CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
First off, I have to get something off my chest. Misfit has claimed that there is overwhelming evidence supporting (macro evolution, micro evolution is a undeniable fact.) evolution. However, this is just not the case. Macro isn't overwhelmingly supported by evidence, it's overwhelmingly supported by people. Creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence.
Now, for the proof Christianity is true: Prophecy. Before you turn up your nose, hear me out.The books of Isiah, Malachi, Psalms, Jeremiah, Exodus, Hosea, and Genesis (I may be missing a few) Specifically spoke of the things Jesus would do hundreds and in some cases one thousand years before he actually did them.
Here are a few examples:
He would be born in Bethlehem. (Prophesied in Micah 5:2, Fulfilled in Matthew 1:22-23 and Luke 1:26-31)
He would spend a season in Egypt (Prophesied Hosea 11:1, Fulfilled Matthew 2:14-15)
A massacre of Children would happen at his Birthplace: (Prophesied Jeremiah 31:15, Fulfilled Matthew 2:16-18)
There are forty-one other examples of this That I don't have time to reference.
Before you state the Bible can not be used as a historical implement due to it being a religious book, let me give some examples of archaeological digs by non Christians that support it.
The World Wide Flood. There are ridiculous amounts of religions that claim a world-wide flood occurred. Even many Native American tribes have a world-wide flood story that parallels the Biblical account.
The Nuzi Tablets. The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River and datable to c. 1500 BC, reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like.
The Merneptah Stele. A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of c. 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.
Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.
I could go on, but my fingers are really, really sore.
Firstly, if you are going to claim micro evolution is undeniable, you should know that the processes by which you claim micro evolution to occur are simply cogs in the greater wheel of macro evolution. Macro evolution is simply the larger picture of the tree of life. The basic mechanisms- mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection-can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. This is macro evolution.
Now for the "proof."
Your first three examples are from the bible, an edited text for religious purposes. You cannot prove a book using that book. Furthermore I doubt you read the original manuscript, in its original language. This is key to any historical study of a source. You are referencing an english translation of a text edited for thousands of years. If you honestly believe that there haven't been changes to the original meanings and phrases of these sources you are deluding yourself.
Thirdly, simply having a flood story does not prove christianity any more than you could use noah's flood to prove Native American beliefs, which I'm sure you wouldn't. Most religions relied on supernatural explanations for natural events they could not explain. If you could demonstrate some geologic evidence NOT from a creationist source, but a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific source I'm happy to agree.
Nuzi Tablets and Merneptah Stele- This is not proof of christianity. This is evidence (not "proof") of established societies in the area with similar customs to those described in the bible. The people who primarily occupied Nuzi were the Hurrians, not Israelites. They were also polytheistic. As for Merneptah, there is some debate about whether it refers to the biblical Israelites, as this is not clear in the texts. It could be referring to a city in Canaan or a Libyan tribe. Overall it's too unclear to use it as definitive proof.
As for your cities, I find it a little silly to assume that authors of books may never refer to real places in works of fiction. I guess we must take that to its logical end, where every work referencing an actual city is therefore true. Simply because these places were mentioned does not make the stories true. It is more likely that the writers wanted to make their stories accesible to those who would hear them. How many places in history have been the location of myth and legend? Are they true because these places exist? Absolutely not.
Furthermore is it also historical fact that several "gods" and "saviors" throughout history have the exact same "story" as Jesus of Nazareth including Glycon, Mithra, and Horus. In addition considering that the "civilized world" particularly as it related to the Hebrew people, from which the old testament comes, was centralized in the Mediterranean region, matching a person to several "prophecies" would not be a big stretch, especially spending time in Egypt. Also fact is the Council of Nicaea, during which the concrete decision about the divinity of the Christ was decided, the date of Easter( to coincide with a pagan festival), and many other early laws. In the early church the christians still used the old testament and it wasn't till 140AD that what might be considered the "first draft" of the new testament was compiled, including the 10 letters of Paul, and an early Gospel of Luke later renamed to the Gospel of Marcion. The four Gospels canon was put forth by Irenaeus, on what seems to be an almost Pagan reasoning, incluing the fact that "there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds". It wasnt until around the 3rd century that what we know today as the new testament was in use. In addition Martin Luther again edited the roman catholic bible to exclude Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in 1534. Again in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible society again translated and edited the Bible to exclude what is know as the apocrypha and it became as it is today. So the accuracy of the current bible in relation to the source material is highly doubtful. That's not even mentioning the fact that in the days before the printing press, and for some time after, literacy was limited to the rich and to the church, and copies of the bible even more so. Therefore, no one can really say with any actual certainty that the bible is accurate.
Furthermore is it also historical fact that several "gods" and "saviors" throughout history have the exact same "story" as Jesus of Nazareth including Glycon, Mithra, and Horus. In addition considering that the "civilized world" particularly as it related to the Hebrew people, from which the old testament comes, was centralized in the Mediterranean region, matching a person to several "prophecies" would not be a big stretch, especially spending time in Egypt. Also fact is the Council of Nicaea, during which the concrete decision about the divinity of the Christ was decided, the date of Easter( to coincide with a pagan festival), and many other early laws. In the early church the christians still used the old testament and it wasn't till 140AD that what might be considered the "first draft" of the new testament was compiled, including the 10 letters of Paul, and an early Gospel of Luke later renamed to the Gospel of Marcion.
The supposed similarity between Jesus and Horus are again as I said unto others unsupported by evidence. Give me some similaties that aren't made up.
Also the Gospel of Marcion was a edited version of the Gospel of Luke to fit the theology of Marcionism. It was not a rough draft of the New Testament it was simply a text that was edited by people who followed Marcionism.
I think Nook already addressed most of what you said, and I talked about the prophesies in my rebuttal on the other side of the debate, so I'll keep this brief.
There are ridiculous amounts of religions that claim a world-wide flood occurred.
Every year there are floods all over the globe. The flood accounts you are referring to are most likely just localized one. How exactly did these primitive cultures know it was a global flood, and not just a local one? They didn't have satellite imagery to look around the globe. All they had was their eyes, which can't see that far.
The moral lesson in this case being, don't make god mad or he will slaughter nearly every man, woman, child, animal, and insect on the planet. Talk about over-kill. He really needs to take some anger management classes. I guess he was afraid that if this guy survived, he might corrupt the world again.
Also, even from a Biblical standpoint the worldwide flood seems unlikely. Many religions having the flood as a story in there religion doesn't mean a worldwide flood because it wasn't until after the flood till the people were spread throughout the earth. Also, the Bible said God dried up "the whole Earth" .I don't see the Earth being a desert soooo looks like a local flood to me. Throughout the Bible "the whole earth" refers to a specific region where a group of people resided. All the people resided in one place so "the whole earth" was judged by the flood but because of them being centralized, the flood was local.
Actually you didn't really dispute anything that I said in that debate. You claimed the debater for the local flood was skewing context and the words of the Bible. You underlined the words "the whole earth" "the whole earth was covered" "the mountains were covered" and "all people". However every one of these phrases can be explained to be local as well as the context.
"The whole earth" usually regards to people not geography.
-Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)
-Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
-And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
-While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)
-"I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
-He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)
-Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)
-Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)
-For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)
-"All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalm 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)
-Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)
-Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)
-Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalm 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)
-(A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)
-He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
-"The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)
"The whole earth" is usually local when referring to geography.
-'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
-'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
-And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
-For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
-So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
-And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
-Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)
-And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
-And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)
The local flood fits in context as well. The purpose of the flood was to judge all of mankind. Mankind was not spread all over the earth until Genesis 11. The local flood would judge all of mankind that was set in a local area. Also there is a word to describe something global which is the Hebrew word "tebel" used 37 times in the Bible.
And finally in Genesis 8:14, we are told "the whole earth" is completely dry. So Christians are supposed to believe the Earth became a huge desert after the flood?
Actually you didn't really dispute anything that I said in that debate. You claimed the debater for the local flood was skewing context and the words of the Bible. You underlined the words "the whole earth" "the whole earth was covered" "the mountains were covered" and "all people". However every one of these phrases can be explained to be local as well as the context.
Did you read the whole thread, because I believe already addressed most of the things you mentioned. I'll recap and expand upon them below.
"The whole earth" usually regards to people not geography.
All the comments about the verses you listed from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html were talking about taking the word Earth literally, as in the actual planet itself. That's not what I'm arguing. Obviously the word Earth isn't always meant to be taken literally, but it is frequently used to refer to things on a global scale, which is what I'm arguing. For example, you quoted 1 Chronicles 16:14 "He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all the earth." So are his judgements on everyone on earth or just the people in the local land? I'm pretty sure you would agree it's referring to everyone on earth.
Out of all the verses you listed only one of them was from a book written by Moses. Remember the Bible is a compilation of writing by different authors, so when evaluating how each author uses words we need to look at their writings, not the writings of other authors. The vast majority of occurrences of the word erets in books written by Moses have been translated as Earth unless there are clarifying words around them, such as "the whole land (erets) of Ethiopia" or "the whole land (erets) of Havilah." Take a look at this list of all the verses from Genesis with the word erets in them. If you want to just straight to the flood story it starts at chapter 6 and continues through chapter 9. Look at how many times the word erets occurs and how it translated as Earth in most cases. Try reading all those verses but replace the word Earth with local land and you'll see how it doesn't make much sense to translate it as local land in most of those verses. He rarely, if ever, uses erets to refer to something local without including clarifying words.
"The local flood fits in context as well."
It only fits if you completely disregard portions of the story and ignore the authors word usage. Try to read these verses without the preconceived idea that it was a local or global flood. Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
Genesis 6:17: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
Genesis 7:4 "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
Genesis 7:19-23 "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
I don't see how he could possibly make it more clear. I mean really, what more could he possibly say to describe a global flood? Give that some serious thought; don't just gloss over it.
He said, "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." Even if I pretend that it's only referring to mountains in the area, it's still impossible for a local flood to cover the mountains in that area without also covering most of the Earth. The ark supposedly landed on Mt Ararat. Mt. Ararat is 16,854 feet tall. In order for it to be covered by water, all but the tallest mountains on Earth would be under water. Also, to cover Mt. Ararat in 40 days the sky would have to dump 416 feet of rain a day. That's the height of a 41 storey building every day. The highest recorded rainfall in a day is only a tiny fraction of that, 6 feet, and that was during a tropical cyclone.
What about God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” If it's just a local flood then god has broken his promise numerous times.
Mankind was not spread all over the earth until Genesis 11.
Archaeological and anthropological evidence shows otherwise, but I think we would be getting too far off topic if we went down that road.
Also there is a word to describe something global which is the Hebrew word "tebel" used 37 times in the Bible.
The word tebel isn't in any of the books attributed to Moses, so that word isn't part of his vocabulary. However, he uses erets to describe the whole earth over and over and over again. If Moses was talking about a local flood he could have used other words for land, and he actually does numerous times.
And finally in Genesis 8:14, we are told "the whole earth" is completely dry. So Christians are supposed to believe the Earth became a huge desert after the flood?
First, that's a poor translation from the NIV. Most of the translations just say "...the earth was dry." Only a few of them say "the whole earth" or "completely dry." and there is no justification for them to translate it that way. In that verse the word Earth (erets) isn't preceded by kol which means "all; the whole; any; each; every; anything; totality; everything." Moses uses the word kol extensively throughout his writings, especially in the flood story where he uses it a whopping 65 times. Take a look for yourself at his usage of the word in the flood story starting at verse 6:5 and continuing through 9:17. Notice how he doesn't use the word kol in verse 8:14, so the NIV shouldn't have translated it as "the whole earth"
Second, you're taking the verse too literally. If I said, "women love George Clooney" would you think I'm referring to every single woman alive? Of course not. Now if I had said "all women" then it might be a different story. Common sense dictates that the verse shouldn't be taken literally as God drying up every single drop of water from the earth, otherwise the whole story would end there because Noah and all the animals would die of thirst. Context my friend, context.
Here are some more things that indicate it was a global flood.
1. Noah was on the Ark for over a year (Gen 7:11, 8:14). Local floods don't last anywhere near that long. Noah didn't even see the top of a mountain for 7 months. There is no way he could drift around for that long and not see any land if it were just a local flood.
2. If the flood were local it would have been significantly less effort for Noah to just move out of the area. He had 120 years to relocate.
