Which is the fairy tale: Faith or Science?

[LatentAuthor]

 

There is a lot of evidence geologically in terms of stratas made up of sediment that appears to be have been laid down rapidly and this is found worldwide not just in localized areas.  Animal and plant fossils show evidence of having been trapped in the abrubt deposit of sediment.

 

The fact that marine life is found having been found on mountain tops clearly shows that the mountains were at one time covered with water which is consistent with the global flood mentioned in the Bible. 

 

The explosion of Mt. St. Helens proves how rapdidly plants and animals can be fossilized.  Trees that were swept down the flow of the side of Mt. St. Helens were found to have petrified in about three months. 

 

 

I'm afraid that's simply an invention of people who are trying to take advantage of you not understanding geology - which isn't a bad thing, I mean, it's not like it's something that comes up a lot in every day life.  Sure, there are a lot of places where we can see that some sediment has been laid down rapidly. . .but that happens all the time - we don't find a giant, consistent layer of stuff everywhere showing one global event that laid down stuff rapidly.

 

Marine ecosystems spanning millions of years are not consistent with any biblical flood accounts that I'm aware of.  If you think you can form a series of marine environments complete with fossilized tracks and worm burrows on mountaintops with a global flood you are free to try and demonstrate it.

 

The Mount St. Helens eruption showed that volcanic ash can bury stuff really fast. . .but that happens all the time - it's not evidence for a flood at all. 

Edited December 4, 2013 by LatentAuthor

[LatentAuthor]

 

- you're referring to the apostles right? I think all but one or two were Jewish, if i remember right..

 

 

 

1. First you asked if the apostles were aware of the prophecies, now you asked how would Jews not know of them..

 

Actually I'm referring to the authors of the Gospels, which are anonymously written.  However, since the gospels specifically mention many of the OT prophecies they claim to fulfill it stands to reason that they were aware of them.  If you're writing a story and you're aware of a prophecy isn't it possible to change details of the story to fit the prophecy?

 

2. I answered "yes" to the Bible IS obviously credible

 

So you think that any story that references historical places and people is credible?  Are you saying that all historical fiction is thus reliable history?

 

3. The Bible warned of false prophets:

 

If you don't want to answer my question that's alright.

 

4. very less likely, to answer your question honestly

 

Which happens more often: people rising from the dead or people stealing bodies?

 

5. Okay cool, i applaud you for that knowledge you have, but still in Mark wasn't the only place the resurrection was written about

- and it's likely the longer ending to Mark was lost, or intended to end that way. Plus it ends with the assurance that Jesus in fact was

- risen.

 

Actually Mark, the earliest gospel, ends with the women finding a stranger in the tomb who tells them he is risen and they hurry off, afraid, and tell no one.

 

6. well, The Bible IS history and evidence, sorry you don't see it that way...

- other than that i know its out there somewhere but i couldn't find it lol for the record i only spent about 20 minutes on the net -looking for it, but every apostle died for their belief in Jesus and His resurrection, and wouldn't die for a lie, i wouldn't. I know Jesus to -be truth and i'd die for Him. plus I have the Word of God, so thats proof to me.

 

You can claim the Bible is history, but that does not make it so.  It goes without saying that the same applies to your claims about the apostles - if you want to make a historical claim about them you'll need to supply some references to back it up.

 

7. hmm idk about that.. oh and i forgot to mention something before..search "Enuma Elish" it contains the Mesopotamian account of -creation and the flood, which was composed in Abrahams era (around 1800 BC) the details of this tablet is similar to Genesis.

- i know more about this but also search "Gilgamesh Epic" which dates to the 17century BC. and is the Babylonian record of the world -wide flood and its likely borrowed from the "Atrahasis Epic" (1800BC) and yeah there is chariot wheel fossils, in a book called

-"The Exodus Case". I hope that helps

 

Archaeology has found no record of a global flood, and plenty of civilizations around the world that apparently didn't notice they were all underwater and neglected to drown.

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

2. I answered "yes" to the Bible IS obviously credible

 

So you think that any story that references historical places and people is credible?  Are you saying that all historical fiction is thus reliable history?

 

The comparison between historical fiction and the Bible doesn't hold up. There is a huge difference between historical narratives and historical fiction.   A straight history is simply a recollection of what events, what people said and did.   Historical fiction is the product of the imagination that uses an historical event or events as the back drop for imagninary story.   Historical fiction goes beyond actual history because the author seeks to make the audience feel as if they are part of the story.  The author wants the audience to feel what the character feels.

 

A good example would be to compare an historical documentary of the Titanic vs. the movie, "Titanic" which is really just a tragic love story.  Another example would be a documentary on Pearl Harbor vs. the movie, "Pearl Harbor" which is  another love story set against the back drop of the Japanese attack, or how about a documentary on ancient Rome vs. the movie,  "The Gladiator?"  The  stark differences between these movies and any documentary on the historical events that surround them are too great to be missed. 

