Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[nPeace]

As far as the Flood just being allegorical….the purpose of allegories is to clearly teach a lesson. There’s too much detail provided in the Genesis account, for it to make any simple clear point.

The reasons to believe it’s literal:

Context, for one.
Other writers of the Bible reference the Flood (2 Peter 2:4-6), as does Jesus himself (Matthew 24:37-39), and some provide further descriptions of the Event, such as the ‘mountains rising and valleys falling’ (Psalms 104) due to the waters.

The evidence for it, is another.

Yes, also important as well, it's written as a historical account. Noah's father, and Noah's sons are listed in the genealogical historical record,

 

[nPeace]

I have read what you posted. It hasn't changed. It is still nonsense. My previous assessment of it still stands unassailed by your arguments from ignorance and straw man tactics.

That would describe your posts, so Ditto.

I find it amusing that you use science when it is convenient, deny it when it is inconvenient and declare it always bankrupt of knowledge at all times.

I find it amusing that you use the Bible when it is convenient, and deny it when it is inconvenient, and declare it all bankrupt of truth at all times.
Are we doing a rerun? Sounds like a repeat.

Objective evidence is not new and not something that has come up in discussions for you either. Why the pretense. Don't answer that. I don't think anyone needs to see acres of response in multiple fonts of different size, color and bolding with all the emojis flying at full mast.

Why do you make personal comments about the user, when you are on staff.
Should you not know better? You are familiar with the rules, I assume.

I am not pretending anything.
The emojis and font colors are on the forums for a reason. If you don't want to see them, you can always try github.

YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE.

Yes I have.
You don't like the evidence, but something is not evidence, only when you like it.

All that you have done has been explained away. Repeating flawed logic and empty, irrational claims is not evidence. But it is consistent with much of what you post.

This is what you are doing, and then accusing me of it. So Ditto.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is there evidence that Demons exist? Yes, and there is a movie coming out tomorrow called :
Come Out In Jesus Name, go see it and watch for yourselves. There will be a live stream Deliverance after the movie and you”ll be able to see for yourself when demons manifest in people that want to be free from them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know nothing about the phenomenon you're describing (and I'll bet money you don't know too much either), but the fact that no other plausible explanation has been provided doesn't mean your favorite explanation is the right one. Or that it's even plausible. How did a flood create permafrost? Why did a global flood that creates permafrost only create it in one part of the world? Show me evidence, not supposition (since I see how against that you are).

I went through all that…. Provided all the explanations…. In the”Flood Evidences” thread.

But I’ll summarize.
In brief:
There were two sources of the water, the vast springs below, that were broken open; and the waters above, existing in the canopy. The ‘waters above’ prior to the Flood, created a greenhouse effect for the Earth.
(That’s why A&E could be without clothes.)
Now earthwide, what would happen if that canopy were to suddenly collapse?
There was massive, drastic changes to Earth’s atmosphere. The extreme Northern and Southern latitudes experienced sudden freezing.
The environment, the deep Permafrost with its encased frozen megafauna, would be exactly what we find.

 

[Left Coast]

I went through all that…. Provided all the explanations…. In the”Flood Evidences” thread.

But I’ll summarize.
In brief:
There were two sources of the water, the vast springs below, that were broken open; and the waters above, existing in the canopy. The ‘waters above’ prior to the Flood, created a greenhouse effect for the Earth.
(That’s why A&E could be without clothes.)
Now earthwide, what would happen if that canopy were to suddenly collapse?
There was massive, drastic changes to Earth’s atmosphere. The extreme Northern and Southern latitudes experienced sudden freezing.
The environment, the deep Permafrost with its encased frozen megafauna, would be exactly what we find.

I didn't ask you to suppose. I asked for evidence that any of that is true. if you want to link me to the specific post where you provide that evidence (it isn't the OP), then go ahead.

I'm also curious when you plan to present your findings for peer review. If any of this is true, you'd win a Nobel no sweat! When can we expect your paper?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would describe your posts, so Ditto.

