Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[Rei_Zero]

To Sorovis,
Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

And aren't you speculating that everything the Bible says is true, Sorovis?
-Opponent in Debate
Lei Gong (a.k.a Rei_Zero)

[Aglandiir]

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzreligion.htm

Christianity has 2 billion followers if you include all of the various sects of Christianity. Islam has 1.1 billion followers, counting both the Sunni and the Shia. Atheism and its variants have 1 billion followers. So I stand corrected about what I said about Islam, though you can see my point.

Sorovis, you've got problems if you call that a "trap." You'll recall, perhaps, that Islam began sometime around AD 620, more than five hundred years after Christianity. Unless there were some Adams or Isaacs around at the time, everybody who would've actually known whether or not Jesus performed miracles had been dead for hundreds of years by the time Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven from the Rock in Jerusalem.

Muhammad didn't try to discredit Christianity because it would've been foolish to tell so many people they were flat-out wrong; he compromised instead, and said that, even though Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a great prophet and his teachings were valid.

As for your dogged insistance on saying that people wouldn't believe, or claim to believe, if threatened with death... I assume you also recall that Muhammad and many of his followers fled Mecca for Yathrib (sp?) after their preaching was met with violence and hostility. Yes, that's right: violence. But he still got followers. Funny, that.

As for the speculation... I'm really getting tired of reminding you of obvious things. Look up at the titlebar on your web browser. This thread is called "Historical Accuracy of the Bible." We are debating, first and foremost, whether or not the Bible is accurate history. The old standard of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. It's precisely the opposite: guilty until proven innocent, or really, false until proven true. You are trying to prove to me that the Bible is accurate history. I, as I said quite a while ago, merely need to show that I have reasonable doubt about your arguments. I don't need to prove that the Bible is false. That isn't why I'm here. My speculation is my reasonable doubt. I presented a perfectly plausible theory. Nowhere did I claim it to be true, or false for that matter. I have no clue. All I said is that it's possible. Checkmate seems to understand that part; you, apparently, fail to do so. In fact, in your hasty mockery, you seem to admit (with your poor-taste crack about 9/11) that my theory is plausible. Good job.

I assume that, since you decided to mock my argument instead of respond, you've simply chosen to give up, in which case I graciously accept your surrender.

And I actually pity your parents if you're the best thing they managed to spit out upon this planet.

[Sorovis]

Sorovis, you've got problems if you call that a "trap." You'll recall, perhaps, that Islam began sometime around AD 620, more than five hundred years after Christianity. Unless there were some Adams or Isaacs around at the time, everybody who would've actually known whether or not Jesus performed miracles had been dead for hundreds of years by the time Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven from the Rock in Jerusalem

Muhammad didn't try to discredit Christianity because it would've been foolish to tell so many people they were flat-out wrong; he compromised instead, and said that, even though Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a great prophet and his teachings were valid.

Are you absolutely positive that Muhammad claimed Jesus existed and performed miracles simply because it wouldn't be convenient for his case? Or could it quite possibly be that Muhammad believed in Jesus and his doings himself? Honestly, you cannot simply discard one option because it does not benefit your case. I could just as easily claim that President Bush claims to be a Christian because it pleases the people.

As for actually disproving Islam, I have no interest in doing so here, hence the title being 'Historical Accuracy of the Bible'. Please read more thoroughly next time; and quit trying to change the subject.

As for your dogged insistance on saying that people wouldn't believe, or claim to believe, if threatened with death... I assume you also recall that Muhammad and many of his followers fled Mecca for Yathrib (sp?) after their preaching was met with violence and hostility. Yes, that's right: violence. But he still got followers. Funny, that.

So perhaps they actually had some reason to follow Muhammad? It seems to me you are assuming here that Muhammad himself was a liar and those who followed him had no reason to do so. Think clearly for a second: would twelve people plus many others who had seen claim Jesus had done miracles for no reason? I thought we had already established that people are not stupid, nor were they more gullible in the past. If the President of the United States claimed to perform miracles, would everybody instantly believe him? Certainly not. There would be groups from one side attempting to make it all seem like trickery, as the Pharisees did to Jesus; then there would be the skeptics, a few of which were actually some of the Twelve Apostles.

As for the speculation... I'm really getting tired of reminding you of obvious things. Look up at the titlebar on your web browser. This thread is called "Historical Accuracy of the Bible." We are debating, first and foremost, whether or not the Bible is accurate history. The old standard of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. It's precisely the opposite: guilty until proven innocent, or really, false until proven true. You are trying to prove to me that the Bible is accurate history. I, as I said quite a while ago, merely need to show that I have reasonable doubt about your arguments. I don't need to prove that the Bible is false. That isn't why I'm here. My speculation is my reasonable doubt. I presented a perfectly plausible theory. Nowhere did I claim it to be true, or false for that matter. I have no clue. All I said is that it's possible. Checkmate seems to understand that part; you, apparently, fail to do so. In fact, in your hasty mockery, you seem to admit (with your poor-taste crack about 9/11) that my theory is plausible. Good job.

Enough of your bitter quips please and we may move on. You will kindly observe that it is not my responsibility to sit here and disprove every one of your half-baked ideas; especially when they have no basis. Save me the 'my speculation is my doubt' rubbish, because if you are willing to doubt something do to some random ideas you have come up with that could disprove it, then you clearly have no intention to reasonably examine evidence from the other side. This is a debate, not one of your little discussions. In my first post, I [b]clearly stated that both sides must provide evidence to support their case[/I]. You seem very good at selective reading; or you must have forgotten that by now. Honestly, is it so difficult to understand the concept of a debate for you? That not one, but both sides present evidence-- not one side take the advantage in that the other has to labor to prove anything to them. Get out of your throne of superiority, it is an illusion.

Secondly, I at no point said your theory was plausible. In my 'poor taste crack on 9/11', I pointed out that we had no reason to doubt what had really happened that day, and that theories with no support (and even no logic) should not be used to doubt the actual events.

I assume that, since you decided to mock my argument instead of respond, you've simply chosen to give up, in which case I graciously accept your surrender.

I pity you now that I see how desperately you beg for my 'surrender'. You know how relentless I am in these debates, and seeing my current standing, you have many long weeks-- months for that matter-- ahead of you before I truly 'surrender'. No doubt you will actually taste the cold intensity that I argue with before the end. Maybe next time you will actually choose to debate instead of 'speculate', but that has yet to be seen.

You will also note that I clearly stated that I was mocking your argument due to how simply terrible it was. It was not hidden among a mound of insults; rather placed at the end of my first paragraph regarding such an argument for you to see. Maybe you would like me to make such statements bolder next time so that you may actually see them?

And I actually pity your parents if you're the best thing they managed to spit out upon this planet.

Ah, I see how truly low you feel you can stoop. What else did I say in my first post? Oh yes, no insults please. You might as well take a breath before your next post, because you are doing a miserable job at abiding by the rules I laid down.

