture is a God who would remove the evidence. Hence I believe the geological evidence has not been doctored, and must be taken for what it shows. There was no global flood.

All you can do say you don't believe or trust the Biblical account to be how it is written, historical.

Right. I have no reason to believe that it was written as history or should be understood as history.

 

[gluadys]

Liar simply means, one who lies. It does not define it as intentional or not. If you say someone is lying, then you are saying they are a liar.


Incorrect. A liar is one who doesn't tell the truth, either intentionally or unintentionally. A false teacher teaches teachings that are against Biblical teachings.

I disagree with your definition.

But at least I know now why you have drawn the conclusions you have.

 

[night2day]

...her word was "lie". And yes, that creation science is valid is a lie ... A liar is one who deliberately spreads untruths. Not once did Gluadys say that night2day was deliberately spreading untruths. She said very specifically that she believed night2day to be speaking untruths only in ignorance, which does not make her a liar.

Actually she did. And she has repeatedly told me to "stop lying". Just as it was said whether or nor I did so in ignorance was lying regardless.

Stating I am spreading lies in ignorance is insulting to the intelligence in the extreme and dismissing me as little more than a "poor simpleton" who merely needs to have the proper instruction within the evolutionist and secular worldview. I suppose it never occured to you the evolutionist and secular worldview is all they teach regarding life science and the origins within the public school systems as well as state run universaties.

I would greatly appreciate it if my character and intelligence wouldn't be belittled for the sake of avoiding topics at hand at my expense,

Since I'm already responding...

...the Bible doesn't say there was a global flood, as has been repeatedly pointed out...

See my previous post.

...As for the "Holy Spirit", who are you to say that theistic evolutionists aren't led by the Holy Spirit?

Scripture itself.

I do believe night2day has been deceived, as I believe all young-earth creationists have been. And so yes, I am challenging her teachings, as the Bible specifically instructs me to do, because I know for a fact that false teaching lead us away from God. And whether you like it or not, Critias, your "Bible-based" doctrines are doing precisely that.

You and others as of yet to go throughout the Genesis flood narritive and indicate what within the literary context is there indication there was no flood, but the whole story was a myth. And that the references within both Testaments of the account mean far differntly than what is say. Or how even Noah and his son wound up within Jesus' geneology from Mary's side of the family.

...the Bible teaches a local flood. It's just that you require a global flood to explain why the remains of billions of dead creatures are buried in stratified rock, because if you can't, your presumptuous interpretation of Genesis as a factual, historical account would fall over.

Again, see previous post.

Also, how can Genesis be said it is stating itself to be a local flood when it is constantly referring to all flesh, all who breath, all dead save for one family and the animals brought with them on the ark?

Does the word "all" actually mean something else other than "all"? Or is it the thought of God's judgment on the world so terrifying that it would have to be denied? What does that mean then when Jesus returns come judgment and the earth is to perish not in water but by fire?

I believe the Holy Bible in its entirety. You just believe I do not because I don't agree with your interpretation of it.

Cop-out. Variations on "That's just your interpretation" really should get more creative. It's amazing how many people forget that as the Author, God has His own interpretation and His is the only one that counts.

You just dogmatically state young-earth creationism is the truth, simply rejecting any evidence that contradicts you on the selfish assumption that the Holy Spirit "inspired" you...

The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures. He works through the Holy Scriptures. Tell me, when relying on various areas of science which base itself on the evolutionary mold...just who is being believed and relyed on? Man's interpretation of any evidence or supposed evidence as a personal need for proof? Or relying on God and His word, even though we don't always understand it...yet allow it to remain regardless.

You aren't relying on the Creator. You are relying your own interpretation of the Bible.

So, are you saying you do not rely on the Old and New Testaments, written by men, yet Authored soley by God? Even though they were indeed Authored by God?

That...makes very little sense.

 

[gluadys]

Just that except for the name of the characters and other details, they were the same. Does this mean your saying if "Gilgimesh" did copyright his story of the flood he could outright sue Moses for plagerism?

No more than Marlowe could sue Goethe for plagiarism for retelling the story of Faust. They are the same story, but Marlowe's telling of it and Goethe's telling of it are different, each an original.

Same with the biblical and Sumerian accounts of the flood, except that the biblical story shows more echoes of the Sumerian account than Goethe's story of Faust shows of Marlowe's.

A closer analogy would be West Side Story as a retelling of Romeo and Juliet. These are not only the same story, but Rodgers and Hammerstein deliberately imitated Shakespeare, scene by scene. Yet you would never call them plagiarists.

The fact there are various accounts of a catastrophic flood could very well stand as evidence future civilizations acknowledged God's handiwork ... even though through time they tweaked and reworked the account as they saw fit.

Or it could mean they are also retelling a story borrowed from another culture. Or telling about a different flood that occurred in their own history.

And there are still those civilizations which, judging from their records, carried on daily life as usual during the flood and suffered no significant loss of population.

Seven people survived the universal flood. Only seven. And it was then the human race once more populated the earth.

So who built the pyramids only a century later? There were only three human couples capable of reproduction who exited the ark. Have you ever calculated how large the population would be after a hundred years? (Do a search on "Noah's bunnies" for some calculations on population increase in both humans and rabbits.)

If you wish to discount this or the original 6 day creation has any relevance for the rest of the Scriptures, why did both Testaments refer to the world wide flood?

But I don't discount it.
This is a common creationist misconception of the TE position.
Just because I do not read scripture in the same way you do does not mean I discount it or disbelieve it.

Why does it count Sem as the son of Noah within the geneology...that goes all the way back to Adam within Luke 3?

Because it is a Hebrew story and according to their tradition, Shem was their forefather.

Geneologies do not have fictional characters which are placed within myths.

Yes, they do. It is very common. One can hardly find any ancient genealogy which does not include legendary and mythical characters.

One either accepts the wittnesses and accounts or they don't. It's done all the time.

Of course. But one also has to consider what the witnesses intentions are. Is the witness intentionally recounting history or intentionally telling a story?

Someone may very well say they won't believe there was a U.S. President by the name of Abraham Lincoln who was assasinated because they declare they were not at the scene, nor will they accept any eyewittness accounts of what occured. Their disbelief doesn't make the assasination of Lincoln any less than an actual historical event in U.S. history.