No it does not describe my posts. I asked a general question. You chose to respond with nothing substantial and then when that was pointed out, what happened next has all the appearance of a vendetta.

I find it amusing that you use the Bible when it is convenient, and deny it when it is inconvenient, and declare it all bankrupt of truth at all times.
Are we doing a rerun? Sounds like a repeat.

I have literally not done that. My original post didn't do that. I stated that I have never seen a demon or evidence of demons. For those that claim they have seen them, they need to provide the evidence of what they saw and how they determined it was a demon and not some ordinary event mistakenly attributed to demons. That is it. That is what I asked. I didn't mention the Bible.

Why do you make personal comments about the user, when you are on staff.
Should you not know better? You are familiar with the rules, I assume.

I haven't. That is what I have experienced coming from you in place of the evidence for determining demons in the here and now. Evidence, that you still have not provided.

I am not pretending anything.

That isn't what the evidence indicates.

The emojis and font colors are on the forums for a reason. If you don't want to see them, you can always try github.

It is my conclusion that you use them to confuse and obfuscate by making your posts more difficult to read. That has been a recognized complaint about such things and it is akin to a Gish Gallop of the senses by overwhelming your reader.

Yes I have.
You don't like the evidence, but something is not evidence, only when you like it.

I have asked for evidence. My profession is based on the acquisition and use of evidence. Pointing out that you don't provide it is not an indication I don't like or reject evidence.

Your claim of the Bible being eye witness evidence is incorrect. It is a second hand account of a claim of eye witness evidence. It would be much like reading a confession written by someone else that you did not see write the confession about events you did not witness and then claiming you have eyewitness testimony to to these events.

This is what you are doing, and then accusing me of it. So Ditto.

You just cannot admit that you don't have any evidence to show me. Projection and a song and dance to avoid the fact that you don't have the evidence that would convince me or anyone else about demons.

It is what I expected.

This is just more personal attacks on me. Isn't it a shame that personal attacks are the direction you always seem to go? That is sad.

Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person and can share that so that I and others can know it as a fact too, you don't have anything else to respond to me with. I predict any further response from you will be more of the same that you have provided so far.

 

[Apostle John]

The ‘God helmet’ experiments are scientific experiments where the only logical explanation for the results is demonic activity.

 

[nPeace]

No it does not describe my posts.

Yes it does.

I asked a general question.

...and got a clear answer which you cannot refute but only complain.

You chose to respond with nothing substantial and then when that was pointed out, what happened next has all the appearance of a vendetta.

This is your opinion, based on nothing other than denial.

I have literally not done that. My original post didn't do that. I stated that I have never seen a demon or evidence of demons. For those that claim they have seen them, they need to provide the evidence of what they saw and how they determined it was a demon and not some ordinary event mistakenly attributed to demons. That is it. That is what I asked. I didn't mention the Bible.

Far as I know, no one has claimed to see demons.... Oh wait. Jesus did. Actually, Jesus can see more than demons. He discerns and knows your thoughts.
Nothing in my post says I saw a demon.
So it's clear you are barking up the wrong tree.

By the way, determine that the phenomenon they call Dark Matter, isn't mistakenly attributed yo something else?
I heard Neil DeGrasse mention that.
Actually, scientists have been so wrong about what they though, so many times, I wonder what evidence they had then.
It wasn't evidence, right.

I haven't. That is what I have experienced coming from you in place of the evidence for determining demons in the here and now. Evidence, that you still have not provided.

No. You said, "Why the pretense. Don't answer that"
That's not a personal comment about a user?
If I said, why be a hypocrite, would I not be penalized?
Are the two not the same?
Is it that I am confused, or something else?

Clearly, you are just talking, because you have not shown that a primary source is not evidence. Nor have you shown that eyewitness accounts are not evidence.
So claiming that I have not provided evidence is just using up space in the thread.

That isn't what the evidence indicates.

What evidence? Your personal judgement about me? That's evidence!
Where can I find the biggest WOW emoji to cover this page.