To Sorovis,
Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

Both corroborate with the Bible; both people existed in the Bible. The fact that at least one religion that does not agree with Christianity and Judaism admits that men such as Moses and Jesus lived and performed miracles must say that the writers of the Bible did not necessarily embellish the truth.

And aren't you speculating that everything the Bible says is true, Sorovis?
-Opponent in Debate
Lei Gong (a.k.a Rei_Zero)

Yes, but as you can see I am doing more to support this speculation that making blind points with no basis to support my argument. There is an apparant difference between arguing the validity of something and claiming that it cannot be valid due to some crazy idea that you have come up with.

[Legends-Kuja]

Lol, you say im not an optimist.

Sane i may or may not be but i can type in english can't I?

I'm the guy who would risk alot on a 50% chance.. personally i'd like to think theres a god, but everything i've ever read, everything i've ever heard completely contradicts it, theres OPTIMISM AND SHUTTING YOUR EYES TO THE GOD DAMNED FACTS.

Tell me where you heard that something can come from nothing, and tell me if that person or source BSed you. I am not blind to facts. World took millions of years, NOT seven days to be born. The ENTIRE earth could not be flooded (but a large bit of it can, other religions tell of a great flood too.). I would not believe miracles unless I saw them with my own eyes. But to say that this universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would be total lies. The Big Bang had to have had some sort of source, whether that was God, or a previously existing universe I don't know, but energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, only transferred...

Feh, my "blanket statement" said MOST blatant atheists are pessimistic, not all, so Aglandiir, you are not really "blanketed" by my statement. Saying ALL BLATANT atheists would be false and a real "blanket statement"...

[Checkmate]

Let's look at a quote by the original start of this debate.

Of course everyone is welcome, just remember no spamming and
points require supporting evidence.

And also, from the beginning of this debate, a counter to most of what Aglandiir has posted...

Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims
such as what you have done?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor
of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who
were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were
true.

But what does Islam have to do with the apostles?

If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most
popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any
deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be
false?

Slow down... stop. Think for a minute. Do you know what ?apostle? means? It means
someone who learned directly under Jesus personally.

My entire point has nothing to do with the early Christians. It has to do with 13 men who
knew Jesus personally. (12 minus Judas plus Paul plus Matthias)

If you want to use Islam to discredit my point you would have to show evidence that
followers of Mohammed who learned personally under Mohammed died torturous deaths
for their faith. That would give you a point.

If you could present evidence that Muhammed performed miracles or just any kind of sign
about divine favor you would have a very good point.

You currently do not have evidence of Muhammed?s divine favor, evidence of the
disciples proving their belief, nor, for that matter, a point.

That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to
address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they
going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles
and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself,
however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough
reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be
more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for
belief.

When?s the last time you went to court? Belief has plenty to do with truth. When an eye
witness gives testimony, that testimony is automatically accepted as true until reason for
doubt is given.

It is then the job of the opposing counsel to discredit the witness. Perhaps exposing a
logical motive for the witness to lie, or proving that they had lied before about something
similarly important, or something like that. Unless you can give decent cause for the
person to lie, their testimony holds a good amount of water.

Lee Strobel said in his book that he?d seen a lot of people go to prison because of eye
witnesses.

So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because
they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside
circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only
people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a
very, very small group of people.

Thirteen is not a small number. If you take thirteen random people from various walks of
life and put them together, it is astoundingly improbable that all thirteen of them would
boldly and willingly die a torturous death instead of renounce their current religious (or
lack thereof) belief.

A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be
totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously
possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their
lead.

But ulterior motives would have been exposed in the courtroom when they were told to
renounce Jesus or die. Ulterior motives don?t seem so important when your life and limb
are on the line.

I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked
it if they knew it to be false.

Finally, you're catching on.

In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have
known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people
together is no major feat.

There is no way that they could be fooled into thinking that Jesus fed 5000 people when
he didn?t. And I doubt that you?re going to call Luke crazy. After all, he?s been shown to
be a brilliant historian. You can?t say that a man with that precise of detail could be crazy.
But yet he researched this Christ and found it to be true. And being a medical assistant, for
Paul, he certainly could have recognized if Paul were insane when Paul claimed that Jesus
appeared to him.

Here?s what doesn't hold water, the claim that 12 random people, a tax collector, four
fishermen, and who knows who else were all insane.

Oh, and a word to all concerned. I wish I didn't have to keep telling people this,
but: IF you are debating the validity or accuracy of a source, YOU CANNOT USE THAT
SOURCE AS EVIDENCE. Doing so is called circular reasoning and is, quite frankly, the
dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make. Thus, arguing that God
wouldn't give powers to a liar (a key part of your argument in support of the Bible's
accuracy) because, I quote:

It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does
not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.

In my opinion, that debate ended. You still haven?t done anything to prove that Jesus did
not perform miracles. Nor can you prove that Jesus didn?t claim divinity. I figure that
debate is done.

[AbareMax]

Tell me where you heard that something can come from nothing, and tell me if that person or source BSed you. I am not blind to facts. World took millions of years, NOT seven days to be born. The ENTIRE earth could not be flooded (but a large bit of it can, other religions tell of a great flood too.). I would not believe miracles unless I saw them with my own eyes. But to say that this universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would be total lies. The Big Bang had to have had some sort of source, whether that was God, or a previously existing universe I don't know, but energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, only transferred...

Yes, this is partly true. The universe couldn't have developed by itself. You can't get water from a rock. And you are partly right about the world being created in seven days. Most theologians believe that back then, a day was 1,000 years.

[Tainted]

Yes, this is partly true. The universe couldn't have developed by itself. You can't get water from a rock. And you are partly right about the world being created in seven days. Most theologians believe that back then, a day was 1,000 years.

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

No, referring to your 'days' point. In the time the Bible was written, there were very few available terms regarding periods of time. Thus, day does not necessarily mean a single revolution of the Earth, but could indeed be used to describe an age.

Your other point regarding the formation of water molecules through the heating of hydrogen is very interesting. Could you perhaps direct me to a site that further covers that?

A group of scientists re-created a pseudo-environment of the way Earth first was billions of years ago, in a tank. I'm not too sure on what "ingredients" were needed, but a few weeks later, cells started to develop, the same cells they were thinking started life on this planet. If you want, I could go find a few pages explaining the exact experiement.

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.

What kind of argument do you want? I mean, the whole concept of the Bible, well, all religions is that some deity that we have no proof of created us, our environment, other living things, and the entire universe as we know it. I mean, there's no proof of this deity. In the Bible, you have God appearing to people all the time. Now, we have nothing, except that evangelical Benny Hinn crap you see on TV, which was already proven false by many different organizations.