And disbelief in the evidence which shows there was no global flood doesn't make it any less real either.

Critias does not need to if he does not want to. And if you do not wish to provoke a flame-fest it would be best from stating he has a "hyper imagination" simply because he acknowledged calling anyone a flat-out liar within a discussion is uncalled.

Critias apparently has a different definition of "liar" than I do, or than the dictionary has. I would agree that calling a person a liar, without evidence, is uncalled for. But I have not done that.

What I have said is that certain statements are lies. Such as saying there is scientific evidence of a global flood. But I would only claim the person saying this is a liar if I knew that person knows the truth but spreads the lie anyway. I don't think that applies here. I don't think anyone claiming such evidence exists is knowingly speaking a falsehood. So as I see it, such a person is not a liar, though the statement is still a lie.

 

[gluadys]

Actually she did. And she has repeatedly told me to "stop lying". Just as it was said whether or nor I did so in ignorance was lying regardless.

That was not me. That was ebia.

It's amazing how many people forget that as the Author, God has His own interpretation and His is the only one that counts.

No one is forgetting this. We just take exception to the arrogance of people who assume their personal interpretation coincides with God's interpretation.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures. He works through the Holy Scriptures. Tell me, when relying on various areas of science which base itself on the evolutionary mold...just who is being believed and relyed on?

It could well be the Holy Spirit. Is there any reason to believe the Holy Spirit would not guide a scientist, particularly one who is Christian, in their research and lead them to true conclusions?

 

[Critias]

And every one of them relies on the hearsay testimony of Christians who were not there to see Christ crucified, but were only repeating what they had heard from others. Now if one of them had recorded Paul's testimony before Festus and Agrippa, you would have a case.

Heresay might not be the best word choice, it sounds more like Christians were lying that Jesus Christ was crucified or didn't truly know. There were eye witness testimonies of Jesus dying, St John is an example. John told many people what he saw.

Besides that, some of these recordings were only 10-20 years after Jesus' death. Some were later. If I saw an eclipse and I told night2day about it and she in turn told you, would you just toss it aside because you weren't there? I doubt it. Not everything needs to be verified by our own eyes. That is why we have faith.

Earlier, months or more, ago TEs complained about YECs belittling their faith. Yet, the personally attacks from TEs on YECs who believe creation and the global flood is also an attack on our faith. It is by faith we believe this because we were not there to see it. Instead we have a written record of it that God moved men to write about.

You and others are doing what you and other blamed YECs of doing: attacking our faith in what the Bible says, is true.

There is no need for them to lie, nor is there any need to deny the records. The pagans who made those records did not know whether Jesus existed or was crucified. They only knew that this is what Christians claimed. And that is what they actually say---that this is what they heard from Christians--not that they had verified this as a fact.

Actually, the Romans were quite good at keeping records, so I don't doubt that these pagan men believed Jesus actually lived and died by crucifixion.

After all, it was the Romans who said the disciples carried off Jesus' body.

Geologists have confirmed that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Not all geologists. You would have to be honest and admit that there are Phd geologists who will disagree with you. They also have a greater bit of knowledge in this subject than you or I.

The problem that exists is in the interpretation of the evidence and that is where personal views and biases are injected.

Now you are making the same point I was making. The only way there could have been a global flood, consistent with the evidence, was for God to miraculously remove the evidence. And if you re-read my earlier posts on the subject you will see this involves much more than removing the water.


My first point is that if God removed the evidence, you can not come back and say there is evidence of a global flood. No referring to the Grand Canyon or polystrate trees or any other supposed remnant of the flood. None of that is evidence of the flood, because God removed all evidence of this global flood.

My second point is that if God did remove the evidence, no blame can attach to scientists for not finding any. They are seeing correctly what God intends them to see and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence he re-made to replace the evidence he removed.

My final point is that I don't believe the God revealed in scripture is a God who would remove the evidence. Hence I believe the geological evidence has not been doctored, and must be taken for what it shows. There was no global flood.

That wasn't exactly my point. My point is that the Holy Scriptures say that God brought the flood on and He receeded the waters. It was by His doing. There is evidence of a global flood, the scientists that you follow interpret the evidence according to their world view, evolution happened. Even the Christian scientists who are evolutionists do the same thing.

Other Christians' world view is that God moved men to write the Holy Scriptures and what is written is true. The literary style, what all TEs here refuse to address, of Genesis 1-11 does not lend it to be a myth. The language used is consistent with the rest of Genesis after chapter 11. The problem is that no one here is either willing or able to actually do a linguistical analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew.

Right. I have no reason to believe that it was written as history or should be understood as history.

And you have the right to your opinion. But don't call night2day a liar or her statements lies because she will not conform to a secular world view of the Bible.

Like you, she has the right to her belief without you suggesting she is unintelligent to discern truth or is a liar.

 

[night2day]

...Same with the biblical and Sumerian accounts of the flood, except that the biblical story shows more echoes of the Sumerian account than Goethe's story of Faust shows of Marlowe's.

A closer analogy would be West Side Story as a retelling of Romeo and Juliet. These are not only the same story, but Rodgers and Hammerstein deliberately imitated Shakespeare, scene by scene. Yet you would never call them plagiarists.

That's the problem with myths and stories though: they never occured within human history as an actual historical event so they have no real bearing. Whether they teach someone something or not, they're still a fairytale which offers ultimately nothing to no one.

Or it could mean they are also retelling a story borrowed from another culture. Or telling about a different flood that occurred in their own history.

The Bible itself shares differntly.

And there are still those civilizations which, judging from their records, carried on daily life as usual during the flood and suffered no significant loss of population.

The Bible itself shares differntly.

So who built the pyramids only a century later? There were only three human couples capable of reproduction who exited the ark. Have you ever calculated how large the population would be after a hundred years?

You do realize Noah lived 350 years after the flood, making him 950 or so years at the time of his death...? Recall that before the flood and for some time after the length of human years was in the hundreds to nearly 1,000.

Noah's sons had their children and divided into 3 seperate nations. And then they also had their own children. Then they had their own. (ref. Genesis 10)

It was over time that the lifespan began to become shorter than it was before the flood occured. Genesis 11 in the latter chapters, after it speaks of the incident of Babel goes on to show the decrease of age that was beginning to take place. People simply were not living all to long as they had been.. Of course today there are people who do sometime reach over 100 years, but it's not all too common.