3. If it was a local flood the ark would need to be that big because there wouldn't be that many type of animals in the area that need preserved. In addition, most of them would exist outside the area of a local flood so they wouldn't be in danger of extinction.
4. After more than 1600 years of habitation on Earth people would have numbered in the millions. 500 years before the flood population estimates range between 10 and 14 million people. There is no way all of those people were in the same local area.
I could probably list at least a dozen other things, but this post is getting way too long and I think I've already made my point, so I'll stop here.
The Flood account be read from either the local or global viewpoint due to the definitions being ambiguous. BTW you linked Greek words in Revelation??? However most Jewish scholars believe the flood was local.
The Flood account be read from either the local or global viewpoint due to the definitions being ambiguous.
Are you serious? It's not ambiguous at all. It couldn't be more clear. You completely ignored ALL of my arguments. I spent a lot of time researching that information and you don't even have the common courtesy to address a single argument and pull one of these. My respect for you just dropped a few notches.
I apologize for not addressing your points and will do so now in an attempt to gain respect from you again.
Obviously the word Earth isn't always meant to be taken literally, but it is frequently used to refer to things on a global scale, which is what I'm arguing. For example, you quoted 1 Chronicles 16:14 "He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all the earth." So are his judgements on everyone on earth or just the people in the local land? I'm pretty sure you would agree it's referring to everyone on earth.
That verse is yes, obviously talking about all the people on the Earth. But I can just as easily give you verses that use "the whole earth" and without using clarifying words or phrases that are not meant to be meant as the whole literal or populated Earth. For example 2 Chronicles 36:23-"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the LORD their God be with them.'" Obviously God didn't literally give him all the kingdoms of the earth because we'll just start with the kingdoms of the Far East he didn't control. So once again I say, it is solely based on context.
It only fits if you completely disregard portions of the story and ignore the authors word usage. Try to read these verses without the preconceived idea that it was a local or global flood. Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
See your argument centers on the use of the words "all" and "everything". However does "all" really mean "all"? God says in verse 17, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." But does ALL life perish? No! Fish wouldn't die in a flood, neither would some amphibians and other creatures and insects of the water. And if they did, it was be because the global flood would mix fresh and salt water, killing all fish, with Noah not having fish on his ark to reproduce them! All life DID NOT perish. What we have here is a hyperbole. God was merely emphasizing the amount of damage that would be done to the region through hyperbole. Has God used hyperbole else where? Yes, just as an example in Genesis 13:16 God tells Abraham his descendants will be "as numerous as the dust of the earth".
Genesis 7:19-23 "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered
Here we have another hyperbole. How do we know this? In Hebrew there are three "levels" of heaven. The first two a natural and physical, and the third is spiritual. The first is where the birds can fly and is basically anything above ground level. Next is the atmosphere of the earth above where the birds can fly. And next is the spiritual heaven. The wold "whole" is used (Hebrew is kol again). Really? The waters went above where the birds can fly AND even went into the spiritual heaven? No, rather the author was just try to emphasize the sheer amount it rained. What also supports this? Glad you asked.
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits
The words "to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" has many translations. I should mention the word "mountians" is actually the Hebrew word har, and the word for the entire pharse "of more than" is the Hebrew word ma'al. Now you can either translate these two together and mean "mountains" and "higher than" or "hills" and "upward". Why should we go with the second option rather than the first? There would be two big problems if this were the case.
2)Killing all fish because we're mixing fresh and salt water.
And also the rest of the chapters(s) suggest the local flood as well. For example there another mention of kol erets I have to point out again. In Genesis 8:5 we are told some of the tops of the "mountains"(most likely hills) were visible. Then in Genesis 8:9 we're told the dove couldn't land because of the amount of water, apparently the tops of the hills we visible but not reachable by the dove. However notice the what the text says " because there was water over all the surface of the earth". Either this is a bad translation or another hyperbole because were just told the tops of the hills or mountains were visible!
Yes the God and Science site brought this point to my mind but it still stands. Genesis tells us the earth was dried with a wind. Would wind significantly dry up a global flood? This leads me to my next and final point. I mentioned the word ma'al means upward, with the implication the flood only rose to 15 cubits (about 20 feet). Would a flood this size take a year to recede? I don't know the exact timeline, but the drainage of New Orleans took a little over six months to PUMP the water out of New Orleans and that was only around 12 feet of water, much less a little over twenty feet.
And with that, I hope that answers your questions/ objections.
I apologize for not addressing your points and will do so now in an attempt to gain respect from you again.
Thank you for responding. Respect restored :)
I can just as easily give you verses that use "the whole earth" and without using clarifying words or phrases that are not meant to be meant as the whole literal or populated Earth. For example 2 Chronicles 36:23-"
Again you're using a verse that is not only from a different author but also from a completely different language. That's not a valid comparison. Would you interpret Steven King's word usage by comparing it to Japanese author Kenzo Kitakata's word usage in his books? Of course not; you would compare it to other writings by Steven King.
Can you give me a verse written by Moses where erets is interpeted as "land" where it's not obvious from the context that he is referring to the a local area. I looked through all 149 verses in Genesis where the word erets* is translated as land and didn't find a single verse where it wasn't obvious from the context that he was referring to a local area.
What we have here is a hyperbole.
I agree that there is some degree of hyperbole, but I disagree that it is to the extent you're suggesting.
Here we have another hyperbole. How do we know this? In Hebrew there are three "levels" of heaven. The first two a natural and physical, and the third is spiritual. The first is where the birds can fly and is basically anything above ground level. Next is the atmosphere of the earth above where the birds can fly. And next is the spiritual heaven. The wold "whole" is used (Hebrew is kol again). Really? The waters went above where the birds can fly AND even went into the spiritual heaven? No, rather the author was just try to emphasize the sheer amount it rained.
It didn't say the water filled all the way up to the heavens, it said it covered all the mountains under the heavens. There's a big difference. The water would only need to be as tall as the highest mountain.
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
The words "to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" has many translations.
You're going to have to show me where you're getting multiple translations from because I checked at least a dozen different translations and they all say the same things. Strong's Concordance doesn't show multiple usages of those words. Fifteen Cubits is chamesh`asar
'ammah. None of those words together are translated as anything but fifteen cubits.
I should mention the word "mountians" is actually the Hebrew word har, and the word for the entire pharse "of more than" is the Hebrew word ma'al. Now you can either translate these two together and mean "mountains" and "higher than" or "hills" and "upward".
The word har is used by Moses 133 times. In nearly every case it is translated as "mountain." The exceptions follow these very specific patterns.
1. When the word occurs twice in a row "har har" it is translated "hill country." (Gen 10:30, 14:10, Gen 31:21 and others)
2. When the word occurs next to the word valleys it is tranlated as "valleys and hills" (Deu 11:11, Deu 8:7)
There are only 2 exceptions to those rules. The first one is Deu 8:9, but you can use the word mountain or hill there and it has no effect on the verse. The other exception happens to be one of the verses we are debating about. Genesis 7:19-20 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills (har), that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains (har) were covered."
I think it's pretty clear why the first occurance was translated as hills and the second was translated as mountains. If we translated har the same in both verses they would be redundant. Plus the one in verse 19 is prefixed by the word "high", and saying "high mountain" would also be redundant because all mountains are high. It sounds to me like the passage is describing the rising waters, first covering the hills and then rising over the mountains. However, for the sake of argument lets assume you are correct and all the places where it says mountain it should really say hill. If you look on Google Earth at the elevation of the hills around that area most of them are around 6000 to 10,000 feet above sea level. It's a very hilly area. The Ark supposedly landed on Mt. Arat. The base of Mt. Ararat starts at around 6000 feet. There is no natural barrier between that region and the ocean that even comes remotely close to that height. So in order for the flood to cover the hills in that area the entire world would have to be flooded up to at least 6,000 feet above sea level. The vast majority of the world is less than that. So unless god created some kind of force field to hold the water in the area it couldn't have happened.
Why should we go with the second option rather than the first? There would be two big problems if this were the case.
2)Killing all fish because we're mixing fresh and salt water.
I don't think freezing temperatures would be a problem because as the water rises so would the atmosphere, but I do agree that all the fish would die. I'll revisit this point a little further down.
In Genesis 8:5 we are told some of the tops of the "mountains"(most likely hills) were visible. Then in Genesis 8:9 we're told the dove couldn't land because of the amount of water, apparently the tops of the hills were visible but not reachable by the dove.
The Earth's surface curves out of sight at a distance of just 3.1 miles. So the hills/mountains couldn't have been very far away; plus doves can fly hundreds of miles. So once again we have another indication that the story is fictitious because the written doesn't understand the curvature of the Earth or the flight capabilities of doves.
Genesis tells us the earth was dried with a wind. Would wind significantly dry up a global flood?
No and I doubt it would have much of an impact on a local flood either. It says god "sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded." Maybe it was figurative or magic wind ;)
This leads me to my next and final point. I mentioned the word ma'al means upward, with the implication the flood only rose to 15 cubits (about 20 feet). Would a flood this size take a year to recede?
It doesn't say it only rose 15 cubits, it said 15 cubits above the tops of the hills/mountains. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume it was only 20 feet deep. That means the death toll would have been next to nothing. That area is covered in hills; with many that are thousands of feet high. If the water took 40 days to get 20 feet deep that would mean it only rained half an inch a day. People could have easily fled to higher ground before the water got deep.
So now that we got all that out of the way I think we need to take a step back and consider the possibility that the whole story might be fiction. Both versions are so full of holes that neither makes sense.
If it was a local flood...
1. Not everyone in the world would have died because the population was between 10 and 14 million people. There is no way all of those people were in the same area. Plus they could have just moved to higher ground since the mountains weren't covered.
2. God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 would have been a lie.
3. We have to twist Moses' word usage into ways that he doesn't normally use them.
4. All plant life in the area would have died leaving Noah with no food.
5. All the carnivores on the ark would eat the herbivores once they are released because they would have nothing else to eat.
6. The flood waters would have to be contained in a force field, otherwise they would flow into the ocean.
If it was a global flood...
1. All aquatic life would have died from the mixing of salt and freshwater and the vast amount of dirt and debris in the water.
2. All plant life would have died leaving Noah and the herbivores with no food.
3. All the carnivores on the ark would eat the herbivores because they would have nothing else to eat.
4. If we assume the Ark only housed one "kind" of each species and those "kinds" evolved into the 8.7 million different species that have lived on this planet, to reach that number the animals on the Ark would have had to evolve at an impossily fast rate.
5. The sky would have to dump over 725 feet of rain a day to cover the tallest mountain. That's the height of a 72 storey building every day. The highest recorded rainfall in a day is only a tiny fraction of that, 6 feet, and that was during a tropical cyclone.
I could easily add more to each list but that's enough to make my point. There is just no way to make the story work regardless of the size of the flood. You've presented some valid points that can't be reconciled with a global flood, and I think I've presented valid points that can't be reconciled with a local flood. That's exactly what I would expect from a fictional story.
So have I got your head spinning yet? :) Sorry that post was so long. I just like to be thorough.
Can you give me a verse written by Moses where erets is interpeted as "land" where it's not obvious from the context that he is referring to the a local area. I looked through all 149 verses in Genesis where the word erets is translated as land and didn't find a single verse where it wasn't obvious from the context that he was referring to a local area.
Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.
Genesis 13:9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
Genesis 41:56-57 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
I realize the first two verses are almost obvious hyperbole and are obvious to referring to the region, but this is because of long-assumed context. The third passage isn't as obvious and where I hope to make my point. The only reason the Genesis flood is read as global is because fundamentalist Christian tradition. If you pay attention to the wordage used in the chapter, you can see it was a large local flood.
It didn't say the water filled all the way up to the heavens, it said it covered all the mountains under the heavens. There's a big difference. The water would only need to be as tall as the highest mountain.
True, good point, I read the verse wrong.
You're going to have to show me where you're getting multiple translations from because I checked at least a dozen different translations and they all say the same things. Strong's Concordance doesn't show multiple usages of those words. Fifteen Cubits is chamesh `asar 'ammah. None of those words together are translated as anything but fifteen cubits.
I was going to make another point, but after much research I refuted my point. However through basic math, we see exactly how high the water level during the flood was.
