The bible is not historical fact (atheist, faith, Apostle Paul, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"We know . . . ."? You mean "Some people think . . . ."
No, I mean we know.
Quote:
As long as you realize that the "We" in your sentence above stands not for everyone of intelligence.
Just most people of intelligence.
Quote:
I'm willing to bet if they found again Noah's ship in the mountains of Ararat that you and your group of "We" would still find reasons for not believing it.
"Again"...you mean it's been found before??
Quote:
Your group would probably say: Well, it was probably built there by Christians in the middle ages to fool people into thinking the story was true. Or that it isn't really a ship. Or it was some hotel built by the Chinese or Tibetans as a summer resort thousand of years ago. ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!!
You haven't presented any "truth". 'Truth' has evidence to support it. You have none.
Quote:
The writers of the New Testament believed the historical account of a global flood to be true. They spoke of Noah as being a real person and the global flood as an historical account.
What they believed is not necessarily what is true.
Quote:
In fact if Noah was just a fictitious person then Christ's whole genealogy goes to pot . . .
The thing is, regular non christian based history has nothing to prove. The christian/bible based history does. PROVE IT!
Finding a ship does not prove anything unless you can prove it was Noah's and that it had in fact been used. How do we know that Noah's didn't build the ship on the mountain, thinking there would be a flood and wanted higher ground for his boat, but the flood never came, leaving the boat on the mountain top. Possible? Very. Does evidence prove it, it's more logical then a global flood that can't be proven elsewhere.
Just to clear something up. I am not trying to say the Christians are wrong or that God doesn't exist. Just that the Bible is not a reliable source for historical/scientific data.
Last edited by fractured_kidult; 02-21-2011 at 10:02 AM..
How about this one. The Crucifixion of Christ symbolized the turmoil (troubles) people experience.
Christs entombment symbolizes the how we are prisoners to our problems and they can claim our lives if not dealt with.
The resurrection, probably the most important part symbolizes the rebirth of the person. When a person has had enough and had learned from their troubles.
Even if I put a Christian spin on it.
Christs Crucifixion symbolizes the sins of man being hung for all to see.
Christs entombment symbolizes putting sins and other bad deeds to rest.
Christs Resurrection symbolized the rise of man from the ashes of their own sin and bad deeds.
Another Christian spin
The Crucifixion, entombment and resurrection of Christ symbolize God's love for mankind. Jesus represents all humans and the rebirth through giving yourself to God. If I recall that is exactly what Christ did on the cross. Commanded his soul to be with God, but not before asking God for forgiveness of all mankind. There is a tone of symbolism here.
Peter and the eleven and many thousands of early believers:
"We are willing to die for this symbolism!"
Not to mention that Saul, who later became the apostle Paul, was changed when he met a mere symbolism on the road to Damascus. Are you serious?
The above link is by Dr. E.W. Bullenger on the last twelver verses of Mark.
RESPONSE:
For the New American Bible:
"Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."
From Wikipedia:
Bullinger's views were often unique, and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "hyperdispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism. Noted dispensationalistHarry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"
Last edited by ancient warrior; 02-21-2011 at 11:51 AM..
Reason: addition
"Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."
From Wikipedia:
Bullinger's views were often unique, and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "hyperdispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism. Noted dispensationalistHarry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"
It doesn't matter if his views were unique and sometimes controversial. It also does not matter if he was closely tied to hyperdispensationalism. If what he said about the last chapter of Mark is true then it is true.
By the way, dispensationalism is true as is the hyper version.
I just mean that what the bible says about history is very different to what we know about history.
...says you, and we all know what opinions are like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
Also, anyone can interpret the bible, that is how it is meant to be. If you go to a church in Washington and then a church in Nebraska, the teaching will be slightly different based on what the church leaders interpret. The thing about religion is that everyone has different views on the subject. I wouldn't call myself a christian or anything, but I do read the bible and I do think that there is a higher spiritual being(s) out there.
It seems to me that the great problem with this view has to do with the concept of truth. It's theoretically possible for all 'religions' to be false, but they can't all be true. This rule would also apply to Biblical hermeneutics. You're certainly entitled to believe the Bible is false but you've failed to make much of a case to support your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
Examples of history gone wrong in the bible:
How old did people in the old testament live? Wasn't Adam like 900+ years old? Yeah, right.
Are we to take the '900+ years' literally? Where is your evidence or reason for discounting the possibility of ancient humans having a '900+ year' life span?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
Didn't Adam name all living things? Why is it that when we find new species we give them a name? Shouldn't we already have a record of this?
You're free to correct me, but it appears that Adam only named the livestock, birds and wild animals that were brought to him. Perhaps you have inside information on which livestock, which birds and which wild animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
Noah's Ark, A flood of that size would be noticeable, even today. We would have more evidence. There could have been a flood, just not as big as the bible says.
You state that you read the article. How big do you interpret the biblical flood to have been?
Thank you for confirming that the Bible is not historical fact.
Well I've shown you how.
You don't have to accept it. You may continue to believe in mythology for as long as you wish.
I gave you the link. You tell me why it doesn't work.
I have.
Given your apparent predicament, the choice to bail out is certainly understandable.
What would be so difficult about coming forward with just a little bit of integrity and admitting that you really have no good reasons to dismiss the existence of God, no reasonable way to falsify the Bible or Christianity? It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's simply your choice to reject evidence and reasoning that you know in your heart to be sound and true.
Perhaps it's a guilt thing...why else would you bother to argue?
It doesn't matter if his views were unique and sometimes controversial. It also does not matter if he was closely tied to hyperdispensationalism. If what he said about the last chapter of Mark is true then it is true.
By the way, dispensationalism is true as is the hyper version.
All of the last chapter was written by Mark.
RESPONSE:
>>All of the last chapter was written by Mark.<<
It isn't true. Neither the Codex Sinaticus (c. 325 AD) nor Codex Vaticanus have any Mark beyond 16:8
Note:
According to Tischendorf, the remaining twelve verses were not written by Mark. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have them not. The learned reader can see the proof as given by Tischendorf. See, also, Tregelles and Alford.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 02-21-2011 at 05:51 PM..
Reason: addition
The thing is, regular non christian based history has nothing to prove. The christian/bible based history does. PROVE IT!
Finding a ship does not prove anything unless you can prove it was Noah's and that it had in fact been used. How do we know that Noah's didn't build the ship on the mountain, thinking there would be a flood and wanted higher ground for his boat, but the flood never came, leaving the boat on the mountain top. Possible? Very. Does evidence prove it, it's more logical then a global flood that can't be proven elsewhere.
Just to clear something up. I am not trying to say the Christians are wrong or that God doesn't exist. Just that the Bible is not a reliable source for historical/scientific data.
Good points - but again, the entire story of Noah and his ark was plagiarized off of the much earlier Sumerian flood story. Even if there were an ark to be found, it would not in any way prove the Bible to be true or accurate. It would be pretty good evidence for the Epic of Gilgamesh and Enki, Enlil and other Sumerian gods, however..
Given your apparent predicament, the choice to bail out is certainly understandable.
What would be so difficult about coming forward with just a little bit of integrity and admitting that you really have no good reasons to dismiss the existence of God, no reasonable way to falsify the Bible or Christianity? It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's simply your choice to reject evidence and reasoning that you know in your heart to be sound and true.
Perhaps it's a guilt thing...why else would you bother to argue?
Falisfying the Bible and Christinaity has been done many times over. The evidence for their non-divine human origins is overwhelming and indisputable. That of course in no way dismisses the existence of a God or Gods, that would by necessity be far more rational and intelligent than Bible god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
