SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How does this not essentially just boil down to, "I want to believe what I want to believe, because I want to believe it." .... ??
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting discussion about religion and evolution
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
I’m sorry… but you are applying my statement on an application that wasn’t the subject matter.
Now, if you want to talk geological and fossil finds, I will be happy to address it with my limited knowledge on the subject
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Are you referring to me?
Astrophile
Active Member
All right. I apologise for going off-topic.
You are living proof that you can’t judge age by looking at the bones. Your day is as 1,000 years.
That is your personal opinion, because, yes, as more information and discoveries from archaeology and historical research is revealed history changes in response to the new information and this is true with science.
You need to document your accusations, and not just accuse.
As above you need to be specific and not go for the shotgun approach. I have over the course of this thread cited documented references concerning Isreal and Egypt and you failed to respond.
See above does not cut it. Read the posts with documentation and references and respond. You have failed to present any specifics to document the above.
It remains a fact that you assert the Torah is historical in and of itself.
Still waiting.
THAT! was my point. I am being fed that it is monolithic and even 100% accurate.
Well… that is what I am being told. That when academia says something we must believe it because the want me to believe it and never present anything that contradicts what it says because they want me to believe it.
Even when academia has proven that their reporting on peer review:
Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric
The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by...
Yet we are suppose to accept everything as gospel because academia has a peer reviewed article and “the scholars” have spoken!
i’m not saying that peer reviewed articles aren't necessary and are never helpful, but you can question it if need be.
No problem. I think we all have done it one time or another. I have apologized and retracted more than a few times.
I quoted three instances… but you say you are still waiting.
I gave you two examples where the scholars said one thing and then retracted because then archaeological finds proved them wrong and you say you are still waiting.
I expressed the difficulties of archaeology and you are saying that you are still waiting...
What are you waiting for? A personal engrave invitation? Or a spiritual appearance?
No you did not.
NO you did not
Very vague without specifics.
You have presented nothing so far.
Still waiting . . .
Then please read with a little more effort instead of reading it through the lenses of your faith positions.
No response still waiting for specifics. . .
I reviewed a number of pages of posts and found nothing of substance from you. Post #406 gave a vague reference to the Stele and Israel and Egypt but nothing specific.
Last edited:
As I said… we both are looking at the same evidence (as I gave them) but come to different conclusions.
If you can simply push to the side what I have given, why would any additional information make any difference? If Jesus and the NT validated the TaNaKh and you don’t accept it, then nothing I say will change your position.
This confirms that you have presented no specifics nor can you concerning your claims simply that you believe 'the TaNakh is historical,' and the NT validated the TaNaKh. This simply the apologetic argument that the text of Bible justifies the text of the Bible.
Not at all… I’ve already done the work. This is proof that it didn’t matter what I gave you… it would never be enough.
Enough?!?!?! You have as a matter of fact presented nothing of substance. Proof does not exist for any argument here from either side. This is a foolish egocentric notion. If you want proofs let's explore postulates in math and prove math theorems.
Brian2
Veteran Member
People have ignored the Bible and ended up going down paths where our feelings are more important than the laws. The Laws and the rest of what we are told in the Bible, keep us on track when it is easy to get side tracked into a way that seems right but is not.
People who are believers also have doubts and would prefer more evidence.
I can't take the place of God however. He knows us better than we know ourselves and knows why we don't believe or do believe etc.
Whether God would call it a lack of evidence, or a lack of faith is something for Him to call and something for Him to say what that means for us.
All we can do is go forward and seek Him and His Kingdom and leave the judging up to Him.
I would say there is a difference between not knowing and knowing but not accepting, but all the judging is up to God.
Brian2
Veteran Member
The flood killed all that lived in the land where it happened.
Please stop it… 1) I gave you a balanced site that mentioned 3 archaeological finds. 2) I mentioned 2 examples of two times scholars said one thing and later, archaeological finds disproved them (it too a while because of…) 3) Due to natural disasters, wars, and simple deterioration, it is PAINSTAKINGLY slow.
Now, just cause you say I’ve given nothing doesn’t “POOF” it away. This is teetering on flat-earth arguments!