Can a Christian Explain to Me...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Oh I know that, which is why you have the two options, either the Bible is just a book of fables and histories, or an all powerful god made stuff happen however he wanted and influenced people to write a book how he wanted. Either way works. It’s up to all of us individually to decide which we believe is more likely.[/quote]2 posts in a row where I agree with Cockney Blue. It’s nauseating watching these worldlings try to help God out by patching up what he said with the thin runny plaster of post modern unbelief.

It’s funny when the Christ deniers understand what those who claim His name do not. There is no middle ground. Either the bible is supernaturally composed and compiled which ultimately explains literally everything or it’s abuncha crap. I respect the buncha crap view far more than the one espoused by these liberals speaking the name of Jesus in muffled tones because their face is planted in the unbelieving world’s butt cheeks.

102

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Hey Push, I know what the Bible says and it is written in the same way as a lot of other religious texts, myths and mythologies. Like I say, over time with re-telling stories get inflated and added to and that is my view as to what happened with the Bible. Again, it’s just my view and of course it could be literally true if you accept the premise that the Bible truly talks about an all powerful being.[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying. Just trying to reinforce the point it’s pretty darn tough relegate the Great Flood of the Bible to a local flood. Some folks DO try to do so to “keep everyone happy.”

It just doesn’t work.

It also doesn’t work when the inexplicable occurs, that universal flood stories are ubiquitous and deeply embedded in cultures across the planet. Every corner of the globe has ‘em. How could they, the stories, be everywhere if just one li’l ol’ flood happened to just one li’l ol’ character and his immediate family?[/quote]

local I guess is relative. You look at the Tsunami from a few years back or the flooding we have seen in Bangladesh, or in the wake of Katrina or even some of the terrible flooding in Mexico over the last few years and think of a time period when most people’s entire knowledge of the world is their village and I think it is pretty easy to read the Bible and think about flooding on a scale that we see today.

Flooding is pretty common and it is devestating so it’s not hard to see why most major civilisations have some sort of flood myth doesn’t mean they are all talking about the same flood.

103

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Oh I know that, which is why you have the two options, either the Bible is just a book of fables and histories, or an all powerful god made stuff happen however he wanted and influenced people to write a book how he wanted. Either way works. It’s up to all of us individually to decide which we believe is more likely.[/quote]2 posts in a row where I agree with Cockney Blue. It’s nauseating watching these worldlings try to help God out by patching up what he said with the thin runny plaster of post modern unbelief.

It’s funny when the Christ deniers understand what those who claim His name do not. There is no middle ground. Either the bible is supernaturally composed and compiled which ultimately explains literally everything or it’s abuncha crap. I respect the buncha crap view far more than the one espoused by these liberals speaking the name of Jesus in muffled tones because their face is planted in the unbelieving world’s butt cheeks.
[/quote]

And in a funny way I respect your viewpoint more than the middle ground as well (can’t relate to it but I respect it)

105

Push, I don’t know on that one. Flood stories being similar could be due to floods being similar but like I say, it could be that enough rain fell to put everest underwater if you accept the premise of an all powerful god.

108

So the argument for Christians explaining Native Americans boiled down to people saying Carbon dating is wrong.

I can’t buy that. You’re trying to tell me Radiocarbon dating is off by over 6000 years? Well, dendrochronology is pretty legit, and it’s used in the newer calibration curves of Radiocarbon dating. We can easily confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating of objects up to 10,000 years with a margin of error less than 1%. A 0.3% margin of error in this case is in no way going to account for the 6,000 year difference being claimed.

As for flood stories, a lot of flood stories existing doesn’t support the biblical flood. A lot of flood stories exist because flood occur in almost every region, and thousands of years ago they couldn’t explain them. Imagine that, a culture based around the Tigris and Euphrates, has a flood myth.

Also, these myths existed before the bible and the similarities between say the biblical flood and the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh can be explained by the bible simply copying and absorbing famous stories, dates, etc., much in the same way Christians changed Jesus’s birthdate to that of the winter solstice celebrations.

110

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:

…Also, these myths existed before the bible and the similarities between say the biblical flood and the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh can be explained by the bible simply copying and absorbing famous stories, dates, etc…

[/quote]

Incorrect.

The Genesis flood story predates all others. Wanna know how and why?
[/quote]

This should be good.

113

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
So the argument for Christians explaining Native Americans boiled down to people saying Carbon dating is wrong.

I can’t buy that. You’re trying to tell me Radiocarbon dating is off by over 6000 years? Well, dendrochronology is pretty legit, and it’s used in the newer calibration curves of Radiocarbon dating. We can easily confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating of objects up to 10,000 years with a margin of error less than 1%. A 0.3% margin of error in this case is in no way going to account for the 6,000 year difference being claimed…

[/quote]

I’m telling you dating methods aren’t even close to being infallible. They have flaws. Serious flaws that are often overlooked because timelines need[ to be met to make many theories work.

However, you are correct to the best of my knowledge about the 10,000 year reliability limit of carbon-14 dating. It IS a tool but not one than is strong enough to bear the heavy burden that many so called “facts” require.

