[_ Old Earth _] Making up history and calling them facts

[Heidi]

Since so many people claim the bible isn't true, yet have offered zero proof of this, then what really did happen in ancient history in place of the bible? :o These people always ask Christians for proof. Then when we provide it for them, even with outside sources from other cultures, they say those cultures are lying also. So let's see what their proof is that the bible isn't true and the sources they use for their claims. It's time to put facts behind claims.

When did the Jews first arrive on the earth and how did they get here? What was the name of the first Jew? Who was the king of Babylon in the 6th century B.C.? But wait, these people say Christ didn't live either so we have to change the calendar on which we've based time for 2,000 years in order to make up history. But people who don't believe the bible are in the business of changing historical events, so this should be no problem for them. When did King Herod reign or who reigned in his place? :o How old is Jerusalem? How old is Jericho and who were the first people who lived there? What kings reigned in place of; Adonijah, David, Solomon, Rehoboham, Abijah, Asa, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, etc? And this is just the beginning.

It's again, time for people who claim the bible isn't true to provide facts and proof for their claims, instead of accusations that the authors of the bible are liars. Otherwise, their claims are nothing but libelous.

 

[Frost Giant]

Common creationist PRATT: Saying "I don't know" isn't a valid answer.

Edit: Also, no, you've never provided any conclusive evidence that the Bible is true.

 

[bibleberean]

Common creationist PRATT: Saying "I don't know" isn't a valid answer.

Edit: Also, no, you've never provided any conclusive evidence that the Bible is true.

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that evolution is true...

But hey...that is what "faith" is all about... :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Common creationist PRATT: Saying "I don't know" isn't a valid answer.

Edit: Also, no, you've never provided any conclusive evidence that the Bible is true.

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that evolution is true...

But hey...that is what "faith" is all about... :

Good point - both beliefs require faith. But, in all fairness, since evolution is a theory, something that cannot be absolutely proven or demonstrated, wouldn't this make Christianity also a theory? Should we refer to it as the "Theory of Christianity", as we do the "Theory of Evolution"? Would you object to the term, "theory"?

 

[Frost Giant]

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that evolution is true...

Actually we have, you simply refuse to listen.

 

[pfilmtech]

In science there is no "conclusive" evidence. You build theories based on the evidence that is collected and carefully examined in an empirical fashion. Any theory can be struck down if evidence to the contrary is shown. The longer a theory is corraborated by the evidence the stronger it becomes. Evolution has been corraborated by enormous amounts if testing and evidence by many many scientists over a long period of time. It can be observed through experiements and is also supported by our knowledge in other related fields of biology and genetics.

Still if you can produce one piece of scientifically testable evidence that evolution is wrong guess what the entire theory evaporates.

 

[Heidi]

Common creationist PRATT: Saying "I don't know" isn't a valid answer.

Edit: Also, no, you've never provided any conclusive evidence that the Bible is true.

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that evolution is true...

But hey...that is what "faith" is all about... :

Good point - both beliefs require faith. But, in all fairness, since evolution is a theory, something that cannot be absolutely proven or demonstrated, wouldn't this make Christianity also a theory? Should we refer to it as the "Theory of Christianity", as we do the "Theory of Evolution"? Would you object to the term, "theory"?

The difference is that reality confirms the biblical account of creation whereas reality does not confirm evolution. Reality shows that each animal breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals.

As Romans 1:18-21 says; "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who supress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

God has made it perfectly plain where we came from and has described in detail how we were created. But nevertheless, man being proud, makes up his own stories of how men were created and completely rejects the miraculous nature of creation and God Himself. Therefore, the truth can only be found in the reality of how the world works, not in the imaginations of men. So all one has to do is look around them to see how nature works and that will completely agree with the biblical account of creation. The truth holds no contradictions and is irrevocable. It does not contradict, invent, or avoid. It is incredibly simple and uncomplicated.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

God has made it perfectly plain where we came from and has described in detail how we were created. But nevertheless, man being proud, makes up his own stories of how men were created and completely rejects the miraculous nature of creation and God Himself

But Heidi, how do you know the GENESIS ACCOUNT is not a "made up story"? Because it says it's from God? I don't know - talking snakes, trees of the knowledge of good and evil, woman made from a rib etc. sounds more like something men may have made up? The style itself is fable-like. What if some evolutionists claimed to have an ancient book which they said originated from space-aliens which told us that they (the aliens) scientifically created biological life on earth and set evolution in motion? Would you believe that this book was what it claimed to be?