It is my conclusion that you use them to confuse and obfuscate by making your posts more difficult to read. That has been a recognized complaint about such things and it is akin to a Gish Gallop of the senses by overwhelming your reader.

Oh wow. You find it difficult to read! Okay. I won't color your fonts.
I think you just don't like that they dramatically highlight how ridiculous your posts get at times.

From my experience, a mere line of response is Gish Gallop on these threads. Either people here do not know what Gish Gallop is. They repeat it like they just heard the word for the first time. Or they use it as an excuse to ignore the post, and not respond... because they have no counter argument.
Evidently, it's the latter.

I have asked for evidence.

Repeatedly you have, and you got evidence.

My profession is based on the acquisition and use of evidence.

From your response I wonder ...
I have heard some persons bought their drivers license.
Evidence is understood by some fourth graders. In fact, I am sure if I googled evidence as taught to third graders, I would see...

Evidence facts for kids​

Kids Encyclopedia Facts
Evidence is something that is used to support an argument. It gives examples of why something is true.
For example, if someone come across a cup of spilled milk, that person could look for evidence as to how the milk was spilled. If hairs of a cat and paw prints were found on the ground, they could be evidence that a cat was the cause of the spilled milk. If a witness saw the cat spilling the milk, her testimony would also be evidence.

Pointing out that you don't provide it is not an indication I don't like or reject evidence.

Oh, yes it is.

Your claim of the Bible being eye witness evidence is incorrect.

You read that???? Oh my head.

It is a second hand account of a claim of eye witness evidence.

Oh my head hurts. This is amazing. The denial is so strong, it gets even more ridiculous.
When archaeologists find evidence confirming what is written, their finding is a secondary source of information.
The eyewitnesses are the ones who witnessed the events. Theirs, is a primary source - what they wrote.
You really know none of this stuff do you. I am almost sorry for scientists who are so stuck on the belief in science, to the point they worship it, and know nothing more. That is so sad.... it almost makes me want to cry. I can't get this frown off my face right now.

Children as young as five are learning this stuff. Unbelievable.

Can I use the Bible as a source for my paper?​

While the Bible is not a scholarly source, it would be considered a primary source

Even Universities.
One definition for Primary source is a source that originates at the time of an event, a witness to the event in their own words. With that definition, a Secondary source is [then] a later witness or commentary on those first artifacts. In this case primary sources would include: letters, newspapers, diaries, interviews, and artifacts. Secondary sources would then be interpretations of those artifacts.

Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

I posted the latter before, and you called it nonsense.
Wow. Just Wow. What more can I say. Denial causes one to say things that are quite embarrassing.

It would be much like reading a confession written by someone else that you did not see write the confession about events you did not witness and then claiming you have eyewitness testimony to to these events.

You just cannot admit that you don't have any evidence to show me. Projection and a song and dance to avoid the fact that you don't have the evidence that would convince me or anyone else about demons.

I don't have to admit to anything I never claimed, and moreover, to strawman arguments that seem to change every post.
Show you? Lol What do you want to see? Dark Matter? Gravity? Magnetism? The Wind? LOL This is just getting crazier by the post.

It is what I expected.

This is just more personal attacks on me. Isn't it a shame that personal attacks are the direction you always seem to go? That is sad.

If this were a personal attack, you would report it. You know it's not.
I'm actually keeping in the personal attacks. So unless you are Jesus, you don't see them.
Actually, if I could, you would be on my ignore list, but unfortunately for me...

Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person and can share that so that I and others can know it as a fact too, you don't have anything else to respond to me with. I predict any further response from you will be more of the same that you have provided so far.

Here is the clear strawman for all to see. "Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person"
No one on this thread would testify that I said any of that you just wrote.
This reveals the level of your denial, so much so that you come up with a new strawman that just gets worst every post.

I think you mean you have nothing more you can respond with, other than the same denial.
My responses have been in keeping with my first post, which gave evidence you ignored, and referred to as nonsense, because you have no way of refuting it.
In this post, you made a mess of things, by posting stuff that would cause educators to question your qualifications... or your honesty.

