Facts vs evidence

[Dan From Smithville]

Finding a spoon would be evidence that
Jesus are breakfast with it.

Just not very much or very good evidence.

I had to look up when spoons were invented. Unknown, but what is known is that they have been found as far back as 1,000 BC. So, it could be that there was such a spoon. Used to part the Cheerios?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think we have been over it but I don't think the things you mentioned have been shown to be false.

There is no evidence that there was a global flood that wiped out everything except 8 people and a boat full of animals. The possibility defies physics.

 

[Brian2]

Agreed, and that revaluation is what is called motivated thinking, the motivation being to make scripture seem correct when evidence arises that it is not. And it indicates that one should not go to scripture for factual information, but to the science that motivated believers are trying to get closer to.

Science can also be wrong and need to backtrack.

Here's a fine example. The story is of a global flood intended to wipe out all of humanity apart from a small cohort on an ark because humanity was sinful, not just the part of humanity living where Noah lived. But now we know that there was no global flood or near sterilization of and all doesn't mean all.

This is a good example of how ancient scriptures can be misinterpreted and how science can help identify those places.
If you want to make it a battle between science and the Bible that is your view but in the end it is people finding truth and should be a co-operative effort. But science does not care for the opinions of believers so "co-operative" is not going to happen.

It has never been the case that science was wrong because it contradicted scripture.

I cannot say for sure.

OK, but that wasn't contested. I agreed that the archeological evidence supports the Hebrew conquest of local Canaanites, but not that they weren't also from that region or that they were captives in Egypt or experienced an Exodus.

Captives in Egypt and the Exodus I suppose need their own evidence. Nevertheless as it stands the archaeology can be seen to support the Biblical account, even if many archaeologists seem to prefer to deny that the archaeology supports the Biblical account and so say that Jericho did not exist and was not conquered by Israel and if there was any warring it happened around 1200BC instead of the Biblical 1400 BC.

And you believe there was conquest following an Egyptian captivity and exodus, but you only provided evidence of the conquest, which as I said was not in dispute. I didn't rebut your claim for that evidence supporting the presence of the Hebrews in Canaan because I agree with that conclusion - they were there and defeated neighbors. If you want to defend your belief, you'll need evidence of the things about which we disagree, not the areas where we agree.
This is more motivated thinking - deflecting to areas of agreement that you can support. You want scripture to be correct, so you emphasize what you can support even when it is not questioned rather than provide evidence for why we should believe that the biblical account of the Jews as slaves in Egypt followed by a forty-year exodus through the desert is history and not a myth about events that never occurred.

I have posted a couple of videos to you about Hebrews in Egypt where and when the Bible tells us and showing how they are not slaves and resemble Joseph and his family.

My opinion about the history is based in the evidence available, not an assumption that scripture is wrong. I didn't have an opinion about either an Egyptian captivity or an exodus. Had one occurred, there would be evidence for it, and our understanding of that history would reflect that and with no objection from anybody. But that's not what happened, we know that, and it is a fine example of biblical mythology, but not of history.

As I said I have posted some evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt before they became slaves.

David Rohl lectures. - Google Search

David Rohl on Israel and Joseph in Egypt - Google Search

 

[Brian2]

But if there is no reason to, we have to accept the conclusions.

Reasons don't need to be scientific. Faith reasons can cause people to reject science conclusions.

Believers can accept science and recognize that their interpretations might be wrong in detail. The people that wrote the Bible were not stupid, but they were ignorant of a lot of the world that we have since discovered details about. A literal view of certain stories is not warranted.

Could be.

 

[Brian2]

There is no evidence that there was a global flood that wiped out everything except 8 people and a boat full of animals. The possibility defies physics.

So I reinterpret the Bible and hopefully in a legitimate way, so that the Biblical flood was large local and I can also add that God could have gotten rid of others with floods at the end of the ice age (evidence of large floods then), and that if the Bible says "all life" that is an exaggeration and this sort of exaggeration is common in the Bible, and for a start we know God did not get rid of all humans, because He saved Noah and family.

 

[Audie]

The evidence is that there was a huge flood in that area and that there were others in other parts of the world around the same time

There have been lots of big floods.
There are floods every day.

The Bible story with ark etc is fantasy.
Never happened.