Generalizations abound; most of which are grossly inaccurate. The proof we have of our God? One could say Jesus's miracles are evidence I suppose. Really though, our very existence could be evidence enough for a superior being. Quite honestly as I have expressed in the past, life cannot create itself no matter what the conditions. Seriously, just because you decided there is no God does not mean that there could not be proof.

The Bible says God made all the modern animals (including humans) and plants that exist today. If new species develop, I'm pretty sure that's evolution at work.

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

Yeah, but God said to bring two of every animal on the ark. What'd the lions eat? They're carnivores, and God said only bring two of every animal. And with the lack of refridgeration, I doubt Noah could keep meat fresh for fourty days. I know he could've used salt, but would the carnivores extra-salty meats? And, I mean, with more than ten billion animals on board, you'd have to kill a hell of a lot of animals before setting sail.

Ten-million animals you say? Care to support that? As I have stated before Noah most likely did not include sub-species (perhaps even some species) of animals. Keep in mind the methods of classifying animals were not as great as they are today.

Lions do not boycott salty meat I am sorry to tell you. And it's not as if lions poached or kept in zoos or circuses necessarily get five-star meals. Add this to the fact that many animals can last for months before eating again. Again, use your imagination.

A mere eight people tending to billions of species of animals?

The number of animals aboard the Ark just increased one-hundred-fold.

Oh yeah, you believe that God exists and that the great flood caused by the great rain was also caused by him. I believe none of it ever happened. Sure, there's evidence of a great flood, but not five-thousand years ago.

That's nice.

Yeah, but that was, according to you Christians, 5000-years-ago. You believe in microevolution, so you should know that things don't change much in 5000 years. There still would still be, roughly, about a massive couple billion animals at the time, by that logic. It's just one of the things in the Bible that doesn't make any sense. If there was proof for anything in the Bible, other than supposed "prophet grave sites" that exist in the Middle East, then I would surely give Christianity another go, but, really, I've seen nothing... No offense.

Go to page one or two and look at the page regarding archeological findings that corroborate and support events and places in the Bible. Happy reading.

[The Muffin Man]

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

I think he's using the excuse that "A day to god could be a million years to us". I don't personally buy it, as that's only semi-recent as an explanation and seems fishy.

[Pork]

Although I am not extremely religious, I think that there is some kind of God, somewhere...I mean, when you're staring up at the night sky, that beautiful mystical canvas, you've got to think there's something bigger, don't you? I don't want to get technical, but it's fun to imagine...

[Sorovis]

I think he's using the excuse that "A day to god could be a million years to us". I don't personally buy it, as that's only semi-recent as an explanation and seems fishy.

All I ask is that you bother to read my posts. Again, there were very few terms to represent amounts of time; it is not at all impossible that the word 'day' did not necessarily mean twenty-four hours. Keep in mind languages have not always been as vast as they are today.

[Jeikobu]

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

God spoke, and life was created. That's what creation is: making something out of nothing. That's what God did. For example, He said "let there be light" and immediately there was light. God created. There is no evolution.

[Animelee]

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.

Generalizations abound; most of which are grossly inaccurate. The proof we have of our God? One could say Jesus's miracles are evidence I suppose. Really though, our very existence could be evidence enough for a superior being. Quite honestly as I have expressed in the past, life cannot create itself no matter what the conditions. Seriously, just because you decided there is no God does not mean that there could not be proof.

There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.

Ten-million animals you say? Care to support that? As I have stated before Noah most likely did not include sub-species (perhaps even some species) of animals. Keep in mind the methods of classifying animals were not as great as they are today.

Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.

Lions do not boycott salty meat I am sorry to tell you. And it's not as if lions poached or kept in zoos or circuses necessarily get five-star meals. Add this to the fact that many animals can last for months before eating again. Again, use your imagination.

Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?

The number of animals aboard the Ark just increased one-hundred-fold.

I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button.

That's nice.

Yeah, it is nice.

Go to page one or two and look at the page regarding archeological findings that corroborate and support events and places in the Bible. Happy reading.

They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?

[Aglandiir]

Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible. The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible, which I have said many times is not valid evidence. I will not accept it as such, no matter how many times you quote it or reference it or pull things out of it to "prove" your point. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the Bible is true until confirmed by an objective outside source. So really, to me, you're basing your argument on lies.

I'm going to drop the speculation because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

Checkmate: Jesus did claim divinity. Nobody should argue that, because anybody can claim divinity. In fact, I just did it myself. There, I did it again. As for his miracles, I may not have disproved them, but neither have you proven them. You use the Bible as evidence of the Bible, which is circular reasoning. My case against Jesus' miracles would mainly be that such things clearly go against everything that I currently believe to be true, such the the laws of physics, and that there is no evidence of these miracles other than the Bible itself, which, for all practical purposes, can be treated as the same thing.

[AbareMax]

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.



There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?





The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.




Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.



Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?



I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button.



Yeah, it is nice.



They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?

Yes, the Bible does say we were created in God's image. In Genesis, it also describes how man was created. We were made from the dust. Also in Genesis, it says that God put every animal on the Ark, and he did, but not as you all think. There may have been billions, or perhaps more, but we don't know, and it's pointless to guess. Do you know how long it took for the ark to be built? 600 years. Go ahead and check it out for yourself.

[Roarkiller]

Juz casually step in and look what uve got. And the last post even mentioned my religion.

Im too far behind to even think bout catching up (12 pages aint funny), but juz browsing this page alone, a few notes to point out:

Proof of God:
Someone said that us being here alone should be proof enough of god existing. Yeah well, thats what islam teaches us (or basically, proof of god is simply the existence of this entire universe), but u cant convince a non-believer like that. And i believe christianity doesnt even mention how to prove god's existence.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?

The idea of god is someone who simply Is. Or to put it simply, he doesnt come from scratch; he didnt come from anything, he simply already exists, no beginning and no end. Technically, the above argument is based on another argument, and so isnt an argument. Does that even make sense?

And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.

After preaching for 2000 yrs to his ppl (according to islam anyway), i dont think 6 mths makes much of a difference. And why would he have to go around the world? During his time, the world was only juz formed, everyone would occupy a land no larger than the USSR. And the flood prolly didnt even cover all of earth, juz that part of land, since the punishment is only to his ppl.

Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

Um, cuz even tho those pts r the same, a lot of other pts r in conflict? Major Duh to me.

Anyway, i prolly wont come here to see replies, but out of curiosity, a question to all of u not exactly relatiing to religion. The bible was written in some language, then translated to some language on the way to english. Now, some european languages pronounce J as Y, and some letters do not pronounce at all.

Thing is, "Jesus" has both qualities. Apply both and its pronounced the way muslims would pronounce it as; Isa. Same to Moses (Musa), Joseph (Yusof) and Jacob (Ya'cob, which is said as "ya" and not "yea").

Juz wondering. Kinda remembered to ask this after watching Chrno Crusades (anime) and Rosette's bro was called Joshua, incidentally pronounced as "Yoshua".