Your prediction is to hope that I don't respond to your... rubbish.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have seen many people who have manifested demons and have witnessed the demons being expelled “In the Name of Jesus”! People end up free.
You would have to be willfully ignorant and in denial to look at the things going on in our world today and not recognize the demonic influence on people. And for my friends IMO

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes it does.


...and got a clear answer which you cannot refute but only complain.


This is your opinion, based on nothing other than denial.


Far as I know, no one has claimed to see demons.... Oh wait. Jesus did. Actually, Jesus can see more than demons. He discerns and knows your thoughts.
Nothing in my post says I saw a demon.
So it's clear you are barking up the wrong tree.

By the way, determine that the phenomenon they call Dark Matter, isn't mistakenly attributed yo something else?
I heard Neil DeGrasse mention that.
Actually, scientists have been so wrong about what they though, so many times, I wonder what evidence they had then.
It wasn't evidence, right.


No. You said, "Why the pretense. Don't answer that"
That's not a personal comment about a user?
If I said, why be a hypocrite, would I not be penalized?
Are the two not the same?
Is it that I am confused, or something else?

Clearly, you are just talking, because you have not shown that a primary source is not evidence. Nor have you shown that eyewitness accounts are not evidence.
So claiming that I have not provided evidence is just using up space in the thread.


What evidence? Your personal judgement about me? That's evidence!
Where can I find the biggest WOW emoji to cover this page.


Oh wow. You find it difficult to read! Okay. I won't color your fonts.
I think you just don't like that they dramatically highlight how ridiculous your posts get at times.

From my experience, a mere line of response is Gish Gallop on these threads. Either people here do not know what Gish Gallop is. They repeat it like they just heard the word for the first time. Or they use it as an excuse to ignore the post, and not respond... because they have no counter argument.
Evidently, it's the latter.


Repeatedly you have, and you got evidence.


From your response I wonder ...
I have heard some persons bought their drivers license.
Evidence is understood by some fourth graders. In fact, I am sure if I googled evidence as taught to third graders, I would see...

Evidence facts for kids​

Kids Encyclopedia Facts
Evidence is something that is used to support an argument. It gives examples of why something is true.
For example, if someone come across a cup of spilled milk, that person could look for evidence as to how the milk was spilled. If hairs of a cat and paw prints were found on the ground, they could be evidence that a cat was the cause of the spilled milk. If a witness saw the cat spilling the milk, her testimony would also be evidence.




Oh, yes it is.


You read that???? Oh my head.


Oh my head hurts. This is amazing. The denial is so strong, it gets even more ridiculous.
When archaeologists find evidence confirming what is written, their finding is a secondary source of information.
The eyewitnesses are the ones who witnessed the events. Theirs, is a primary source - what they wrote.
You really know none of this stuff do you. I am almost sorry for scientists who are so stuck on the belief in science, to the point they worship it, and know nothing more. That is so sad.... it almost makes me want to cry. I can't get this frown off my face right now.

Children as young as five are learning this stuff. Unbelievable.

Can I use the Bible as a source for my paper?​

While the Bible is not a scholarly source, it would be considered a primary source

Even Universities.
One definition for Primary source is a source that originates at the time of an event, a witness to the event in their own words. With that definition, a Secondary source is [then] a later witness or commentary on those first artifacts. In this case primary sources would include: letters, newspapers, diaries, interviews, and artifacts. Secondary sources would then be interpretations of those artifacts.

Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

I posted the latter before, and you called it nonsense.
Wow. Just Wow. What more can I say. Denial causes one to say things that are quite embarrassing.





I don't have to admit to anything I never claimed, and moreover, to strawman arguments that seem to change every post.
Show you? Lol What do you want to see? Dark Matter? Gravity? Magnetism? The Wind? LOL This is just getting crazier by the post.


If this were a personal attack, you would report it. You know it's not.
I'm actually keeping in the personal attacks. So unless you are Jesus, you don't see them.
Actually, if I could, you would be on my ignore list, but unfortunately for me...


