No it is a matter of evidence. Which can be in the form of records but if that is the case you need a LOT of records and from alot of different sources. Just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Homer wrote the Oddyssey are hydras real? No. There's no reason to accept this one tiny biblical record over what we know about history from other sources and the likely hood of this happening.
Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Touchy aren't we. Do not include the Nephalim with the Seraphim. The Nephalim were the hybrid products of he fallen angels with the daughters of Adam. I notice you did not dispute what the book of Ezekiel has to say on the subject. For your information, there were originally 163 books of the bible, whittled down to the 66 we have today. And just who decided which books were fit and which were not? You wish to speak now of how many translated errors there are in the Bible we operate with?
S
The bible is the single most contested document to have ever existed on the planet. Yet here it is. There are so many examples as to its authenticity and accuracy that I don't know where to begin. You compare homer and the New Testament. The earliest known manuscripts are more than a thousand years after the fact. The earliest known of the New Testament within 100 years.
Why would anyone need "a lot of records"? If you were to witness a drive by shooting and you were the only one around, would the Police then say to you, "You are but one witness....to know that this was a drive by shooting we need thousands of witnesses". That argument is absurd. The very fact that they were talking about spacecraft at that time and describing it as best they could without ever even seeing an airplane, let alone a craft capable of space travel, is amazing in and of itself.
It also has the most copies in existence. It's not surprising that it's still around and it's only come to be contested fairly recently. I don't even know if your claim that it's the most contested is even true or not but it doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's claims are true or not.
Like what? I have so many examples of its inaccuracy I don't know where to begin. What could possibly authenticate the claim that a global flood occured, people once lived for 100s of years, 2 people can populate a planet, and a man was born of a virgin and can convertake water to wine?
I didn't compare them to make an age connection I did it to make a claim connection. They both make supernatural claims and both have the same amount of evidence to support them. Yet millions of people believe one and its silly to believe the other. Why? And we don't have any of the first manuscripts. And even if we did so what? That doesn't prove what they contain is true.
Like what? I have so many examples of its inaccuracy I don't know where to begin. What could possibly authenticate the claim that a global flood occured, people once lived for 100s of years, 2 people can populate a planet, and a man was born of a virgin and can convertake water to wine?
I didn't compare them to make an age connection I did it to make a claim connection. They both make supernatural claims and both have the same amount of evidence to support them. Yet millions of people believe one and its silly to believe the other. Why? And we don't have any of the first manuscripts. And even if we did so what? That doesn't prove what they contain is true.
God does not want to have to spoon feed you every little trinket of information. He allowed the error for a reason, I do not know what that reason is yet. When I do, you will be the first to know. The Bible is the inspired word of God, yes, and every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God is true, but not every word in the Bible came from the mouth of God, but by a bunch of translators , who changed the words around, for reasons I cannot say. I have thoughts as to why, but I cannot prove them. Suffice it to know that there are indeed errors, but God provided ways for us to seek the truth of a matter.
Actually, the contested things began with Eve, if you get right down to it. She contested God's instruction not to have anything to do with Satan, but she did anyway. Every other prophet that came along was contested, and every one of them was killed for their trouble, from Abel to Zechariah to finally Jesus Christ.
That is a really poor analogy. The magnitude of the god claim is far greater than that of a crime witness. If someone told a cop they saw a shooting it would probably launch an investigation. Then in court that testimony would be used as one piece of evidence along with a weapon, tire marks, the victims body, and other things. If that one testimony is the only evidence that says this happened then yeah that really isn't enough to prove a crime happened. However if there were 50 witnesses then maybe you might get somewhere. With the claims in the bible one document isn't enough. Especially when that document is presupposing that God exists and is trying to get others to accept that. Extra biblical documentation with no bias is absolutely essential to getting anywhere with biblical claims. A biblical supernatural claim defies every single natural law in existence. One book is not enough to change our entire basis of understanding reality.
Not really. The passages are extremely vague. And let's also not forget that the bible has been translated, edited, retranslated, and copied by hand hundreds of times throughout history. That passage couldbe been added later or could be an extreme alteration due to mistranslation or poor copying. That us a far more reasonable explaination than it was true and angel aliens visited earth.