[Razola]

4. All religions are a stupid attempt by foolish mortals trying to grapple with their fear of the unknown and trying to answer it with something to rationalise their existence, even if they know it's false. There is no true or correct religion. If there was, 90% of the world would go to Hell because they believe in the wrong God.

That's retarded. Do you really think I fear death any less than your typical Al Atheist?

[phaedrus]

That's retarded. Do you really think I fear death any less than your typical Al Atheist?

you only fear death when you make yourself fear it.

[Sorovis]

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.

I really don't think you necessarily fathom the improbability that DNA and the like could simply build itself randomly with no intelligent guidance. Random mutations in a creature is one thing; the completely random assembly of Deoxyribosenucleicacids when the origins of most of the necessary componants are unknown is a completely different field.

There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

Maybe that it is extremely (a bit of an understatement, really) unlikely? Then there is the fact that no real experiment has accurately duplicated what was thought to be life's origins, despite our casual intellect and goals. If we cannot do it, then neither can nothing.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?

Once again consider the lego builder. His creations are made from legos and bound by legos; the Creator is not. If the creations were to deny the existence of the Creator due to the fact that he is not made of legos, would that not be foolish? Simply put, God is not necessarily dictated by forces which bind us.

The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.

No actually I have dealt with this 'flaw' before. Read again and you will see that the Bible does not give an account that we were made in two different ways. Indeed this is usually seen as a flaw because the second account builds itself off of points raised in the first which it does not bother to restate.

Secondly there is enough of an argument that humans differ from animals to begin a totally different debate that could last for twice as long. Of course if you wish to argue that here I would be happy to accommodate.

Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.

You have heard of Darwin's theory on the finches of the Galapagos? I forget the name of it, but essentially if two of the same finches live in two different environments and reproduce their for many generations, they will eventially evolve apart and become two different species. It is very plausible that perhaps Noah did this; one species of lion, one species of tiger, elephants, mantids, etc.. That also dramatically decreases the numbers of species on board the ship. Improbable or unsupported you say? Not really. It should be common knowledge by now that there were not nearly as many species and sub-species of animals in the past, even many thousands of years ago, as there are today. No black, yellow-belly, and striped racers (snakes) back then, but only black (or blue, you get the idea). Again, it is very likely that the varying species of animals we have today came from one base ancestor and spread out to cover different regions, not interacting (or rarely as the case may be) and evolving in totally different ways.

Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

You would be suprised how poorly animals are treated in circuses; but I digress. Lions you must know frequently do not make their own kills and will commonly eat carrion or even resort to cannibalism if the time calls. Lions, like all animals, must either adapt to dry spells where food is scarce or die off; it is not at all uncommon that such large cats will go weeks without feeding. Then if you want some speculation it could have been that such creatures were not as evenly distributed throughout the globe, and third level heterotrophs (I believe that is what they would be classified as) may have been good at living off of one good meal for a month at a time. I know some snakes may go two years between a meal if the time calls.

Then of course one must keep in mind that inactivity and lack of exercize which would use energy would help conserve energy better to a degree. Without having to prowl in the night and hunt, or fend from other prides, the lions could have gone a long time off of their fat reserves alone.

I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?

But is there any logical or substantial evidence that supports to the existence of intelligent alien life forms or leprichauns? An idea such as an intelligent Creator is dramatically different than fairytale creatures, you must understand, both in concept and utter realism. Then you must take into account that even though the vast majority of the land surface of the Earth has been explored, nothing has been found of said leprichauns, not even reliable evidence. With the concept of aliens, the age-old query comes to light of who created the aliens? Assuming of course that they are bound by laws of physics and matter (if they weren't that would be more along speculation of a God rather than aliens).

I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button.

Reading error. My point still stands, however. Ten-billion animals is very unlikely given the time period that this supposedly happened and the limited method of phylogeny.

They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?

Like what? It really depends on what you are talking about here. What I am talking about is places and peoples that were believed to be made up by the writers of the Bible until archeological findings confirmed they actually existed. I forget what the site I presented said, but if I remember correctly it was along some of those lines.

Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

Then you don't belong on this thread, and I would suggest you leave now. Quite honestly, if you are going to tell me seriously that the Bible is 'a strange, fantastic story' and then support this claim with wild speculation, then you don't understand the concept of a debate; nor have you read the Bible, for that matter, in which case I would say you should actually find out what you are talking about before talking at all.

To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

And yet again this does not belong on this thread. This is to historically prove the Bible, not the Quran. So let us just drop this point for efficiancy sake and move on to more pertinent issues.

The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

Well if you actually are, then I must say I definately am not. You seem to still duck under the conception that people are gullible fools who would discard their life for either poorly supported claims or what they know of as lies. Honestly, it is not at all that hard to understand that Luke got killed for something he actually believed was right and that he had a reason for that, is it? I could argue on this point for years and years if you want to continue (you have said the contrary). Chances are though it will end up with us endlessly repeating ourselves.

Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

Well then don't. Make fun of my arguments, as you wish, and I will do so as well. Claim that I am finished on my own debate and that you accept my defeat and I will not take it lightly. Obviously I put at least a decent amount of time into debating here, and I would rather actually debate than have an insult match.

You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible. The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible, which I have said many times is not valid evidence. I will not accept it as such, no matter how many times you quote it or reference it or pull things out of it to "prove" your point. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the Bible is true until confirmed by an objective outside source. So really, to me, you're basing your argument on lies.

I am assuming that this is addressed to Checkmate or Abaremax, as I have done nothing of the sort. Simply put though, the Apostles' existence is seen out of the Bible; in Roman history, etc.. For your sake I will try and find something to support this, so be patient until then.

I'm going to drop the speculation because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

Or perhaps it was so weak that I didn't even feel it.

[Checkmate]

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?

[Checkmate]

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.

It?s no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.

Speak for yourself. He proves his existence to me fairly frequently. It would seem that the most faithful get the most proof. Interesting concept of God?s. But I?m not saying I?m the most faithful, because I don?t do things like miracles or anything. I just get little proofs. Anyway?

One?s conscious could be considered evidence. If you just stop and think about it, some of the basic points of the Bible become clear. We are made in the image of God. This is not the physical image, mind you, but the aesthetic, and spiritual image.

For instance, Human beings are the only beings that can read and write. Human beings are the only creatures that can build tools. Chimps can stick a stick into an anthill in order to fish out ants, but to my knowledge he is unable to modify that stick in any way. Or tie it to another stick in order to reach down deeper.

Also, human beings are the only beings capable of working on something unnecessary. The tools that apes use are designed to get food. Tools that we build or utilize are designed sometimes just for entertainment. Animals don?t follow dreams.

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

This, right here, is one of the few points on which Sorovis and I disagree. I agree with Animelee in that Chrisitianity and macro-evolution do not mix.

The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.

I agree.