Here is the clear strawman for all to see. "Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person"
No one on this thread would testify that I said any of that you just wrote.
This reveals the level of your denial, so much so that you come up with a new strawman that just gets worst every post.

I think you mean you have nothing more you can respond with, other than the same denial.
My responses have been in keeping with my first post, which gave evidence you ignored, and referred to as nonsense, because you have no way of refuting it.
In this post, you made a mess of things, by posting stuff that would cause educators to question your qualifications... or your honesty.

Your prediction is to hope that I don't respond to your... rubbish.

You really can't admit that you are wrong and cannot provide one bit of evidence to support your claims. You didn't need to go to this much trouble to say nothing either.

I admit that it is an impressive amount of nothing, but it is still nothing. You have not provided one bit of the evidence that I asked for.

You take care.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes it does.


...and got a clear answer which you cannot refute but only complain.


This is your opinion, based on nothing other than denial.


Far as I know, no one has claimed to see demons.... Oh wait. Jesus did. Actually, Jesus can see more than demons. He discerns and knows your thoughts.
Nothing in my post says I saw a demon.
So it's clear you are barking up the wrong tree.

By the way, determine that the phenomenon they call Dark Matter, isn't mistakenly attributed yo something else?
I heard Neil DeGrasse mention that.
Actually, scientists have been so wrong about what they though, so many times, I wonder what evidence they had then.
It wasn't evidence, right.


No. You said, "Why the pretense. Don't answer that"
That's not a personal comment about a user?
If I said, why be a hypocrite, would I not be penalized?
Are the two not the same?
Is it that I am confused, or something else?

Clearly, you are just talking, because you have not shown that a primary source is not evidence. Nor have you shown that eyewitness accounts are not evidence.
So claiming that I have not provided evidence is just using up space in the thread.


What evidence? Your personal judgement about me? That's evidence!
Where can I find the biggest WOW emoji to cover this page.


Oh wow. You find it difficult to read! Okay. I won't color your fonts.
I think you just don't like that they dramatically highlight how ridiculous your posts get at times.

From my experience, a mere line of response is Gish Gallop on these threads. Either people here do not know what Gish Gallop is. They repeat it like they just heard the word for the first time. Or they use it as an excuse to ignore the post, and not respond... because they have no counter argument.
Evidently, it's the latter.


Repeatedly you have, and you got evidence.


From your response I wonder ...
I have heard some persons bought their drivers license.
Evidence is understood by some fourth graders. In fact, I am sure if I googled evidence as taught to third graders, I would see...

Evidence facts for kids​

Kids Encyclopedia Facts
Evidence is something that is used to support an argument. It gives examples of why something is true.
For example, if someone come across a cup of spilled milk, that person could look for evidence as to how the milk was spilled. If hairs of a cat and paw prints were found on the ground, they could be evidence that a cat was the cause of the spilled milk. If a witness saw the cat spilling the milk, her testimony would also be evidence.




Oh, yes it is.


You read that???? Oh my head.


Oh my head hurts. This is amazing. The denial is so strong, it gets even more ridiculous.
When archaeologists find evidence confirming what is written, their finding is a secondary source of information.
The eyewitnesses are the ones who witnessed the events. Theirs, is a primary source - what they wrote.
You really know none of this stuff do you. I am almost sorry for scientists who are so stuck on the belief in science, to the point they worship it, and know nothing more. That is so sad.... it almost makes me want to cry. I can't get this frown off my face right now.

Children as young as five are learning this stuff. Unbelievable.

Can I use the Bible as a source for my paper?​

While the Bible is not a scholarly source, it would be considered a primary source

Even Universities.
One definition for Primary source is a source that originates at the time of an event, a witness to the event in their own words. With that definition, a Secondary source is [then] a later witness or commentary on those first artifacts. In this case primary sources would include: letters, newspapers, diaries, interviews, and artifacts. Secondary sources would then be interpretations of those artifacts.

Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

I posted the latter before, and you called it nonsense.
Wow. Just Wow. What more can I say. Denial causes one to say things that are quite embarrassing.