The changed enviornment left due to the flood could have very well had an effect on that too.

This is a common creationist misconception of the TE position.
Just because I do not read scripture in the same way you do does not mean I discount it or disbelieve it.

As above notes, it is still being discounted as being real and historical. A myth is not on par with historical occurances. It doesn't have any bearing.

If one decides to see a portion of the Scriptures apart from their literary context, they are at risk in doing so with other portions. Genesis literally means "Beginning". It sets the stage for everything else in the Scriptures. That's why it's so important that it's kept intact as a foundation.

An example would be with Creation. If this is discounted as something else than the 24/6 day creation in the first 2 chapters, then why do we die? Where did sin come from? When did the human race start becomming responsiblle for it's actions if it evolved? To who is it accountable to? Why do we need a Savior?

The Bible is a whole. It was meant to be taken that way. The Old Testament prophecized of the coming Savior and the New Testament tells of the Savior who came and will come again. Christ Himself remains at the very heart and center of the Scriptures.

Because it is a Hebrew story and according to their tradition, Shem was their forefather.

So, your saying Shem who was the ancestor of King David, who in turn was an ancestor of Jesus was placed within a geneology that was rather detailed, within the Gospel written by Luke, a phycisian, who had traveled with Paul and is said to have gained the a vast majority of the information from Jesus' own mother...was actually a mythical figure?

On taking a closer look at the gospels, each has it's own seperate theme. They harmonaize, yet focus on a differing aspect of Jesus at the same time:

--Matthew focused more on Jesus being the very Messiah all the prophets of the Old Testament testified of. It's one of the books which has the most massianic references. He was writing to a Jewish audiance.
--Mark recieved most of his info from Peter. He was writing to the Romans primarily. He focused more on Jesus' power and authority.
--John was dealing with many false teachers during his day. As well as great percecution which was breaking out. His is the most theological of the Gospels.
--Luke was writing to either a person or city. (Unknown by his address of Theopolis) In either case, his was found to be among the most detailed of the Gospels. There were references made of people living during that day who saw Jesus and wittnessed his works for themselves, the places, and whatnot. This done so person/people could check on the information themselves. Being a phycisian, it would only be natural for him to do so.

In the Epistles there are also referrences to wittnesses to Jesus Christ and all he said and did as well. Paul even wrote of the 500 who saw Jesus when he was raised from the dead, although noted by that time some of the wittnesses were already dead.

Would you say all the ancestors from both Mary's and Joseph's sides of the family were a myth and did not exist. That they only lived in folklore? How then do you pick out who wans't? In Joseph's geneology his goes back only to Abraham...the one to who God made a covenant that through his seed (Christ) the earth would be blessed. In Mary's, it goes all the way back to Adam. Yet, to you Adam is a myth isn't he?

One can hardly find any ancient genealogy which does not include legendary and mythical characters.

Even in Luke which is rather careful with it's details? He was writing mostly to those who were not of Jewish heritage. It's highly unlikely he would have inserted a mythical figure within there at all.

But one also has to consider what the witnesses intentions are. Is the witness intentionally recounting history or intentionally telling a story?

Which, going back to the Lincoln example, then looking to the Flood...what would Moses have to gain by inserting a story about a catastrophic flood? Especially to a people who were wandering in the desert for 40 years and who's older generation was forbiddon from entering the promised land?

And disbelief in the evidence which shows there was no global flood doesn't make it any less real either.

Other than, that's the chief problem. Had the universal flood not have occured as written and be merely a myth, what good does it do anyone? For that reason, why would the universal flood be in the Bible? in the first place? Had God not actively worked through human history just as He's chosen to bring about His purpose, then why write historically inaccurate stories of how He did so if the actual and historical events would more than suffice?

...I would agree that calling a person a liar, without evidence, is uncalled for. But I have not done that. What I have said is that certain statements are lies...But I would only claim the person saying this is a liar if I knew that person knows the truth but spreads the lie anyway...

It's a definition that's disturbing. Especially since all sides hold faith within whatever they choose to hold. To not even allow someone to state a creationist and an evolutionist can look at something of old andcome up with two differnt studies for it based on their individual worldviews is just plain wrong.

 

[night2day]

We just take exception to the arrogance of people who assume their personal interpretation coincides with God's interpretation.

Allowing the Bible to speak for itself is just that.

Is there any reason to believe the Holy Spirit would not guide a scientist, particularly one who is Christian, in their research and lead them to true conclusions?

Depends what you mean by "true"? We have differng definitions for the word, remember?

 

[gluadys]

Heresay might not be the best word choice, it sounds more like Christians were lying that Jesus Christ was crucified or didn't truly know.

Well, they didn't know. They believed. Where did you get the impression that hearsay implied lying? Or are you just becoming hyper-sensitive on that topic. All it means is that a person is not testifying to their own personal knowledge, but to what someone else told them.

There is no evidence in those pagan records that the pagans in question spoke to any of the apostles or other eyewitnesses, but rather to converts who believed their message, but who themselves had no personal contact with Jesus or personal experience of any of the events.

There were eye witness testimonies of Jesus dying, St John is an example. John told many people what he saw.

I don't know of any pagan record which quotes St. John or any other eye-witness.

Not everything needs to be verified by our own eyes. That is why we have faith.

Well, finally we agree on something. But if it is not verified, it is not evidence. And we don't have knowledge that it is true; we have faith that it is true, because we believe the testimony of the apostles as it has been transmitted to us.

Remember, the apostles never offered anything other than their testimony. At no time did they offer evidence or try to prove their testimony.

That is why the NT is not evidence. It is testimony--the testimony of the apostles and those who believed them.

Actually, the Romans were quite good at keeping records, so I don't doubt that these pagan men believed Jesus actually lived and died by crucifixion.

Even if they did believe it, that is not evidence unless they were themselves eye-witnesses. Otherwise they are simply believing the testimony of Christian converts who themselves are not eye-witnesses.

Not all geologists. You would have to be honest and admit that there are Phd geologists who will disagree with you. They also have a greater bit of knowledge in this subject than you or I.