And by the way, Animelee. Could you please give me some resources disproving Benny Hinn. This is not for debate, but rather personal interest. The first time I saw him on TBN I figured he was hypnotist. Considering he never actually healed anyone on stage, but merely put them into some sort of ecstatic transe that made them very easy to knock over.

And I saw a couple of other things in his first broadcast that made me doubt him.

Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

The same can be said about evolution.

To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

*Grins and chuckles. Nice way to slither out of a trap. You were the one who brought up Islam and was using against us. Now you?re saying that we?re not aloud to use it. Brilliant.

The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

And I?ve tried to explain that you?re fighting a point I never made. I already answered this point with Rei. Read much?

Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

He does follow his own rules. He doesn?t come up with wild speculations just because he can?t prove anything. You said that it?s harder to prove something true that is fantastic than to prove it false. I find that funny considering I?ve presented proof for 2000 year old miracles and you haven?t presented against it.

You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible.

Well, see this is the thing. The last time I offered proof, I was met with so-called rebuttal that proved that proved nothing. Why should I waste my time and energy to present proof that you?ll answer to with ?Well, the apostles have paid those people to say that.? Or something else similarly speculatory.

The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible,

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?

I'm going to drop the speculation

FINALLY!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!

because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

No, I know its purpose. Its purpose is to present reasonable doubt. But even reasonable doubt requires some degree of evidence.

Checkmate: Jesus did claim divinity. Nobody should argue that, because anybody can claim divinity.

Good. I don?t have to argue that point. Thanks for that.

As for his miracles, I may not have disproved them, but neither have you proven them.[ You use the Bible as evidence of the Bible, which is circular reasoning. My case against Jesus' miracles would mainly be that such things clearly go against everything that I currently believe to be true, such the the laws of physics, and that there is no evidence of these miracles other than the Bible itself, which, for all practical purposes, can be treated as the same thing.

You?re funny Aggy.

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?

Proof of God:
Someone said that us being here alone should be proof enough of god existing. Yeah well, thats what islam teaches us (or basically, proof of god is simply the existence of this entire universe), but u cant convince a non-believer like that. And i believe christianity doesnt even mention how to prove god's existence.

That depends on the non-believer. I heard the testimony of a man on CBN who used to be an atheist. His friend had been witnessing to him at the work place for several years. The atheist?s wife was pregnant, so the friend said this. ?When your little girl is born, give here a good hard look. And you?ll know that she could not have possibly been an accident.? The friend was right on all counts. The atheist later became a Christian.

I also heard of a soldier for Russian during World War II. He was in a foxhole and wrote a poem. He basically said in the poem that he?d always been told that God didn?t exist. (I think the poem was written as if talking to God) But he looked up at the heavens and knew otherwise. He basically said to God, if you exist, help me, save me because I might die tonight. Or something like that. That citizen of communist Russia prayed for Salvation that night. Just by looking up at the stars. And thank God, because that soldier did die that night. The letter was sent home to his mother.

I?m not sure about the details of that last story, but I know the stuff that matters. (salvation) If I could recite the poem exactly, I would. However, I know what someone?s going to say so I?ll respond to it right now. That soldier was not praying to God to save him from the war. That?s clear in the poem. He just wanted to go to heaven when he died, and he wanted to get his heart right with God before he died.

After preaching for 2000 yrs to his ppl (according to islam anyway), i dont think 6 mths makes much of a difference. And why would he have to go around the world? During his time, the world was only juz formed, everyone would occupy a land no larger than the USSR. And the flood prolly didnt even cover all of earth, juz that part of land, since the punishment is only to his ppl.

One minor difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity believes that Noah did not even live to be 700. And that the Earth had not even been around for 2000 years at the time of Noah. The flood did cover the entire Earth. And according to the interpretation of the commentator in my new Study Bible, he thinks that since the Earth was ?filled with sin? that it would be filled with people. But just because the commentator said so, doesn?t necessarily make it true. Just thought I?d throw that in.

Suffice it so say that some people do see nature as proof or at least evidence of God. Case in point?

Although I am not extremely religious, I think that there is some kind of God, somewhere...I mean, when you're staring up at the night sky, that beautiful mystical canvas, you've got to think there's something bigger, don't you? I don't want to get technical, but it's fun to imagine...

And roarkiller, what was that whole language lesson about?

[The Muffin Man]

But even reasonable doubt requires some degree of evidence.

No. You idiot. Reasonabl doubt IS the evidence. "I have no real reason to believe, so I don't think I can"...

[Roarkiller]

@Checkmate: According to a book i have, Noah lived up to 950. Hmm, wonder where i got th idea of 2000 from. But in any case, 2000 or 950, compare that to 6 mths and its barely anything.

Bout the language thingy, its juz out of curiosity. Cuz both christianity, islam and the hebrew have the same prophet and therefore the name pronounciation should be the same (doesnt this pt makes u wonder why our religions r so diff then? lol), yet it isnt, and i have a believe that is falls under the problem of translation. Sorovis should remember this, when i once told him that when the bible was translated, meanings and interpretations can be lost, and example of this is names, altho it has no obvious consequence.

Speaking of translations, i stand by what i told him; when smthng is translated, meanings and interpretations and whatnot get lost easily, and the intended message becomes distorted, made worse if another translation was made out of the previous translation. Especially when some words in some languages can have different meanings, or different usage in different situations.

[Razola]

you only fear death when you make yourself fear it.

Nice try at a compelling quote, buddy.

I'm a still of big fan of living. It's pretty awesome. I'd rate it an 8/10.

[Sorovis]

God spoke, and life was created. That's what creation is: making something out of nothing. That's what God did. For example, He said "let there be light" and immediately there was light. God created. There is no evolution.

God said let there be light. No specific period of time is made clear of when He spoke it when it came into full existence. God created life, I have no question about that. On the idea of evolution, He may indeed have set things into motion, knowing the ultimate outcome; that is my view at least.

[AzureSeraph]

I would just like to say something about Noah's Ark. About 3 months ago, there was a documentary about Noah's Ark on the History channel. According to the Bible, Noah's Ark was supposed to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high or about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high

(http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...on&showxref=on)

Now, if this ark was a perfect rectangle if would have a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Although this seems like alot, it really isn't considering the ark has to be a perfect rectangle for this amount of volume. So for the sake of simplicity lets say the ark is 2/3 that size. So that makes it have 1012500.

Taken from the Bible:

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

So suffice to say the ark probably had barely the amount of room for the animals and the food and the various living conditions.

However, one thing just doesn't make sense at all. The size of Noah's ark is about that same size as the HMS Ameer class escort aircraft carrier, which dimensions are 465 x 69.5 x 23.25 feet. (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/canada.htm)

From what the Bible states:

14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [3] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

For those that don't know, pitch is about the equivalent of our tar except significantly weaker. So Noah's Ark was made of wood coated with pitch. An ark that large would without a doubt collapse under that kind of collosal tension. Wood and pitch just don't have the strength to stay together let alone stay a float. There is no point in arguing the fact that wood is weaker that steel. So how can a wooden boat the size of an aircraft carrier possibly exist?