Genesis 8:4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 The water decreased steadily until the 10th month; on the 10th month, on the 1st day of the month, the tops of the mountains [hills] became visible.
When reading these verses you notice the time between verse 4 and 5 is about 73 days. Verse 4 and 5 give an estimate the speed at which the water was draining from the area. The point from which the bottom of the keel (how the ark would rest on a given spot) to the point from which land would be seen has been estimated by people who reconstruct the Ark to be about 25 to 30 feet. 25 to 30 feet is about 300 to 360 inches. An image is here to illustrate this point. The time span between the water level hitting these two points is 73 days, putting the water level receding at around 4.1 to 4.9 inches per day. The rain stopped on the 28th day of the 3rd month, and the land was dry the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year, putting the time of draining at 324 days. If we assume the water drained at a rate of 4.1 to 4.9 inches per day, that puts you at about 110 feet to 132 feet. But the water probably drained faster so lets assume the water drained at 12 inches a day for 251 days (324-73) and just add the 25 to 30 feet we know about. That puts the floodwater from 276 to 281 feet at its peak.
God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 would have been a lie.
From the current debate, the answer is no it wouldn't. From a biblical standpoint, all the worlds people were in one place until the tower of Babel. All the world's "flesh" would be judged and were, and he would never destroy all "flesh" again. While the flood was local in geography, it was global in judgement against humans cause all humans were in one place.
No and I doubt it would have much of an impact on a local flood either. It says god "sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded." Maybe it was figurative or magic wind ;)
While the wind would not make a difference on a global scale, it would on a local scale. If the waters were receding by flowing out from the area and past mountain ranges, the wind would create waves, helping the water flow out and recede.
The flood waters would have to be contained in a force field, otherwise they would flow into the ocean.
This has been proven to not be needed by the above work on the flood level, but also from the site below. The work done on this article needs to be shown so here's the link:
Quote: During the flood, upstream where water first accumulates, the depth of water on the flood plains may be barely over the tops of the natural levees, but downstream the water "piles up" because it does not flow very fast downhill on a nearly flat surface. Therefore, downstream water depths could reach 32 m or more above the tops of the levees.
All plant life in the area would have died leaving Noah with no food.
They were given the animals to eat.
God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 would have been a lie.
From a biblical standpoint, all the world's people were in one place to be judged, which is what God promised not to do. Since the flood, the entire population of humans has not been judged at once.
I realize the first two verses are almost obvious hyperbole and are obvious to referring to the region, but this is because of long-assumed context. The third passage isn't as obvious and where I hope to make my point.
I agree with your assessment of the first two verses, definitely hyperbole and the context indicates a local area. Regarding the 3rd verse, one of your earlier arguments was that people haven't spread out on the earth and are grouped together in an area small enough to be wiped out by a local flood. If that's the case, why wouldn't the current translation of the verse be plausible? Since the famine was caused by god and not natural weather patterns, as indicated by verse 25, why couldn't he make it across the whole Earth?
The only reason the Genesis flood is read as global is because fundamentalist Christian tradition.
I think the only reason why the genesis flood is no longer seen as a global flood is because science proved it false.
If you pay attention to the wordage used in the chapter, you can see it was a large local flood.
I'm seriously puzzled as to what wordage indicates a local flood to you, but to be honest it really doesn't matter. I don't think it was global or local, so instead of trying to convince you it was global I should focus on showing that neither is possible, and since you believe it describes a local flood lets go with that and see where it takes us.
From a biblical standpoint, all the worlds people were in one place until the tower of Babel. All the world's "flesh" would be judged and were, and he would never destroy all "flesh" again. While the flood was local in geography, it was global in judgement against humans cause all humans were in one place.
The promise was a two parter.
1. "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood,"
2. "neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."
If we assume the word "earth" should be translated as "land" like you said, then part 2 of the promise has been broken many times. Now it's possible it's just poor wording but you would think if god truly did inspire the words of the Bible he could have made things more clear. That seems to be a running theme throughout the Bible.
While the wind would not make a difference on a global scale, it would on a local scale.
This has been proven to not be needed by the above work on the flood level, but also from the site below...
The writer of that article clearly didn't look at the complete topography of the area using modern technology such as Google Earth. Mt. Ararat, where the ark landed, is 350 miles north of where they claim the flood happened. The elevation at the top of the flood plain is 400 ft. The elevation at the very bottom of Mt. Ararat is 5000 ft. Not only is there a huge elevation difference, but there are huge swaths of valleys and hills 9000 feet tall between the flood plain and Mt. Ararat. That alone blows their story out of the water, but it gets worse; there is a clear 100+ mile wide unobstructed downhill path going south (away from Ararat) all the way down to the Persian Gulf which empties into ocean. There is no way that area could flood deep enough to kill millions of people because it's all downhill with no barrier to keep the water in. A few dozen crippled and really slow moving old people might get caught in the flowing waters, but the area is surrounded to the east and west with 1000+ foot hills that people could have fled to.
I made a Google Earth file that shows the area they talk about in the article. Just install Google Earth, then this link to load it into Google Earth. Tip: wherever you hover the mouse it tells you the elevation on the bottom right of the screen. I marked the flood location they mentioned with some blue wavy lines and Mt. Ararat with a volcano icon. The big red line goes uphill from the flood plain to Mt. Ararat. The big blue line flows downhill into the Persian Gulf. I also included the tower of Babel for reference The light blue area is the area that would flood based on the topography of the area, but since it empties into the ocean it wouldn't get very deep. Even if there was a force field blocking the water from flowing down into the Persian Gulf there are still problems. If we use your estimation that the flood waters were 281 feet high, that means the water rose 7 feet a day. Keep in mind that's not 7 feet instantly, that a very slow increase of only 3.5 inches per hour. People would have had plenty of time to head for higher ground. To make things worse, there is no way 10-13 million people lived in that small of an area, especially since much of the land would have to be farms in order to feed that many people.
The flood area is only 100 miles wide and 400 miles long. If the ark drifted for over a year like the Bible says, the chances of them not drifting to one of the edges or at the very least catching a glimpse of the 7000 foot hills on the east side of the flood plain seems unlikely, and that's completely ignoring the fact that they would have floated downhill into the ocean due to the topography.
Just another note, the tower of Babel is 250 miles uphill from the flood plain and 277 miles from Mt. Ararat. and separated by a maze valleys and hills, some over 8000 feet high.
Instead of god telling an old man to spend 120 years building a massive ark for the small amount of animals in the region, god using magic to make all the animals in the area go to Noah, making Noah have to feed and clean up after all the animals on a rocking boat for over a year, wouldn't it make more sense just to say to Noah, "Hey Noah, you see those hills over to the east? Go up there because I'm about to drown everyone in the valley." An even better solution would be just to snap his fingers and make all the bad people disappear. God always seems to do things the hard way. Everything about the story just screams fiction.
I will address the issue of location when I get around to downloading Google Earth.
If that's the case, why wouldn't the current translation of the verse be plausible? Since the famine was caused by god and not natural weather patterns, as indicated by verse 25, why couldn't he make it across the whole Earth?
Ummm I think it would a stretch for the Far East nations to go to Egypt and nations that were more northern and are we even going to discuss the impossibly of the Americas traveling to Egypt?
"I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood,"
There have always been at least a few survivors of a flood. Dramatic stories of survival are constantly being heard about it.
"neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."
Actually, this time it can be translated figuratively because it's in the same form, judgement or promise against it, as other verses in Genesis.
Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
So rather, we can more say God said he would never destroy all the people of the earth again, rather than the land itself, in judgement.
Remember, it's magic wind ;)
Ok you literally have no rebuttal now for this point haha ;)
Ummm I think it would a stretch for the Far East nations to go to Egypt and nations that were more northern and are we even going to discuss the impossibly of the Americas traveling to Egypt?
But you said they were all grouped together in a small enough area for a local flood to wipe them all out. If they are spread out like you just described then a local flood couldn't reach them all.
So rather, we can more say God said he would never destroy all the people of the earth again, rather than the land itself, in judgement.
I think either of our interpretations of that verse are plausible. It's definitely not very clear, like most of the Bible, so I'm not going to be a stickler on that particular argument. I think the topography argument alone is enough to prove a local flood couldn't have killed everyone because all the large areas have an unobstructed downhill path to the ocean.
Ok you literally have no rebuttal now for this point haha ;)
Chrsitians use that argument all the time, so why can't I ;) I don't actually believe it, but you have to admit it's not an impossibility since god created the wind.
I cover the topic of micro evolution & macro evolution here. If it doesn't jump you right to it just scroll down until you see the topic MICRO vs. MACRO EVOLUTION. If you don't believe macro evolution happens I would like you to answer the questions I posed there.
Fact: Jesus existed as recorded by historian and Roman Senator, Taticus.
"Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]"
Supporting Evidence:
Roman records
(en.wikipedia.org)
I think you'll find that most atheists who have studied historical records don't dispute that Jesus existed. It's his divinity we question. However, I think you've provided a perfectly valid piece of evidence to show that he existed, which I why I clarified instead of disputing. Thanks for participating in the debate.
To clarify, I'm an agnostic atheist. I think it is highly unlikely that any gods exist due to the lack of evidence, but I don't claim to know with 100% certainty that no gods exist. However, I do believe without a doubt that the Christian god does not exist, because the only record we have of him is filled with fictional stories. I could go on for days about the reasons why I don't believe in the Christian god, but this debate covers many of them. I think this image does a good job of explaining why atheists doubt Jesus' divinity.
There is no evidence for Jesus. No single record of tricks doing guy. Tacitus has been born 57AD. So please explain to me how someone who has been born 30 years after Jesus "death" can be a witness?
There is no evidence for Jesus from his lifetime, not a single one record anywhere around the whole world, nobody has written down a single line about guy who did magic in public...
Christianity follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is evidence discovered in present day Iraq and Israel that conclusively proves that the main historical events described in the Bible were correct.
That the Bible can (sometimes) be an accurate historical account that validates it as little more than a questionable history book, and speaks not at all to the validity of the Christian God.
well first off there is massive proof of Christianity being real . Its a documented Religion . there are millions of Christians.Its the biggest religion around . Unless you meant to state there beliefs have evidence to show if its true or false .
Clearly Christianity exists, but we need to determine if it is based on truth or if it's primarily a work of fiction. Some examples of questions we should be trying to answer are...
For Christianity not to be true you must believe Jesus was NOT the son of God. Okay, lets follow what must of happened. First, Jesus was not born into nobility or fame or a rich family. At some point in his teen years or so he decided that he would pull a hoax to gain fame and go down in history as someone of great importance. He would have to fake numerous miracles over several years. Now remember, there was not the technology 2000 years ago that there is today. I would like for the atheists to explain how he pulled of these miracles and convinced so many people. Because if he didn't convince alot of people then he wouldn't be considered the son of God.
Second, he would have to know that he would be crucified for his beliefs and actions. If he wasn't going to be put to death then his plan would fail.
Third, he would have had to have people steal his body since he told people he would be resurrected. If they didn't steal his body his hoax would be exposed.
Fourth, he had to have a look alike that walked around the Earth for 40 days and then disappear and never be seen again. Otherwise, the hoax would be exposed. There are alot of variables that would have been out of his control to pull off this incredible plan.
To me, there are way to many things that would have gone wrong to believe this was a hoax. EVERY hoax has eventually been discredited by most people. That Jesus is really the son of God makes a heck of alot more sense than this elaborate hoax that some guy did 2000 years ago.
At some point in his teen years or so he decided that he would pull a hoax to gain fame and go down in history as someone of great importance.
Or he could have just been an inspiring person and people exaggerated things, which has happened many times throughout history. Just look at the claims of all the other religions out there.
He would have to fake numerous miracles over several years. Now remember, there was not the technology 2000 years ago that there is today. I would like for the atheists to explain how he pulled of these miracles and convinced so many people.
The only accounts we have of his miracles are from a pieced together book written thousands of years ago that is full of fictional stories and contradictions, so why should we believe the miracle stories are not fictional as well?
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the earliest manuscripts that the Bible is based off weren't written until 30 years after Christ's death. Most of the manuscripts were written much later. Why should we believe they were an accurate depiction of actual events and not just some exaggerated story, like all the stories from other religions?