I know of no geologists, including Christian geologists, who disagree on this point. There may be a handful who ignore the evidence for reasons of their commitment to YECism, but that is a matter of faith, not of geology.

The problem that exists is in the interpretation of the evidence and that is where personal views and biases are injected.

There are no other consistent ways to interpret the evidence. That is why there has been scientific consensus on the age of the earth--and the lack of a global flood--for 2 centuries.

There is evidence of a global flood

Then bring it on. I am no geologist, but I know that most of what you think is evidence is not. What you will actually do is dispute the validity of the evidence that does exist.

Other Christians' world view is that God moved men to write the Holy Scriptures and what is written is true.

That does not change any of the geological facts. Nor does it change the fact that all Christians believe this no matter what they think about the geological facts. You wouldn't be implying that those who accept the geological verdict of an old earth do not believe in the inspiration and truth of scripture, would you?

The literary style, what all TEs here refuse to address, of Genesis 1-11 does not lend it to be a myth.

Well, yes it does.

The language used is consistent with the rest of Genesis after chapter 11.

And your point is?

The problem is that no one here is either willing or able to actually do a linguistical analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew.

Possibly. I don't know Hebrew, so I can't myself. But I have certainly listened to those who do know OT Hebrew (and even teach it) who agree that these early stories are myth, and practically none of Genesis is history, even when we can say the stories are probably about historical figures.

 

[gluadys]

That's the problem with myths and stories though: they never occured within human history as an actual historical event so they have no real bearing. Whether they teach someone something or not, they're still a fairytale which offers ultimately nothing to no one.

That is your position. It is not mine.
So when you speak disparagingly of TEs who refer to some biblical stories as myth, you are projecting your own opinion, not listening to theirs.
I don't see myths and stories as problems. I don't see them as offering nothing.

The Bible itself shares differntly.

No, it doesn't. That's the point. There is nothing particularly different about the biblical story of the flood and the stories told in other mythological traditions.

The Bible itself shares differntly.

The bible makes no comment on these records. But they still exist. So how are they to be explained? It does not seem possible for them to exist at all if the flood was global. Yet they do. How could they have been written? How could those who wrote them not have noticed or mentioned the flood?

To me it seems that the only rational explanation is that they did not experience this flood, so it could not have been global. Can you suggest any other reason the Egyptians had no flood tradition (in the sense of a global flood---their tradition was of the annual flooding of the Nile.) and why their records go from before the flood to after it with no interruption? Where did the Egyptians who lived just 1-3 years after the flood come from if only Noah and his family survived the global flood?

You do realize Noah lived 350 years after the flood, making him 950 or so years at the time of his death...? Recall that before the flood and for some time after the length of human years was in the hundreds to nearly 1,000.

Noah's sons had their children and divided into 3 seperate nations. And then they also had their own children. Then they had theiir own. (ref. Genesis 10)

All irrelevant. See above re Egyptians.

The changed enviornment left due to the flood could have very well had an effect on that too.

What changed environment? The bible mentions no changed environment.

As above notes, it is still being discounted as being real and historical. A myth is not on par with historical occurances. It doesn't have any bearing.

And this unfounded opinion of yours is the reason for insisting that what cannot be history must be history. It is because you devalue myth, and consider it unworthy to be scripture that you discount it. TEs do not discount myth or consider it to be sub-standard to history. Through most of history, myth was the nearest thing people had to history.

If one decides to see a portion of the Scriptures apart from their literary context, they are at risk in doing so with other portions.

Right, so when you rip a story out of its literary context as myth and insist on reading it as if it met modern western criteria of objective history, you are likely to misread other parts of scripture in the same way.

Genesis literally means "Beginning". It sets the stage for everything else in the Scriptures. That's why it's so important that it's kept intact as a foundation.

No disagreement there.

An example would be with Creation. If this is discounted as something else than the 24/6 day creation in the first 2 chapters, ...

Again, you project your own opinions onto those who do not share them. You would discount Genesis 1 if the days are not literally 6 24-hr days, so you assume that those who do not agree with you have as motivation a need to discount Genesis. That is sheer assumption on your part and not at all what the TE position is. We do not take the days literally as you do, but we do not discount Genesis 1 or 2 either. We don't even discount the flood story. All scripture is given by God. And if the form in which God has given us scripture is myth or legend or fiction rather than history, we honour God's choice. Because all scripture is important to us, no matter what its literary form.

then why do we die? Where did sin come from? Why do we die? When did the human race start becomming responsiblle for it's actions if it evolved? To who is it accouintable to? Why do we need a Savior?

Physically we die because we live. Material life is always ephemeral. Spirtually we die because we are separated from God who is life and the source of life, and apart from whom we cannot live.

Sin comes from acting on our own egotistic desires rather than trusting in God.

The human race became responsible for its actions when it became capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

We are accountable to God and to each other.

We need a Saviour because we are in bondage to sin and need liberation, healing and forgiveness.

The Bible is a whole. It was meant to be taken that way. The Old Testament propheys of the coming Savior and the New Testament tells of the Savior who came and will come again. Christ Himself remains at the very heart and center of the Scriptures.

No disagreement here.

So, your saying Shem who was the ancestor of King David, who in turn was an ancestor of Jesus was placed within a geneology that was rather detailed, within the Gospel written by Luke, a phycisian, who had traveled with Paul and is said to have gained the a vast majority of the information from Jesus' own mother...was actually a mythical figure?

Yes, he very likely was.

Would you say all the ancestors from both Mary's and Joseph's sides of the family were a myth and did not exist.

No, not at all.

How then do you pick out who wans't?

I don't. It is pretty much impossible to distinguish them.

Even in Luke which is rather careful with it's details? He was writing mostly to those who were not of Jewish heritage. It's highly unlikely he would have inserted a mythical figure within there at all.

He wouldn't need to insert a mythical figure. Any mythical figures in the genealogy would be already there and he would have no way of distinguishing the factual from the mythical. He also would not consider it important to do so.

Which, going back to the Lincoln example, then looking to the Flood...what would Moses have to gain by inserting a story about a catastrophic flood? Especially to a people who were wandering in the desert for 40 years and who's older generation was forbiddon from entering the promised land?

