Glad to see that you condensed your post first, I was going to say that our posts were becoming ridiculously long. I mosunderstood what you meant when you originally said 'your own research', which I apologize for.
Now:
True, but what is the consistency? How do we know for sure that the whole text wasn't mistranslated to remain consistent with an single error? We don't, although this would not be the most logical conclusion to come to...
The problem is, scientists don't look for evidence of god, nor do they avoid it. We simply look at everything they know and ask ouselves "does what they have discovered suggest that there must be a god?"
Okay, that isn't what I thought you meant. The thing is, is there archeological evidence that Moses even existed? Take Noah's Ark, for instance. This is perhaps the least believeable story in the whole bible. Many people, even pastors, have re-interpreted it as simply metaphor. Where, then, do we draw the line at what is and isn't metaphor? Surely they would agree that Jesus wasn't metaphor, but perhaps Jesus was wrong, and everyone else was right about god after all...
We were? Well, I guess, sort of... I mentioned the ten commandments, which were part of the OT. Of course, we can skip over the OT as simply metaphor if you would like to.
Can't there? What if your time limit is till death? Will god never supply an answer until you die? If we consider the mere possibility, even for a moment, that god might not exist, you will realize why that reasoning fails for the same reason telling someone they will know when they die fails. We cannot verify this. For someone who believes, they can easily convince themselves that any sign is god contacting them, whereas a skeptic would write it off as a natural event. People as for 'a sign' instead of something specific because if they asked for something specific (that wasn't likely to happen in the near future) then the sign might not come. You can predict anything and get your 'prophecy' fulfilled if you wait long enough.
Or you might have confirmation bias...
That was a typo. I meant to say 'I, for one, am asking now'
From what I understand, you said that in traditional jewish storytelling, the story is recounted in its main points, and then a more detailed summary is goven, correct? I don't understand why the two accounts disagree on chronology.
excerpt from Genesis 1:
excerpt from Genesis 2:
So, at the beginning of the chapter, it says that it was the seventh day. Later in the chapter, Adam is created. In genesis 1, Adam was created on day six.
Okay, but maybe it would be better to focus the debate, rather than going point by point, because that is getting kind of messy.
Now:
True, but what is the consistency? How do we know for sure that the whole text wasn't mistranslated to remain consistent with an single error? We don't, although this would not be the most logical conclusion to come to...
The problem is, scientists don't look for evidence of god, nor do they avoid it. We simply look at everything they know and ask ouselves "does what they have discovered suggest that there must be a god?"
so Jesus wasn't crusified because He was correcting the religious leaders of His day. They didn't have Him beaten first because He made them and their understanding of God law look foolish? Go back to moses while he was getting the commandments from God the people rebelled and created an idol even after all that they had seen. Litterally one or two generations after God had delivered these people into the promise land they had forgotten God and began to worship false Gods offering their first born sons to their false gods. (which is what this thread or the other one was orginally about/ The Passage in Judges) God's Laws have always been frown upon and reviled by people. This is not something new.Okay, that isn't what I thought you meant. The thing is, is there archeological evidence that Moses even existed? Take Noah's Ark, for instance. This is perhaps the least believeable story in the whole bible. Many people, even pastors, have re-interpreted it as simply metaphor. Where, then, do we draw the line at what is and isn't metaphor? Surely they would agree that Jesus wasn't metaphor, but perhaps Jesus was wrong, and everyone else was right about god after all...
We were? Well, I guess, sort of... I mentioned the ten commandments, which were part of the OT. Of course, we can skip over the OT as simply metaphor if you would like to.
Can't there? What if your time limit is till death? Will god never supply an answer until you die? If we consider the mere possibility, even for a moment, that god might not exist, you will realize why that reasoning fails for the same reason telling someone they will know when they die fails. We cannot verify this. For someone who believes, they can easily convince themselves that any sign is god contacting them, whereas a skeptic would write it off as a natural event. People as for 'a sign' instead of something specific because if they asked for something specific (that wasn't likely to happen in the near future) then the sign might not come. You can predict anything and get your 'prophecy' fulfilled if you wait long enough.
Or you might have confirmation bias...
Drich Wrote:Quote:Other people have, maybe not to you. I am asking for one now.One what now?
That was a typo. I meant to say 'I, for one, am asking now'
From what I understand, you said that in traditional jewish storytelling, the story is recounted in its main points, and then a more detailed summary is goven, correct? I don't understand why the two accounts disagree on chronology.
excerpt from Genesis 1:
excerpt from Genesis 2:
So, at the beginning of the chapter, it says that it was the seventh day. Later in the chapter, Adam is created. In genesis 1, Adam was created on day six.
Okay, but maybe it would be better to focus the debate, rather than going point by point, because that is getting kind of messy.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