Second, he would have to know that he would be crucified for his beliefs and actions. If he wasn't going to be put to death then his plan would fail.
You're assuming this plan actually existed, but that assumption is based on the stories in a book that contains fictional stories.
Third, he would have had to have people steal his body since he told people he would be resurrected. If they didn't steal his body his hoax would be exposed.
Again your assuming the stories in the Bible are an accurate depiction of real events. How do we know he actually told people he would be resurrected, or that he claimed to be the son of god? Even the gospels don't agree on what happened. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the resurrection story.
Fourth, he had to have a look alike that walked around the Earth for 40 days and then disappear and never be seen again. Otherwise, the hoax would be exposed.
Same answer as the last one.
There are alot of variables that would have been out of his control to pull off this incredible plan.
or the people who wrote the stories made up a lot of it.
EVERY hoax has eventually been discredited by most people.
And Christianity will be too. The number of Christians has been rapidly declining every year.
That Jesus is really the son of God makes a heck of alot more sense than this elaborate hoax that some guy did 2000 years ago.
People exaggerating and making up stories makes a heck of a lot more sense than a god coming down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself.
There are thousands of stories from other religions, but you don't believe them. Why do you believe the ones about Jesus, but not those ones?
You are aware that the Gospels were written using eyewitness accounts of these events. As far as the Gospels having different detailed accounts, so what? I can use an event from 30-50 years ago and find 4 eyewitnesses who tell a different version of the event but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ex. The assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan. I could find 4 people who were there and they would give different descriptions of how it happened. Doesn't mean it was a hoax. This is what you are implying when giving me that link to how the events went down. Everybody who saw Jesus die and walk the Earth after his death will have a different view of the event.
You are aware that the Gospels were written using eyewitness accounts of these events.
Actually, none of them were eyewitness accounts. According to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), neither Mark or Luke witnessed the events of Jesus' life (1). Luke even alludes to this in his first two verses. Most Biblical scholars believe that the books of Matthew and Luke are actually based on the book of Mark and a few other sources, and that neither of them were eye witness accounts. So, now we've ruled out Matthew, Mark and Luke as eyewitnesses. So now we are left with John. Here is what Bible.org has to say about John. "The Gospel of John would be the last choice as a source of information about Jesus." (2) Most scholars don't even think it was written by John (3). John "does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not, something that has been noted in Gospel of John commentary for hundreds—even thousands—of years." (4)
So none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. They are all just a retelling of stories they heard from other people. Now lets look at when each gospel was written.
Matthew 80–90 AD
Mark 50-70 AD
Luke 60-90 AD
John 45-110 AD, most scholars narrow it down to 85 to 90 AD.
So not only are they not eyewitness accounts, but they weren't even written until 45-110 years after the events are said to have occurred. That's hardly a reliable source of information.
Sure they were. The men who wrote the Gospels used eyewitness accounts. They may not have personally, but they met people who witnessed it. We are only talking about maybe 12 years after the Resurrection in some cases.
-Person A tells person B they witnessed some event decades ago.
-Person B writes down what person A said.
-You think this account is so reliable you are willing to base your entire life around it.
How do we know that person A didn't exaggerate or completely make up the story?
How do we know that person B actually got the story from person A and didn't just make it up or exaggerate the claims of person A?
How do we know that the people who translated the story didn't embellish it?
What's more likely?
1. There is a a magical being that can create an entire universe, know the thoughts of every living creature simultaneously, and exists outside of time and space.
2. Some guy exaggerated or made up a story.
Thousands of people claim to have witnessed different gods, big foot, fairies, aliens, etc. Why don't you believe them? They claim to be actual eyewitnesses, not just people who know someone who witnessed these things. If I told you my friend said he was abducted by aliens, would you believe me? I seriously doubt it, but that is no different than the gospels. Both are second-hand accounts of something that is unverifiable and extraordinary.
Exactly what is your view on Jesus? Did he not exist, did He make up being the son of God all by Himself, or was He just a man who everyone else fabricated the story to trick people.
As far as why I don't believe in fairies, bigfoot, aliens, and atheists favorite, unicorns, I will tell you. Because millions of people have died and come back to life and they never saw any of these in the afterlife. However, people have died and been with Jesus or God and have come back to Earth and tell about it. Way to many people have information that they never knew existed that had near death experiences.
Go ahead, pull the atheist play book 101 and say that it is just the result of a dying brain that played tricks on their mind. I always love that one.
"Exactly what is your view on Jesus? Did he not exist, did He make up being the son of God all by Himself, or was He just a man who everyone else fabricated the story to trick people."
There is no way to know for sure, but I think more than likely he was probably an inspirational and charismatic person and people just embellished and/or fabricated stories the same way all the other religions out there have done.
"As far as why I don't believe in fairies, bigfoot, aliens, and atheists favorite, unicorns, I will tell you. Because millions of people have died and come back to life and they never saw any of these in the afterlife."
First, unless you've interviewed everyone that has had a near death experience, how could you possible know they haven't seen any of those things? Second, none of those things I mentioned are even related to an afterlife, so you wouldn't expect to see them in a near death experience. Third, people do see some of those things in near death experiences. For example...
"people have died and been with Jesus or God and have come back to Earth and tell about it. "
People have died and seen many other things, such as...
-Yamraj (The Hindu god of the dead)
-Yamaduts (Hindu messengers of death)
-Muhammed
-Buddah
-Aliens
-Fairies
-Skeletons
-Numerous references to reincarnation as animals
I found this one particularly comical. "A giant rooster appeared who told Yama that I had killed him. He emphasized that I had tried to kill him again and again. The rooster said that he remembered me exactly. An entire flock of roosters also appeared and testified that I had killed them, as well. I remembered my actions, and I had to admit that the roosters had told the truth. Yama said that I had committed many sins, and sentenced me to many rebirths both as a chicken, and many other kinds of birds."
Here's an interesting bit of information that shows that the things you see in near death experiences coincide with your current beliefs: "In one large and systematic cross-cultural study of 442 Americans and 435 Asian Indians who had NDEs, 140 people reported seeing religious figures; 'where these [figures] were specifically identified, they were always named according to a person’s religious beliefs; no Hindu reported seeing Jesus, and no Christian reported seeing a Hindu deity.'”
If you read the many different near death experiences out there, and not just the ones supporting Christianity, it will become abundantly clear that they are nothing but wild dreams. Here are a bunch to get you started.
"Go ahead, pull the atheist play book 101 and say that it is just the result of a dying brain that played tricks on their mind. I always love that one."
In America alone 8 million people claim to have had a near-death experience. With that many people having them you would think there would be millions of them claiming to have seen the Christian god, but all we hear about are a very small amount, and even those ones are very inconsistent. Give this some thought; If I randomly picked 8 million people and asked them what they dreamt about last night, don't you think it would be highly likely that some of them would have similar things in their dreams? That's the problem with Christian authors, like Moody, they cherry-pick the handful of near death experiences that support Christianity and ignore the millions of other ones that don't support it.
I was referring to the people who actually were pronounced dead and came back. I guess I should have clarified that, my bad. NDE are not the same as someone who has been declared dead. I still have not heard of anyone being dead for 15 minutes or so and claiming to see anything but a God. No aliens, no fairies, no bigfoot. Non-Christians who die see God, but not Jesus is perfectly normal. God appears to them through their own religion.
NDE are not the same as someone who has been declared dead
Yes they are. "These phenomena are usually reported after an individual has been pronounced clinically dead or otherwise very close to death."
Whether it's 15 seconds or 15 minutes, the brain still goes through the exact same process. Since you said 15 minutes I assume you are referring to Mary C. Neal's book To Heaven and Back. Even Christians think she is full of it, and after reading a few chapters from her book, I agree. For example, she tells a story about how her father had a pear tree that never blossomed. The morning after her father died she claims the "once forlorn Bradford pear tree was bursting with color. This tree, which had been barren just twenty-four hours earlier, was now filled beyond capacity with large, beautiful, perfect pink blossoms. These colorful blossoms stayed on that tree until well after frost had felled the blossoms of neighboring trees. When this tree finally began to drop its leaves, it did so on the side facing away from the window before dropping a single blossom on the side that faced my mother’s breakfast window. What a gift from my stepfather."
So she claims her dead father has the power to make trees blossom overnight and control the falling of the blossoms. If the dead can control the physical world, why don't we see things like this all the time? Is her father the only dead person that cares enough to do such a thing? If dead people can make things grow, why don't they make food grow for starving people instead of making a tree blossom to give someone warm fuzzies? There are billions of dead people, yet stories like this are extremely rare. So what is more likely, only a handful of dead people care enough to do these things, or the few stories that do exist are either exaggerated or fictional? The pear tree story alone calls into question the reliability of the other claims in her book, but this is just one of many stories in her book that are outlandish.
Non-Christians who die see God, but not Jesus is perfectly normal. God appears to them through their own religion.
First, how could you possibly know that? Second, do you really think god would appear to someone as a false god? Every time people worship false gods in the Bible god goes on a massive killing spree, so I seriously doubt he is going to appear as one of these false gods. Third, why can't we use the visions of other gods as evidence that those religions are true? Maybe it's the other way around and god is really Yamraj and is just appearing to the Christians as Jesus?
I would like to hear your explanation on the 4 year old who died and went to Heaven and saw his sister there. The boy didn't know he had a sister. The mother of this boy had a miscarriage and they never told anyone. So how could he have told his parents about his sister if the parents kept it a secret? Sounds like there is a Heaven to me.
People of other religions have had NDEs and saw God but not Jesus. I think you are taking the Bible to literally when it is not supposed to be. The Old Testament has a bunch of stories that were told thousands of years before Jesus came and are just that. Stories. Noah's ark is one of them. God killing millions who didn't believe in him is another.
Since I brought up the Old Testament, while I don't believe everything should be taken literally, some of the prophecies really have to make you believe there is a God.
An example is that the Messiah would be crucified even though Crucifixion hadn't even been used or thought of yet. Jesus would have had to gotten really lucky to pull of his hoax if he wasn't the son of God.
I would like to hear your explanation on the 4 year old who died and went to Heaven and saw his sister there.
I assume you are referring to Todd Burpo’s book Heaven is for Real. There are numerous problems with this book. The first and most glaring problem is that Colton, the boy in the story, never died. He just had an appendectomy. He was under anethesia the whole time, which can cause some pretty crazy dreams. Colton never even mentioned going to heaven until 4 months after it supposedly happened. Do you really think a 4 year old wouldn't say something about something as amazing as going to heaven, especially when it had rainbow horses! Here are some of the things Colton claims to have seen.
"· Jesus has a rainbow coloured horse and wears a golden crown with a pink diamond
· everyone in heaven has wings and flies around from place to place – except for Jesus who who levitates up and down like an elevator
· everyone in heaven has a light above their heads
· God is ‘really, really big’ and is so big he holds the world in his hands
· Jesus sits at the right hand of God, Gabriel sits on God’s left, and the Holy Spirit is “kind of blue” and sits somewhere in the vicinity of the other three.
· the gates of heaven are made of gold and pearls
· after Colton’s return to earth, he became obsessed with rainbows because of the incredible number of colours he saw in heaven
· at times, following his return from heaven, Colton saw ‘power shot down from heaven’ while his dad was preaching
· the weaponry described above will apparently be used in a coming battle that destroys the world – and Colton’s dad will be fighting in that battle
· the final battle will be against actual dragons and monsters while the women and children stand and watch the men fighting them
· he meets ‘a sister’ in heaven – who was lost through miscarriage by the mother years before – and which the parents claim they never spoke to Colton about
· there are swords and bows and arrows in heaven that the angels use to keep Satan out of heaven.
· he claimed to see SATAN IN HEAVEN but wouldn’t say what he looked like. Apparently those swords and bows aren't working :D
· and he described what Jesus looked like, comparing people’s ideas of Jesus in their artworks as not right, until he was shown a painting of Christ by Akiane Kramarik which he said got the picture of Jesus right
· he was given “homework” to do in heaven while he was being cared for by his deceased grandfather – Pop"
You wouldn't be able to get a kid that age to shut up about something as amazing as all that, yet they expect us to believe he didn't say a word about it until 4 months later. The book is clearly a work of fiction made to cash in on the life after death craze. All the life after death books around that time were best-sellers and making the authors tons of money. Here is what Christians say about the book.