Not really. The passages are extremely vague. And let's also not forget that the bible has been translated, edited, retranslated, and copied by hand hundreds of times throughout history. That passage couldbe been added later or could be an extreme alteration due to mistranslation or poor copying. That us a far more reasonable explaination than it was true and angel aliens visited earth.
I am glad you brought up the flood, for the original language said that the flood was in just that country or land in which Noah was in. The flood was local. The fact that other races were already in existence at the time Adam was put in a flesh body on the earth is exactly that, fact.
Noah would have never seen a bird, with a branch in its mouth if the whole earth was flooded, for it would have had no food , nor place to rest. It would have flown over water until it was exhausted and would have fallen into the water and drown. There are a great many "holes" in what you think you know about this event. Later , it is known that Noah and his decendants encountered other people, not people he had taken into the ark, but others who were unaffected by the flood. The Egyptians for one............gotta go, supper is on the table.
Noah would have never seen a bird, with a branch in its mouth if the whole earth was flooded, for it would have had no food , nor place to rest. It would have flown over water until it was exhausted and would have fallen into the water and drown. There are a great many "holes" in what you think you know about this event. Later , it is known that Noah and his decendants encountered other people, not people he had taken into the ark, but others who were unaffected by the flood. The Egyptians for one............gotta go, supper is on the table.
It contests itself within its own story? How does that prove anything? I thought by contested you meant people fighting against it. You do realize it was made the state religion of Rome and spread to all corners of the globe faster than anything right? How is that evidence of it being contended?
Prophecies and predictions in a story are fullfilled later in the story. What does that prove? In Ordipus Rex there is a prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mom, and then it happens later in the story. Is that proof it happened? No the author just made up the prophecy and wrote it in fullfilled later. This in no way even suggests that Jesus existed let alone that he rose from the dead or anything else. And yes tell me more about the world that is predominantly christian hates god.
Prophecies and predictions in a story are fullfilled later in the story. What does that prove? In Ordipus Rex there is a prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mom, and then it happens later in the story. Is that proof it happened? No the author just made up the prophecy and wrote it in fullfilled later. This in no way even suggests that Jesus existed let alone that he rose from the dead or anything else. And yes tell me more about the world that is predominantly christian hates god.
G
Every atheist that I met has never had the exhilarating experience of communion with the spiritual dimension of being. Not all people on this planet have the same degree of spiritual sensitivity. Blind people cannot see color and are justified in saying colors do not exist based on their own limited experience. The same thing is true for people with low levels of spiritual sensitivity. I can understand that you may not believe in what you haven't experienced. Yet, my question to you is, "How can you claim that the harmony and balance of Creation could be manifest and continuing without a purposive cause?"
Hello,
Good question. I did not choose to be an atheist as belief is not a choice. I can't choose to believe or not believe in god just as you or i can't choose to belive in santa. It's governed by our subconscious being persuaded one way or another. In this sense it "snuck up on me". I used to be a Christian and over time after exposed to more and more arguments against theism and as I read more about science and watched debates between apologists and atheists I became unconvinced of God's existence and the validity of biblical claims.
Good question. I did not choose to be an atheist as belief is not a choice. I can't choose to believe or not believe in god just as you or i can't choose to belive in santa. It's governed by our subconscious being persuaded one way or another. In this sense it "snuck up on me". I used to be a Christian and over time after exposed to more and more arguments against theism and as I read more about science and watched debates between apologists and atheists I became unconvinced of God's existence and the validity of biblical claims.
A
What do you make of Jurgen Habermas, one of Europe's most prominent atheist philosophers, making a public declaration that:
"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than just a precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and a social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.
This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."
"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than just a precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and a social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.
This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."
I thought I did have this exhilarating experience you're talking about. I really thought at one point I could talk to god. I now understand that I was actually just reading too much into things and didn't actually experience anything. And no blind people are not justified in claiming colors don't exist just because their handicap doesn't let them see them. And this "spiritual sensitivity" stuff is based on what exactly? No scientiti evidence for sure. And not even a bible verse. It's a way for you to rationalize why people don't believe within your own theology which may work for you but doesn't reflect reality. And I ask you how can you propose a purposeful clause is necessary for harmony and balance? There's no evidence of a purpose nor why one is necessary
- Status