JeSoul:

You're still beating around the same bush KAG. They're multitudes of scientists both christian and non-christian who've put forth theories that either show the flood could or could not have happened.

The distinct lack of evidence for a worldwide flood, and positive evidence against it say it couldn't have happened. Or if it did, a deceptive being cleaned up all the evidence for the flood and even planted several that falsify a deluge.

A lot of the time it comes down to their personal opinion.

No, it doesn't.

And it comes down to you or anyone one else, you'll either believe the biblical account or not whether there is proof or not.

To paraphrase a profound notion, nature - the Earth, the Universe and basically every empirically testable thing - is God's word too. If that aspect that testifies to God's glory seriously contradicts your interpretation of God's spiritual word, the Bible, then it's more than likely that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. To simply state that you believe your interpretation of the Bible whether the evidence suggests otherwise, is tantamount to Biblidolatry.

Um, you had to implant your own external notions into both texts to make your version seem feasible to you.

Your opinion and I respect but vehemently disagree with it.
To me its plain logic and accepted everywhere: If one statement can be true without the other being wrong/both true without excluding the possiblity of the other, then I really don't get what the hassle is all about This is plain logic.

I'm not sure I know what you're vehemently disagreeing with.

I gave you one possiblity, another many people have put forth is that the pharisees took the money and bought the field like it says in the text, but the author in acts attributed the purchase of the field to Judas because it was his money, though the pharisees bought it. Another possibility. I don't know which is the right one and will not pretend to.

Exactly! Thus, again, strict literalism is thrust out the window.

But if you or anyone else is going to discredit the bible based on this one so-called contradiction that many theories have been put forth to answer, I think that is highly disingenious. The bible is 66books long, and the only evidence to say it's not trustworthy is this little' query with Judas?

Are you kidding? If I wanted to discredit the Bible, then, surely, defending allegorical interpretation of certain portions of the Bible would be the wrong way of going about it, don't you think? No, I brought the Judas reports to show that strict literalism is not applicable to the Bible. It was one example.

To make that possible, the forces governing motion will have to be shoddily reworked. More importantly, though, yet again, the memories of everyone else on Earth would have to be tampered with, their envionments too would need reworking in such a way as to make the original miracle both unnecessary and unbelievable.

Could not disagree more.
Again you're saying this evidence of the sun going backward is absent. . .what kind of evidence would you be looking for to prove this did or didn't happen?

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist. furthermore, practically everyone on Earth would really feel the effects of a sudden change to geocentricism. A sudden recreation would both have to occur and memories implanted to ensure the impressive lack of evidence. Shoddy and deceptive.

Like I said before there's tons of work already done of this supporting or attempting to disprove this possiblity and I don't really have anything new to add to them. . .each person will believe what they want. I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers and can explain everything, no way. And some things I cannot prove or disprove.

I understand that.

And the sad thing is all these miracles are not even close to the primary message of the bible, that's not what is important and God is not intrested in proving His existence or supremacy or sovereignty to man.

I said as much in my first post.

But relying on "proof" and "evidence" in order for you to believe in the bible is pointless. It really is. Faith puts your heart in a position to be receptive and learn what really is true. Using your mere intellect with prove frustrating nd get you nowhere.

That's another discussion for another time.

KAG:

To paraphrase a profound notion, nature - the Earth, the Universe and basically every empirically testable thing - is God's word too.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

then it's more than likely that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. To simply state that you believe your interpretation of the Bible whether the evidence suggests otherwise, is tantamount to Biblidolatry.

You're not getting the point KAG. I'm not saying I believe my interpretation of the bible, I'm saying I believe the bible! 2 different things. My interpretation might be wrong sometimes becos I'm human just like everyone else, but that doesn't nullify the truth that the scriptures explicitly state. If the bible says this is what happened, then that is what happened. Period.
For example is says Judas hung, it also says he fell and his bowels split. I don't care how it happened or for my interpretation of how it happened but I believe and accept that it happened!
Get it?

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist.

In your opinion! yes it is your opinion!
Like I said this ground has been covered so many times, there are many proponents and opponents of numerous theories, each person will believe which theory they want. I don't see any use in repitition as I have nuthin new revelation to add to the already exsiting ones.

Look like I said you're still trying to look at these events from a scientific and rational point of view when the very purpose and definition of a miracle or supernatural event is that it defies explanation! I know you're saying the explanation should not be more incredible than the miracle itself but hey Christians don't need explanation and proof - that's where we differ. I could care less how or whether in the first place humans evolved or how the flood occured or if there's evidence of it beneath glaciers or if Nasa can/can't prove we're missing a day - becos all these matters very little.