Even then, remember one thing…all dating methods sit on a foundation of assumptions. You nor any other scientist were there 6,000 - 10,000 years ago to perform valid scientific observations and experiments. You simply don’t know for sure that carbon has always decayed at the rate observed now.

Or potassium into argon.

Or uranium into lead.[/quote]

It’s not just carbon dating though, since calibration curves use dendrochronology and other forms of incremental dating to come up with these numbers, you’re saying that the trends shown by all of these are not just a little wrong, but horribly wrong. The odds of several different tests all being so wrong is relatively low.

We also shouldn’t have to make any vast assumptions with dendrochronology. This is because we have -living- samples from thousands of years ago, so unless trees have been plotting with Satan to fool us all for thousands of years, it seems like a safe measure of time.

Though I find it funny you say all of science is based off of assumptions, when everything you’ve said has been based off of an assumption god is real. Shouldn’t you reinforce your assumptions? Preferably with something beyond circular logic, or magic.

Although, I would love to hear your logic on why the genesis flood myth predates all others. My curiosity has been piqued.

114

And this guy says he’s just honestly lookin for information LOL!!! Circular logic huh? =] I would need the Lord to keep my arrogant attitude in check cuz you would be way too much fun pal. I would love to hear YOUR logic period, but oh wait. I already have. From all of your clones I’ve been dealing with all these years. It looks like I’ll be waiting the rest of my natural life for JEATON to produce one particulate shred of evidence for my plagiarism that he alleges as the basis for his refusal to tell me whether he loves his country and what judgmentalism is so go ahead. I won’t interrupt too much for now.

118

Assumptions = epistemology which, like I’ve been sayin since my very first post in these discussions here, is where the real battle is. Sorry, I’ll try n be quieter for a while. It’s absolutely tearin my heart out watchin this Push. If I were to argue evidence I would say pretty much everything you’ve said in this thread so far. (but there’s more) Even from the standpoint of God hating autonomous man, catastrophe covers far more AND more plausibly the data of the various earth sciences. Even an occasional pagan can be spotted lamenting the fact that if he’s honest with himself the theory of evolution and all it’s concomitant sub theories have no more actual evidence than the first three chapters of the book of Genesis.

Of course which of the two epistemological foundations one proceeds from has determined all this before we even start. With the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob staring them right in the face every day, unbelievers will always find more unbelief. That’s to be expected, but when people claiming to be believers find the same unbelief the pagans do that’s when I will not remain silent. Actually it appears I’ll never remain silent like I said earlier in this post I would try to do. Sorry.

119

I’m well aware that it’s based off of assumption, I’m just saying it has more enforcement for it than your claim against it, and far more backing it than your alternate suggestions.

You also don’t seem to understand the concepts of averages, sample size, and margin of error. I’m well aware of the flaws with these dating methods, but I’m don’t think they’d err 6,000 years in favor of your argument. I accept it could be the case, but the odds are abysmally low.

Another problem with the flood story is where did this water come from and where did it go? If you’re saying other civilizations flood myths refer to the same great flood, then why do they vary so wildly? Some are as short as a day, while some say the flood raged for years. Who wrote all these different myths if these heathens all died in the flood as the bible states? Unless you’re suggesting that the survivors of the biblical flood couldn’t agree on the duration of this massive flood? They just spread out all over the world creating their own gods and flood myths after that even though the only survivors were noah’s faithful family, firsthand witnesses of God’s power?

And after all this you’re telling me that radiocarbon/dendrochronology being wrong is the answer?

I still want to hear how your genesis flood myth predates all others.

120

[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
I’m well aware that it’s based off of assumption, I’m just saying it has more enforcement for it than your claim against it, and far more backing it than your alternate suggestions.

You also don’t seem to understand the concepts of averages, sample size, and margin of error. I’m well aware of the flaws with these dating methods, but I’m don’t think they’d err 6,000 years in favor of your argument. I accept it could be the case, but the odds are abysmally low.

Another problem with the flood story is where did this water come from and where did it go? If you’re saying other civilizations flood myths refer to the same great flood, then why do they vary so wildly? Some are as short as a day, while some say the flood raged for years. Who wrote all these different myths if these heathens all died in the flood as the bible states? Unless you’re suggesting that the survivors of the biblical flood couldn’t agree on the duration of this massive flood? They just spread out all over the world creating their own gods and flood myths after that even though the only survivors were noah’s faithful family, firsthand witnesses of God’s power?

And after all this you’re telling me that radiocarbon/dendrochronology being wrong is the answer?

I still want to hear how your genesis flood myth predates all others.[/quote]

The problem with having to have a rational debate based on science with someone who believes in God is that you are trying to have a rational debate based on science with someone who believes that there is a sentient being in control of everything who can literally do anything. What that means is that any rational logical evidence that you can come up with can be washed away by saying, well god made it like that to test our faith. There is literally no way to win the argument because you are not speaking the same language and you don’t think in the same way.

That said, I would be interested in hearing how the genesis flood myth predates other myths.