So what if anything is your point.

 

[Audie]

Reasons don't need to be scientific. Faith reasons can cause people to reject science conclusions.



Could be.

Faith gets people to do all sorts of dumb things
besides going into denial.
Is that somehow a good thing?

 

[Audie]

So I reinterpret the Bible and hopefully in a legitimate way, so that the Biblical flood was large local and I can also add that God could have gotten rid of others with floods at the end of the ice age (evidence of large floods then), and that if the Bible says "all life" that is an exaggeration and this sort of exaggeration is common in the Bible, and for a start we know God did not get rid of all humans, because He saved Noah and family.

So you just make up your own version of the
Bible since the original isn't true and then
have faith in yourself?

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith gets people to do all sorts of dumb things
besides going into denial.
Is that somehow a good thing?

May i ask what you do, and upon what basis? Upon what do you base your moral decisions?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you just make up your own version of the
Bible since the original isn't true and then
have faith in yourself?

I was looking at pictures of silverback gorillas. They are lumbering creatures that walk on all fours. Their backs are literally horizontal with the floor when walking on all fours. Thinking that somehow the little itty-bitty incremental changes on "apes" produced eventually human beings is almost like saying that stars and planets are persons. In other words -- you can figure out what I mean, maybe and I hope so. (Have a good one...)

 

[Brian2]

There have been lots of big floods.
There are floods every day.

The Bible story with ark etc is fantasy.
Never happened.

So what if anything is your point.

You said there is evidence that there was no flood and I disagreed and now you agree with me.
The Bible flood does not have to have been one world wide flood. That is what science has a problem with.

 

[Brian2]

Faith gets people to do all sorts of dumb things
besides going into denial.
Is that somehow a good thing?

It probably depends what they do.

 

[Brian2]

So you just make up your own version of the
Bible since the original isn't true and then
have faith in yourself?

No, I don't make up the Bible, I interpret it, and hopefully I do that legitimately.

 

[Audie]

You said there is evidence that there was no flood and I disagreed and now you agree with me.
The Bible flood does not have to have been one world wide flood. That is what science has a problem with.

The story very plainly says it's the
whole world.
In order to kill everything ot has to
be the whole world.
There's no point in " all the animals"
or some impossible to build " ark" if
it's not the whole world.


Making up a version that is possible
physically is a whole lot different
than interpreting what is actually there.

That's what Bible believers have a problem with, when someone tries to warp the story to fit their chosen beliefs.

Science has no " problem" with myths,
Religions have problems with reality.

 

[Audie]

No, I don't make up the Bible, I interpret it, and hopefully I do that legitimately.

Let's see a map that shows the
area affected by your interpretation.

Just the middle eastern part will do.

Bonus points if you can find an
explanation for a flood there lasting for a year.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said there is evidence that there was no flood and I disagreed and now you agree with me.
The Bible flood does not have to have been one world wide flood. That is what science has a problem with.

Really big floods are not global floods. To make the Noah's Ark myth possible you have to dilute it to the point where it was just a man in a boat for a few days.

 

[Brian2]

The story very plainly says it's the
whole world.
In order to kill everything ot has to
be the whole world.
There's no point in " all the animals"
or some impossible to build " ark" if
it's not the whole world.


Making up a version that is possible
physically is a whole lot different
than interpreting what is actually there.

That's what Bible believers have a problem with, when someone tries to warp the story to fit their chosen beliefs.

Science has no " problem" with myths,
Religions have problems with reality.

It can be translated as the whole "land" and as the high "hills" and the purpose to build the ark is to save the animals in the area and to be a witness to the people that God is going to send a disaster on the earth.
It's like God warning people these days that the end is neigh. They may not believe but God has done the right thing by warning them.
But it does look like God felt like getting rid of all human and animal life on the earth, and God could still do something like that through the other floods that happened in those days at the end of the ice age.
However "all" does not always mean literally "all" in the Bible and so God could leave people (as He did with Noah and his family) and still say "all".

 

[Audie]

It can be translated as the whole "land" and as the high "hills" and the purpose to build the ark is to save the animals in the area and to be a witness to the people that God is going to send a disaster on the earth.
It's like God warning people these days that the end is neigh. They may not believe but God has done the right thing by warning them.
But it does look like God felt like getting rid of all human and animal life on the earth, and God could still do something like that through the other floods that happened in those days at the end of the ice age.
However "all" does not always mean literally "all" in the Bible and so God could leave people (as He did with Noah and his family) and still say "all".