"one of the most naive, superficial, and disturbing “Christian” books I’ve read for a long time... Heaven is for Real is simplistic, superficial, and naive. The most disturbing thing about this book is that it has become so popular – which doesn’t say much for the people that swallow it whole without a second thought – even to the extent of stating that they have had their faith strengthened by it. If this is all it takes to reaffirm faith then, to my mind, that faith is pretty fickle."
"Colton explains that 'Everyone kind of looks like angels in heaven,' sporting wings and a halo. Since the resurrection of believers' transformed physical bodies has yet to take place, their form now in Heaven must lack physical attributes. Hence the need for wings of whatever size makes no sense. Moreover, other than the descriptive visions of the heavenly creatures known as cherubim and seraphim and the decorative designs in the Temple and upon the Mercy Seat, angels that appear to humanity are never described as having wings. "
People of other religions have had NDEs and saw God but not Jesus.
They saw gods that are contrary to the Christian god. I gave you links to lots of near death experiences about other gods. Why is it you only believe the ones about the Christian god, but dismiss the ones about other gods?
I think you are taking the Bible to literally when it is not supposed to be. The Old Testament has a bunch of stories that were told thousands of years before Jesus came and are just that. Stories. Noah's ark is one of them. God killing millions who didn't believe in him is another.
So you pick and choose the stories you like, and dismiss the ones you don't like? If the Bible is full of fictional stories, why should I believe anything it says? Do you really thing an all-powerful god couldn't come up with a better way to communicate his message to us than a pieced-together book full of fictional stories that even his most devout followers can't seem to make sense of?
Since I brought up the Old Testament, while I don't believe everything should be taken literally, some of the prophecies really have to make you believe there is a God.
An example is that the Messiah would be crucified even though Crucifixion hadn't even been used or thought of yet. Jesus would have had to gotten really lucky to pull of his hoax if he wasn't the son of God.
Thousands of people were crucified before Jesus. Crucifixion was used by Persians, Carthaginians, Macedonians, Romans, and others. Most records of crucifixions date hundreds of years before Jesus. "Alexander the Great is reputed to have crucified 2000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre" " Notorious mass crucifixions followed the Third Servile War in 73–71 BC (the slave rebellion under Spartacus), other Roman civil wars in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, and the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To frighten other slaves from revolting, Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome."
"Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century."
As far as the prophesy goes, I assume you are referring to Psalm 22:16 which says, "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet." If you look in the footnotes in any modern Bible you will see that most of the manuscripts that the verse is based off of do not say he was pierced. Here is a very detailed explanation.
I dont pick and choose the stories of the Old Testament. They were not meant to be taken literally. Yes, some things in it are are accurate to a degree. The New Testament is different.
But really, all this discussion over the Old Testament is not going to get us anywhere. I don't base my belief in a God from some part of a book written thousands of years ago. I base my beliefs on the New Testament AND science, which shows without a doubt that everything didn't happen by chance.
Science more so than the Bible proves the existence of a Creator of all things.
But why is the New Testament different? Why is it any different from the old? You only believe it's different because you believe in the resurrection, which somehow makes the New Testament historical fact rather than allegory and stories like the old.
Also "science" doesn't prove the existence of a creator. You're inferring that from data which you believe to show a creator, the data itself isn't definitive proof of a creator, but you seem to be drawing conclusions on a large body of inconclusive data.
May I ask what part of "science" (a very broad term, what do you mean? Physics? Chemistry? Biology? All of it?) proves a creator, since you must have some examples in mind.
The New Testament is based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the resurrection. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in Alexander the Great and all of his accomplishments? What about Julius Ceaser? These men are accepted as fact as to their achievements. What they did is considered factual history so why not Jesus. They lived BEFORE Jesus so their record should be more closely scrutinized than Jesus. I can easily say they never existed and people just made them up. Or that they did exist and their accomplishments were exaggerated by their own people to promote their agenda. If your an atheist why do you accept these two men?
I will give you one example of science to start. For centuries scientists have been trying to create living, self-replicating cells (life) from chemicals and have failed every time. Abiogenesis has failed thousands of times it has been tried. We know exactly what the conditions of the Earth were like billions of years ago. But science can't do it. There are only two possible scenarios. Life started on its own or a Creator started it. Since we have proven that we cant produce a living, self-replicating cell from non-matter, the other possibility must be correct. If science were to ever legitimately create life from nothing then we can then say a creator MAY not be possible. Otherwise, a creator is the ONLY other solution. And that doesn't include all the other scientific findings that support a creator.
I am not as well versed in Greek classical history, so someone else can jump on Alexander, I do know that he had contemporaries write of his campaigns, but Julius Caesar I can do. For one, there are busts from the time of Caesar's existence as well as coinage with his image on it. His contemporaries write about him, during his life. He wrote about himself during his life. We have nothing on Jesus in Jesus' own words. Rome had an impressive record keeping system, and Julius Caesar is more than just a cloudy figure in Rome. His deification by Augustus making him a "real" god you could argue, but not his existence. He likely did embellish his accomplishments in Gaul and elsewhere, (numbers of people killed and so forth) but the point is that those accomplishments do not defy laws of physics, nor does Caesar allude to himself being divine. He only claims to have ambition and skill, not godly powers. The same can be said for Alexander, his accomplishments have documentation in archaeology, and while certainly details are embellished, the basic events have staggering proof. Nobody doubts Caesar's existence, no historian doubts that Caesar did what he did. The details and propaganda? Sure, those likely are embellished to advance his career. But the historicity of Julius Caesar is never doubted in academia and for solid reason.
Now for science, the only thing I can really say about that paragraph is a big stamp of [Citation needed]. What other scientific findings? When I took to search scientific literature I didn't find anything. You'll need to show me some journal articles and studies done for that.
This is not definitive proof of abiogenesis, but shows that it's indeed possible. Which is more proof than anyone has of a creator.
I also included a link where chemists had produced self replicating molecules. It's hard to read, but you cannot dismiss things simply because you haven't taken the time to research them.
I will play devils advocate, or the atheists version of everything. You say there are busts of Ceaser. Okay, I say some ordinary guy was best friends of a sculpture who wanted to become famous so he made it for him. Doesn't prove Ceaser existed, just that someone made up a guy who fits that profile.
He wrote about himself? No, some guy wrote a bunch of stuff claiming to be Ceaser or he was just making up a great character for the Romans.
Nobody doubts Ceasers existence? How many people do I need to find to say he didn't exist for you to not believe in him? Billions of people believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. If religious people can be fooled into believing Jesus was real, historians can also be fooled into Ceaser being real.
There is no scientific proof that Ceaser existed. All we got is a bunch of Romans who made it all up to make the Romans seem more powerful. Maybe the Romans were worried about being conquered so they made him up and all his accomplishments.
You see, it sounds like Jesus and Ceaser have alot in common.
As far as abiogenesis goes, they are nowhere near proving life can start from chemicals. Atheists belief in this is amazing. Millions of scientists have been trying and they still cant get close. As far as your link, do you have any proof that it isn't all made up? It sounds like a bunch of atheist scientists just wrote a story with no proof to promote a godless society, the atheists ultimate goal.
So aside from the fact that your play of devils advocate had no proof whatsoever, I'll bite.
Billions of people also believe that the prophet Muhammed was inspired by god and performed miraculous acts. Billions of people believe in reincarnation and of Buddha. Billions of people believe in things in contradiction to what you believe. How are you right? What evidence do you have? You don't have any evidence, and you have not given even a shred of evidence. If you had, maybe you could make an argument.
Here are contemporaries of Caesar who wrote of him:
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Caius Sallust
Cornelius Nepos
Gaius Valerius Catullus
Gaius Asinius Pollio
Virgil
Ovid Naso
As well as others who wrote shortly after him. 1000 years of Roman Imperial History is dependent on Julius Caesar. Pompey? Marc Antony and Cleopatra? Octavian? All of these people would have no reason for any of their actions without Caesar. How did Gaul come into Roman possession? Who commanded those armies? Are the multiple classical texts, cross referenced with archaeology not good enough? Also remember this:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
If you believe that Jesus existed, this verse wouldn't make much sense if Caesar did not exist. You cannot honestly make the argument for Julius Caesar not existing. Especially without giving any contrary evidence. The Romans did not need Caesar to make them seem powerful. They were already the most powerful civilization in the Mediterranean before Caesar. You could make the same argument over whether any figure in all of history existed. Did Napoleon exist? How about Columbus? We are not debating the historicity of Jesus. I, for one, believe a man named Jesus could have existed. It's his divinity I disagree with.
I don't have "belief" in abiogenesis. I think it's a plausible explanation. It has scientific principles and backup behind it, unlike creationism. If there is evidence for a creator I'll believe in a creator. I have no problem with that. So show me non-refutable evidence for a creator instead of fantastical christian rhetoric without providing any evidence.
There is no goal of atheism. It's simply a position of not blindly following a doctrine without any evidence to prove it. Some atheists promote secular societies. Most I've encountered don't "promote a godless society" at every turn. Also, you didn't provide any of the other scientific evidence you claimed existed that proved a creator.
Where to start with all of this. If enough people saw Muhammad perform miracles, then I can accept that. It is definitely possible that God made more than one person on this Earth that was able to perform miracles. I do not follow Islam, however, there is no reason why it couldn't be true. If people have been reincarnated and there are people who have evidence that science can't refute, then sure reincarnation is possible. I don't know anybody who has been reincarnated, but maybe God uses reincarnation also. I am not going to say that it isn't possible just because i am ignorant to the evidence.
Millions of atheists do NOT believe Jesus ever existed. Why, I don't know, but there are plenty of them out there.
Of course Ceaser existed, as did Jesus. There is enough evidence to support Jesus's works. The disciples didn't all die for a lie to start.
How is abiogenesis plausible? How many failed experiments have to happen before you accept that non matter can't turn into living matter. It goes against all logical scientific evidence. If we were writing this 100 million years from now and abiogenesis has been tried and failed over a trillion times, would that make you believe there has to be another way that life started?
If three people are on a deserted island and one is brutally murdered and you can prove without a doubt that one of them couldn't have done it, then the other one must have done it. Same goes for how life started. There are only two plausible ways. One is abiogenesis and the other is a creator did it. If I can show that abiogeneses couldn't have started life, then the other must be true. Science can't start a self replicating living cell from nothing, so I disregard it. If you want to continue believing in something that has failed experiment after experiment, be my guest.
It is funny how atheists make fun of Christians for believing in a sky daddy but absolutely believe in something that goes against all common sense and scientific logic and evidence.
Well I'm glad we've gotten past the Caesar vs Jesus thing. It seems we are on the same page in that regard. Evidence of Jesus' works I'm going to disagree with. We don't have any sources claiming his miracles outside his followers and even there we have discontinuity.
"I am not going to say that it isn't possible just because i am ignorant to the evidence." So how can you apply the same to abiogenesis? You seem to claim without uncertainty that life began with a creator, but have ignored any evidence I've given you that may indicate that life can feasibly generate without divine intervention.
I am agnostic, I don't toss out a "creator" 100%, nor do I believe abiogenesis 100% as infallible fact. But I find it a more convincing argument due to the large body of evidence and the ability to scientifically test it. You can't test a creator, that doesn't disprove one, but makes it very difficult to prove one. I just find it more likely that a process in the fashion of abiogenesis occurred than an omnipotent being creating life. It seems to me that religion works to explain the unexplained, and as we continue to develop new explanations religious explanations become less and less valid. That is, of course, just my opinion. I suppose you could call me an atheist, but due to the obvious stigma with being one and the current inability to completely refute one side or the other I am not willing to completely rule out any one possibility. But I do have enough certainty myself to believe that that Christian religion is false.
Additionally, if life was intelligently designed, what do we make of all the "imperfections" that exist? Vestigial organs are one example that come to mind. Or are you (I'm assuming you are a Christian) a Christian who believes god created the basic elements of life and evolutionary processes took over from there?
Here's the wiki article for abiogenesis. I'm not going to go into each model, you can look at them here. There is a phenomenal body of ideas and evidence about abiogenesis, none are "fact" as of now, but these are completely plausible explanations for life on earth. There's a lot of "scientific logic and evidence" for this idea, doesn't make it certain, but much more likely than the Christian "model".
