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.
I never called your faith in Christ into question - nor did I claim that anyone having doubts about or disagreeing with the global Flood event as described in Genesis cannot be Christian (or anything like that)
What I did call into question was the bad logic you yourself claimed to use to discredit claims made in the Bible.
You claimed that since miraculous results were had onetime - only to certain people under certain circumstances - then they should conform to what we expect or see and that they should be repeatable.
There is no reason to assume any of that.
I am not saying that you do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or anything like that - I am saying that you have not given enough time and consideration to all the claims made in the Bible - especially in regard to God and how He operates - to reasonably and responsibly claim that anything recorded in the Bible does not conform with reality.
I mean - the Resurrection of the Lord does not conform to what we expect or have seen in this life - and we certainly cannot repeat it - does that mean we can reasonably and responsibly dismiss it?
How could you claim to have faith in the risen Lord - or any hope that He is the means of salvation - if you could just use the same bad logic you used for other testimonies in the Bible (like the account of Jacob and the goats) - to explain away His Resurrection?
And your many attempted dodges and distractions you use to excuse your bad logic and to misrepresent what I have said in order to save face leads me to believe that you are not being fully honest with yourself and others.
That cultures back then were far more knowledgable and religious than we thought. This is proven fact.
That cultures back then had sophisticated beliefs that could come up with the flood myth. This is proven fact.
Good post.I am not required to accept any and all miracles in the Bible as they presented as facts, especially when many are clearly poetic in nature and/or allegorical. And all miracles in the Bible have a hint, strong or weak, of the poetic and allegorical about them.
All I need to accept is that Jesus Christ is my saviour. That a small but vocal group of American Christians and pseudo-Christians want to say otherwise is not something I need to behold myself to.
I was referring to your claim that the stele carvings predicted the date of Noah's flood with great accuracy. From your post #754 ",,,they predicted a major flood through the use of astrology."Lets see what I am claiming. That a great flood event happened around 10,000 years ago. This is proven fact.
That cultures back then were far more knowledgable and religious than we thought. This is proven fact.
That cultures back then had sophisticated beliefs that could come up with the flood myth. This is proven fact.
The only thing I have proposed and I have not said with "that much certainty" is that putting this together it may be the source of the Flood myth.
But even that is a fairly mainstream belief anyway.
I was going to elaborate on the last point which does require some spectulation as a hypothesis. But it seems we can't even get past proving that these cultures were in a position to be the source of the flood myth.
Again - I never claimed that you were not Christian or anything like that - stop retreating into that fantastical fortress.I am not required to accept any and all miracles in the Bible as they presented as facts, especially when many are clearly poetic in nature and/or allegorical. And all miracles in the Bible have a hint, strong or weak, of the poetic and allegorical about them.
All I need to accept is that Jesus Christ is my saviour. That a small but vocal group of American Christians and pseudo-Christians want to say otherwise is not something I need to behold myself to.
I was referring to your claim that the stele carvings predicted the date of Noah's flood with great accuracy. From your post #754 ",,,they predicted a major flood through the use of astrology."
Again - I never claimed that you were not Christian or anything like that - stop retreating into that fantastical fortress.
You can "pick and choose" which testimonies in the Bible you want to believe in - but that makes me wonder how and why you made your decisions.
And I do agree that God and His miracles often are often poetic or follow a set pattern - because that is how God operates - for all things testify of His works and His plans for Man - which all revolve around the Saviour.
So - in your opinion - why is the story of Jacob and goats fake but the Resurrection of the Lord is not?
Your reasons for rejecting the story of Jacob could easily be applied to the Resurrection as well - so why does one make the cut and the other does not?
That does not answer my question.I already gave my response, and I'll highlight the important part:
I am not required to accept any and all miracles in the Bible as they presented as facts, especially when many are clearly poetic in nature and/or allegorical. And all miracles in the Bible have a hint, strong or weak, of the poetic and allegorical about them.
All I need to accept is that Jesus Christ is my saviour. That a small but vocal group of American Christians and pseudo-Christians want to say otherwise is not something I need to behold myself to.
That does not answer my question.
On what criteria - what metric - do you use to decide which miracles actually happened or not?
Because it sounds like nothing but your bias.
Not at all - you made a statement - but offered no argument.It really does answer your question. I even say it in the first paragraph. If you can't understand what I wrote, that's not on me since I can't make it any plainer to understand.