There's another problem with a worldwide flood or even a large regional flood. It would have left massive evidence behind in the form of sediments. When water moves over an area of land, it tends to leave behind small grainy particles of sand. This should be apparent in rock samples all over the world. However, it is not.

Also, there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the land masses. Even if all the water in the polar ice caps were melted, there would still be landlocked areas that would remain untouched.

Even if somehow, there was enough water to flood earth, this would make earth unihabitable as the moisture in the air dramatically increases. Have you ever walked outside after a thunderstorm and found it difficult to breathe because of the water vapor in the air? Well, the amount of water vapor in the air would be so great, it would cause you to drown.

So, as I have explained, Noah's Ark or the great flood could not have happened on the scale that the Bible depicts.

[Ash_300]

Once again consider the lego builder. His creations are made from legos and bound by legos; the Creator is not. If the creations were to deny the existence of the Creator due to the fact that he is not made of legos, would that not be foolish? Simply put, God is not necessarily dictated by forces which bind us.

How do you know that God is not dictated by the "forces"(fairly vague term in this context but very good for avoiding the minute details) that bind us? Did you speak to him? I do not understand how you can draw parallels between legos and someone who apparently made us all. From what I know, humans are organic and legos are not(if that is not true then please lead me in the right direction). Furthermore, a lego cannot speak either(another thing which sets humans apart from them) so how can it deny the existence of its creator? What it comes down to is that analogies and attempts to draw parallels between non-related things do not prove anything.

[Roarkiller]

When it sez flood, it doesnt necessarily have to come from the seas, u know. This flood came from rain, and as much as it defies logic, lets juz say that if god wills it, it will happen.

In any case, i always like to say this: Logic is a flaw in itself. And science isnt always correct. After all, if it is, then get this: A bumblebee, because of its size and weight, and the size and speed of its wings, by right should not be able to fly. Look what its doing now.

[AzureSeraph]

Any type of flood, ANY, whether it be by sea, rain, or the over flowing of rivers of the magnitude that the Bible depicts MUST leave behind some evidence in the form of sedimentary rock. If there ever was a worldwide flood, geologists would have massive layers of sedimentary rock all over the world.

Also, as I said in my first post, a flood of the magnitude the Bible suggests, whether by rain or would create so much water vapor that you would drown by BREATHING. If there was that much water, human life would have ended as Noah and the rest of his family would have died breathing in water vapor and subsequently drowning.

[Aglandiir]

http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr3913.htm

I thought I already told you why the Talmud is no good, but I'll tell you again: it was written 200 years later.

I brought up Islam to show how lots of people can be convinced to believe. The reason was very, very simply: if Islam is correct, then all the Christians were deceived. If Christianity is correct, then all the Muslims were deceived. There are a whole lot of both. They can't both be true; thus, there are billions of people who have good reason to believe in their religion, but are wrong. That was all I was trying to say.

I was not trying to say that Islam disproves Christianity. Islam does nothing at all to Christianity; seeing as it was founded 500 years later, it runs into the same exact problem as the Talmud. And as Sorovis seems to enjoy pointing out, this isn't a debate about Islam.

There. I said what you can and cannot use Islam for in this debate. Thanks to the wonders of selective reading, you seem to take my statement that you cannot use Islam to argue a certain point to be "slithering out of a trap". Way to go. It wasn't a trap, and even if it were, I'm a man, not a snake, despite what your views on atheism might suggest. I would walk out of it.

Sorovis...

...

First, my speculation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the Bible is a strange story. That you seem to think that it did does nothing but prove that you have no clue what I was trying to do with the speculation. Insult it all you want, but... if you don't even understand what it's for, then you look a little foolish. I'm not abandoning that strategy because it's bad; I'm doing so because you just don't get it.

For your information, all the support I need for my claim that the Bible is a strange story comes from Checkmate, on page 3 of this thread:

The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical. Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, he's everything. Messiah, Jehovah, the Prince of Peace. It's he. Son of man, seed of Abraham, second person in the trinity, he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

AzureSeraph: there was a massive flood in the Mediterranean region... perhaps several floods, in fact. They happen because of the movement of the European and African tectonic plates. They periodically move together and pull apart. When they are near, the Strait of Gibraltar closes and the the Mediterranean sea, with no other significant water sources (the Nile certainly isn't big enough), dries up. When the plates pull apart, the Strait opens and seawater fills the massive Mediterranean basin. There is sedimentary and fossil evidence of these events from Morocco to Israel. The flood(s) are generally believed to have occured 5.5-8 million years ago.

[AzureSeraph]

However, that also leaves the matter of the size of the ark to be disputed over.

[Roarkiller]

However, that also leaves the matter of the size of the ark to be disputed over.

A long time ago, it was impossible to tame animals. A few decades back, it was impossible to talk to ppl over long distances. A few yrs ago, cloning was pure sci-fi. A few weeks ago, it was nothing more than a dream for me to go to pkmn TCG worlds.

Learn this boy, and learn this well; there is NOTHING that is impossible in this world.

[The Muffin Man]

When it sez flood, it doesnt necessarily have to come from the seas, u know. This flood came from rain, and as much as it defies logic, lets juz say that if god wills it, it will happen.

Water creates moisture. It doesn't matter if it rained, or if it randomly appeared...besides, rain water IS the same as ocean water. Where do you think rain comes from?

In any case, i always like to say this: Logic is a flaw in itself. And science isnt always correct. After all, if it is, then get this: A bumblebee, because of its size and weight, and the size and speed of its wings, by right should not be able to fly. Look what its doing now.

The speed the wings flap keeps it up. You are probably ignoring alot of factors. You're assuming in a vacuum most likely.

A long time ago, it was impossible to tame animals. A few decades back, it was impossible to talk to ppl over long distances. A few yrs ago, cloning was pure sci-fi. A few weeks ago, it was nothing more than a dream for me to go to pkmn TCG worlds.

Learn this boy, and learn this well; there is NOTHING that is impossible in this world.

My hatred for your pretend logic knows no boundries.

Wanna know what's impossible? Fitting a male and female of every animal in the world on a boat the size of the ark, which was made of wood and like Azure said, was impossible. It's been PROVEN to be impossible. Not just speculated. It's not "impossible" like cloning. Cloning, taming animals, and talking to people over long distances wasn't impossible but merely a matter of time before there was a way. The structure of wood cannot be that large, let alone hold the weight of 2 of every animal on earth...

Besides, do you know how hard it would be for ONE MAN to build a boat of that size alone? I'm pretty sure the bible says he did it alone. The pyramids had, I believe thousands of workers building them. And STILL people died constantly, due to stress and heat.

