What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Brian2]

It can be read, is read to mean practically
anything.
The very definition of completely
worthless testimony.

What the alternative translation means is that skeptics cannot point to the flood story and say it has been proven not to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is fine, maybe God wanted just that. "All" in other parts of the OT does not mean absolutely "all".
Another alternative is that floods happened all over the world at the same time and wiped out most of humanity.

Sorry, but you are only making things worse for yourself. Why not take the logical step of treating the story as a morality tale?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the alternative translation means is that skeptics cannot point to the flood story and say it has been proven not to be true.

Amazing. So you prefer a lying deity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe 20-30 years after the resurrection.

Please, do not make the error of calling what others do an "assumption". That is a huge mistake for you to make. It looks like a combination of projection and hypocrisy on your part. You also take on a burden of proof that you know that you cannot meet.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe 20-30 years after the resurrection.

It is possible that they spoke of and wrote what they saw and understood. There are symphonies written mostly by one person but completed by someone else, yet the main composer was given the credit, not diminishing from its beauty. I'm not saying that's what happened but it still could be accurately reported if it was transmitted that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peter and the other apostles and the women who were at the tomb.

Witnesses to the risen Jesus?

The "other apostles" as in .... ? They left eyewitness accounts somewhere?

Peter's epistles and John's gospel and Matthew's gosel are not hearsay imo

You just literally described them as hearsay.

We are told in other places that Paul spoke with witnesses.

So it's claimed. Speaking with witnesses doesn't make the person listening to them an eyewitness.


So hearsay accounts are enough for to believe a claim? Is that right? Is there any corroborating evidence for any of these supposed accounts? (No.)


Do you have any idea how many people have been wrongly convicted in just the last century, based on faulty eyewitness accounts? Actual eyewitness accounts, rather than a re-telling of a story that a guy heard from another guy, as we have in the Bible.

Now think of these Biblical accounts ...
We have no originals of these documents.
These documents were written down many years after the supposed event took place, after first being passed around orally for a number of years (We all know how well a game of Telephone turns out).
These documents have been translated and copied and re-translated and copied many times over.
There is no corroborating evidence for any of it from any sources outside the Bible.
They contain fantastical claims about things that are not known to happen.
I don't know about you, but add all this up and these accounts don't sound very reliable or verifiable to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What the alternative translation means is that skeptics cannot point to the flood story and say it has been proven not to be true.

Ah, so that's why you believe your own version of the flood story that doesn't really make sense and doesn't comport with what the Bible says about it?
It's the skeptic's fault.

 

[Bthoth]

What if it was created by God to evolve? Does this mean we are all correct?

I enjoy the humor of the unexpected comment.

In a pure sense, most every conscious life is trying to understand. As knowledge evolves the people learn and comprehend more.

The best example that I can convey for a mind to see evolution is to watch a video of an embryo develop.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but you are only making things worse for yourself. Why not take the logical step of treating the story as a morality tale?

Just because you might disagree, that doesn't make things worse for me.

 

[Brian2]

Amazing. So you prefer a lying deity.

God is not the one who did the translations and there was no reason to translate it any other way in an age where the possibility of a world wide flood was there.

 

[Brian2]

Please, do not make the error of calling what others do an "assumption". That is a huge mistake for you to make. It looks like a combination of projection and hypocrisy on your part. You also take on a burden of proof that you know that you cannot meet.

That many historians presume that the prophecy of the temple destruction in the synoptics is not true is just something admitted by those historians. That is just part of the method they use, it is not an accusation.

 

[Brian2]

It is possible that they spoke of and wrote what they saw and understood. There are symphonies written mostly by one person but completed by someone else, yet the main composer was given the credit, not diminishing from its beauty. I'm not saying that's what happened but it still could be accurately reported if it was transmitted that way.

True that could have happened.

 

[Brian2]

Witnesses to the risen Jesus?

The "other apostles" as in .... ? They left eyewitness accounts somewhere?