 

[Heidi]

In science there is no "conclusive" evidence. You build theories based on the evidence that is collected and carefully examined in an empirical fashion. Any theory can be struck down if evidence to the contrary is shown. The longer a theory is corraborated by the evidence the stronger it becomes. Evolution has been corraborated by enormous amounts if testing and evidence by many many scientists over a long period of time. It can be observed through experiements and is also supported by our knowledge in other related fields of biology and genetics.

Still if you can produce one piece of scientifically testable evidence that evolution is wrong guess what the entire theory evaporates.

What evidence? :o The evidence for our ancestors comes from our ability to breed with them. That comes from reality, not the imagination. But again, the theory of evolution maintains that we can be descendants of ancestors with whom we are incapable of breeding! That contradicts realit, my friend and there is zero evidence for it, only speculation.

 

[Heidi]

God has made it perfectly plain where we came from and has described in detail how we were created. But nevertheless, man being proud, makes up his own stories of how men were created and completely rejects the miraculous nature of creation and God Himself

But Heidi, how do you know the GENESIS ACCOUNT is not a "made up story"? Because it says it's from God? I don't know - talking snakes, trees of the knowledge of good and evil, woman made from a rib etc. sounds more like something men may have made up? The style itself is fable-like. What if some evolutionists claimed to have an ancient book which they said originated from space-aliens which told us that they (the aliens) scientifically created biological life on earth and set evolution in motion? Would you believe that this book was what it claimed to be?

First of all, the snake in Genesis was much different than the snake we know today because God cursed it to crawl on its belly after it tempted Eve.

Secondly, God, by definition, is miraculous. So why do you look only in the non-miraculous rhealm then say there's no God? :o That again, is like looking for a wife in a men's club, then complaining because there are no women out there! God can be found in the miracle of creation which had to start someplace. And the miracle of even one living cell with it's incredibly intricate design is huge evidence that God exists.

 

[Frost Giant]

I think I understand what Heidi's saying now... "If you believe in God, He will reveal Himself to you".

If you believe I'm God, I'll reveal myself to you too. Honest.

 

[Heidi]

I think I understand what Heidi's saying now... "If you believe in God, He will reveal Himself to you".

If you believe I'm God, I'll reveal myself to you too. Honest.

Sorry, but you have done nothing to show that you are God. Zip. You haven't walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead or resurrected. Yet Jesus sure did! Yet many people instead, believe others who have not done these things over one who has! :o That in itself is irrational.

The first living cell, which is so intricate in its design, had to come from somewhere and so did humans and animals. So it's an exercise in futility for man to try, on his own, to figure out how our miraculous creation began. We haven't been able to do it for centuries, so why is man arrogant enough to think he can today? All the previous men in history were also arrogant enough to think their theories were correct and we are no different. All it takes is the admission that none of us is omiscient or omnipotent but nevertheless, we exist. Only the ability to admit that truth can allow us to discern what is true and what is false. And that's why Jesus said that the truth will set us free. But if we have no truth in us, then our man-made theories will be as numerous as they are fallible.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

First of all, the snake in Genesis was much different than the snake we know today because God cursed it to crawl on its belly after it tempted Eve

So it had legs, and it talked? That makes it more plausible :roll: Apparently snakes also lost the ability to speak? It reads like a fable.

Secondly, God, by definition, is miraculous. So why do you look only in the non-miraculous rhealm then say there's no God?

Where is the miraculous realm? Can the miraculous be put to the test? Demonstrated? Isn't one of your arguments against evolution that it cannot be demonstrated as happening today? Seems there's a similar problem with the "miraculous realm"?

:o That again, is like looking for a wife in a men's club, then complaining because there are no women out there! God can be found in the miracle of creation which had to start someplace. And the miracle of even one living cell with it's incredibly intricate design is huge evidence that God exists.

I am not contending God does not exist, but rather that even if God did create, that doesn't automatically mean that the bible account is true. It may be that both the Genesis account and evolution are in error to some degree, or to a total degree? But the immediate point is that both you and your evolutionist adversaries may be accusing each other of the same thing, in essence. i.e. - Both concepts of the origin of man are theories, yet both of you would be offended to some extent to have your belief classified as only a theory. Also, the evolutionist will challenge you to provide evidence that the world and mankind were created in the manner the bible states, and you will challenge him to provide evidence that evolution occured or is still occuring. Both of you believe you have evidence to back your claim but it is all arguable.