 

The Bible's historical narratives simply tell us of events that happened. They tell us what happened, who spoke and what they said.  There is no way you can realistically compare the Bible's historical accounts with historical fiction.   There is historical fiction that has been made which use biblical era history and biblical themes as a back drop.  Movies like, "The Robe,"  "The Siliver Chalice," "Demetri and the Gladiators," "Barrabas"  are few that come to mind.  

 

Historical dramas like "Jesus of Nazareth would not fall into the genre of historical fiction because it is an attempt of retelling the life and ministry of Jesus.  While there is some dramatic license that is taken (and that is to be expected) it is not a work of fiction, as all of the characters are historical, and the writers were attempting to stay true to the biblical account.

 

You can claim the Bible is history, but that does not make it so.  It goes without saying that the same applies to your claims about the apostles - if you want to make a historical claim about them you'll need to supply some references to back it up.

 

The historicity of the Bible is not based on empty claims of historicity.  The Bible's history is impeccible, really.  Modern historians look to Luke to help them navigate the complex web of Roman politics.   Israel's history is attested to by what archeologists have found written by their enemies.   The Bible accurately mentions the names of Kings of other countries that can be historically verified.  The archeological ruins that have been uncovered have vindicated the Bible many times over.   Modern archeology has found the Bible's description of various locations in ancient Jersuaelm like the pool of Siloam, and the pool of Bethesda with the five collanades to be accurate.  Again, Luke has been praised by modern historians because of his precision when it comes to both history and geography. 

 

As for the apostles, there is no serious or credible historian that doubts their historicity.  Given the preponderance historical evidence, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the historicity of the apostles should be doubted. 

[LatentAuthor]

 

 

 

 

The comparison between historical fiction and the Bible doesn't hold up.

 

So far, the only evidence for the Bible's reliability is that it mentions some known historical places and people - I am just pointing out that historical fiction also includes these things, and that they do not show that the stories written therein are reliable.

 

The historicity of the Bible is not based on empty claims of historicity.  The Bible's history is impeccible, really.

 

Except when it isn't.  There is no evidence showing anything about the exodus story is accurate, mountains of evidence contradicting stories found in Genesis such as the Creation and Flood narratives, and notable problems elsewhere as well.  The bible does get some things right - but it gets many other things wrong.

 

As for the apostles, there is no serious or credible historian that doubts their historicity.  Given the preponderance historical evidence, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the historicity of the apostles should be doubted. 

 

I did not claim that the apostles did not exist - I asked for evidence that they were all martyred because they refused to recant their beliefs about Christ's resurrection.  Are you saying that no serious historian doubts this?  

[Guest shiloh357]

So far, the only evidence for the Bible's reliability is that it mentions some known historical places and people - I am just pointing out that historical fiction also includes these things, and that they do not show that the stories written therein are reliable.

 

Yes, I get that.  I am simply pointing out that your question to HisG about would she consider historical fiction to be reliable simply because they use historical devices like places and events in history, doesn't take into account how different historical fiction is than real history.  You seem to want to ignore the real differences and just focus on cosmetic similarities.

 

Except when it isn't.  There is no evidence showing anything about the exodus story is accurate, mountains of evidence contradicting stories found in Genesis such as the Creation and Flood narratives, and notable problems elsewhere as well.  The bible does get some things right - but it gets many other things wrong

 

.No credible historian doubts the Exodus account whatsoever.  It is usually conspiracy theorists who try to discredit the account.   Furthermore, it is consistent, historically that we should not find evidence of the Exodus in Egypt due to the Egyptian custom of the time period where only the victories of Pharoahs were recorded.  There are other events of Egyptian history that are not recorded by the Egyptians but are found in the historical records of their enemies.   The same is true with the Exodus. 

 

We do have evidence though in other ways, such as the abrupt abandonment of the city of Rameses at the time when the Exodus was to have occured and the record of a nomadic tribe known as "Israel" written on the Merneptah "victory" stele dated to near the Exodus date that most scholars accept.  The fact that stone doesn't indicate Israel as having a king or as bieng an actual "nation" in the land indicates that it was written much closer to the exodus.  It is consistent with the biblical record of Israel being a nomadic tribe for some time before becoming a nation and the date of the Merneptah stele is consistent with the biblical record, as well.

 

As for the flood and creation narratives... to say there is no evidence isn't really honest.   What would be a more honest statement is that there is evidence for both that you are not willing to entertain or take seriously.  

 

 

I did not claim that the apostles did not exist - I asked for evidence that they were all martyred because they refused to recant their beliefs about Christ's resurrection.  Are you saying that no serious historian doubts this?  

 

Thery were not martyred for their belief in Jesus' resurrection.   They didn't claim to believe was resurrected.   They died for their eyewitness testimony that they had personally experienced Jesus, spent time with him, ate with him, touched him talked to him etc.  for 40 days before his ascension into heaven.   They were not making claims of "belief" they were testifying what they experienced first hand.  They KNEW Jesus was alive.  They didn't merely believe it.  IT was for that claim that they were martyred.

