Diogenes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:31 am
But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems,
Diagoras has said discussing the flood is not necessary...
Diagoras wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:09 pm
The whole ‘Flood thing’ only came up because it appears to be a central plank of your personal belief. To be honest, I’d much rather we stuck to the ‘problem’ of written vs. direct communication, which seems to offer more scope for an interesting debate.
But, if others really want to get into this, I guess we can.
What are the details of, for example, the Jahwist version that features a talking serpent and woman being created from a man's rib, do you find "piles of evidence" for support?
I've never claimed either of these has piles of evidence for.
POI wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:52 am
If I'm not mistaken, I attempted to travel the same road with this interlocutor, and it went nowhere
If I recall, this poster stated that the more (s)he investigated this flood claim, the more it looked to be supported with evidence. I then asked for the presented evidence, and also asked that (s)he 'steelman' the already given counter arguments for these given 'evidences'. This is where we left off
Maybe you'll have better luck?
I assume you're referring to me. I'm hesitant to get into debating the flood for a few reasons. One is that is not really directly relevant to the OP. Another is it is a huge topic and I've spent a long time debating this in A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?
. So, it's not like I'm unable to engage in this debate. Another reason is there are more relevant arguments that should be covered.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:31 pm
Though Muslims know about Jesus, to have a conversion experience needs more. The Believer will see it as evidence that Christianity is real.
The point is addressing if anybody is directly hearing from God now. What can account for multiple accounts of Muslims having dreams of Jesus and being willing to suffer severe consequences for conversion? Does it prove Christianity is true? I don't claim that. But, if the reports are true, then I think it's a reasonable position that they all heard directly from God.
As I've mentioned, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem occurred. But the Biblical claim that God smote the Assyrians is not credible. In fact the Bible admits that Hezekiah caved in and paid tribute, but that isn't connected with the claim that God smote the Assyrian army out of sight.
It might be difficult to retrace what actually happened. Both sides have their own version which might not be completely objective.
but I do seriously doubt that Plate had his arm twisted by Caiaphas,
You mean Pilate crucified Jesus only because of arm twisting from Caiaphas? I would doubt that also.
but I do seriously doubt ... Jesus rose from the dead (in solid form, anyway)
If you can demonstrate this, then this would be a serious objection. Can you elaborate?
Doctrine is irrelevant until one can say that the reason to believe any of the Bible claims are fairly based on factuality.
You've already claimed "I don't seriously doubt myself that Jesus did get crucified by the Romans". So, here's one thing you do accept as factual. We both also agree not everything is factual in the Bible. But, what we differ on is where to draw the line on accepting the Bible as reliable based on how much is historically factual. I believe the line should be drawn on core doctrine. From what I gather, you assert the Bible must practically entirely be factually correct to be reliable. But, how would you really know what happened historically? Is the Assyrian's account of the siege of Jerusalem 100% true? How would one know?
Just to take one point (and not for the first time) Luke clearly changes the angelic message at the tomb.
Yes, I agree there are different accounts of what happened at the tomb.
There is some confusion between this account and that of the other gospels. In Matthew 28 only a single angel is mentioned. Mark 16 refers to a young man, presumably an angel, sitting on the right side. In Luke two men, identified as angels in Luke 24:23, appear standing next to the women. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible argue that these multiple accounts are explained by Mary making multiple trips to the tomb.
I do not attempt to "harmonize" these different accounts by explanations such as
"we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb." That explanation could be true, but having to match up everything so each account is literally true is not necessary for me. It's possible for testimony to be given in a courtroom from different witnesses to differ, but they all saw the same event.
Evidence and reason does not support the Creation or Flood. I can see that this will become a debate at some time.
Yes, it looks like it will eventually have to be discussed.
I recall that both of us have debated this at length in the past.
We did? I don't recall that.
I can only say that Creationism (or Genesis -literalism at least) has lost ground over this, having to rewrite its' case several times
Well, I would argue secular cosmology has changed more times and has actually come around to being closer to what the Bible says.
As stated by Robert Jastrow, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."