TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:38 am
You did say that but obviously the secular sites you referenced didn't come up with the questions about geology suggesting a Flood has to be the explanation of the geology and you either made up those questions yourself or got them from Creationist sites.
If I copied them from the internet, should be easy to find.
And as I said above your hydroplate theory is Walt Browns, and I'm sure you aren't going to tell us you didn't know that made that up yourself.
Of course it's Walt Brown's theory. I mentioned this in post 113...
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 am
When I was a new Christian, the story of the global flood was one of my objections to the Bible. I thought if I can't accept this, what value really is the entire Bible? If it has one major fictitious story in it, what about all the other claims?
A short time later, Walt Brown came to Atlanta and gave a talk. Several of my friends and I from Georgia Tech went to go see it. And he made a really good case for the historicity of a global flood. He backed up his theory with one physical evidence after another. And to this day, I believe his theory is the strongest.
So I'l be considering your post on that hypothesis but how about addressing the problem with the fountain as well as how strata could fold into mountains in just a year or less?
Are you sure you want me to continue to discuss the flood?
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:15 am
I agree that it should be read like witnesses in a courtroom. Which is rather the way we read many historical accounts.
And the Bible should be read the same way.
If you haven't seen my comments that the 4 evangelists are like courtroom witnesses whose testimony should have been declatred unsafe,let alone getting perjury charges, you haven't been paying attention.
Well, your posts are a bit difficult to decipher and I am trying. Can you elaborate on this point?
If you don't believe in an omnipotent God I doubt that you can be called Fundamentalist, but (as an atheists and non -believer, it isn't for me to say.I would suggests rather that your interpretation is Literalist; that is, it means what it says.
I'm not exactly a literalist. That is, I don't always interpret everything literally. I call myself a fundamentalist that is more in line with the original meaning when the fundamentalist movement got started.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magaz ... ndamentals
A remarkable literary project of the early 20th century, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, is soon approaching the 100th anniversary of its completion. The project was conceived and funded by Biola’s founder, Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith.
It is indeed clear that God cannot do 'anything' by which you mean he can't do everything, but can do some things. That would certainly fit Genesis and how God didn't know what would happen. But I'm sure that you see the implications for prophecy and God's Plan; he was trying to make things happen but He didn't know and neither did Jesus. The implication that God knew nothing of the Jewish war clobbers the prophecy.he didn't know that Judas would betray Jesus and he didn't know that Jesus would actually be executed. Thus the suspicion is that God intended Jesus to succeed and convert or reform Judaism. In other words Jesus is a Failed Messiah.
Your argument doesn't follow.
What do you mean God didn't know about God's plan?
Which Jewish wars are you referring to?
Why do you say God or Jesus didn't know Judas would betray Jesus?
Why do you say God didn't know Jesus would be executed?
Why do you say Jesus is a failed Messiah?
You cannot have ity both ways; the Bible is either written by men in which case it is not Divine, or is written (at least managed), by God, in which case errors are Hod responsibility.
Actually, I'm not arguing the Bible is divine. Where did I say that? All I'm arguing is the Bible should be considered authoritative for Christians.
To argue that our modern view is 'skewed' is dismissive.
Please show why then our modern western perspective on interpreting the Bible is then more correct than the ancient Jewish perspective that was held by the original authors.
Unless you are going to argue metaphor or symbolism, which as I have said, you don't seem to want to do (and that would debunk the Bible if you did as 'metaphorically true' means "Not true at all") what happened either happened or it didn't.
We've already discussed two examples where I argue the Bible is factual
- the siege of Jerusalem and a global flood. Neither of these are simply metaphorical or symbolic.
To reiterate the test case that should have Luke and Matthew thrown into the gutter, if not in jail - the nativities, there is no way both of those can be true and arguably,neither of them.
Though above you seem to be trying to use all manner of wriggles to try to argue authority for the Bible while preparing to dismiss any errors.
As I've mentioned many times, I'm certainly willing to discuss challenges to the credibility of the Bible. But, it has to be serious challenges that affect core doctrine or is a significant issue. Like for me, the claim of a global flood is not a small claim. And as I've argued, the empirical evidence does indeed support this.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:52 am
So I see you (as with another who hath taken the path of rejecting a Bible that doesn't stand up and believing an a non religious creator) of one who has had to shift from belief to sidelining what isn't believable and clutching
onto as much as you can. I've seen believers have to let go of more than that and been left with nothing but their hatred of non -belief.
I see myself as a skeptic. I'm willing to challenge Christian doctrine and even willing to abandon a Christian doctrine, even if it is held by many smarter people than me. If any people have strong evidence and a convincing argument to attack any
Christian doctrine, I'm willing to listen. But for minor things that have practically no value (like the details of the nativity), it's of little consequence to me.