Well Peter wrote or dictated epistles. (and dictation does not mean that it was not a witness testimony)
The accounts of Matthew (an apostle) and John (an apostle) have these people as witnesses. That is hearsay but hearsay maybe but it is witnesses saying who was there and is a high standard for historical reporting.

You just literally described them as hearsay.

No I didn't do that.

So it's claimed. Speaking with witnesses doesn't make the person listening to them an eyewitness.

True, it makes it the historical account of a person who spoke with witnesses.
But Paul also met the risen Jesus.

So hearsay accounts are enough for to believe a claim? Is that right? Is there any corroborating evidence for any of these supposed accounts? (No.)

Speaking with witnesses is better history than finding written accounts in archives etc.
But there were actual witnesses that wrote.
There is more than one witness that tells us of Jesus resurrection appearances. Why are they not seen as corroborating each other?

Do you have any idea how many people have been wrongly convicted in just the last century, based on faulty eyewitness accounts? Actual eyewitness accounts, rather than a re-telling of a story that a guy heard from another guy, as we have in the Bible.

Tell the courts that accept witness account that.
Are you saying that you don't believe any history, even if it is from witness accounts?

Now think of these Biblical accounts ...
We have no originals of these documents.
These documents were written down many years after the supposed event took place, after first being passed around orally for a number of years (We all know how well a game of Telephone turns out).
These documents have been translated and copied and re-translated and copied many times over.
There is no corroborating evidence for any of it from any sources outside the Bible.

Yes I suppose that once skeptics got in on it and said that the gospels had to have been written after 70AD by those who did not know Jesus then what the early church tells us about who wrote the gospels can be kicked out and you can make up the idea of Chinese whispers etc. and somewhere along the way we had the idea of a dead Jesus change to a resurrected Jesus and with all the surrounding story of what happened after the resurrection etc.
Yes I guess that is plausible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, not.

They contain fantastical claims about things that are not known to happen.
I don't know about you, but add all this up and these accounts don't sound very reliable or verifiable to me.

Yes the resurrection was something that would have shown the apostles that Jesus was whom He had claimed to be and that He had been sent from God, the one who could raise the dead again.

 

[Brian2]

Ah, so that's why you believe your own version of the flood story that doesn't really make sense and doesn't comport with what the Bible says about it?
It's the skeptic's fault.

No it is the fault of science which told us that a world wide flood is untenable. So a different interpretation was needed or saying that it was just a moral parable. But the alternative legitimate translation just enabled us to say that the translators had made a mistake when there was no reason to think that the mistake was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you might disagree, that doesn't make things worse for me.

Is projection all that you have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not the one who did the translations and there was no reason to translate it any other way in an age where the possibility of a world wide flood was there.

We went over this before. But we could try again. Please clearly state your flood model. You do not need to get into how God did it. But you need to state what his goals were, when it happened. How extensive it was. Etc.. From what I have seen you have had to change the story so much that it is all but worthless. At least one could construct a morality tale using the myth of Genesis. By doing so, even though it never happened, it is still in accord with the "All scripture is God breathed . . . " verse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That many historians presume that the prophecy of the temple destruction in the synoptics is not true is just something admitted by those historians. That is just part of the method they use, it is not an accusation.

What makes you think that they do that? Now it is a piece of evidence for their conclusions, but for your claim to be true you would need to be able to show that that was the only reason that they put it at that date.

 

[Brian2]

What makes you think that they do that? Now it is a piece of evidence for their conclusions, but for your claim to be true you would need to be able to show that that was the only reason that they put it at that date.

The presumption is what they do. Are you saying that there is proof that the gospels were written after 70AD apart from that?
I have heard a couple of things mentioned along those lines but I don't think it is proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The presumption is what they do. Are you saying that there is proof that the gospels were written after 70AD apart from that?
I have heard a couple of things mentioned along those lines but I don't think it is proof.

You are the one making personal attacks against others. The burden of proof is upon you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are the one making personal attacks against others. The burden of proof is upon you.

For someone like you making that statement about another poster is... hysterical.