There's something you need to learn, Roarkiller. Impossibility and slight possibility are two entirely different things.

[Sorovis]

First of all I must say I am happy to finally see The Muffin Man actually debate. I may have missed similar instances during my absence, so I also apologize if I have.

First of all, regarding the Flood:

What people generally assume is that during the time of the Flood oceans and seas were approximately as large as they are today. With this conception generally people come to the conclusion that since the waters of the Flood are apparently not present today, and that since they seemingly have nowhere to hide, the Flood could not have happened. What I want people to consider is that oceans and lakes form due to the water compressing the land and gathering in that specific point of lower altitude; what is very likely to have happened in the case of Noah and his Ark is that at the time of the Flood, the land was much flatter than it was today. When the heavy rains came down, pressure upon the Earth's crust caused by the water eventually provided safe points of depression for the water to settle in, thus higher points of land eventually emerged dry. What else could this have done? This great Flood could have indeed formed or excellerated the formation of modern day mountains.

Wanna know what's impossible? Fitting a male and female of every animal in the world on a boat the size of the ark, which was made of wood and like Azure said, was impossible. It's been PROVEN to be impossible. Not just speculated. It's not "impossible" like cloning. Cloning, taming animals, and talking to people over long distances wasn't impossible but merely a matter of time before there was a way. The structure of wood cannot be that large, let alone hold the weight of 2 of every animal on earth...

Again on the Ark debate:

What is frequently assumed to be the size of the Ark is some four-hundred and fifty feet long yes? When thinking of this, one must recall the measure of the Ark is recorded in cubits, or ancient forms of measurement that were generally about the length of a grown man's forearm. The flaw with this is that not only do peoples' forearms vary in length (a minor flaw), measurements of the cubit itself have varied from time to time. It has been said and supported that the cubit may not have always been the traditional eighteen inches in length, as is the commonly used measurement, but at one time may have been closer to twenty-one or twenty-two inches in length (at one point it is thought the cubit may have measured somewhat past the forearm). This may seem like a minor and insignifigant difference in length, but remember that an increase in volume is by no means proportionate to an increase in mass; what was originally the Ark's volume would be multiplied many times. Couple this with the fact that in the time of Noah an efficiant form of Phylogeny had not yet been formed, and so subspecies and even some species of animals were likely to have never entered the Ark. As I have said before and I am re-stating, there may have only been a King Cobra aboard as opposed to the Asian Cobra and the Spitting Cobra. It is doubtful that Noah would have known the difference. What also compliments this is the fact that despite there being only one species of each animal on the Ark, we can still get the many varying animals we have today. You see, since environment and terrain play a part in the evolution of an animal, it is very plausible that once the animals on the Ark were set loose, they spread out to different areas around the world. Over time, as they adapted to their new environments and fit into their niches, they began to evolve in different ways. The old ancestor of the modern day cobras may have eventually evolved into some four different species, and so on. From all of this, it can be clearly seen that the numbers of animals likely to have been on the Ark not proposterous; that the size of the ark regarding volume and mass may be greater than was originally thought; and that Noah's Ark was not some ridiculous children's story.

Besides, do you know how hard it would be for ONE MAN to build a boat of that size alone? I'm pretty sure the bible says he did it alone. The pyramids had, I believe thousands of workers building them. And STILL people died constantly, due to stress and heat.

No, Noah did have help, although I am not entirely sure how much help he had. It would not have been thousands though, because for the most part the common people mocked him for believing there would be a Flood in the first place. Then you must remember that the Ark is made of wood, which is much different than the pyramids of stone. Along with this is the fact that the pyramids are in Egypt, and heat would most likely have been much of a greater problem.

Sorovis...
First, my speculation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the Bible is a strange story. That you seem to think that it did does nothing but prove that you have no clue what I was trying to do with the speculation. Insult it all you want, but... if you don't even understand what it's for, then you look a little foolish. I'm not abandoning that strategy because it's bad; I'm doing so because you just don't get it.

Amidst all of the whining and the 'you don't understand this', I can extract at least one piece of that paragraph that could be responded to in a civilized manner. First, let us recall what I claimed to be a ridiculous speculation: you told me that perhaps the twelve disciples were in league with Jesus for this mass conspiracy to make everyone think he was the son of God. Then you proposed that the twelve may also have been insane. What is the problem with all of this? Everything concievable of course! Let me ask you this for the first one: why would the disciples and Jesus try and start a mass religion when it was clearly opposed by the local Pharisees and even the Roman governors? All of them, I believe, were crucified and/or martyred in extremely painful ways, so that would mean that the twelve Apostles must have been insane. The problem with that? If they were renowned as historians and doctors, how could they be crazy-- or stupid-- enough to sentence themselves to death for no reason? You see, you have made illogical, and downright stupid speculations. You may go on claiming I don't understand all you want, I will continue responding.

For your information, all the support I need for my claim that the Bible is a strange story comes from Checkmate, on page 3 of this thread:

It's called support. We are proving that Jesus existed and did miracles, but never sinned once in his life. We also are striving to prove the existence of God; if both of our points are proven true, Jesus would indeed be the Son of God. What have you done to support your speculations? Complained that Checkmate and I simply don't understand you. There is a difference.

How do you know that God is not dictated by the "forces"(fairly vague term in this context but very good for avoiding the minute details) that bind us? Did you speak to him? I do not understand how you can draw parallels between legos and someone who apparently made us all. From what I know, humans are organic and legos are not(if that is not true then please lead me in the right direction). Furthermore, a lego cannot speak either(another thing which sets humans apart from them) so how can it deny the existence of its creator? What it comes down to is that analogies and attempts to draw parallels between non-related things do not prove anything.

It's called an analogy. Consider this: a person labors over a computer program he has worked on for many years. Finally, his work is done and he has his own limited AI creations in their own virtual world. Now these little programs have their own free thought, and begin to wonder how they came about to be. They consider perhaps a Creator, but that does not make sense because a program cannot create a program on its own. So they eventually assume that there was no intelligent direction in their design; much to the fascination of the original Designer. Sound somewhat limited? People are misinterpreting the idea of a God and Creator. The term is 'create', meaning to make something.

[GirlRepellant]

OK, I'm not sure if anyone has posted like this yet (since reading through this entire post would require an amount of patience I just do not have for a mere internet debate). But here goes, some Biblical contradictions that make it very obvious that the Bible was written by multiple authors with different viewpoints at the very least, and not everything in the Bible can be taken for truth.