I don't understand what you are getting at. What would Moses have to gain by writing any part of Genesis, historical or not? (And, btw, he didn't write it anyway.) What does the fate of the older generation have to do with anything?

Had the universal flood not have occured as written and be merely a myth, what good does it do anyone? For that reason, why would the universal flood be in the Bible? in the first place?

Again, it is only your assumption that a myth does no good. How do you know it does no good? The bible is inspired scripture, is it not? And Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is useful. He doesn't say only the scripture which is historical. All scripture is God-given, and all scripture is useful, whether it is history, law, poetry, prophecy, vision, drama, parable, legend, myth, fiction, exhortation, proverb, philosophy or psalm. No exceptions.

To not even allow someone to state a creationist and an evolutionist can look at something of old andcome up with two differnt studies for it based on their individual worldviews is just plain wrong.

How am I not allowing you or anyone to make that statement? You can repeat it a thousand times over and no one will restrain you.

What I am saying is that it is a false statement. You do not believe it is false. Since you honestly believe it is possible to have two different and equally valid interpretations of the evidence, you are speaking what you believe to be the truth. But that doesn't make it true. It only shows how little you know of the evidence and of how it can be validly interpreted.

 

[gluadys]

Allowing the Bible to speak for itself is just that.

The bible is not capable of speaking for itself. It is a book, not an interpreter.

The bible is always understood through the interpretive filter adopted by the reader. The question is whether or not that interpretive filter leads to a true or false understanding of the scripture and of God.

Depends what you mean by "true"? We have differng definitions for the word, remember?

We do?

By "true" I mean what conforms to reality (as distinct from my wishes or desires). What do you mean by "true"?

 

[Rusticus]

...... Cop-out. The Bible stands on it's own accord by it's own authority because of the authority God Himself gave of it as it's Author. The Bible defines and interprets itself.

Saying anything else is simply an excuse to take the Bible and make it whatever one wills and toss out the rest.

In the end, it's either faith in what God says and has declared, or unbelief and defining ones truth to one's own personal preferance.....

Everything we humans read, see, etc, we see through our very own lens. The lens we have is influenced by everything we have learned, seen experienced during our lives. It simply is not possible to read The Bible other than throgh our lens. Probably not even a new-born baby would be able to do so (assuming reading were possible for a new-born) because some sort of a lens would have been formed by experiences in the womb.

So, to say that "The Bible defines and interprets itself" just does not make sense.

Everyone who reads The Bible interprets it as they do the reading. That is the only way anyone can make sense of anything.

I will try yet again to make my point by using a grossly over-inflated example, using The Flood:


Start of example.
Four persons read the story of The Flood and, come to four different interpretations:

Person A interprets it that God overwatered a flowerpot and made a bit of a puddle of water somewhere.

Person B interprets it that God caused a flood that flooded the known world and that everybody in that area (the then known world) died, except the ones on the Ark.

Person C interprets it that God caused a Global flood.

Person D interprets it that the God caused the whole of the Universe to be awash with water.


God has given different people different levels of understanding. To each of the four persons their respecive interpretations of the story make perfect sense, but, what is more important, because of their particular (or peculiar) interpretations they are able to grasp the meaning of the story that God tells us. (I believe, it it all is about meaning, rather than words.)

Each of the people in the example, when they hear the other interpretations say, "absolutely wrong, my interpretation is the only correct one, but, hey, if someone else, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has come to their own, different interpretation - and it works for them, that's fine.

Except for person C who says: Cop-out. All your interpretations are wrong, and what I say is not an interpretation, but it is what The Bible actually says.


Well, If person C actually believes that, then person C is decieving him/herself. EVERYTHING we read is interpreted through our own lens.

(So that there is not some slangling match erupting about the word "decieving" I give the dictionary definition here:
de·ceive ([font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (d

-s

v

)
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives
v. tr.

1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.

It is definition 1. that is meant here.)

Self deception is very common, in all aspects of life (not just religious beliefs), so in a way it is neither surprising, nor particularly bad when it happens.

But it gets to be bad if person C wants persons A, B and D to participate in the same deception.
End of Example.


Even though you, night2day, and I have interpreted The Bible differently, the real difference between us is not our different interpretations, but the fact that I know that mine is an interpretation, and you don't know that yours is an interpretation (or if you know it, you are not prepared to admit it).

 

[justified]

And every one of them relies on the hearsay testimony of Christians who were not there to see Christ crucified, but were only repeating what they had heard from others. Now if one of them had recorded Paul's testimony before Festus and Agrippa, you would have a case.

Actually, we have Pliny the elder...

 

[gluadys]

[/font]
Actually, we have Pliny the elder...

Who got his information from whom?
Not challenging. I have not seen him quoted before. So I am interested.

 

[justified]

Pliny was a Roman writing to Romans. He is an independent source. I actually mixed him up with Pliny the Younger, so it's the latter we should be talking about:

The Roman senator Pliny the Younger is one of the few people from Antiquity who is more to us than just a name. We possess a long inscription which mentions his entire career, one or two of his houses have been discovered, and -more importantly- we can still read many of his letters. They are often very entertaining: he tells a ghost story, gives accounts of lawsuits, guides us through his houses, describes the friendship of a boy and a dolphin, informs us about the persecution of Christians, tells about the eruption of the Vesuvius. But we can also read his correspondence with the emperor Trajan. With the senator Cicero and the father of the church Augustine, Pliny is the best-known of all Romans.

(from livius.org)

Also from that site, but an external translation, is the famous letter:

They declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery, to commit no breach of trust, and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it.
After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind. But they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your [Trajan's] instructions, which banned all political societies.
This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call diaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant length.

[Letter 10.96.7-8]​

I hope that helps​

 

[gluadys]

Pliny was a Roman writing to Romans. He is an independent source. I actually mixed him up with Pliny the Younger, so it's the latter we should be talking about:

(from livius.org)

Also from that site, but an external translation, is the famous letter:



I hope that helps[/right]

Indeed it is a complete vindication of my point. Born in 62 CE, three decades after the crucifixion, Pliny himself is not a primary source of information about Jesus of Nazareth. The 'famous letter' above does not even indicate whether he knew that name. He speaks only of the title 'Christ' not of the man 'Jesus'.