In keeping with all this, even your last statement backfires. The atheist/agnostic would only use the same logic to ask you where such an intricate mind of the creator of the intricate cell came from? How is it GOD was always there? Where did God come from?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Sorry, but you have done nothing to show that you are God. Zip. You haven't walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead or resurrected. Yet Jesus sure did!

Sorry, but you cannot show that Jesus did those things either. You believe it because you read it in a book and chose to apply faith. You cannot present something that is a faith issue as evidence. The only thing we have to go on is that Jesus said his followers would do "even greater works" (miracles) than he did - and if we put that to the test, it, if anything, would tend to cast a strong shadow of doubt on whether Jesus did those type of things himself, right?

 

[Frost Giant]

Sorry, but you have done nothing to show that you are God. Zip. You haven't walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead or resurrected. Yet Jesus sure did!

Yes I did! Just read my book. It will inform you about all of the miracles I have done.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but you have done nothing to show that you are God. Zip. You haven't walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead or resurrected. Yet Jesus sure did!

Sorry, but you cannot show that Jesus did those things either. You believe it because you read it in a book and chose to apply faith. You cannot present something that is a faith issue as evidence. The only thing we have to go on is that Jesus said his followers would do "even greater works" (miracles) than he did - and if we put that to the test, it, if anything, would tend to cast a strong shadow of doubt on whether Jesus did those type of things himself, right?

So we're supposed to believe you over eye-wtinesses? Home come? :o Please shows us your authority and evidence to claim that Christ did not do those things. Otherwise your assertions are libelous.

 

[Heidi]

I also want to add that reality does exist, Brad, regardless of whether anyone has faith. It is outside of ourselves. Some choose to believe reality, others believe their imaginations instead. :wink:

 

[Wertbag]

Since so many people claim the bible isn't true, yet have offered zero proof of this, then what really did happen in ancient history in place of the bible?

You must understand that most people won't argue that the entire Bible is only lies. Atheists do not believe that every location and person mentioned did not exist, simply that the ridiculous claims of supernatural events and beings are myths.

So we're supposed to believe you over eye-wtinesses? How come?

Theres several good reasons. The people making the claims were severely biased, the people making the claims had goals, the people were uneducated and didn't understand the natural world, the people were supersititious, and basically because eyewitnesses are often wrong.
Plus we don't know that they were eyewitnesses, certainly no one witnesses Genesis and Noah didn't write about the flood.

Your basic question is "What disproves the Bible to an atheist?". There are many things that do this, from the fact there are dozens of different versions (eg they can't agree on His word), to the bizarre claims that are expected to be accepted without any second thought (talking animals, fire from the sky, walking on water, healing by touch, living to 900 years old, global flood etc), to the horrible things that God was involved with in the OT (wars, slavery, mass murder, plagues etc), to the lack of any modern day miracles of the type that appear to be a daily occurance in the Bible.
The Bible mentions wizards casting spells, which we don't see happening. The Bible says God appeared in physical form to tell people directly what he wanted them to know (flaming bush, pillar of smoke or fire etc) this doesn't happen today.
The Bible mentions a global flood which is impossible in so many ways as to be perhaps the most unbelieveable story of them all. A story which is denied by almost every branch of science and all of the evidence we can see.
There are simply tons of things to cause disbelief in this book.

One of the stories that always made me think "prove it" is the story of the famous competition between God and Baal. Two butchered animals on a pile of wood, pray to each god and see which lights the fire.
Of course Baal failed the test but the Lord showed off his magic trick. Elijah just had to ask God to prove himself and He did. Then of course in a show of religious tolerance they butchered the followers of Baal.
Why can no one repeat such a task? Why is there not a single person of any religion who can start a fire with prayer?

 

[Heidi]

Since so many people claim the bible isn't true, yet have offered zero proof of this, then what really did happen in ancient history in place of the bible?

You must understand that most people won't argue that the entire Bible is only lies. Atheists do not believe that every location and person mentioned did not exist, simply that the ridiculous claims of supernatural events and beings are myths.

[quote:ae2c5]So we're supposed to believe you over eye-wtinesses? How come?

Theres several good reasons. The people making the claims were severely biased, the people making the claims had goals, the people were uneducated and didn't understand the natural world, the people were supersititious, and basically because eyewitnesses are often wrong.
Plus we don't know that they were eyewitnesses, certainly no one witnesses Genesis and Noah didn't write about the flood.