Tasma summarized it very well here:

I said a lot of the Biblical stories don't seem credible and you are saying that they simply must be accepted as they are. That one must apply enough faith to nollify the need for any critical, scientific analysis of any Biblical story

and that's really what it all comes down to - faith.

btw. thanks for being a gentleman in discussion, most other atheists here are verbally violent and unreasonable, dishonest and resort to insulting christianity. But not so you from what I've seen. Keep it up!

JeSoul:


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

I was trying to summarise a notion that I find thought-provoking: all of nature should also be taken as a testimony.

You're not getting the point KAG. I'm not saying I believe my interpretation of the bible, I'm saying I believe the bible! 2 different things. My interpretation might be wrong sometimes because I'm human just like everyone else, but that doesn't nullify the truth that the scriptures explicitly state. If the bible says this is what happened, then that is what happened. Period.

Not necessarily. Several parts of the Bible are meant to be read as allegorical descriptions, rather than "as is" facts. It then becomes important to not assert that one must always be a strict literalist in ones reading of the Bible, as that - to get back to the point raised in my first post - is not only impossible, but also causes one to miss the import of those allegorical tales.

I should make clear that it wouldn't be disbelieving the Bible; it would, instead, be, in my opinion, a wise approach to reading and interpretation of Judeo-Christian scriptures.

For example is says Judas hung, it also says he fell and his bowels split. I don't care how it happened or for my interpretation of how it happened but I believe and accept that it happened!
Get it?

I get it. The point, though, is that to make every facet of the story work, the shackles of strict literalism have to be loosened. This, of course, as I said before, iis just one such example.

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist.

In your opinion! yes it is your opinion!

No, according to every available findings and evidence of and in the sciences, and animal and plants cultures.

Like I said this ground has been covered so many times, there are many proponents and opponents of numerous theories, each person will believe which theory they want. I don't see any use in repitition as I have nuthin new revelation to add to the already exsiting ones.

As far as scientific theories and history go, there is none that can possibly be used to support sudden geocentricism.

Look like I said you're still trying to look at these events from a scientific and rational point of view when the very purpose and definition of a miracle or supernatural event is that it defies explanation! I know you're saying the explanation should not be more incredible than the miracle itself but hey Christians don't need explanation and proof - that's where we differ.

It's also not just about the explanation being more incredible than the event, it's the characterisation of the deity behind it as well. In fact, at this point, my argument isn't so much that miracles can't happen, but that it seems odd to suggest a literal reading of an event that, though miraculous, it's after effects of it were also miraculously removed.

I could care less how or whether in the first place humans evolved or how the flood occured or if there's evidence of it beneath glaciers or if Nasa can/can't prove we're missing a day - because all these matters very little.

I suspect that they do matter in their own way. In my opinion, the validation or falsification of any of those things may help to indicate or confirm how a particular part of the Bible should be read.

Tasma summarized it very well here: and that's really what it all comes down to - faith.

I guess it depends on how you see faith. Either as Luther stated it, something that "must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," or in Acquinas's sense, something that can "possibly be supported by reason." Or indeed some other subset of the two.

between. thanks for being a gentleman in discussion, most other atheists here are verbally violent and unreasonable, dishonest and resort to insulting christianity. But not so you from what I've seen. Keep it up!

Thank you for being cordial too.

Well in a way JeSoul you have an answer to the post, your answer isn't very direct though. For you perhaps I should ask the question "Is Literal Bible Belief Necessary"? That seems to be more along the line of what you are saying. What do I mean? You have started first with the premise that everything in the Bible must be correct even if you can't explain it. Thus it's simply a matter of us human beings not being knowledgeable or spiritual enough to understand everything in the Bible. That view is fine and answers the post by saying "no, it's not possible for man to have common sense, literal belief in the Bible without a hefty dose of faith". A bit lengthy I know but that's the shortest I could write it.

Ok now how about this view? That human beings simply don't know, we don't know how the earth came about, though we know bits of the process, we don't exactly how we came about, though we have concepts and scientific theories. We do however find the "need" to believe we understand our existence, so WE come up with religion. In our attempt to understand God and our existence WE write the bible. Now because our understanding is poor and continually growing the Bible we write is flawed and full of bits and pieces from various concepts of God. Unfortunately the Bible has been labelled the word of God and cannot now be changed (even though it may have been heavily edited in the past). What then happens is that as human knowledge makes certain parts of the Bible seem unrealistic (see Earth being flat or spherical) we need to keep coming up with new and more stretched explanations for Biblical stories.

