Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#351
#351
SergeantVol said:
Bart Ehram is a self professed Gnostic. I am not sure that he has a dog in the fight since the Council of Nicea banned the Gnostics from attending.
Click to expand...

Either his methodology and reasoning are faulty, or they are valid. You may not like his conclusions, but if you can't fault his methodology, then you're attacking him instead of his arguments.

As for my beliefs, I am more of an Intelligent Design kinda guy. There is too much complexity in this world to believe that it happened by chance.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community

There are too many blank spaces and unanswered questions for me to believe that a divine entity was not involved in some way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

I believe science lets us observe the miracles of the natural world. Statistically speaking, the odds that everything ended up the way they did are highly improbable. It is part of the reason I try to educate myself on many religions in general. I was raised Catholic though.
Click to expand...

Some light reading since you seem to enjoy Wiki so much. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#352
#352
MercyPercy said:
Either his methodology and reasoning are faulty, or they are valid. You may not like his conclusions, but if you can't fault his methodology, then you're attacking him instead of his arguments.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps



Some light reading since you seem to enjoy Wiki so much. :hi:
Click to expand...



For me it all comes down to where the first self-replicating molecule came from. In science, something cannot come from nothing. Why else would there not be a divine entity? Why wouldn't science ultimately be this divine entities plan or blueprint for everything in existence?

I did enjoy your wiki articles. Several important intellectuals and scientist were Jesuits. I still stand firm in my belief. After all faith is the one thing science cannot measure.
 
#353
#353
VolsSportsFan said:
I'm not trying to attack you but it blows my mind that you basically laugh at science for its attempts at dating but you accept what you posted as fact ; when if you compare the two, the evidence for an old earth so outweighs the evidence of an actual Jesus (never mind if he was actually divine or not).

Simply put, if you claim there is not enough evidence to support an old earth or evolution or whatever else you want to throw in, then if you are being consistent you would most certainly HAVE to come to the same conclusion about Jesus and frankly the Bible in general.
Click to expand...

If someone successfully explained to gramps how to use the internet, I'll be damned if I can't get him to understand this. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#355
#355
Gramps said:
I am not evading anything. There is plenty of recorded dated evidence to support that Jesus did in fact live on earth approx 2000 years ago. People who walked with Jesus recorded it. There are scrolls that archeologists have discovered by other writers that lived with Jesus, not included in the Bible, that support he lived on earth.

As I said earlier you will not accept anything that supports Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of an extra biblical source written by anyone that lived with Jesus. There are literally only a handful of small mentions of Jesus by extra biblical authors from even close to the time period of Jesus. So I'm going to request a citation.

The closest is Josephus and he was born after Jesus would have died (AD 37). A least part of what is attributed to Josephus is considered a later added forgery, and what is left is basically Josephus just conveying what he's heard. He certainly wasn't an eyewitness by any means.

And one of the other big ones given is by Tacticus who was born roughly 25 years after Jesus would have died, and he basically calls it a superstition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#356
#356
VolsSportsFan said:
I'm not trying to attack you but it blows my mind that you basically laugh at science for its attempts at dating but you accept what you posted as fact ; when if you compare the two, the evidence for an old earth so outweighs the evidence of an actual Jesus (never mind if he was actually divine or not).

Simply put, if you claim there is not enough evidence to support an old earth or evolution or whatever else you want to throw in, then if you are being consistent you would most certainly HAVE to come to the same conclusion about Jesus and frankly the Bible in general.
Click to expand...

Show me anywhere in this thread there is not enough evidence to support an old earth. I said science cannot with any type of certainty date something to back 5 billion , 16.8 billion years old. I stand by that statement. That is not disputing the evidence that says the earth is old. Show me any post by me that supports a young earth.

Show me anywhere in this thread I mentioned evolution in any way.

You may want to read what someone has posted before you bash them for something they did not say.
 
#357
#357
VolsSportsFan said:
I've never heard of an extra biblical source written by anyone that lived with Jesus. There are literally only a handful of small mentions of Jesus by extra biblical authors from even close to the time period of Jesus. So I'm going to request a citation.