No prob. Nothing in the Bible means what it says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It can be translated as the whole "land" and as the high "hills" and the purpose to build the ark is to save the animals in the area and to be a witness to the people that God is going to send a disaster on the earth.
It's like God warning people these days that the end is neigh. They may not believe but God has done the right thing by warning them.
But it does look like God felt like getting rid of all human and animal life on the earth, and God could still do something like that through the other floods that happened in those days at the end of the ice age.
However "all" does not always mean literally "all" in the Bible and so God could leave people (as He did with Noah and his family) and still say "all".

So it killed a few people, not anywhere near all of the people in the world. In fact most of the people in the world would never have seen it or heard about it until after Christian missionaries explained their beliefs to the rest of the world. How did that work?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was looking at pictures of silverback gorillas. They are lumbering creatures that walk on all fours. Their backs are literally horizontal with the floor when walking on all fours. Thinking that somehow the little itty-bitty incremental changes on "apes" produced eventually human beings is almost like saying that stars and planets are persons.

Man didn't descend from gorillas, but the last common ancestor of the chimps and man was also a knuckle walker. And we know that that creature had bipedal descendants. Lucy looked a lot like a chimp, but there were a few important differences:

Why do you suppose the dentition is so different? The answer is that Lucy was a bipedal persistence hunter (terrestrial) and needed the kind of teeth that meat eaters require, whereas the chimp is arboreal and lives on leaves and nuts.

Another and a related difference between them is that Lucy was bipedal. She hunted on two feet, although she still had a chimp-sized brain, about 450 ccs compared to a human brain about triple that, so we know that bipedalism preceded big brains in man's evolution.

And how do we know that Lucy walked upright? She had an inferior foramen magnum rather than a posterior one as seen in animals whose spines are parallel to the ground. The creature on the left, man, has it's body under its skull, so that's where the hole through which the spinal cord enters and leaves the brain is found. Quadrupeds have their bodies behind their heads, and so the foramen magnum is posterior

But science does not care for the opinions of believers so "co-operative" is not going to happen.

You want scientists to consider the opinions of believers? Why would they? They're doing science. They examine nature and tell us what its regularities are - its rules and laws. Scripture and opinions about it aren't helpful with that agenda.

You are probably aware that the community of scientists doesn't consult creationists for their opinions. The creationists bemoan this when their papers are rejected for publication in respected journals, but were you aware that they are also not interested in the opinions of people outside of their community that happen to agree with them?

the archaeology can be seen to support the Biblical account, even if many archaeologists seem to prefer to deny that the archaeology supports the Biblical account

I disagree unless you mean only parts of the biblical account. Some parts are sufficiently supported by the archeology, but most isn't, and we should expect to find evidence supporting a Jewish captivity in Egypt and of Hebrews wandering the Sinai for decades. You dismiss the opinions of the "many archeologists" to whom you refer as dissenting. Do you think that they are all unaware of the archeology you say support the biblical narrative? If not, what's your explanation for their dissent?

I have posted a couple of videos to you about Hebrews in Egypt where and when the Bible tells us and showing how they are not slaves and resemble Joseph and his family.

I don't look at orphan links, meaning when you offer a link in place of an argument. You can summarize its findings in 1-3 sentences if you understand the argument. If not, then there isn't a sound argument there. I have good reason for this. The people posting such links typically don't understand what they say and can't answer any criticism or support the source. If you think you're correct, make your case. If you can't, you shouldn't be asserting your beliefs as supported.

As I said I have posted some evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt before they became slaves.

David Rohl lectures. - Google Search

David Rohl on Israel and Joseph in Egypt - Google Search

Same answer. You made your case for the Hebrews being at Mt. Ebal in a few sentences, supported it with links, and it was accepted. Now make the analogous case for an Egyptian captivity and exodus. Give me just one strong piece of archeological evidence in support of either.

The Bible flood does not have to have been one world wide flood.

I does if one is to believe that it rained for forty days and forty nights to rid the earth of sinful humanity save for one family.