Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Cherry picking what? Genesis is not a historical account it's a myth to show a truth i.e. God made the world
Cherry picking what? Genesis is not a historical account it's a myth to show a truth i.e. God made the worldIt sounds as though you are cherry picking here.
Cherry picking what? Genesis is not a historical account it's a myth to show a truth i.e. God made the world
Course not why? Only if you think the bible is written like an encyclopaedia. It's notIf that is a myth then the whole Bible can be discounted as nothing other than a myth.
Course not why? Only if you think the bible is written like an encyclopaedia. It's not
Very intelligent people and their thoughts.That's a brilliant proposition isn't it?
They are really not mutually exclusive. They may be in your experience but they don't have to be. Look up John PolkinghorneVery intelligent people and their thoughts.
Then you have god and hearsay.
Yep absolutely. How else could you make sense of many books written thousands of years ago to different people?So bits of it are myths and other bits are real?
Are you saying that the bible makes no sense?Yep absolutely. How else could you make sense of many books written thousands of years ago to different people?
This is getting ridiculous.Yep absolutely. How else could you make sense of many books written thousands of years ago to different people?
I have not said that they are.They are really not mutually exclusive. They may be in your experience but they don't have to be. Look up John Polkinghorne
I dont think so but it's not as simple as trying to just read it and pick holes in its narrative. It's written about gods people over thousands of yearsAre you saying that the bible makes no sense?
You keep making that comment but there are loads of highly intelligent people who have faithI have not said that they are.
Don't you find it strange that so many highly intelligent and highly regarded people have come to the same conclusion?
Why? Because it's not black and white? You want to reject god and the bible based on a certain standpoint and I'm suggesting it's more complex than that?This is getting ridiculous.
I follow a church set up by Jesus martcov
What do you want? Black and white answers? Life is rarely like that.
So in highly religious countries only half of scientists are athiest. But just about everywhere else most scientists are athiest. Not really a revelation is it.You keep making that comment but there are loads of highly intelligent people who have faith
Some interesting information here astute
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/phys...religion-science-scientists.amp?client=safari
Sorry I think that what was written in the gospels was a follow up to the word of mouth stories that was typically how history was told in that world. There is strong literary evidence for the information included in the gospels and acts of the apostles
Its more like self preservation where might be dangerous to speak your mind.So in highly religious countries only half of scientists are athiest. But just about everywhere else most scientists are athiest. Not really a revelation is it.
It says a lot to me that those who are considered to be the most intelligent prefer to think that we are part of an experiment or a more advanced video game than believing in God and the bible.False stories permeate the bible, do you believe a bloke was swallowed by a whale and survived , a boat saved all living species from a flood, someone turned water in to wine or fed a multitude with 5 loaves & 2 fishes. That book has little credibility when it comes to claims of miracles.
Sorry I think that what was written in the gospels was a follow up to the word of mouth stories that was typically how history was told in that world. There is strong literary evidence for the information included in the gospels and acts of the apostles
More nuanced than you were suggesting. Intelligent people are atheist, thick people are not.So in highly religious countries only half of scientists are athiest. But just about everywhere else most scientists are athiest. Not really a revelation is it.
Well you'd be wrong. Historical evidence for historical books is based on two variables. The length of time between the actual events and the first copy/ies and the number of copies that there are. The bible trumps other history significantly. Doesn't prove the events but that's how we judge accuracyIs there? What about the census at Christ's birth? There wasn't one. The duty to go to your home town for census purposes. There wasn't one. Pontius Pilat wasn't governor at the time of Christ's death, I would put the evidence on a par with that for Robin Hood.
More nuanced than you were suggesting. Intelligent people are atheist, thick people are not.
Which book captain? The bible is a compendium of books. There are 66 books in total. 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New.False stories permeate the bible, do you believe a bloke was swallowed by a whale and survived , a boat saved all living species from a flood, someone turned water in to wine or fed a multitude with 5 loaves & 2 fishes. That book has little credibility when it comes to claims of miracles.
Yeah, but then I know people who have had cancer, not been religious and the cancer has vanished after positive thinking.Which book captain? The bible is a compendium of books. There are 66 books in total. 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New.
One of my closest friends visibly saw her leg grow when prayed for. Makes no sense but that's her reality
So where did I say that?More nuanced than you were suggesting. Intelligent people are atheist, thick people are not.
My sister being one last year.Yeah, but then I know people who have had cancer, not been religious and the cancer has vanished after positive thinking.
The new testament is where they have got rid of parts where people can see the sections can't be true. Give it a couple more hundreds of years of changes and it shouldn't be looking too bad.Well you'd be wrong. Historical evidence for historical books is based on two variables. The length of time between the actual events and the first copy/ies and the number of copies that there are. The bible trumps other history significantly. Doesn't prove the events but that's how we judge accuracy
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? |
You can argue with how historical experts deem accuracy you can't argue the New Testament comes out well when judged against these tests
As I said, I went out with an Evangelist. They pretty much ignored the rest of the Bible and almost entirely concentrated on the four gospels only.The new testament is where they have got rid of parts where people can see the sections can't be true. Give it a couple more hundreds of years of changes and it shouldn't be looking too bad.
Me too I'm saying what my friend's story was. I'm not trying to convert you just express opinions and illuminates areas people may not have considered in different waysYeah, but then I know people who have had cancer, not been religious and the cancer has vanished after positive thinking.
I was trying to help with the study presuming scientists would fall in your definition of 'highly intelligent people'. I think that's the term you used. I think intelligence is nuanced so I was reacting to your implication that clever people don't have faith and non clever people do. Sorry to use a pejorative term like 'thick'So where did I say that?
I didn't mention above average intelligence. Just like I didn't mention average or below average intelligence. And you slip in the word 'thick'
And the post you have quoted only mentions scientists. Do you consider everyone else to be thick?
Maybe we could add your post to the fables in the bible
I think the common understanding would be the Old Testament is written to point to the messiah Jesus and therefore the New Testament is about his life and the age to come so that is why reallyAs I said, I went out with an Evangelist. They pretty much ignored the rest of the Bible and almost entirely concentrated on the four gospels only.
I was trying to help with the study presuming scientists would fall in your definition of 'highly intelligent people'. I think that's the term you used. I think intelligence is nuanced so I was reacting to your implication that clever people don't have faith and non clever people do. Sorry to use a pejorative term like 'thick'
This was your comment
I have not said that they are.
Don't you find it strange that so many highly intelligent and highly regarded people have come to the same conclusion?
No disagreement with the last sentence. I think that's not my experience in my church community many professors in many areas who have faith and can balance the anomalies whilst still questioningThe conclusion that evolution is true? So many of the uneducated people of the world are religious and don't think the theory of evolution is provable fact. Education has a lot to do with religion or lack of it - the USA being a possible exception with relatively educated people being religious. Many accept it as "spiritually true" and not literally true to get around being associated with atheists. Atheists being seen as something similar to the devil in some parts of the USA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?