I base my beliefs on science. Once science can create a self-replicating living cell and then have it multiply and become a multi cell organism with DNA attached then we can entertain the possibility that life may not have needed a creator.
Yes, I believe God created the basic elements and then guided the process to where we are today. Think about the logic w/o a God. Chemicals come together randomly, then life appears out of non living matter. It then multiplies and changes into animals with vertebrae, then goes on land and happens to find food to eat there. Well, you get the picture where I am going with this. That is one hell of a chance, if you ask me.
Sorry I have to go, I will pick this up tonight. Take care.
I dont pick and choose the stories of the Old Testament. They were not meant to be taken literally.
Not every word of it is meant to be taken literally, but A LOT of it is.
The verses where god commands his followers to slaughter entire cities are not figurative.
The part where god says it's okay to own and beat slaves is not figurative. Exodus 21:20-21
The part where he tells his followers to make an entire city into slaves, and keep the women and children as spoils of war is not figurative. Deut 20:10-15
The part where he tells the people of Samaria that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." is not figurative. Hosea 13:16
The part where he commands his followers to kill all the Amalekite "men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." is not figurative. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
The part where he killed someone for being helpful is not figurative 2 Samuel 6:3-7
The story of the Garden of Eden is not figurative, which I explain here.
Noah's Ark is not figurative.
The part where god punishes the entire human race for the sins of 2 people is not figurative.
I could go on for days, but I'm sure you get the point. The kind and loving god that we are told about in church is not the one in the Bible. Too many Christians cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they like and ignore the bad ones. That's no different than cherry-picking the nice things Hitler said, and ignoring the atrocities he committed.
all this discussion over the Old Testament is not going to get us anywhere. I don't base my belief in a God from some part of a book written thousands of years ago. I base my beliefs on the New Testament AND science, which shows without a doubt that everything didn't happen by chance.
The new testament was written 1863 years ago. The only difference between the New Testament and Old Testament is the name and time period. They are both part of the same book and describe the same god. They are both based on ancient manuscripts chosen by a handful of people. By simply discarding the Old Testament you discard most of the history of your god. I understand why you would want to discard it, because the god described in the old testament is not the loving god that Christians teach about today, he is a blood-thirsty monster, but if you just discard the bad things in the Bible and accept the good ones you are just creating your own version of god, molding him into the god you want him to be instead of looking at who he really is. To clarify, I don't really think he is like that because I don't think he exists. I think he is something man created to manipulate and control people.
Science more so than the Bible proves the existence of a Creator of all things.
The vast majority of scientists disagree. Members of The National Academy of Sciences, who are regarded as the brightest scientists in the nation, are 72.2% atheist and and 20.8% agnostic. That means only 7% of our nations smartest scientists believe in a god. In the UK’s Royal Society, which is similar to the National Academy of Sciences, only 3.3% believe in God. These are people who have spent their lives studying and researching how the universe works. They probably have a better understanding of it that any of us will have in our lifetimes, and they have come to the conclusion that there is no god. Here is the study if you're interested http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
If you want to talk about some of the scientific evidence you have for god I'm more than happy to discuss it, but I recommend posting it as a new argument on this debate instead of under this message thread.
I'm sorry if what I'm saying sounds harsh. I have no desire to offend you and have no ill feelings towards you. I'm sure you're a good person and are probably just not aware of all the atrocities committed by god in the Bible. Pastors tend to sugar-coat things and only tell people about the nice things in he Bible. The only reason I point out the bad things is because I think it's important to know who you're worshiping.
I am a little confused with what you are saying. The versus where God commands his followers to war and death are figurative. So is the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. They are stories not meant to be taken literally. Genesis is not meant to be taken literally either. Everyone knows God didn't create the Earth and everything on it in 6 days. Adam living 930 years is NOT literal. I don't understand how you take Christian websites as truth in some instances and fiction in others. It seems you are cherry picking also.
I am also not trying to offend you. I rather enjoy this back and forth discussion, so don't take it personally. God never literally told anyone to kill in mass numbers. If you believe that, then you do believe in God. The Old Testament is made up stories told long before Jesus came along.
"If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt."
To get a little context we need to back up a chapter to Deuteronomy 12:12. It explains that "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land." He clearly says that these are "decrees and laws" that must be carefully followed, not figurative stories. Chapters 12–26 of Deuteronomy are known as the Deuteronomic Code. They are "Laws governing Israel's worship (chapters 12–16a), the appointment and regulation of community and religious leaders (16b–18), social regulation (19–25), and confession of identity and loyalty (26)." I don't think you'll be able to find a Biblical scholar on the planet that thinks it is figurative.
"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
It's one thing to punish the people responsible for waylaying Israel, but to kill children, infants, and animals is just depraved.
Here's another passage that shows just how wonderful and loving god is. It's very long so I trimmed it some to keep it a reasonable length.
"Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people... if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country... The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks... The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish... The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed. The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies... and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals... The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you. You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her... Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand... you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. The sights you see will drive you mad. The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head."
If you think that is figurative I would like you to explain the figurative meaning of it that doesn't make god look like a raging madman. Hopefully now you understand why atheists think the god described in the Bible is a complete psychopath. If we don't do exactly as he says he will make our lives a living hell and torture us until the day we die, and then after we die he will sentence us to eternal torment in hell. Wow, what a kind a loving guy god is. It's a good thing I don't believe he is real, because a god that sadistic would scare the crap out of me.
MORE EXAMPLES:
There are many more examples where gods commands his followers to slaughter entire cities or slaughers them himself, but this post is already getting very long so I won't go into detail on them. Here are a few for you to read at your leisure.
the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. They are stories not meant to be taken literally.
I explain here why the Garden of Eden is meant to be taken literally.
As far as Noah's Ark is concerned, Jesus seemed to think the story wasn't figurative. Matthew 24:37-39"And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man."
Here are some other New Testament verses about the Ark.
Hebrews 11:7"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith."
1 Peter 3:20"to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water"
Genesis is not meant to be taken literally either. Everyone knows God didn't create the Earth and everything on it in 6 days.
You would think everyone would know that, but they don't. Just search the web and you'll find tons of people who take it literally. This site presents a pretty convincing argument that it is meant to be taken literally.
If you read Genesis 5 it gives a very detailed genealogy going all the way from Adam to Noah and his sons, giving each of their ages. Is that whole genealogy figurative? If so, what would be the figurative meaning, and why would he list all their ages?
I don't understand how you take Christian websites as truth in some instances and fiction in others. It seems you are cherry picking also.
Whether or not they are Christian has no bearing on whether or not what they say is true or false. If someone uses sound logic and evidence to support their statements, I see no reason reject what they say just because they are Christians. I accept or reject what they say based on the merits of their arguments.
God never literally told anyone to kill in mass numbers. If you believe that, then you do believe in God.
I agree that he didn't really tell them that, because I don't think he exists. The point I was trying to make is that if the Bible does describe a real god, then that god is a psychopath. If you don't believe that god is a psychopath, then he is not the one described in the Bible and the stories in the Bible are fictional.
The Old Testament is made up stories told long before Jesus came along.
Why does that matter if it was before or after Jesus came along? Why do you believe the New Testament is a reliable source of information, but the Old Testament is not?
The Old Testament was written by numerous authors who say they were inspired by God. There is no evidence to support that God talked to them and told them what to do. The stories are symbolic and it is what the author thought was the proper thing to do in some cases. The lineage of Adam is just made up, the author didn't have any facts to base it on. Why he gave wild numbers is anyone's guess. Most of the Old Testament is fiction.
The New Testament is based on eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. That is the difference between the two books.
The Old Testament was written by numerous authors who say they were inspired by God.
So is the new testament
There is no evidence to support that God talked to them and told them what to do.
Same with the new testament
The stories are symbolic
I already explained why they are not symbolic, and you haven't refuted any of my explanations. If you think they are symbolic, explain the symbolism and explain why my arguments for them being literal are not valid.
it is what the author thought was the proper thing to do in some cases
How do you know it's just what the author thought? Those authors claimed it was directly from god, just like the new testament.
The lineage of Adam is just made up, the author didn't have any facts to base it on. Why he gave wild numbers is anyone's guess. Most of the Old Testament is fiction.
Luke 3:23-38 lists another Geneaolgy tracing Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. That's from the New Testament. Is he just making stuff up too? I don't understand how you can think the old testament is mostly fiction, but believe the new testament is not. Without the old testament a lot of the new testament is meaningless.
The New Testament is based on eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. That is the difference between the two books.
I already explained that they were second-hand accounts, not eyewitnesses. Even the authors don't claim they were eye witnesses, and one of them specifically says he is not an eyewitness, but for the sake of argument lets say the first verse in each of the gospels says, "I am an eyewitness of the events I am about to describe." How do we know that they are telling the truth. All the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are eyewitnesses. Many other religions claim to have eyewitness accounts of their gods, so why don't you believe their claims? Why don't you hold the new testament to the same scutiny that you do all the other accounts? The old testament is full of people claiming to be eyewitnesses. Why do you reject their claims, but accept the claims in the new testament? Jesus and his apostles make numerous references to the old testament, so they didn't believe it was full of fictional stories. I already pointed out 3 passages from the new testament where Jesus & his apostles reference Noah's Ark. The new testament is full of references to Adam, so they clearly believed he was a real person and not just some fictional character. Jesus referenced many Old Testament stories as if they were real, like the creation story, Jonah & the whale, and the burning bush.
Jesus even said "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?"(Mark 12:24) What scriptures was Jesus referring to if not the ones that now make up the old testament?
McDowell says, "A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb." Here is what the verse actually says, "'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard'." McDowell embellishes the story and turns "a guard" into "strictly disciplined fighting men."
McDowell goes on to say, "The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal." The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire? Really? I'm starting to wonder if one of McDowell's kids wrote his book. Why would the guard even need to put a seal on the tomb if he was standing there guarding it the whole time?
Out of all the gospels, Matthew is the only one that mentions a guard, and as I mentioned earlier is this debate Matthew is based on the book of Mark. So why is it that Mark doesn't mention the guard? It sounds like Matthew embellished the story by adding a guard. This page goes into a lot more detail on the subject and explains why Matthew unintentionally made the story even less believable by adding the guard.
#2: EMPTY TOMB
"Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu."
Let's take a look at the sources McDowell uses as evidence to say the tomb was empty. The first one is Josephus. Even Christian scholars now admit it was a forgery. Older copies of the manuscript have been found and they didn't contain the passage referring to an empty tomb. That passage also dates from more than six decades after the death of Jesus. Here is more info about it.
McDowell's second source is the Toledoth Jeshu. The Toledoth Jeshu is "a medieval 'anti-gospel' or parody of the Christian gospel. The stories claim that Jesus was an illegitimate child, and that he practiced magic and heresy, seduced women, and died a shameful death." Using the Toledoth Jeshu as a source of evidence is like using the Broadway play The Book of Mormon, that was written by the creators of South Park, to prove that the events in the Book of Mormon took place. If McDowell thinks that is a credible source of evidence he is out of his mind.
READ THIS CAREFULLY: If you read all of the accounts of the tomb in the gospels, they say that Joseph and Nicodemus were the ones that put Jesus in the tomb, and that Joseph and Nicodemus were both supporters of Jesus Here are the related verses. The only other people who supposedly saw Jesus' body in the tomb were "The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee." They "followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it", but they "went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.", so they didn't see the tomb sealed up with Jesus in it. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that says anyone saw Jesus sealed in the tomb, so how do we know that Joseph didn't move his body after the women left? The guards weren't sent to the tomb until after it had been closed, and the verses about the guards make no mention of them opening the tomb back up to see if Jesus was actually in there. Plus, I already mentioned that there probably weren't any guards there to begin with.
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
"...the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it."
This is yet another example of him embellishing the story. They mention "a stone", the don't say anything about it's size or weight. He's just exaggerating things to make it sound too difficult for them to have moved the stone. It was small enough for Joseph to move on his own, but I guess McDowell missed those verses because they didn't fit his narrative.
He goes on to say "Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away."
Now he's just making stuff up! There is no mention of it being rolled "up a slope" or being in "such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away."
FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
I already explained that there most likely was no guard.
FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
...John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position."
One again McDowell is embellishing the story. The verse says "he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves." McDowell turned "strips of linen" into "grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty."