As a non Chridtian it’s relatively easy to judge ( no “ choose”)Again - I never claimed that you were not Christian or anything like that - stop retreating into that fantastical fortress.
You can "pick and choose" which testimonies in the Bible you want to believe in - but that makes me wonder how and why you made your decisions.
And I do agree that God and His miracles often are often poetic or follow a set pattern - because that is how God operates - for all things testify of His works and His plans for Man - which all revolve around the Saviour.
So - in your opinion - why is the story of Jacob and goats fake but the Resurrection of the Lord is not?
Your reasons for rejecting the story of Jacob could easily be applied to the Resurrection as well - so why does one make the cut and the other does not?
Not at all - you made a statement - but offered no argument.
You claiming that certain miracles are nothing but "poetry" or "allegory" is not an argument.
You also did not share any of your standards for how you made those determinations.
You definitely don't need to explain your bias - but you should admit that you have it.I don't need to nor am I required to.
I simply do not accept that many of the miracles claimed in the Bible actually happened. I am not required to accept them as factual by the Bible, by the Anglican Church of which I grew up in, nor by the wider Protestant faith or even the Christian faith in general.
So I'll repeat: All I need to accept is that Jesus Christ is my saviour. That a small but vocal group of American Christians and pseudo-Christians want to say otherwise is not something I need to behold myself to.
You definitely don't need to explain your bias - but you should admit that you have it.
Also - you are in no position to claim that anything in the Bible did not happen exactly as written - since you don't seem to have any standard besides your bias.
Your opinion is not as valuable as others in regard to the Bible because of that.
I cannot speak for others but my standardYou definitely don't need to explain your bias - but you should admit that you have it.
Also - you are in no position to claim that anything in the Bible did not happen exactly as written - since you don't seem to have any standard besides your bias.
Your opinion is not as valuable as others in regard to the Bible because of that.
This doesn’t even make any sense.Thats simple. Using Byblos as evidence for cities of people around 10,000 years ago is much simpler than using the Amazon because 1) theres more evidence and 2) its much closer to Gobekli Tepe which is the area we are talking about.
As I said I mentioned the Amazon as another area where evidence is being found for large groups of people being organised like small cities. But its still being investigated. But so far the evidence shows similar cultural practices to people like Gobekli Tepe and other monolithic cultures.
Why then go through the agony of debating that less established evidence for the Amazon when cultures around Gobekli Tepe have more evidence to prove the same point. Which is that there were cultures around back when a major flood event happened who were advanced enough in knowledge and religion to be the origin of the flood stories that came later in Mesopotamia and other cultures.
On the subject of logical fallacies, do I need to remind you the people which constructed the temple at Gobekli Tepe were hunter gatherers and your sweeping generalization of cultures that built temples had a more sophisticated religion compared to those primitives which didn't.We don't know that. In fact what is found at Göbekli Tepeis only about 10% of whar is possibly there. There are many tells and other pillars jutting out that are yet to be discovered. It may be an entire network of temples and communal places.
What is my basic arguement. Its that the cultures around 10,000 years ago were far more advanced than scientists thought. That because of this advanced knowledge and religion were able to come up with the flood myths as a result of a real major flood event they all experienced or heard about.
Your attempts to create logical fallacies in trying and limit measuring that advancement to whether they were cities or any other single measure are false representations. It doesn't matter how we measure them. Whether they were more settled and communities or hunters and gathers or both.
None of that negates the fact that these people were advanced enough in knowledge and religion to be able to come up with the flood myth which takes a certain level of belief compared to hunter gatherers. The idea of trying to say they were only hunter gatherers is to make out these people were primitive. But I am saying the evidence shows they were far more advanced.
These cultures 10,000 years ago were not that advanced, writing was not invented nor was chronology and they had no way of recording when this great flood occurred.So therefore around 10,000 years ago there may have been many advanced cultures all worshipping their gods. There was a common belief associated with the skies, the stars and astrology and animals. But nonetheless it was an advanced belief that even paraelles with the Egyptians in some ways.
So a major flood event at that time will be seen as something from the gods and being it was a global event at least for large parts of the northern hemisphere and the most major flood at the beginning of when cultures had complex beliefs it trumps all other floods it may be the source of the flood myth.
In other words those flood myths would have been around well before any other floods. I cannot see how any culture at that time did not know of this flood event. If there was any myth to be made about floods it was at this time.