I don't have to admit to anything I never claimed, and moreover, to strawman arguments that seem to change every post.
Show you? Lol What do you want to see? Dark Matter? Gravity? Magnetism? The Wind? LOL This is just getting crazier by the post.


If this were a personal attack, you would report it. You know it's not.
I'm actually keeping in the personal attacks. So unless you are Jesus, you don't see them.
Actually, if I could, you would be on my ignore list, but unfortunately for me...


Here is the clear strawman for all to see. "Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person"
No one on this thread would testify that I said any of that you just wrote.
This reveals the level of your denial, so much so that you come up with a new strawman that just gets worst every post.

I think you mean you have nothing more you can respond with, other than the same denial.
My responses have been in keeping with my first post, which gave evidence you ignored, and referred to as nonsense, because you have no way of refuting it.
In this post, you made a mess of things, by posting stuff that would cause educators to question your qualifications... or your honesty.

Your prediction is to hope that I don't respond to your... rubbish.

No, not over the top, overkill at all. No vendetta here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've never seen a demon and I would be interested to know the evidence and explanations used to conclude that something is a demon and not some ordinary phenomenon. I would be interested to know evidence and explanations used to determine that someone is possessed by a demon and not suffering some ordinary condition.

I read lots of claims and plenty of ad hominem attacks. But so far, no one has provided that evidence or those explanations so that I can draw reasonable conclusions about these claims.

Maybe I have seen them and don't know enough to recognize them. Here's your chance to provide the evidence to help me out. Not just claims. Anyone claim anything. I'm asking for objective evidence that would make the claims the obvious answer to reasonable person examining the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it does not describe my posts. I asked a general question. You chose to respond with nothing substantial and then when that was pointed out, what happened next has all the appearance of a vendetta.

I have literally not done that. My original post didn't do that. I stated that I have never seen a demon or evidence of demons. For those that claim they have seen them, they need to provide the evidence of what they saw and how they determined it was a demon and not some ordinary event mistakenly attributed to demons. That is it. That is what I asked. I didn't mention the Bible.

I haven't. That is what I have experienced coming from you in place of the evidence for determining demons in the here and now. Evidence, that you still have not provided.

That isn't what the evidence indicates.

It is my conclusion that you use them to confuse and obfuscate by making your posts more difficult to read. That has been a recognized complaint about such things and it is akin to a Gish Gallop of the senses by overwhelming your reader.

I have asked for evidence. My profession is based on the acquisition and use of evidence. Pointing out that you don't provide it is not an indication I don't like or reject evidence.

Your claim of the Bible being eye witness evidence is incorrect. It is a second hand account of a claim of eye witness evidence. It would be much like reading a confession written by someone else that you did not see write the confession about events you did not witness and then claiming you have eyewitness testimony to to these events.

You just cannot admit that you don't have any evidence to show me. Projection and a song and dance to avoid the fact that you don't have the evidence that would convince me or anyone else about demons.

It is what I expected.

This is just more personal attacks on me. Isn't it a shame that personal attacks are the direction you always seem to go? That is sad.

Unless you have valid evidence to support that you saw a demon or that you saw a demon-possessed person and can share that so that I and others can know it as a fact too, you don't have anything else to respond to me with. I predict any further response from you will be more of the same that you have provided so far.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of the Flood right now because I wasn't there, I wasn't in a generation right after the Flood, so didn't hear close accounts of what happened. I was reading a very interesting rather scholarly book by Irving Finkel on the Flood accounts and Gilgamesh, but I leave that for right now because I believe there is truth in the Bible about these things and there are some things, as the apostle pointed out, are hard to understand.
However, getting onto those who claim belief in the Bible somewhat, as do some who have a form of religion claiming to be Christian but decide much of the Bible is fantasy (ok, maybe better word for some is myth), I wonder what parts of the "New Testament" do they believe? Any? All? Some?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You will have to hope it’s soon. No facts on creation have been discovered for the past 500 years that science has tried.