The way McDowell embellishes the story over and over is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say the stories of the Bible are most likely just a mix of embellishments and fiction. He is embellishing the story to make it fit the narrative he wants. This is one of the many reasons why the Bible can't be trusted as a reliable source of information.
McDowell goes on and on, but I'm not going to waste my time going through the rest of his stuff because he has shown that he is so determined to make things fit his narrative that he will lie and embellish to do it. Plus he doesn't list any sources, he just states things and expects us to take his word for it, even though he keeps making things up.
To answer your statement "Paul claims there was enough witnesses to the Resurrection to make it reliable."
How do we know Paul's claims are true. If someone came up to and say they knew 1000 people who saw a dragon, would you believe him? If not, what makes Paul's claims more reliable?
There were numerous prophets from the time of Jesus, what makes their existences any different than Jesus? You don't worship all these other prophets who supposedly performed miracles, just this one.
Additionally, the only non christian sources referring to Jesus were written years after his death, making the writers not eye witnesses. In fact, none of the writers who mention Jesus say anything other than his existence. Even Philo of Alexandria, who developed the doctrine of the "Logos" had never seen Jesus perform a single miracle or rise from the dead. He writes about "a certain madman named Carabbas ...(that) spent all his days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths" who was driven from the public gymnasium so that some of his tormentors could dress and mock him as a king in a manner that sounds exactly like Matthew 27:27-29. Yet not only does Philo fail to mention Jesus but he fails to comment on any similarity to Carabbas. Interesting, is it not?
"I would like for the atheists to explain how he pulled of these miracles and convinced so many people. Because if he didn't convince alot of people then he wouldn't be considered the son of God."
Who said Jesus even performed any miracles? We have no evidence of that except for biblical sources written decades after his death. Jesus didn't have to "convince" a single soul of anything, it seems more likely that his character was exaggerated by Paul and others (Paul notably never even met Jesus) to further their new religion.
You're going to need to cite non biblical sources if you're going to argue Jesus' miracles. You can't prove a miracle using a text written by believers after the fact. Anyone can write anything they want, doesn't make it true. This is simply trying to prove the bible using the bible, which is ridiculous.
His actions and elaborate plan could have been the makings of a group of people wanting to do something huge. Unlikely maybe, but based in logic and very possible, more possible than a being that would defy all of our physics doing them.
His great miracles were definitely explainable. Slight of hand could account for most of them, or a simpler version of them, then humans' need to make stories seem more interesting could have accounted for the over exaggeration of them. For instance his walking on water could have been him as a fast swimmer, then as the stories got retold and retold and translated from another language he soon began to swim a bit faster, he may have swam like a dolphin, maybe a metaphor was used to describe his speed in the water, as walking among the waves.
You said he had to convince a lot of people. With no form of press he could only convince a village at a time, maximum, yet people in other countries today know of his stories, how? Word of mouth. People see him do his thing then they tell it, stating "he's the messiah, the son of the real lord."
What I believe is this:Jesus was a man, with an eye for deceiving people at an early age. He practiced and made his way up to becoming the very 1st magician. Most modern magicians make their own tricks up, and if they didn't someone before them did, so obviously creating magic tricks ins't impossible. His devices he made them his self, very improbable I know, but the fact that they exist now is all the evidence I think anyone should need to believe he created his own props, rather than a person who still defies the laws of physics giving birth to some magical child.
It all depends on you. People have been trying to prove the bible historically inaccurate for years even decades through archeology but oh look that pool that "didn't exist" is found, oh their were two Quintus's, biblical contradictions dealing with kings ages and troop numbers have been cleared up by looking the of earliest versions of documents. If religious text such as the bible were so scrupulously searched for flaws and "disproven" we would have no textbooks or scant ones if that. Scientifically it can be reconciled with and compatible with (revision of SCIENTIFIC views in RELIGION doesn't mean anything unless its directly against it). Philosophically it makes sense and people have been doing it not since the 2,000's, not the past year, but since even the 1600's (The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation). Its all down to what you believe and are willing to believe.
In light of the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, many religions now accept it as truth, such as Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mormons, Buddhists, Methodists, The Church of England, The Greek Orthodox Church, and Judaism. In this debate I will explain why the Garden of Eve story from Genesis is not compatible with evolution and why the apologetics used to try to reconcile the two are not valid. Since evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story Christians have changed their story and are now saying it's not meant to be taken literally, but is merely figurative. However, there are numerous problems with this claim.
Problem 1: How does one determine when Genesis goes from being figurative to literal. If you read the Garden of Eden story you'll see it blends seamlessly into the stories that follow it. There is no indication at all that it changes from going from figurative to literal. Was the story of Cain and Abel figurative as well. If you don't think so, show me where Genesis chapters 3 and 4 go from being figurative to literal.
Problem 2: Numerous verses in the Bible show that the story of Adam and Eve are supposed to be real people, not figurative ones. Genesis 5:3-5 is one of the most obvious ones. "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died." If you continue reading Genesis chapter 5 it lists the genealogy from Adam to Noah. That's an awful lot of detail for a figurative story. Here are a bunch more verses about Adam that make it abundantly clear that he is supposed to be a real person.
Some apologists have suggested that maybe Adam & Eve were the first 2 people that reached a certain stage in evolution. In other words god said, "Well it looks like these two people have finally evolved enough, so I'm going to give them souls and designate them the first man and woman on earth. Just try to forget about all those other human looking creatures wandering the planet. I'm going to sterilze them so they die off and don't breed with any descendents of adam and eve." If you want to perform mental gymnastics in a desperate attempt to reconcile things you can do that, but I think deep down you know that that isn't the way it went down. It also doesn't fix the other issues that I'll cover below.
So now you're probably thinking just because Adam & Eve were real people doesn't mean the whole story is meant to be taken literally. That's a valid argument, so lets look deeper to see if we can find any verses that talk about other parts of the story. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
This author of this passage uses the Garden of Eden story to justify his sexism by explaining why women are not equals, that they are merely baby making machines. He clearly thinks the Garden of Eden story was not figurative, because if Eve never really ate the fruit and it was just a metaphor, then his claim would be baseless.
This Christian website does a very thorough job of showing that the Garden of Eden story is meant to be taken literally. Problem #3 below also contains a passage that shows it it means to be taken literally.
Problem 3: Without the Garden of Eden story you can kiss the concept of original sin goodbye. Original sin is a core concept in the Bible. Paul makes it abundantly clear that sin began with Adam in
Romans 5:12-18 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."
Problem 4: If you take away Adam & Eve, you take away a whole lot more, like all their ancestors including Jesus.
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy tracing Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. If Adam & Eve didn't exist and were not the first two humans on earth, then that genealogy was just made up. If Luke is making things up, why should we trust anything he said.
Problem 5: Genesis 1:27 says, "God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." The first life on earth is believed to have been a single celled organism, and that all life on earth evolved from this common ancestor. If god created mankind in his own image, does that mean god looks like a single celled organism? No wonder we can't see him; we haven't been looking for him at the microscopic level : )
There are many other problems with the story of Adam and Eve, but that should be enough to make my point.
Conclusion
The evidence I've provided makes it abundantly clear that the Garden of Eden story is meant to be taken literally, but since all the evidence shows that we evolved we know the Garden of Eden story can't be true and is nothing more than a work of fiction. If you take away the Garden of Eden story you take away one of the founding principles of Christianity and also call into question the validation of the rest of the Bible. If one of the first books of the Bible is filled with fiction, how can you trust any of it? So as I see it Christians are only left with two options:
1. Evolution is false but god intentionally planted all the evidence to make it look like evolution is true because he wants to confuse people, resulting in millions of people going to hell.
2. The Bible contains fictional stories so it is not a reliable source of information, and the concept of original sin is false.
If you don't believe in evolution I recommend heading over to this debate to post any objections or questions you have about it. When I get more time I'll add additional evidence to that debate, but a simple Google search on "evidence for evolution" should give you more than enough. Keep in mind there is A LOT of misinformation on the subject, so just because the first page you come across doesn't sound very believable doesn't mean you should stop there. The evidence for evolution is extensive and most people are simply unaware of it. Many people think all we have are a few fossils for evidence, but that is simply not true. Even if we didn't have a single fossil there is still have more than enough evidence for evolution.
1) No where in evolution is theories such Big Bang. The Bible was written by men to explain things to men at a fixed point in time. It contains both figurative and literal material.
2) Why do people that don't believe in the Bible continually worshiping it through the means of quoting it? Don't believe it, don't quote it.
3) Why is there an intense desire by atheist to destroy another person's religion. Perfect your own first.
"Any absolutist attitude is always a religious attitude, and in whatever respect a man becomes absolute, there you see his religion." - Carl Jung.
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so I'm not sure what relevance it has to this topic. It's not real clear what point you're trying to make. Can you please clarify?
The Bible was written by men to explain things to men at a fixed point in time. It contains both figurative and literal material.
I understand it contains both figurative and literal material, but if you read my post it shows that the Garden of Eden story was meant to be literal, not figurative, and because of that it is not compatible with evolution.
Why do people that don't believe in the Bible continually worship it through the means of quoting it? Don't believe it, don't quote it.
Because this is a debate about Christianity which is based on the Bible. How can I possibly debate about the authenticity of Bible without quoting it?
Since when does quoting something mean you "worship" it? You just quoted Carl Jung, so does that mean you worship him?
Why is there an intense desire by atheist to destroy another person's religion. Perfect your own first.
Because we believe it is harmful to society. Because of the lies spread by religion atheists are treated like monsters.
-A University of British Columbia study found that believers distrust atheists as much as rapists!
-Only 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist for president, even if they believed he/she was well qualified.
-Only 33% of people would hire an atheist as a day care worker.
-Only 65% would hire them as a waiter/waitress.
-Atheists are frequently denied custody of their children for simply being atheist.
-If a politician admits they are an atheist, they have committed political suicide.
-In many countries, just admitting you are an atheist will get you killed, and not just by average citizens, but by the government.
-In public schools, religious students are free to form clubs, but when atheists try to form their own clubs they are frequently stonewalled by school administration.
Then there is the long list of harmful things caused by religion.
-People are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic church has convinced them contraception is evil.
-People in Africa are being killed over accusations of witchcraft. The Salem witch trials all over again.
-43% of homeless gay teens were kicked out of their homes for being gay, and religion is one of the primary reasons people believe homosexuals are evil.
-Little girls are having their clitoris cut off because of religion.
-Many circumcisions are preformed without local anesthesia.
-In Islamic theocracies women who have sex before marriage, who date outside their religion, who spend time with male friends, or who disobey their male relatives are executed.
-In Islamic theocracies women who have been raped are executed for the crime of adultery. The ones who are not executed are often beaten and/or imprisoned.
-In Islamic theocracies girls as young as 9 years old can be married against their will.
-Seriously ill children often suffer and die because their parents refuse medical treatment because it is against their religion. In 39 states, these parents are protected from prosecution for child neglect.
-Priests molest and rape children, then the Catholic church covered up these abuses because they felt protecting their churches reputation was more important that protecting children.
-9/11
I could go on and on for days, but I think you get the point. Atheists have good reasons to want religion to be a thing of the past. If you saw something that was causing suffering and misery wouldn't you want to do something to stop it?
LittleMisfit, Does God exist?
I think it's very unlikely that any gods exist. However, I'm 100% certain the Christian god does not exist.
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so I'm not sure what relevance it has to this topic. It's not real clear what point you're trying to make. Can you please clarify?
Where did man/woman come from if not from God? An ape is only laughable.
I understand it contains both figurative and literal material, but if you read my post it shows that the Garden of Eden story was meant to be literal, not figurative, and because of that it is not compatible with evolution.
You deem it literal, this doesn't mean everybody does.
Because this is a debate about Christianity which is based on the Bible. How can I possibly debate about the authenticity of Bible without quoting it?
Christianity isn't based on the Bible, it is based on Jesus. The Bible was written about Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus existed, then the Bible. Get your chronological time right.
Discrimination against atheists is very common.
Ah, poor little atheist. Try being taken to the Colosseum and fed to lions. Christians have been prosecuted for over 2000 years.
However, I'm 100% certain the Christian god does not exist.