If we accept the Bible and in fact other religious books as man's attempts to describe God, it is unnecessary to become bugged down with literal interpretations of the Bible and we can begin to study the purpose of religion. Consequently we may look for ways to achieve the objective of religion that will be more acceptable to people and will not have to deal with endless interreligious quarrel and strive.

Does this make any sense?

@ poster, the bibl is God's word, and our God also has human feelings(or once was human),so i think it'ld be downright inconsistent for a man(as God once was) to continously communicate in purely parables, proverbs and other figures of speech that require superknowledge to decipher.no.

@ poster, the bibl is God's word, and our God also has human feelings(or once was human),so i think it'ld be downright inconsistent for a man(as God once was) to continously communicate in purely parables, proverbs and other figures of speech that require superknowledge to decipher.no.

olrotimi:

@ poster, the bibl is God's word, and our God also has human feelings(or once was human),so i think it'ld be downright inconsistent for a man(as God once was) to continously communicate in purely parables, proverbs and other figures of speech that require superknowledge to decipher.no.

Interesting concept. God was once a man. If this was true alot of things could be explained then.

Tasma:

Well in a way JeSoul you have an answer to the post, your answer isn't very direct though. For you perhaps I should ask the question "Is Literal Bible Belief Necessary"?

  Yes it is. Cos if you didn't believe in certain parts of the bible because you thot it was too incredible - that would be calling God a liar.

Ok now how about this view? That human beings simply don't know, we don't know how the earth came about, though we know bits of the process, we don't exactly how we came about, though we have concepts and scientific theories. We do however find the "need" to believe we understand our existence, so WE come up with religion. In our attempt to understand God and our existence WE write the bible. Now because our understanding is poor and continually growing the Bible we write is flawed and full of bits and pieces from various concepts of God. Unfortunately the Bible has been labelled the word of God and cannot now be changed (even though it may have been heavily edited in the past). What then happens is that as human knowledge makes certain parts of the Bible seem unrealistic (see Earth being flat or spherical) we need to keep coming up with new and more stretched explanations for Biblical stories.

If we accept the Bible and in fact other religious books as man's attempts to describe God, it is unnecessary to become bugged down with literal interpretations of the Bible and we can begin to study the purpose of religion. Consequently we may look for ways to achieve the objective of religion that will be more acceptable to people and will not have to deal with endless interreligious quarrel and strive.

Does this make any sense?

  makes sense.
But I could not disagree more

It would be the easy way out to simply say the bible is too hard to understand and believe therefore it musta been a creation from our imagination.
But read it, the depth, the prophecies that came true, the history, the records that match with other historical documents, the power, the wisdom, the amazing events - it did not come from man, but God. You cannot read the bible and conclude it is a story book, save your eyes and mind had already been prejudiced to think that way.
  Again I return to faith and that "A lot of the times biblical events and principles can only be understood with the help of the holy spirit. and that for non-christians trying to understand the bible from a secular point of view will be very frustrating and unproductive"

KAG:

I was trying to summarise a notion that I find thought-provoking: all of nature should also be taken as a testimony.

  oh okay got you. You're quoting the bible without knowing it 

Rom1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Not necessarily. Several parts of the Bible are meant to be read as allegorical descriptions, rather than "as is" facts. It then becomes important to not assert that one must always be a strict literalist in ones reading of the Bible, as that - to get back to the point raised in my first post - is not only impossible, but also causes one to miss the import of those allegorical tales.

  I think where I lose you is in your definition of a strict literalist. But I'll add that scripture leans on other scripture. Certain times you read one verse but it might only make sense after you've read another and lined things up.

I should make clear that it wouldn't be disbelieving the Bible; it would, instead, be, in my opinion, a wise approach to reading and interpretation of Judeo-Christian scriptures.

  Yes indeed, it would be a "wise" approach - by worldly standards. And the bible teaches us that using worldly standards to understand spiritual things is impossible.

It's also not just about the explanation being more incredible than the event, it's the characterisation of the deity behind it as well. In fact, at this point, my argument isn't so much that miracles can't happen, but that it seems odd to suggest a literal reading of an event that, though miraculous, it's after effects of it were also miraculously removed.

  I understand your point, and wish I had a better answer. But all I know is it happened and whether or not our current scientific methods can/can't prove it, don't matter.

I suspect that they do matter in their own way. In my opinion, the validation or falsification of any of those things may help to indicate or confirm how a particular part of the Bible should be read.

  oh I'm not saying they don't matter, but that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't stand as tall as the biggest issue of all - salvation.