It is also unlikely that any of the Christians he questioned and tortured were primary sources either. They told him what they had heard and believed and how they worshipped Christ, not what they knew of Jesus by personal experience, since they had no personal experience of Jesus.

Pliny's conclusion indicates that he personally does not believe a word of what they have told him about Christ.

What this and all pagan references do confirm is that there were communities of Christians in the Roman empire. They also confirm what those communities believed, preached and practiced.

They do not confirm that those beliefs were fact. Hence they do not confirm the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The only documents that claim to be eye-witness or close to eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection are the gospels, both those in the NT and the apocryphal gospels. But none of these are simple biography. They are proclamations of faith designed to persuade others to the faith.

So although they must be taken seriously as in part historical documents, they cannot be taken uncritically as such.

In the final analysis, our faith in Christ is based on two things: the testimony of the apostles as conveyed through scripture and the church and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. We either believe these or we do not.

There are no hard facts to support either of these witnesses.

 

[justified]

Actually, you are mistaken on several points:

1. The reason I mentioned pliny was that you were saying our sources were dependent upon Christian sources, but in fact Pliny is well-aquainted with the Christians. You also see that he is despelling the rumour that Christians were cannibalistic.

2. Pliny wrote the letter c. 100, after Domitian's persecution, after Nero's persecution. Nero's was going on when Pliny was born. I mention these points for historical context, not a proof.

3. Josephus mentions Jesus. He mentions him in places where the Christians later edited, so that it read "he was the Christ", but also in other passages where is called a prophet. Josephus' history is from around 80, I believe. He was quite possibly in Palestine during the crucifixion.

4. Every one of the gospels falls to a good extent within the genre of Graeco-Roman biography. See both commentaries by Craig Keener on Matthew and John.

5. I find this statement funny, since you in the same post adopted a post-structuralist viewpoint towards literature:

By "true" I mean what conforms to reality (as distinct from my wishes or desires).

6. Although I agree with you that we have the word of the apostles, I do not see what you think is to be done with the rest of the historical testimony in the New Testament. What do you consider to be a critical reading of the gospels?

 

[Critias]

Well, they didn't know. They believed. Where did you get the impression that hearsay implied lying? Or are you just becoming hyper-sensitive on that topic. All it means is that a person is not testifying to their own personal knowledge, but to what someone else told them.

That depends on your definition of know. I know God exists by faith. Does this mean I don't know because I have faith?

It seems hard for you to be able to escape judging ones character instead of ones argument. It would be beneficial to all if you could stay on the argument and not on the character of people present here.

Heresay means that there is no tangible proof, it is unverified. If you are going to bring this into question, then anything that is not personally verified should not be accepted. Therefore, you shouldn't be an evolutionists either because I highly doubt you have gone into all labs and have seen all evidence to make your own interpretation to come to the conclusion that evolution happened. Instead, you rely on the scientists' work and thus accept their interpretation of the evidence. But, you are just accepting their word without verifying it yourself by examining the evidence personally.

There is a lot of historical records that were written that were not personally verified. Will you deny your grandparents historical account of their life because you were not there? Do you need to personally witness everything in order to accept it? If so, why do you accept any records of history, you were never there.

This type of argument you present is a double standard.

There is no evidence in those pagan records that the pagans in question spoke to any of the apostles or other eyewitnesses, but rather to converts who believed their message, but who themselves had no personal contact with Jesus or personal experience of any of the events.

If you are going to dismiss their accounts, then be consistent with this view and deny much of history because you didn't witness it.

Second, we have the Gospels, personal testimony of those who lived with Jesus Christ. There is no real scholar who would deny the existence of Jesus Christ, only the uneducated do so.

I don't know of any pagan record which quotes St. John or any other eye-witness.

Josephus was quite familiar with Jesus and His Apostles. Read his works. Josepus lived in the time of Jesus Christ and it is thought that he was there when Jesus died.

Well, finally we agree on something. But if it is not verified, it is not evidence. And we don't have knowledge that it is true; we have faith that it is true, because we believe the testimony of the apostles as it has been transmitted to us.

Remember, the apostles never offered anything other than their testimony. At no time did they offer evidence or try to prove their testimony.

That is why the NT is not evidence. It is testimony--the testimony of the apostles and those who believed them.

Actually, the NT is evidence. These are eye witness accounts. They were with Jesus, they saw Him die they saw Him rise.

What you may or may not understand about Christianity, evidence is not in the tangible form, evidence is in the faith we possess. Thus works are produced through this faith. If testimony is not enough for you to believe Jesus lived and died for you, then probably nothing will be good enough. It shows a rather closed mind to the subject.

That is the main difference between YECs and TEs. TEs require evidence in order to believe such things as six day creation and a global flood. They will not take it by faith. YECs believe it by faith and need no tangible evidence to believe what God has said.

We are at different points in our lives in Jesus Christ.

Even if they did believe it, that is not evidence unless they were themselves eye-witnesses. Otherwise they are simply believing the testimony of Christian converts who themselves are not eye-witnesses.

And you are against the testimonies, how?

I know of no geologists, including Christian geologists, who disagree on this point. There may be a handful who ignore the evidence for reasons of their commitment to YECism, but that is a matter of faith, not of geology.

Again, this is where we differ. You call them ignoring the evidence, I call it interpreting it differently. When an alternate interpretation of evidence is given other than the mainstream version it is commonly called ignoring the evidence, not because they actually did ignore the evidence but because they don't jump in line and follow the crowd.

Our presuppostions are different. Sadly, it seems this is the true problem in this forum. YECs start with the Bible as being accurate and true. Thus, the world is seen with the presuppostion that what God has said is true.

There are no other consistent ways to interpret the evidence. That is why there has been scientific consensus on the age of the earth--and the lack of a global flood--for 2 centuries.

There are other ways to interpret the evidence. The problem is that it won't be consistent with your scientists view point. Another problem is that we humans cannot accept not knowing everything. We must have an answer to everything. We can simply see this here in this forum. Everyone has an answer for something, whether it is right or wrong, an answer is given. We are obsessed with knowledge and cannot accept not knowing or trusting in One who knows more then us; thus we are willing to not know and trust in Him. Furthermore, TEs call this checking your brain at the door when YECs decide that it is ok if they don't know and rather choose to trust God because He does know.

