Time-line, science and Judaic religious claims

[Willum]

Presented as if it were true, the Bible was memorized* by uneducated goat-hearders and handed down by generations miraculously and exactly until it was recorded 800 years ago for the Torah/OT, and 2000 years ago for the NT.

Science has been dynamically learning since observations have been recorded, and learns and changes even now, arriving at better descriptions and truth.

Question for debate:
How can a reasonable person accept thousands of years of reaffirmed evidence over the alleged hear-say of 8000 year old goat-herders?

* = We must acknowledge that the miraculous memorization is also incorrect, if the rest of it is.

[rikuoamero]

Science has been dynamically learning since observations have been recorded, and learns and changes even now, arriving at better descriptions and truth.

How can “truth� that is constantly changing be considered good? I think it is really stupid how we should always run to new direction that "science" shows and think it is the truth, when it can change after few years again and then we should again run to new direction and believe now we found it. It is ridiculous.

1213...do me a favour and next time you have a headache, have doctors drill a hole in your skull to let the demons out.
Oh? You'd rather take a pill for that? But that's a change in medical truth, my good friend!

[1213]

Planets change their orbits, it was raining sometime, but not others. Change means the truth changes.

If it rained yesterday at 5 pm. That information is truth and it remains truth always. If it didn’t rain at 6 pm, it doesn’t change the earlier truth and fact.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by 1213]

But if someone were quoted to say, "It's raining," and then someone were to look at that quote, look outside and say "It's not raining." The truth has changed. Please try to generalize outside of what I had hoped would be a simple example.

The truth changes. Can we move on now? Or are you going to claim you have successfully thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

[Willum]

So, back to topic, why should you believe the unverifiable verbally transferred impossible beliefs of folks who can't be shown to exist for *4000* years over modern science?

[1213]

But if someone were quoted to say, "It's raining," and then someone were to look at that quote, look outside and say "It's not raining." The truth has changed. Please try to generalize outside of what I had hoped would be a simple example.

“It’s raining� is not accurate saying and people should not make accurate claims from inaccurate claims, because it can cause contradictions that are not real. Person who reads “it’s raining� should understand when and where it is said. Then, if someone else says, it didn’t rain then and there, we probably have contradiction and without some confirmation, we don’t know what the truth in that matter is.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by 1213]

Yeah, great, I understood your point before you wrote it. Sadly the converse isn't true.

Is not understanding the generalization of this topic a good reason for accepting the unaffirmed allegedly verbal continuity of other peoples' myths and fables, by a people who had virtually no understanding of the natural world instead of modern science?

What is a good reason for for accepting the unaffirmed allegedly verbal continuity of other peoples' myths and fables, by a people who had virtually no understanding of the natural world instead of modern science?

[1213]

What is a good reason for accepting the unaffirmed allegedly verbal continuity of other peoples' myths and fables, by a people who had virtually no understanding of the natural world instead of modern science?

I accept what the Bible tells, because I see it to be true and that those who wrote it, had better understanding or knowledge than modern science.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by 1213]

No offense my friend, but your opinion is not a sufficient reference to make a professional decision, much less one about the nature of the cosmos.

What you are saying, and I say this respectfully, is that your judgment is that the verbally transitioned stories of unadvanced cultures is better than the observations of our modern ones.

That *4000* BCE traditional medicine and observation is what you'd prefer to chemotherapy,assuming you had such a disease.

Cordial regards,

[1213]

What you are saying, and I say this respectfully, is that your judgment is that the verbally transitioned stories of unadvanced cultures is better than the observations of our modern ones.

With all respect, you didn’t understand, all real observations are ok to me. Real observations that we can make are not in contradiction with the Bible, they support the Bible. That I don’t support all conclusions/theories of the observations, is not same as rejecting the observations.

[PinSeeker]

Back to the OP:

"How can a reasonable person accept thousands of years of reaffirmed evidence over the alleged hear-say of 8000 year old goat-herders?"

It depends on which kind of "reasonable person" you are talking about;

On one hand we have reasonable people who are still dead in their sin. These are folks who, even thought they can walk and talk as it relates to this life, are dead in their hearts to the things of God.

On the other hand, we have reasonable people who have been made alive, whose spiritual eyes and ears have been opened and set free from the law of sin and death.

So the answer in the first case above is, reasonable as they might be, they can't believe.

The answer in the second case is, it's very much unreasonable not to believe.

In the first case, though, there is hope. With God all things are possible.

In the second case, thanks be to God for His amazing grace.

Happy Lord's Day to everyone.