 

Their martyrdom is a fact of history.  Foxes Book of Martyrs is highly respected and accepted by both secular and Christian historians alike and it documents the martyrdom of the apostles.  No one dies for a lie they made up and only a complete and utter imbecile will try to discredit the historical record of the apostles' martyrdom that the rest of the historical community treats as facts of history.

[Guest HisG]

Archeological evidences support a large scale flood.

Many cultures have ancient stories handed down orally of a large flood.

How do you explain layers of seashells, fossils of sea creatures etc in Europe that are normally found in warmer waters? And we are talking way up high eg: European alps.

As for the Ancient Egyptians and the absence of the Exodus account (?), common practice of not writing about utter defeats - Egyptian army totalled under the waters. There are fossilised chariot wheels etc evident to this day.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong about archaeological evidence supporting a global flood as reported in the bible - but you are welcome to substantiate this claim. Many cultures have stories about floods, consequently floods happen a lot. This isn't evidence of anything other than that rivers sometimes flood. . .which isn't exactly news.

We find marine layers of strata in mountains because those mountains were once part of an ancient ocean - that's why there's a fossilized layer showing everything you'd expect to see from a calm ocean floor existing for eons rather than a jumble of sediment that you'd expect to see from a big flood. That's just basic geology.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists haven't found any compelling evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, or that they wandered around Sinai - even those archaeologists from Israel who have every conceivable political and religious motivation to do so. Also, I'm afraid that the claim about chariot wheels being found in the Red Sea is a very old hoax.

Why do different cultures have stories passed down about a surviving family/people of the flood?

[jerryR34]

 

 

Archeological evidences support a large scale flood.

Many cultures have ancient stories handed down orally of a large flood.

How do you explain layers of seashells, fossils of sea creatures etc in Europe that are normally found in warmer waters? And we are talking way up high eg: European alps.

As for the Ancient Egyptians and the absence of the Exodus account (?), common practice of not writing about utter defeats - Egyptian army totalled under the waters. There are fossilised chariot wheels etc evident to this day.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong about archaeological evidence supporting a global flood as reported in the bible - but you are welcome to substantiate this claim. Many cultures have stories about floods, consequently floods happen a lot. This isn't evidence of anything other than that rivers sometimes flood. . .which isn't exactly news.

We find marine layers of strata in mountains because those mountains were once part of an ancient ocean - that's why there's a fossilized layer showing everything you'd expect to see from a calm ocean floor existing for eons rather than a jumble of sediment that you'd expect to see from a big flood. That's just basic geology.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists haven't found any compelling evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, or that they wandered around Sinai - even those archaeologists from Israel who have every conceivable political and religious motivation to do so. Also, I'm afraid that the claim about chariot wheels being found in the Red Sea is a very old hoax.

Why do different cultures have stories passed down about a surviving family/people of the flood?

 

Because almost all cultures have experienced extensive floods, and there were survivors to pass along the story, and the story, no doubt, grew through subsequent generations.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Archeological evidences support a large scale flood.

Many cultures have ancient stories handed down orally of a large flood.

How do you explain layers of seashells, fossils of sea creatures etc in Europe that are normally found in warmer waters? And we are talking way up high eg: European alps.

As for the Ancient Egyptians and the absence of the Exodus account (?), common practice of not writing about utter defeats - Egyptian army totalled under the waters. There are fossilised chariot wheels etc evident to this day.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong about archaeological evidence supporting a global flood as reported in the bible - but you are welcome to substantiate this claim. Many cultures have stories about floods, consequently floods happen a lot. This isn't evidence of anything other than that rivers sometimes flood. . .which isn't exactly news.

We find marine layers of strata in mountains because those mountains were once part of an ancient ocean - that's why there's a fossilized layer showing everything you'd expect to see from a calm ocean floor existing for eons rather than a jumble of sediment that you'd expect to see from a big flood. That's just basic geology.

The fact of the matter is that archaeologists haven't found any compelling evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, or that they wandered around Sinai - even those archaeologists from Israel who have every conceivable political and religious motivation to do so. Also, I'm afraid that the claim about chariot wheels being found in the Red Sea is a very old hoax.

Why do different cultures have stories passed down about a surviving family/people of the flood?

 

Because almost all cultures have experienced extensive floods, and there were survivors to pass along the story, and the story, no doubt, grew through subsequent generations.

 

No, that isn't the case.  The flood narrative appearing in so many cultures agrees with the Bible's claim that humanity at one time came from a single family (Noah's sons and their wives).  The story of the flood was passed down through the generations, originally through oral tradition, but the Bible says that God confused human language and this would have, over time caused the story to become corrupted explaining why the flood narratives appear to be so different from the flood narrative the Bible presents.

[gray wolf]

...

[Akinade]

I have done a little study on the proof of resurrection. I believe its worth looking at