~2 Kings 14:6 says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." However, Exodus 20:5 states "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"
~Jesus says both of the following: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) & "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) So which is it, Father AND Son, or Father IS Son?
~"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens..." (Genesis 7:2) vs. "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah and into the ark..." (Genesis 7:8-9) So either two or seven of each clean animal went on the ark, and it gets negated just a line later...
~Judas dies twice in the Bible: "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and depareted, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5) However, "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
~According to 3 different accounts (Matthew 27:46,50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), there were three different "last words": "My God, my God, what hast thou forsaken me?", "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", "It is finished" (respecivally).
~Joseph apparently had two fathers, according to Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, who claim both Jacob and Heli.
~Then there's the popular question of whether God is omniscient or blind: Hebrews 4:13 says "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight." However, in Genesis 3:8-9, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"
~Eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Leviticus 24:20 "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a bleming in a man, so shall it be done to him again." Then Jesus comes along and tells us "...Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:38,44)

Also, go ahead and read I & II Kings, then read the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Notice some similarities in the acts and miracles performed by Elijah and Jesus? It almost seems as if the gospels (which, just as a note, were written over 50 years after Jesus's time) were plagerized a bit.

[Heald]

OK, I'm not sure if anyone has posted like this yet (since reading through this entire post would require an amount of patience I just do not have for a mere internet debate). But here goes, some Biblical contradictions that make it very obvious that the Bible was written by multiple authors with different viewpoints at the very least, and not everything in the Bible can be taken for truth.

~2 Kings 14:6 says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." However, Exodus 20:5 states "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"
~Jesus says both of the following: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) & "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) So which is it, Father AND Son, or Father IS Son?
~"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens..." (Genesis 7:2) vs. "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah and into the ark..." (Genesis 7:8-9) So either two or seven of each clean animal went on the ark, and it gets negated just a line later...
~Judas dies twice in the Bible: "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and depareted, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5) However, "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
~According to 3 different accounts (Matthew 27:46,50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), there were three different "last words": "My God, my God, what hast thou forsaken me?", "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", "It is finished" (respecivally).
~Joseph apparently had two fathers, according to Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, who claim both Jacob and Heli.
~Then there's the popular question of whether God is omniscient or blind: Hebrews 4:13 says "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight." However, in Genesis 3:8-9, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"
~Eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Leviticus 24:20 "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a bleming in a man, so shall it be done to him again." Then Jesus comes along and tells us "...Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:38,44)

Also, go ahead and read I & II Kings, then read the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Notice some similarities in the acts and miracles performed by Elijah and Jesus? It almost seems as if the gospels (which, just as a note, were written over 50 years after Jesus's time) were plagerized a bit.

Yes, yes, we know, there are contradictions in the Bible, fúck off back to 1921, you shíthead.

And by the way, for the record, contradictions across the testaments aren't true contradictions, since they are effectively two different books altogether.

So what have you proved? Nothing, you peenarse.

[Checkmate]

Sorovis you're working on a really hard solution to a really simple problem.

I guess I've never brought up the polar ice caps before. While they only carry 3% of the Earth's water, there is still enough there that if it all completely melted, there would be a global flood. Eighth grade earth science, in case someone questions my source.

People have said that a steel arc crushed under it's own weight. Well, I have this to say. The wood that Noah used is not in existence today. Therefore we really don't know how reliable it is.

To my knowledge, steel is strong and pretty light. But still, isn't it possible that a certain type of wood, could have properties of strength and light density that could out do tha of iron and therefor support it's own weight better?

Aggy, if you're going to say that sources that speak of things that happened 170 years prior are irrelevant, than I hope you didn't learn history in school.

[GirlRepellant]

Yes, yes, we know, there are contradictions in the Bible, fúck off back to 1921, you shíthead.

And by the way, for the record, contradictions across the testaments aren't true contradictions, since they are effectively two different books altogether.

So what have you proved? Nothing, you peenarse.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! Sorry, I thought maybe I was in a debate about the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. In which case Biblical contradictions would be... um, what's the word? Oh yeah, RELEVENT! But why don't we just go ahead and insult people for bringing up a valid point instead of contributing to something on our own?

So if the contradictions between the testaments doesn't matter, then why do we still have the OT in the Bible? And why is it cited all the time by religious groups as to why homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights and such debates? Obviously the OT matters, but the NT matters as well. Therefore, contradictions between the two are still pertian to the debate. Care to try again?

Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up swear words by using little accents. As clever as that was, you're still an ignorant, spiteful person. Have an nice day!

[Heald]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! Sorry, I thought maybe I was in a debate about the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. In which case Biblical contradictions would be... um, what's the word? Oh yeah, RELEVENT! But why don't we just go ahead and insult people for bringing up a valid point instead of contributing to something on our own?

I fail to see how copying and pasting from anti-religious websites makes an argument, unless you're trying to argue how much of a dick you look while pretending to be a biblical scholar.

So if the contradictions between the testaments doesn't matter, then why do we still have the OT in the Bible? And why is it cited all the time by religious groups as to why homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights and such debates? Obviously the OT matters, but the NT matters as well. Therefore, contradictions between the two are still pertian to the debate. Care to try again?

Hmm, Christianity...Christians...gee, maybe there is a link here...you know, the word Christ...maybe he was some dude...I dunno, maybe he was...perhaps...the Son of God? And perhaps if the religion is called Christianity...who do you think is going to be the main figure of this religion? Mr T? Ronald McDonald? Or Jesus Christ? Okay, so we've established Christianity is a religion based on Christ. Am I going too fast for you? Well, perhaps the New Testament, also known as the New Covenant of God and also known as the Testament of Christ, because it is the latest word of God, about 2000 years later than his original word, perhaps it should take precedence over the Old Testament? Actually, this isn't a case of perhaps, this is a case of the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament, therefore, they cannot contradict each other due to the fact Christians should hold the NT above the OT, no matter what. They are on two completely different levels.

Also, about these Christians who take the OT to prove that God hates homosexuals, I really do think they ought to pull their heads out of their asses, so I don't care what they say.

Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up swear words by using little accents. As clever as that was, you're still an ignorant, spiteful person. Have an nice day!

Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up your own ignorance by copying from anti-religious websites. As unbelievably moronic and ignorant as that was, you're still an asshat and know nothing about the Bible. Have an shítty day.

[GirlRepellant]

Wow. You're so totally right. I shouldn't cut and paste from anti-religious websites. Good thing I cut and pasted from my own blog instead. Does that still make me an asshat?

Now let me show just how little I know about the Bible, having only read it through multiple times and studied it for a few years. No big. Now, the way you put it, the NT has more relevance to the world, since it's God's word 2000 years older than the OT. (It's believed that the stories in Genesis were started 4500 BC, but we'll ignore that since you know so much Biblical history and such, shall we?) Now, by saying that God changed his word, that would have made God... well, wrong in the first place, right? Because why would God need to change his point of view? I was pretty sure God was infallible. Maybe I'm wrong. I am, after all, an asshat. And you have still yet to tell me why we still keep the OT in the Bible, when the NT is so much more relevent.

Care to debate with me an a civillized manner yet? Or shall we keep calling each other such clever pet names as asshat and (my personal favorite) peenarse.