Historical vs Religious Interpretations

[nPeace]

Does that mean you're going to continue making unevidenced claims?

Please post some evidence of your claims so we can critique it.

Lot's of us are, and we've been asking you to back up your claims for years.

Unevidenced claims? That's not even a word, B.
If you meant un-evidenced claims, that's you guys... remember.
How many times have we been asking you for evidence for your beliefs, and you provide reasoning as evidence... i.e. nothing.

So, why don't you waste your time, instead of asking me to waste mine, when all you do is run away.
You'll only wave your hand, and I would have spent a few hours, for nothing, when those hours can be spend doing other important things.

I thought of doing it, but nah... especially not for two skeptics I have a very good knowledge of.
With knowledge comes experience... and it's wisdom to use that knowledge properly.

I consider myself wise.

 

[Valjean]

Unevidenced claims? That's not even a word, B.
If you meant un-evidenced claims, that's you guys... remember.
How many times have we been asking you for evidence for your beliefs, and you provide reasoning as evidence... i.e. nothing.

So, why don't you waste your time, instead of asking me to waste mine, when all you do is run away.
You'll only wave your hand, and I would have spent a few hours, for nothing, when those hours can be spend doing other important things.

I thought of doing it, but nah... especially not for two skeptics I have a very good knowledge of.
With knowledge comes experience... and it's wisdom to use that knowledge properly.

I consider myself wise.

You're projecting.

We've linked to lots of evidence. You apparently ignore it. You're in active denial.
Evidence: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Read a biology textbook. Read a scientific magazine. Take a class.

Articles come out every day, even in popular magazines and publications aimed at the general public.
You're flooded with evidence. You're like a fish denying the water it's swimming in. How you avoided learning all this in middle and high school I can't imagine.

 

[nPeace]

You're projecting.

You guys do that.

We've linked to lots of evidence. You apparently ignore it. You're in active denial.
Evidence: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Read a biology textbook. Read a scientific magazine. Take a class.

Articles come out every day, even in popular magazines and publications aimed at the general public.
You're flooded with evidence. You're like a fish denying the water it's swimming in. How you avoided learning all this in middle and high school I can't imagine.

Yes, this is the best you can do... provide links with pages upon pages of the information everyone has read with the same reasoning. No evidence.
How is that producing evidence.
You can't even express your convictions in your own words. Sad.

I got links too.
Some of those, I have already linked.
The difference is, mine are short and sweet. Simple, and to the point.
Breaking down tons of evidence into a small package.

Oh wait.
I think I hear it.

"Just because all of that is true, it doesn't mean everything else is true."

I can cry too. Just because small changes do take place, doesn't mean that changes on a macro level happens. We don't see it.

Here it comes.
"Why not? What's to stop it from happening?"

Wishing? Well, what prevents miracles from happening? You're describing one.

 

[Ella S.]

You guys do that.


Yes, this is the best you can do... provide links with pages upon pages of the information everyone has read with the same reasoning. No evidence.
How is that producing evidence.
You can't even express your convictions in your own words. Sad.

I got links too.
Some of those, I have already linked.
The difference is, mine are short and sweet. Simple, and to the point.
Breaking down tons of evidence into a small package.

Oh wait.
I think I hear it.

"Just because all of that is true, it doesn't mean everything else is true."

I can cry too. Just because small changes do take place, doesn't mean that changes on a macro level happens. We don't see it.

Here it comes.
"Why not? What's to stop it from happening?"

Wishing? Well, what prevents miracles from happening? You're describing one.

When I made my creationist analogy, I did not realize that you were also a creationist. I'm sorry for that.

 

[nPeace]

When I made my creationist analogy, I did not realize that you were also a creationist. I'm sorry for that.

Sorry you made the analogy, or sorry you realize I am "also a creationist"?
I don't consider myself a creationist... considering how the term is often used, but either way, everything is cool.

 

[Muffled]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

You see this most commonly exemplified in debates like the one between historian Bart Ehrman and theologian William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead or not. However, this is not solely relegated to Western religions.

Vedic texts and Buddhist sutras are also filled with accounts that historians find dubious. There is even Taoist folklore about Laozi correcting Confucius, even though they lived too far apart to have known one another.

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

I believe historians think their facts are always correct and often they are not. I can imagine that history might help inform an interpretation but I do not believe it should change a correct interpretation.

 

[Muffled]

Sure. But it requires religious authorities and historians to not interpret their scriptures literally for starters.

I'm also reminded of a story from a number of years ago about crossing the "Red" sea which according to a translation of Yam Suph, "Reed Sea" and the study which demonstrated how natural forces could have created a passage.

I can believe in natural forces used by God but it is more difficult to believe the sea passage was due to serendipity.

 

[Muffled]

From what I've seen, everyone who believes themselves to be lead by the Holy Spirit seems to reach completely different conclusions about how to interpret scripture.

How do you know which of these differing perspectives are truly of the Holy Spirit and which ones are not? If it's to rely on your own relationship with the Holy Spirit, how can you so confidently claim that your relationship is genuine and discount the experiences of the vast majority of other believers?

I believe anyone can make the claim and someone did a spurious claim on RF that was quite obvious. I know my relationship has been verified by fulfilled personal prophecy but there isn't any way for anyone else to verify that.