I guess it depends on how you see faith. Either as Luther stated it, something that "must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," or in Acquinas's sense, something that can "possibly be supported by reason." Or indeed some other subset of the two.

  I'm with Luther on this 

Thank you for being cordial too.

  you more welcome sir.

poster, the bibl is God's word, and our God also has human feelings(or once was human),so i think it'ld be downright inconsistent for a man(as God once was) to continously communicate in purely parables, proverbs and other figures of speech that require superknowledge to decipher.no.

how was God once human??

JeSoul:

oh okay got you. You're quoting the bible without knowing it

Rom1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

No, I knew I was making reference to the Bible. That wasn't the verse I was thinking of when I wrote it, though.

I think where I lose you is in your definition of a strict literalist. But I'll add that scripture leans on other scripture. Certain times you read one verse but it might only make sense after you've read another and lined things up.

A strict literalist would be someone that interpretes every thing in the Bible literally.

Yes indeed, it would be a "wise" approach - by worldly standards. And the bible teaches us that using worldly standards to understand spiritual things is impossible.

I don't see how or why you've come to the conclusion that it's a wise approach solely by worldly standards. I suspect you arrived at that conclusion because of the source - meaning myself - of the argument. Rest assured, many Christian scholars and influences have tendered such views to.

I understand your point, and wish I had a better answer. But all I know is it happened and whether or not our current scientific methods can/can't prove it, don't matter.

Then, it would seem we'd have to view God as deceptive and terrible being in that case.

oh I'm not saying they don't matter, but that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't stand as tall as the biggest issue of all - salvation.

On that we agree. In my opinion, advocating strict literalism can act as stumbling blocks, though.

I'm with Luther on this
you more welcome sir.

Doesn't that view advocate dearth of thinking and reasoning? How then can one be like the Bereans if one tramples all reason underfoot?

KAG:

A strict literalist would be someone that interpretes every thing in the Bible literally.

  okay, got ya.

I don't see how or why you've come to the conclusion that it's a wise approach solely by worldly standards. I suspect you arrived at that conclusion because of the source - meaning myself - of the argument. Rest assured, many Christian scholars and influences have tendered such views to.

   I'm certainly not advocating we refuse ourselves all use of our mental faculties, no. Becos to understand the scriptures anyways you'll need to reason things out and make conclusions.
  I'm saying that however when our rational thinking and scientific reasoning put us in a position where the bible would appear to be inaccurate, then we need to toss out the window this "wise approach" because faith will need to take over at that point.

Then, it would seem we'd have to view God as deceptive and terrible being in that case.

  Not at all KAG. It would mean instead to me that the explanation is simply beyond human understanding! that is was unsearchable, unknowable and beyond and the scope and reach of our current scientific methods - whether or not the science claims otherwise.

Doesn't that view advocate dearth of thinking and reasoning? How then can one be like the Bereans if one tramples all reason underfoot?

   You know your bible!  talking 'bout them bereans.
    But no not at all it wouldn't be divorcing ourselves of all sensibility and rationality. No way. We're shown of incredible scholars and poets and doctors and soldiers and accountants in the bible that were christians and served God.
    We encouraged to think and reason and be wise and educate ourselves many times in the scriptures, but where we draw the line is questioning God and His word. We draw the line when our human reasoning contradicts or collides or is inconsistent with scripture - everything else is fair game.

Ok so when our critical reasoning contradicts the Biblical stories we must shelf our reasonable and accept by faith. My question now must be , why? If someone else came up with a religious book and assured you it's authentically God word will you also accept it fully. Obviously reading and believing in the Bible may have an impact on how a person lives his life. But that's exactly my point, it's more of a spiritual thing, something that affects our thoughts, our feelings etc. This same things can be achieved without literal belief in the Bible. Is it possible that the need to believe in the Bible is the reason some CHOOSE not to examine it critically?

I wouldn't say that Tasma. A grand example to disagree with that assertion are Berean Christians. My point? Faith and reason go hand in hand or better put there's reason within faith, and faith without reason
is blind faith e.g. them Jim Jones and co.

What do i mean by reason within faith? Take faith as a constant, they didn't question that faith, as it was absolute (a la Bible/Scriptures and its content) but rather reasoned what they heard on the pulpit if it aligned with what was in the Scriptures.

Simlar to all the other Abrahamic religious text out there, the bible peddles fake history.

All Abrahamic religious text are false, fake and counterintuitive.