All that we know about creation has been found in the last 500 years. Not the fault of science if you are not ware of it or if you choose to disregard it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, also important as well, it's written as a historical account. Noah's father, and Noah's sons are listed in the genealogical historical record,

My question is 'What should be taken as allegory and what should be taken as truth'. Jesus being God and son of God? The resurrection? What criteria you take to decide it?

 

[Apostle John]

All that we know about creation has been found in the last 500 years.

Which is nothing.

 

[ElishaElijah]

My question is 'What should be taken as allegory and what should be taken as truth'. Jesus being God and son of God? The resurrection? What criteria you take to decide it?

Do you have a problem determining when people are using figures of speech, telling a story to make a point, telling an account of something that happened in real life when talking to them every day? You wouldn’t know what I was talking about if I said “take a hike” or “let’s go on a hike”?
The Bible itself interprets Scripture by the Holy Spirit. For example you can take a subject, see where it’s first mentioned, go through the whole Bible to see what it says on a subject to determine what God meant, whether or not it still applies today or God was using it to teach or lead people in preparation of something He was going to do in the future.

 

[ElishaElijah]

An Earth-Shaking Archaeological Discovery - Behold Israel

The archaeologists were stumped. What had happened to cause what they had just unearthed? In the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, researchers had dug up […]

beholdisrael.org

In my view we should look at the Bible and what it says about Demons as well. Documented how Jesus dealt with them, their manifestations, how to expel them from people, who has authority to do this and who does not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not going to get into the discussion of the Flood right now because I wasn't there, I wasn't in a generation right after the Flood, so didn't hear close accounts of what happened. I was reading a very interesting rather scholarly book by Irving Finkel on the Flood accounts and Gilgamesh, but I leave that for right now because I believe there is truth in the Bible about these things and there are some things, as the apostle pointed out, are hard to understand.
However, getting onto those who claim belief in the Bible somewhat, as do some who have a form of religion claiming to be Christian but decide much of the Bible is fantasy (ok, maybe better word for some is myth), I wonder what parts of the "New Testament" do they believe? Any? All? Some?

That's good. I haven't been discussing the flood, so not discussing it with me would be appropriate.

Wouldn't it be more important to consider those that deify the Bible and are forced to relinquish free will to follow it as other men tell them to follow it. God gave us the gift of free will, yet many demand that gift be thrown out with the bath water.

How do you imagine that this practice fits with the First and Second Commandment? Or with the Ninth Commandment?

Since the Reformation, we have been told that each of us can interpret the Bible through our own relationship with God and understanding of God's word. Yet all I see on this thread are demands that run counter to that understanding and anyone doing so is coerced to give up that free will and pressured to conform to some other person's interpretation of the Bible.

How do you imagine these coercive persons come to the belief that they share authority with God?

I have seen overkill on here to force others to bend to that assumed authority, or at the least, shut them up when they ask questions.

Maybe you should think about that more.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That's good. I haven't been discussing the flood, so not discussing it with me would be appropriate.

Wouldn't it be more important to consider those that deify the Bible and are forced to relinquish free will to follow it as other men tell them to follow it. God gave us the gift of free will, yet many demand that gift be thrown out with the bath water.

How do you imagine that this practice fits with the First and Second Commandment? Or with the Ninth Commandment?

Since the Reformation, we have been told that each of us can interpret the Bible through our own relationship with God and understanding of God's word. Yet all I see on this thread are demands that run counter to that understanding and anyone doing so is coerced to give up that free will and pressured to conform to some other person's interpretation of the Bible.

How do you imagine these coercive persons come to the belief that they share authority with God?

I have seen overkill on here to force others to bend to that assumed authority, or at the least, shut them up when they ask questions.

Maybe you should think about that more.

There is a true interpretation which answers the question- What does God mean by the Scripture being discussed? And a false interpretation which would be no that’s not what He meant.
The Holy Spirit is God, He is the one who teaches men what the Scripture means.
If someone doesn’t have the Holy Spirit the Bible describes that person as being a natural man who cannot understand the Bible but it’s foolishness to them.

“However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭6‬-‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