Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

[shunyadragon]

Non believers will never believe so it’s rather pointless to discuss this with you

The issue is not believers versus non-believers you are hiding behind, It is a fact that science and engineering today have determined the construction of the Arc is impossible, and with modern technology and methods no one has successfully been able to build a sea-worthy Arc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who finally compiled Genesis from more ancient texts such as Canaanite and Sumerian did believe what was handed down to them as true from each generation, and yes the authors of the NT believed it was true and intimately related to God's necessary plan for salvation and the purpose of Jesus Christ.

It is basically true that the ancients believed in their Creation stories and beliefs as to where they came from handed their own from one generation to the next. Based on the traditional history of the Hebrews they made every effort possible to record accurately word for word their history.

What reason would there be that these ancients wrote what they did not believe was true? Nowhere in the ancient writings themselves is there any mention that the text would have an allegorical meaning, and/or not true. They did not have the science to make a difference objectively. Even as late as the Greeks it is well documented that yes most believed in their legends and Gods. Genealogy was critically important for the Jews and Christians, and they believed in a genealogy beginning with Adam with Genesis basically true.

I have no doubt that the authors believed their stories. I am merely trying to help by showing how one hurts one's own beliefs when one tries to claim that the Bible is "true".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Non believers will never believe so it’s rather pointless to discuss this with you

Now that is not true at all and sounds like massive projection on your part. Here is all that you need to convince non-believers:

Reliable evidence.

But there is none that I know of for Genesis or Exodus and quite a bit of evidence against both of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said it claimed it was literal

Then one should not try to go out of one's way to say that parts of the Bible that are clearly not factual as being factual.

For example do you realize that in Matthew Jesus was born about 4 BC or even earlier and in Luke Jesus was born in 6 AD? Are the contradicting Nativity myths necessary to believe in Jesus?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no doubt that the authors believed their stories. I am merely trying to help by showing how one hurts one's own beliefs when one tries to claim that the Bible is "true".

To a degree, all Christians consider the Bible "true." It just depends on how much they are willing to fudge the text to make what they believe is "true" comfortable with how they want it to be "true"

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Then one should not try to go out of one's way to say that parts of the Bible that are clearly not factual as being factual.

For example do you realize that in Matthew Jesus was born about 4 BC or even earlier and in Luke Jesus was born in 6 AD? Are the contradicting Nativity myths necessary to believe in Jesus?

You have no idea what time was back then, all of these things you claim are factual are not, they are your opinion.

However if they are factual then you should let the world know that you are the first person to conclusively prove that God isn’t real.

Maybe you would get an award for such a discovery.

 

[F1fan]

Again, Earth may be referring only to the small area of land that Noah occupied. To him it would have seemed as if the entire planet was underwater when in actuality it may only have been the size of Rhode Island.

Now we’ve disproven there was ever a global flood so with that evidence we now have to examine other options that could explain this passage and there are plenty of possibilities out there.

So the Bible isn’t wrong only our interpretation of it is

The only reasonable interpretation is that there was a large local flood somewhere (not exactly rare on this planet since most settlements are near rivers) and a community suffered badly (not exactly rare on this planet). Someone wrote about the flood, and it was embellished and became lore among the Caananites. It's not unusual that ancient people attributed natural disasters to the gods. It ended up in Genesis, and then incorporated into the whole Bible. Christians, known for their tendency for Bible literalism, have interpreted all of Genesis literally. As we know in the 21st century none of it can be literally true.

 

[F1fan]

Non believers will never believe so it’s rather pointless to discuss this with you

And the laws of physics will never allow a ship the size of the Ark to be built of wood and float.

 

[F1fan]

You have no idea what time was back then, all of these things you claim are factual are not, they are your opinion.

However if they are factual then you should let the world know that you are the first person to conclusively prove that God isn’t real.

How is God real? Use facts.

Maybe you would get an award for such a discovery.

You proving God is real would be the first in history, and deserving of an award. Can you do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no idea what time was back then, all of these things you claim are factual are not, they are your opinion.

However if they are factual then you should let the world know that you are the first person to conclusively prove that God isn’t real.

Maybe you would get an award for such a discovery.

What makes you think that? You seem to have it completely backwards. If you want to claim that time was different the burden of proof is upon you. And we do know what time was like then. Pretty much the same as it is now. It is very well understood why those two dates are ten years in difference.

You cannot claim that the Bible is supported by science, or history, or archaeology when we keep finding the opposite to be true.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

How is God real? Use facts.

You proving God is real would be the first in history, and deserving of an award. Can you do it?

You can’t prove the existence of God either way unlike the poster I was responding to who factually knows God isn’t real because of some flood that happened 3000 years ago.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

And the laws of physics will never allow a ship the size of the Ark to be built of wood and float.

Boy, too bad God isn’t powerful enough to tinker with the laws of physics isn’t it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can’t prove the existence of God either way unlike the poster I was responding to who factually knows God isn’t real because of some flood that happened 3000 years ago.

We do not have to prove the nonexistence of God. Here is a simple example. Let's say that you have a friend that believes in fairies. She will tell you "You cannot disprove the existence of fairies" as if she had made a point. Do you have a burden of proof to disprove fairies or is the burden of proof hers and hers alone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boy, too bad God isn’t powerful enough to tinker with the laws of physics isn’t it?

Can God lie?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Can God lie?

If God says something it’s not a lie.

Your problem is that you are placing himal morals on God and God doesn’t follow the same rules we do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If God says something it’s not a lie.

Your problem is that you are placing himal morals on God and God doesn’t follow the same rules we do.

Then God did not give us the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve. And no, I am not placing my morals on God. The problem is that you appear to be claiming that God is a liar. I am pretty sure that you do not understand how you are doing that.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Then God did not give us the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve. And no, I am not placing my morals on God. The problem is that you appear to be claiming that God is a liar. I am pretty sure that you do not understand how you are doing that.

I never claimed that.

I said our interpretation of events back then are anything but crystal clear.

What I do know is God gave us exactly what He wanted us to have in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed that.

I said our interpretation of events back then are anything but crystal clear.

What I do know is God gave us exactly what He wanted us to have in the Bible.

But you did. You just do not understand how.

This is beyond personal interpretation. Or rather I should say that your personal interpretation is that God is a liar. You have to make up our mind.

 

[We Never Know]

I never claimed that.

I said our interpretation of events back then are anything but crystal clear.

What I do know is God gave us exactly what He wanted us to have in the Bible.

Run away.. Very fast lol

 

[F1fan]

You can’t prove the existence of God either way unlike the poster I was responding to who factually knows God isn’t real because of some flood that happened 3000 years ago.

So to "prove God isn't real" was just exageration? Let's note that we can eliminate the God of Genesis for those believers who think it is literally true. This makes us wonder if the stories are not literally true than why would anyone think the God is real. At what point does a thinker dismiss the embellished fiction from the true and real?