The closest is Josephus and he was born after Jesus would have died (AD 37). A least part of what is attributed to Josephus is considered a later added forgery, and what is left is basically Josephus just conveying what he's heard. He certainly wasn't an eyewitness by any means.

And one of the other big ones given is by Tacticus who was born roughly 25 years after Jesus would have died, and he basically calls it a superstition.
Click to expand...


You need to dig a little deeper in your studies.
 
#358
#358
VolsSportsFan said:
I've never heard of an extra biblical source written by anyone that lived with Jesus. There are literally only a handful of small mentions of Jesus by extra biblical authors from even close to the time period of Jesus. So I'm going to request a citation.

The closest is Josephus and he was born after Jesus would have died (AD 37). A least part of what is attributed to Josephus is considered a later added forgery, and what is left is basically Josephus just conveying what he's heard. He certainly wasn't an eyewitness by any means.

And one of the other big ones given is by Tacticus who was born roughly 25 years after Jesus would have died, and he basically calls it a superstition.
Click to expand...


There is a theory of a "Q" document that posits that the source of many of the gospels come from this earlier document.
 
#360
#360
Gramps said:
Show me anywhere in this thread there is not enough evidence to support an old earth. I said science cannot with any type of certainty date something to back 5 billion , 16.8 billion years old. I stand by that statement. That is not disputing the evidence that says the earth is old. Show me any post by me that supports a young earth.

Show me anywhere in this thread I mentioned evolution in any way.

You may want to read what someone has posted before you bash them for something they did not say.
Click to expand...


You're wrong though, gramps. Science can actually date the earth with some kind of certainty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#365
#365
Gramps said:
Show me anywhere in this thread there is not enough evidence to support an old earth. I said science cannot with any type of certainty date something to back 5 billion , 16.8 billion years old. I stand by that statement. That is not disputing the evidence that says the earth is old. Show me any post by me that supports a young earth.

Show me anywhere in this thread I mentioned evolution in any way.

You may want to read what someone has posted before you bash them for something they did not say.
Click to expand...

I find it humorous you told me I needed to "dig a little deeper" in my studies. Right back at you. This is simply untrue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#369
#369
Gentlemen I have enjoyed it. I dont know why but I do enjoy debating you Godless Heathens. I really hate to admit it but over the years here on VN, I have learned some things about science and you heathens have forced me to do some deeper digging into the sciences. With that said I will never believe man can date anything back in time to anything as precise as 5.7 billion years or 16.8 billion years. I think they can date back and legitimately say x is millions or billions of years old. I think that is as good as they can do.

Til the next time we battle, I wish each and everyone of you the best.

You don't want to hear it but I am sincerely going to pray that every one of you find God one day while you are still walking on this earth.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#370
#370
SergeantVol said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

It's pretty straightforward. Thinking the external world isn't chance doesn't necessitate ID.

Our culture seems to have fostered this ridiculous binary idea/false dichotomy that the external must be randomly chance based or ID. ID encompasses much more than merely the rejection of random chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#371
#371
PKT_VOL said:
It's pretty straightforward. Thinking the external world isn't chance doesn't necessitate ID.

Our culture seems to have fostered this ridiculous binary idea/false dichotomy that the external must be randomly chance based or ID. ID encompasses much more than merely the rejection of random chance.
Click to expand...

Go on...you have my attention now.
 
#374
#374
MercyPercy said:
You aren't saying anything I haven't already said in this thread regarding the very nature of science and how new information can affect our calculations.



And the dating methods have become more and more accurate over time, giving more and more accurate results. Particular methods of radiometric dating's accuracy are very reliable at this point, with a margin of error of only ~2 million years or so in measuring the age of rock that is over 2 billion years old. That is, in the grand scheme of things, absurdly accurate.



You are wrong. Research the methodology.



If by accuracy, you mean the exact date, of course they aren't that accurate. "Any" kind of accuracy? Again, you are wrong. Research the methodology.



Logically absurd and factually incorrect, again. Research the methodology.
Click to expand...

https://www.psi.edu/epo/faq/age-dating.html

Also I would love to see your methodology for measuring the age of a star or planet that is say a couple hundred billion light years from Earth. I would say you cannot be this obtuse, but then I have to remember who I am talking to.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top