Now known to the world the all knowing god. Atheism should be the belief that god exists in one's self. All hail LittleMisfit
Here is one hypothesis of how the first life-form came into existence. Once the first life-form existed, evolution took over resulting in the myriad of life forms we have today. Just Google the word abiogenesis and you'll find tons of information on it.
Scientists are actively working on creating life. Although they haven't been able to create it yet, they have made significant progress. They have been able to make amino acids, the building blocks of life, through processes that occur naturally 1. They also recently succeeded in creating RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made 2. Keep in mind that modern science is still in its infancy. Molecular biology didn't even exist until the 1930's. To expect scientists to be able to create life when they have only known what it is made of for less than a century is like expecting a 2 year old to be able to master the works for Mozart. Remember, we didn't even have personal computers until the 1980's.
If you don't think we can exist without a creator, why do you believe god can? Clearly he must be far more complex than we are.
An ape is only laughable.
But an all-powerful being magically creating us from dirt is not? I recommend you spend some time studying the evidence for evolution. There is a ton of information available online. I think once you study all the evidence you'll come to the same conclusion that that vast majority of scientists have as well as many Christians. Then if you have any objections or questions you can head over to the evolution debate and post them there.
You deem it literal, this doesn't mean everybody does.
If you don't think it's literal, explain why my arguments are false instead of just dismissing them without an explanation.
Christianity isn't based on the Bible, it is based on Jesus. The Bible was written about Jesus, not the other way around. Jesus existed, then the Bible. Get your chronological time right.
And how do we know about the teachings of Jesus? That would be the Bible.
Ah, poor little atheist. Try being taken to the Colosseum and fed to lions. Christians have been prosecuted for over 2000 years.
So because some Christians were persecuted in the past, that makes persecution of atheists okay?
Why do resort to condescension in every debate that we have? That doesn't seem very Christ like. Read the debate description. If you can't have a friendly discussion, then take your condescension elsewhere.
Now known to the world the all knowing god. Atheism should be the belief that god exists in one's self. All hail LittleMisfit
In light of the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, many religions now accept it as truth, such as Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Mormons, Buddhists, Methodists, The Church of England, The Greek Orthodox Church, and Judaism. In this debate I will explain why the Garden of Eve story from Genesis is not compatible with evolution and why the apologetics used to try to reconcile the two are not valid. Since evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story Christians have changed their story and are now saying it's not meant to be taken literally, but is merely figurative. However, there are numerous problems with this claim.
Problem 1: How does one determine when Genesis goes from being figurative to literal. If you read the Garden of Eden story you'll see it blends seamlessly into the stories that follow it. There is no indication at all that it changes from going from figurative to literal. Was the story of Cain and Abel figurative as well. If you don't think so, show me where Genesis chapters 3 and 4 go from being figurative to literal.
Problem 2: Numerous verses in the Bible show that the story of Adam and Eve are supposed to be real people, not figurative ones. Genesis 5:3-5 is one of the most obvious ones. "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died." If you continue reading Genesis chapter 5 it lists the genealogy from Adam to Noah. That's an awful lot of detail for a figurative story. Here are a bunch more verses about Adam that make it abundantly clear that he is supposed to be a real person.
Some apologists have suggested that maybe Adam & Eve were the first 2 people that reached a certain stage in evolution. In other words god said, "Well it looks like these two people have finally evolved enough, so I'm going to give them souls and designate them the first man and woman on earth. Just try to forget about all those other human looking creatures wandering the planet. I'm going to sterilze them so they die off and don't breed with any descendents of adam and eve." If you want to perform mental gymnastics in a desperate attempt to reconcile things you can do that, but I think deep down you know that that isn't the way it went down. It also doesn't fix the other issues that I'll cover below.
So now you're probably thinking just because Adam & Eve were real people doesn't mean the whole story is meant to be taken literally. That's a valid argument, so lets look deeper to see if we can find any verses that talk about other parts of the story. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
This author of this passage uses the Garden of Eden story to justify his sexism by explaining why women are not equals, that they are merely baby making machines. He clearly thinks the Garden of Eden story was not figurative, because if Eve never really ate the fruit and it was just a metaphor, then his claim would be baseless.
This Christian website does a very thorough job of showing that the Garden of Eden story is meant to be taken literally. Problem #3 below also contains a passage that shows it it means to be taken literally.
Problem 3: Without the Garden of Eden story you can kiss the concept of original sin goodbye. Original sin is a core concept in the Bible. Paul makes it abundantly clear that sin began with Adam in
Romans 5:12-18 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."
Problem 4: If you take away Adam & Eve, you take away a whole lot more, like all their ancestors including Jesus.
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy tracing Jesus' lineage all the way back to Adam. If Adam & Eve didn't exist and were not the first two humans on earth, then that genealogy was just made up. If Luke is making things up, why should we trust anything he said.
Problem 5: Genesis 1:27 says, "God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." The first life on earth is believed to have been a single celled organism, and that all life on earth evolved from this common ancestor. If god created mankind in his own image, does that mean god looks like a single celled organism? No wonder we can't see him; we haven't been looking for him at the microscopic level : )
There are many other problems with the story of Adam and Eve, but that should be enough to make my point.
Conclusion
The evidence I've provided makes it abundantly clear that the Garden of Eden story is meant to be taken literally, but since all the evidence shows that we evolved we know the Garden of Eden story can't be true and is nothing more than a work of fiction. If you take away the Garden of Eden story you take away one of the founding principles of Christianity and also call into question the validation of the rest of the Bible. If one of the first books of the Bible is filled with fiction, how can you trust any of it? So as I see it Christians are only left with two options:
1. Evolution is false but god intentionally planted all the evidence to make it look like evolution is true because he wants to confuse people, resulting in millions of people going to hell.
2. The Bible contains fictional stories so it is not a reliable source of information, and the concept of original sin is false.
If you don't believe in evolution I recommend heading over to this debate to post any objections or questions you have about it. When I get more time I'll add additional evidence to that debate, but a simple Google search on "evidence for evolution" should give you more than enough. Keep in mind there is A LOT of misinformation on the subject, so just because the first page you come across doesn't sound very believable doesn't mean you should stop there. The evidence for evolution is extensive and most people are simply unaware of it. Many people think all we have are a few fossils for evidence, but that is simply not true. Even if we didn't have a single fossil there is still have more than enough evidence for evolution.
To be fair, I think the modern interpretation of Christian teachings is probably way off from what it originally was. Many Christians don't seem to know what a Holy Spirit is. They also think that Satan is a literal being, even though Judaism, who introduced Satan into Old Testament claims he is just a metaphor, and the Catholic church said that after centuries of studying Biblical texts, they've come to the conclusion that hell is a metaphor, as well (took them long enough lol).
What we know as modern Christianity, seems to be the corrupted version that was passed on by the Holy Roman Empire.
I'm sorry, but this really isn't as much of a collection of "Failed Prophesies" as it is a collection of Prophesies that haven't been fulfilled yet. Do you even watch the news?
For example, All hell is breaking loose in the middle east. One nuclear launch on Egypt would turn it into a wasteland, wouldn't you say? It's really just a matter of perspective.
You seemed to have picked one prophesy out of them all that could possibly happen in the future and ignored the rest.
The Destriction of Tyre prophesy cannot happen in the future because it had to be fulfilled by Nebuchadrezzar, who is long dead. It is a failed prophesy.
The Triumph of Judah prophecy said the king of Judah will not be harmed by his enemies, but they killed him. That is a failed prophesy.
The prophesy titled Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining lists a very specific timeline, which has already passed. It is a failed prophesy.
If you take the time to read those prophesies you will see that most of them have very specific conditions and/or timelines.
You do realize God has referred to Nebuchadnezzar, as well as others, in a metaphorical sense multiple times, right?
Also, if you read the verse describing the Triumph Of Judah, you would've seen that it said "The LORD God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria." Haven't you ever changed your mind? According to 2 chronicles 28:1-4, Ahaz really pissed God off. He worshiped Baal, and even sacrificed children. If that happened, I'd do the same thing.
As for the Nile drying up, I'd like to argue on that a little further, but for now, I'll state this. What isn't to say Egypt doesn't worship idols? Remember, God (or in your case, the Bible) uses a frickton of metaphors.
For instance, have you ever heard that you should cut out your eye, or cut off your hand if it causes you to sin? Obviously, the Author wasn't literally stating that you should dismember yourself to get to heaven. He was only implying that you get rid of things that tempt you to do wrong. (For instance, pornography.)
Remember, Jesus stated that if you devote more of your time to anything other than God, it is considered an Idol. Therefore, you can check that off the list, idols are everywhere. Not to mention, if Egypt ever becomes anything like America, (freedom of religion-wise) you can check off everything else on that list as well. Therefore, it could be interpreted as an end of days prophesy.
You do realize God has referred to Nebuchadnezzar, as well as others, in a metaphorical sense multiple times, right?
"Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. "
Do you honestly think he is talking about a metaphorical person there?
Also, if you read the verse describing the Triumph Of Judah, you would've seen that it said "The LORD God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria." Haven't you ever changed your mind?
The reason people change their mind is because they realize their initial thought was flawed. Are you telling me you think god's initial thinking was flawed? I thought he was supposed to be perfect.
According to 2 chronicles 28:1-4, Ahaz really pissed God off. He worshiped Baal, and even sacrificed children. If that happened, I'd do the same thing.
Most Christians believe god can see the future. Did he not see that Ahaz would end up doing those things when he made the prophesy? If he did see them, then why would he make a prophesy that he knew would not be fulfilled?
As for the Nile drying up,...What isn't to say Egypt doesn't worship idols? Remember, God (or in your case, the Bible) uses a frickton of metaphors.
If you read the entire prophesy in the context of the rest of the chapter it is clearly not referring to some event in our distant future and is clearly not a metaphor. Further down in the prophesy it says "in that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan." As that website explained, "Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language." The prophesy also talks about the princes of Zoan and princes of Noph, two cities in Egypt that don't even exist anymore. The cities that exist in those locations now do not have princes. So, in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled in the future, as you seem to be suggesting, the Canaanite language will have to be revived by a culture that never spoke the language in the first place, the cites that are now in place of Zoan and Noph will have to break away from the Egypt's current government, and they will have to go back to an archaic form of nobility that has princes. That sounds highly unlikely.
Yet another thing, I stated, "For example" in my first dispute regarding the prophesies. An example isn't the whole show, it's just a preview. I didn't just pick one, I referred to it first.
My bad. I just assumed that since you only mentioned the one prophesy and didn't mention any of the other that you were ignoring them. I apologize if that was an incorrect assumption.
Scientific research indicates that there is a human biological disposition towards faith (and thus religion) which tracks to particular parts of the brain structure. It is theorized based upon this evidence that faith (and thus all religions) is an evolutionary byproduct, thus undermining the probability that Christianity or other religions originated as anything other than human constructions. The weight of the evidence indicates that religion generally (including Christianity) is a neuro-biological process.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the story of Noah's Ark was fictional. The numerous problems with the story of Noah's Ark have already been covered in another debate so I won't go into details here, but here is the link if you're interested http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Noah_s_Ark_Fact_or_Fiction
Since the Bible contains fictional stories like Noah's Ark, I see no reason to believe the god it describes is not fictional as well.
Before you say, "They found Noah's Ark", people have claimed to have found Noah's Ark many times, but it always turns out to be a hoax or they later admit that it wasn't Noah's Ark afterall. If someone actually found Noah's Ark it would be all over the news and would go down as one of the most significant finds in history.
Perhaps Noah's arch was a bit of a grandieoss story, but it was not far off. The ancient Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer suffered a great flood that wiped out most of their civilization. This is very similar to what happened in the bible.
The flood isn't the major problem with the story of Noah's Ark, although it is definitely one of them. The major problem with the story of Noah's Ark is the animals, which is already covered in detail in the Noah's Ark debate.
There is no evidence that it is real and there is no evidence for it being false, even if you do give evidence to a christian or an atheist they just some how spit it back in your face using personal matters so it's really hard to tell whether there's proof or not.
There is no evidence to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, however science and reason give us greater probability in being correct should we conclude that it is significantly more likely that God is a human construct rather than an actual entity. (Please see my above post about the science of faith for details.)
I have not "spit" back any evidence against atheism or for theism because I have been presented with no such evidence. Stubborn superstition, plenty, but no evidence.