A symptom of a Gish Gallop are irrelevancies such as equating thousands of slaves building the pyramids with thousands of organised workers which does not address the issue if cities existed in the Amazon 8000-20,000 years ago.How is that Gish Gallop. I made the point that to make these monoliths it requires the organisation of 1,000s of people. Just like it took 1,000s of slaves organised by the Egyptians to build the Pyramids. So if it took 1,000s of organisied people working together than they must have been far more organised as far as culture and community is concerned. They were not simple primitive hunters and gatherers.
But of course you missed that point altogether and call it gish gallop. If you are calling my arguements gish gallop then how are we to even debate this.
Your logic is based on a circular argument where the premise and conclusion are the same.Well thats only natural to ignore it when its just a claim without one bit of supporting evidence. The fact is a major earth shattering flood event would be experienced by many cultures at the same time.
Heres the logic. If this is the case and its the most major and first flood event when humans became knowledgable and religious enough to make this story then no other flood will trump it that comes later for that same culture. If the majority of cultures were around at that time or come from these cultures back then, then there cannot be a greater source.
Especially when I have actually provided evidence of a massive world shaking flood event that could be the origin of all cultures flood myths. Especially when the finer details of the stories all match. That would seem unreal that several cultures just happen to come to the same story detail.
This is another example of a Gish Gallop, how is this in anyway relevant to responding to hunter gatherers use of “incipient horticulture” which developed into full scale agriculture 2000-4000 years ago?Actually the structures in the ground, the shapes could be 10,000 years old. They mimick the monolith structures in stone as far as geometry and astrology. So we don't know. These markings were found by lidar so they may represent a culture well before the later structures like the Aztecs and Mayans made. They maybe the Gobekli Tepe of the Amazon. But more work is needed.
How many times do I have to repeat myself it is not about the cities, they could be Neolithic villages or thriving metropolises as far as I am concerned, the issue surrounds the time frame.It depends what you mean by cities and why cities are so important to proving a culture is advanced to be able to have complex beliefs about a flood myth. Like I said the evidence so far suggests that these geometric and astrological shapes are sim,ilar to other monolith cultures. If thats the case then these involved well organised cultures working together and coming together in religious ceremonies and linked.
Possibly 1,000s or more linked in a common belief and cultural practices rather than seperate hunter gather groups unrelated. In that sense it becomes more a city of people working together though they may have been dispersed throughout the land.
But once again why focus on me meeting the criteria of a city to prove that these cultures were advanced. That is not the only evidence. In fact take out the idea of a city. Delete that from the criteria. Now lets get on with determining whether these cultures were advanced enough to be the origin of the flood myth.
Oh great we now have a quote mine over an existing quote mine, you even provided the very sentence in quotations marks which undermines your argument; here it is again with the underlined case.That is about later layers. Some of the earthworks go back 10,000 years. My arguement is based on what the shapes represent which aligns more with earlier monolith cultures.
“The mounds promoted landscape diversity, and show that small-scale communities began to shape the Amazon 8,000 years earlier than previously thought.”
Earliest Inhabitants of Amazon Created Thousands of Artificial Forest Islands | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
A University of Bern-led study shows that, starting at around 10,850 years ago, inhabitants of the Llanos de Moxos region in northern Bolivia began to create a landscape that ultimately comprised 4,700 artificial ‘forest islands’ within a treeless, seasonally flooded savannah.www.sci.news
Like I said the Amazon is a fairly new area of research and evidence is changing all the time. The only reason most of the discoveries have happened is due to land clearing. But there is little access for archeology.
But like I said forget about the entire Amazon if you want. It doesn't change my point that cultures were far more advanced than scientists thought and they had sophisticated beliefs when the most major flood in the last 10,000 years or so happened. Thus possibly the source for the Flood myth of most cultures.
But I am not trying to prove Noah's flood at this point. Just that a major flood happened around 10,000 years ago which may be the basis (real event) that most flood myths are based on.Having stepped away form this, I can really see that any argument that tries to use actual scientific findings as evidence to try and prove that the Noahic flood actually did occur runs into major problems because the information we have, that isn't just the Bible saying it happened, just does not match up. SteveVW trying to use the Younger Dryas hypothesis is the best example of this because... it just does not fit.
But I am not trying to prove Noah's flood at this point. Just that a major flood happened around 10,000 years ago which may be the basis (real event) that most flood myths are based on.
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?