Have you read Job lately? It talks about this, trusting in God and accepting we don't know everything about creation other than what He has said.

Then bring it on. I am no geologist, but I know that most of what you think is evidence is not. What you will actually do is dispute the validity of the evidence that does exist.

You know most of what I think? Interesting. I will dispute the validty of evidence or interpretations? Let ask this, since you believe it was a local flood, how high were the flood waters in the area?

It is interesting how often you TEs substitute evidence in for interpretation of evidence, then go off on YECs for their interpretation of the Bible.

That does not change any of the geological facts. Nor does it change the fact that all Christians believe this no matter what they think about the geological facts. You wouldn't be implying that those who accept the geological verdict of an old earth do not believe in the inspiration and truth of scripture, would you?

Geological facts or interpretations of geology? Actually, all Christians don't think this. There are various factions of people who call themselves Christians and yet call all of the Bible a myth; Jesus didn't die and raise from the dead, ect. Christianity isn't like it used to be, many people use the name but don't believe the teachings.

I am implying that some Christians believe God moved men to write the Holy Scriptures and thus believe what is stated as true and correct. You can make false accusations all you like.

Well, yes it does.

Yes, and your four letter sentence is proof of your statement. This is just another refusal to actually do a literary analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew and show why it is a myth.

Instead, I am suppose to take your word for it without verifiable proof. You know what you began arguing to be not proof.

And your point is?

My point is exactly what I stated.

Possibly. I don't know Hebrew, so I can't myself. But I have certainly listened to those who do know OT Hebrew (and even teach it) who agree that these early stories are myth, and practically none of Genesis is history, even when we can say the stories are probably about historical figures.

You are quite intelligent, learn Hebrew, it isn't that difficult to learn a new language. You know that.

Again, presuppostions. Those whom you listen to share your world view. Those who don't will say differently.

I was once a TE until I decided to Genesis seriously and study it. Another cannot do the homework for you, you have to do it yourself with truly wanting to know the truth and be willing to be wrong about all that you previously believed. Thus was my approach and I was shown wrong, by the Holy Spirit. Because I desire true understanding over my pride, I accepted being wrong.

But, that is just me. Others have different examples. There are several people I know here who were also TEs and did the same and had the same outcome. It is all about how much we want to hold onto our beliefs even when shown differently. Scientific interpretations will never be enough to persuade me that the Bible is wrong or that the interpretation that the Holy Spirit lead me to is wrong. I am more then willing to look like a fool to you and anyone else so that I hold onto true doctrine.

Until you actually do a linguistical analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew, you really can't decide that the literary style is a myth thus going against the teachings of the NT writers and Jesus. Instead, you just show that you are not willing to accept anything that is contrary to evolution and its teachings.

That is why all TEs do here is present scientific interpretations instead of Scriptural evidence.

 

[gluadys]

That depends on your definition of know. I know God exists by faith. Does this mean I don't know because I have faith?

Quite right. I use "know" to refer to objective knowledge which can be demonstrated to another person on the basis of observation or rational argument. I use "believe" to refer to what I 'know' by faith, i.e. by interior conviction.

Like you I 'know' God exists by faith. In my vocabulary I would prefer to say that I believe God exists. I cannot demonstrate with evidence that God exists, but I can testify to my interior spiritual experiences of God. I cannot prove by rational logic that God exists, but I can witness to my faith.

No, having faith does not mean you do not 'know', but it does mean that the kind of 'knowing' you have by faith is a 'knowing' that rests in you and cannot be shown to another through observation or reason. It can be shown only by a)behaviour -- your life is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and by b) testimony--by your verbal witness to your interior 'knowledge'. Similarly the person who comes to faith through your witness in deed and word comes not because of demonstrated evidence or convincing logic, but because of the calling of the Holy Spirit and the inner conviction of faith.

Philosophically, spiritual 'knowledge' is called "subjective" because it is primarily in inner experience which cannot be given directly to another person, while rational, scientific knowledge is called "objective" because it is directly transferable, being conveyed by sense and reason rather than through testimony and faith.

Both kinds of knowledge are genuine. Both are equally important. But to avoid confusion, I prefer to call subjective knowledge belief or faith and to call objective knowledge, knowledge.

It seems hard for you to be able to escape judging ones character instead of ones argument. It would be beneficial to all if you could stay on the argument and not on the character of people present here.

In the post you are responding to I said nothing about the people here. I was speaking of Pliny and the 1st-century Christians from whom he was taking testimony. And I said nothing negative about their character.

Heresay means that there is no tangible proof, it is unverified.

No, hearsay does not mean there is no tangible proof. It means the witness cannot offer tangible proof, because s/he is relying on what another person said. If that person is brought forward, s/he may be able to offer tangible proof. Same goes for verified. It may be that the fact is verified or could be verified----but not by the witness in question, who is only relaying what s/he heard, not what s/he has personal knowledge of.

Hearsay simply means that the witness has no personal knowledge of what they are speaking of. It doesn't mean that what they are saying is untrue or that there is no corroborating evidence or that it cannot be verified by someone else. Only that the corroboration or verification must come from a different source.

Instead, you rely on the scientists' work and thus accept their interpretation of the evidence. But, you are just accepting their word without verifying it yourself by examining the evidence personally.

I would certainly grant that my personal testimony about scientific matters is (except for some long-forgotten lab experiments in high school) is hearsay. But that of the scientists is not. They provide the necessary corroboration and verification through their research.

Will you deny your grandparents historical account of their life because you were not there? Do you need to personally witness everything in order to accept it?

Actually, I do deny my grandfather's historical account of his life. Not because I was not there. Not because I need to personally witness everything. But because my cousin found, and showed to me, documentation that completely contradicts what my grandfather told his children and grandchildren about his history.

I believe the documentation rather than my grandfather, because his own children affirm that he was an inveterate teller of tall tales who liked to misrepresent himself as having connections with aristocracy. By contrast the registrar of births, deaths and marriages has no motivation to create a false record.

I could interpret the situation differently, but do you think another interpretation would be justifiable?

If you are going to dismiss their accounts

Whose accounts? And where did I say I was dismissing them?