Your basic question is "What disproves the Bible to an atheist?". There are many things that do this, from the fact there are dozens of different versions (eg they can't agree on His word), to the bizarre claims that are expected to be accepted without any second thought (talking animals, fire from the sky, walking on water, healing by touch, living to 900 years old, global flood etc), to the horrible things that God was involved with in the OT (wars, slavery, mass murder, plagues etc), to the lack of any modern day miracles of the type that appear to be a daily occurance in the Bible.
The Bible mentions wizards casting spells, which we don't see happening. The Bible says God appeared in physical form to tell people directly what he wanted them to know (flaming bush, pillar of smoke or fire etc) this doesn't happen today.
The Bible mentions a global flood which is impossible in so many ways as to be perhaps the most unbelieveable story of them all. A story which is denied by almost every branch of science and all of the evidence we can see.
There are simply tons of things to cause disbelief in this book.

One of the stories that always made me think "prove it" is the story of the famous competition between God and Baal. Two butchered animals on a pile of wood, pray to each god and see which lights the fire.
Of course Baal failed the test but the Lord showed off his magic trick. Elijah just had to ask God to prove himself and He did. Then of course in a show of religious tolerance they butchered the followers of Baal.
Why can no one repeat such a task? Why is there not a single person of any religion who can start a fire with prayer?[/quote:ae2c5]

But the absolute irony is that God, by definition is supernatural! So why in the world do they not look to the supernatural to find God? :o That again is looking for a wife in a men's club, then saying there are no women around! So the bible is indeed proof that God exists because of its supernatural events!

And they also then need to tell us what did happen during the time that Jesus lived so they can provide evidence for their claims. They're always telling us to provide evidence which they deny, but they themselves have zero evidence for their claims. Absolutely none.

 

[reznwerks]

Since so many people claim the bible isn't true, yet have offered zero proof of this, then what really did happen in ancient history in place of the bible?
Here we go again? The bible doesn't have to be proved not true. It has to be proved true. How? Just by the evidence that should have been left. It is that simple. If the bible makes a claim then there should be evidence of it. It the claim is fantastic then the evidence should be fantastic. If the bible says a city existed it should have evidence. In some cases there is and in some cases there is not.


:o These people always ask Christians for proof. Then when we provide it for them, even with outside sources from other cultures, they say those cultures are lying also. So let's see what their proof is that the bible isn't true and the sources they use for their claims. It's time to put facts behind claims.
The sources given are always questionable or not of the time period.In many cases all that is given is testamony of anothers belief or it is an appeal to "reason" or "common sense". In other cases of evidence we are told to rely on people with only first names, and no biography and other cases we are asked to accept testamony of those not there who have admitted to lying for the faith. I have asked you many times to give "first hand" evidence of your claims and received none. I will ask again, do you have any evidence for your claims as being real.

When did the Jews first arrive on the earth and how did they get here?
What was the name of the first Jew? Who was the king of Babylon in the 6th century B.C.? But wait, these people say Christ didn't live either so we have to change the calendar on which we've based time for 2,000 years in order to make up history.
No. you wait. I don't know anyone making the claim they know who the first Jew was or when the first Jews arrived on earth nor anyone making the claim of who the first king of Babylon was in the 6th century. It was Christians who decided to use the AD BC designations for the calender. In case you are not aware the Chinese have their own calender and the Hebrew sticks with their original. You are culturally biased which means you only know of your own experience and history. FLASH! There is more.

But people who don't believe the bible are in the business of changing historical events, so this should be no problem for them. When did King Herod reign or who reigned in his place? :o How old is Jerusalem? How old is Jericho and who were the first people who lived there? What kings reigned in place of; Adonijah, David, Solomon, Rehoboham, Abijah, Asa, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, etc? And this is just the beginning.

Some answers to your questions are known, some are not and some are being guessed at.

It's again, time for people who claim the bible isn't true to provide facts and proof for their claims, instead of accusations that the authors of the bible are liars. Otherwise, their claims are nothing but libelous.
It's time for you to understand what proving a negative means. It means that if someone makes a claim that someone has the obligation to prove it or present believable evidence that it is true other than believing. Heidi prove to us you stopped using drugs. Prove it. Now do you understand what proving a negative is?
Just for clarification I don't really believe Heidi is on drugs.