We are talking about two different kinds of accounts: the written accounts of pagan Romans (for the most part) and the verbal accounts of the Christians on which the written accounts are based. I am not dismissing either of them. I am just showing that neither the verbal testimony of Christian converts, nor the written accounts provide any evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. What they provide is evidence of a Christian community that believed he existed and was the foretold messiah of Israel and the saviour of the world.

The pagans only wrote of what the Christians told them. They did not write of any attempt to verify the truth of what the Christians said.

The Christians testified as to what they believed, but they themselves could not verifiy that what they believed was true, because they 'knew' it by faith, not through objectively demonstrable evidence.

Second, we have the Gospels, personal testimony of those who lived with Jesus Christ. There is no real scholar who would deny the existence of Jesus Christ, only the uneducated do so.

And where did I suggest that anyone ought to deny the existence of Jesus? Just because we have no evidence of his existence doesn't mean he did not exist. It is true of the vast majority of deceased humans that we have no evidence of their existence. So lack of evidence that someone lived is a ridiculous reason to doubt their existence.

I am simply saying that we do not have verified evidence that Jesus existed. I have never suggested that he did not actually exist or that we should doubt his existence.

As to the evidence from pagan sources, it does verify the existence of Christian communities, very shortly after the death of Jesus. And the various pagan sources show that Christians in different communities gave much the same testimony as to their beliefs. I agree with those scholars who say the existence of Christian communities and the consistency of their teaching and practice is a powerful, though not conclusive, argument in favour of the historical existence of Jesus.

Josephus was quite familiar with Jesus and His Apostles. Read his works. Josepus lived in the time of Jesus Christ and it is thought that he was there when Jesus died.

I have read some of his works. I would have strong doubts about his being at the crucifixion. I expect that is one of numerous later Christian emendations of his work. The question is how familiar was he with the Christian community in Jerusalem and how?

Actually, the NT is evidence. These are eye witness accounts. They were with Jesus, they saw Him die they say Him rise.

Yes, but from witnesses who are followers and trying to persuade others to be followers. How much is reportage and how much is apologetics? And which is which? The gospels need to be taken seriously as primary witnesses. I do not question that. But their limitations as hard evidence has to be taken seriously too.

If testimony is not enough for you to believe

And where did I say that?

As a matter of fact, I do believe the testimony of the apostles.

But I know the difference between believing their testimony and having that testimony corroborated by evidence or by a disinterested (or even hostile) source. I know that the only reason I believe their testimony is by the grace of God through faith which is open to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

TEs require evidence in order to believe such things as six day creation and a global flood.

That is not true, and it shows how far you are from understanding TE. We do not require evidence of a young earth or a global flood. Nor more than we require physical evidence of the virgin birth or Christ's resurrection and ascension, or of the very existence of God himself. We believe all these things, though there is not an iota of evidence in their favour.

What makes a young earth and a global flood problematical is not lack of evidence, but the presence of evidence. Evidence which overwhelmingly contradicts these possibilities.

And you are against the testimonies, how?

Excuse me? Where did I say I was against these testimonies? I am just pointing out what they are testimonies of and what they are not testimonies of.

Again, this is where we differ. You call them ignoring the evidence, I call it interpreting it differently. When an alternate interpretation of evidence is given other than the mainstream version it is commonly called ignoring the evidence, not because they actually did ignore the evidence but because they don't jump in line and follow the crowd.

But the different interpretation depends on ignoring the evidence. Where have you seen creationists even acknowledge the existence of the evidence which glen morton has posted on the quiet thread in the C&E forum's quiet thread, much less intepret it, differently or not? There are reams of geological evidence which creationists consistently ignore in order to get to an alternate interpretation.

There are other ways to interpret the evidence. The problem is that it won't be consistent with your scientists view point.

What it is not consistent with is other evidence which contradicts the creationist interpretation.


You know most of what I think? Interesting. I will dispute the validty of evidence or interpretations? Let ask this, since you believe it was a local flood, how high were the flood waters in the area?

It is interesting how often you TEs substitute evidence in for interpretation of evidence, then go off on YECs for their interpretation of the Bible.

Geological facts or interpretations of geology?[/quotes]
Geological facts.

Actually, all Christians don't think this. There are various factions of people who call themselves Christians and yet call all of the Bible a myth; Jesus didn't die and raise from the dead, ect.

The reference was to the inspiration and truth of the bible, not to whether or not the content is mythical. One can believe the content is mythical and still believe it is also true and inspired. One can also accept geological fact and believe scripture is true and inspired.

I am implying that some Christians believe God moved men to write the Holy Scriptures and thus believe what is stated as true and correct.

Some do? And therefore some don't? And you know which is which?

I hope this is not what you intend to imply. It does remind me of a Disraeli quip I heard yesterday.

He stands up in the House of Commons and addresses the Speaker thus:

"Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw my statement of yesterday wherein I said that half of the members of the Opposition are horse's asses. I deeply apologize for this error and now wish to affirm that half the members of the Opposition are not horses' asses."

Yes, and your four letter sentence is proof of your statement. This is just another refusal to actually do a literary analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew and show why it is a myth.

But I have, many times, and others have done so as well. The fact that you do not agree with the analysis does not mean it was not provided for you.

You are quite intelligent, learn Hebrew, it isn't that difficult to learn a new language. You know that.

I hope to. I love learning languages and have studied French, Latin, German and Spanish. I am currently working on Arabic, Japanese and Chinese. I also want to get around to the biblical languages. And Mohawk or another of the First Nation languages.

I was once a TE until I decided to Genesis seriously and study it.

Interesting. I was an OEC until I decided to take Genesis seriously and study it.

Until you actually do a linguistical analysis of Genesis in Ancient Hebrew, you really can't decide that the literary style is a myth thus going against the teachings of the NT writers and Jesus.

There you go again, assuming that an OT myth is going against the teachings of the NT writers and Jesus.

Instead, you just show that you are not willing to accept anything that is contrary to evolution and its teachings.

That is why all TEs do here is present scientific interpretations instead of Scriptural evidence.

Not without evidence, no. For I am not persuaded that God intends for us to deny evidence. Scientific information is presented so that people can see that the evidence exists, for many have been told repeatedly that it does not.