Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Sideroxylon]

They believe in devolution, is all

Change, but no information gain, seems to be the claim these days.

 

[Lucian]

Thanks for that cite. I notice they totally don't mention the ickiness factor. And don't seem to answer the question of whether incest is a sin or not, or did it just get to be a sin relatively recently, and if so, when and why?

Well, they certainly seem to suggest that it wasn't a sin at the time--as long as the incest occurred within marriage and between one man and one woman (as GB pointed out, they sidestep the whole polygamy thing).

My friend and I did a presentation on our visit to the Creation Museum for our local skeptics in the pub. Allow me to plagiarize myself:

Or to summarize: it all makes perfect sense scientifically, but, even if it doesn’t, who are you to question God and the Bible anyway? It may be noted that, according to the Creation Museum, God’s definition of marriage has changed over time when it seemed convenient. At one time, God’s definition permitted incest; now it does not. At one time, God’s definition permitted polygamy (though they don’t really acknowledge this); now it does not. It’s curious that those behind the Creation Museum are so positive that they know what God’s current definition of marriage is: one man and one woman.

 

[DOC]

Lothian,

Good questions re Genesis, could I add one more?

DOC, if the babble is 'the inerrant word of your particular flavour of god, why are there two different versions of the genesis myth? Don't be coy and insist that there aren't differences, that would just be dishonest. In order to preserve your integrity, I will indicate the differences below:


First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. AND

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



So come on DOC, why are there such obvious differences and which should we believe and why?

This and some other posts are all off topic and should be put in the AAH thread like my post was. I'd advise anyone who wants to see a comparison of Genesis and Science to read chapter 4 of former skeptic Ralph Muncaster's 600 page book "Examine the Evidence". There is also a comparative graph in the appendix. It gives a much better explanation and look at this Genesis issue than the thread I had about this topic called, "Is Science Getting Closer to God and the Bible"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97347

And for the record there are explanations for the points you bring up. Now back to this New Testament thread.

 

[Craig4]

Yeah I want to see proof the the Laws of Thermodynamics can be or have ever been suspended. Let's get back to that talk.

 

[Craig4]

I wonder how they can accept "mutations in the human genome" but not evolution?

It may be time that we consider that perhaps this discussion has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[Lothian]

Now back to this New Testament thread.

Does the new testament contradict the old testament or build on it. If the later and Jesus does not deny the O.T. then the O.T is on topic.

 

[dafydd]

This and some other posts are all off topic and should be put in the AAH thread like my post was. I'd advise anyone who wants to see a comparison of Genesis and Science to read chapter 4 of former skeptic Ralph Muncaster's 600 page book "Examine the Evidence". There is also a comparative graph in the appendix. It gives a much better explanation and look at this Genesis issue than the thread I had about this topic called, "Is Science Getting Closer to God and the Bible"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97347

And for the record there are explanations for the points you bring up. Now back to this New Testament thread.

Nice dodge,as usual.Why don't you just answer the questions?

 

[Lothian]

And for the record there are explanations for the points you bring up.

The thread is still open, I look forward to your answers.,

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Does the new testament contradict the old testament or build on it. If the later and Jesus does not deny the O.T. then the O.T is on topic.

Exactly!

Not to mention that when DOC mentions an OT citation as evidence for the NT all of a sudden it's topical.

GB

 

[DOC]

Does the new testament contradict the old testament or build on it. If the later and Jesus does not deny the O.T. then the O.T is on topic.

Jesus brought new Godly revelation on divorce. Jesus said Moses' (who allowed divorce) teachings were different because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Thus Jesus is basically saying Moses had a reason for his teachings (at that time), but Jesus is implying that the time and conditions are now right for a greater revelation on divorce. The same could be said about slavery. The people and economic conditions of Jesus' time were most likely just not ready for any change in that institution. This might be why Jesus said there were things that he did not say because they would be too much for the apostles to bear. It is reasonable to postulate those teachings would come about through the Holy Spirit which Jesus said He would send and who would teach all things.

So yes, Jesus does not deny the OT like he did not deny what Moses taught about divorce. He just implies that now is the time for greater revelation. And he also implies that there is more to be taught after he is gone because he stated he will send the Holy Spirit who will teach all things.

 

[Sun Countess]

So you're saying that the Holy Spirit is Joseph Smith?

 

[John Jones]

This and some other posts are all off topic and should be put in the AAH thread like my post was. I'd advise anyone who wants to see a comparison of Genesis and Science to read chapter 4 of former skeptic Ralph Muncaster's 600 page book "Examine the Evidence". There is also a comparative graph in the appendix. It gives a much better explanation and look at this Genesis issue than the thread I had about this topic called, "Is Science Getting Closer to God and the Bible"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97347

And for the record there are explanations for the points you bring up. Now back to this New Testament thread.

Oh dear lord!

Ralph Muncaster has published a 600 page book? With comparative graphs and an index?

And you have made more than 2000 or so posts! That's 2600 somethings or others. Why didn't you say so before?

Your interlocutors must feel so embarrassed right about now.

 

[davefoc]

The canonical gospels are full of supernatural events which could not have happened. The laws of nature as far as we know, have never been broken throughout the history of this universe. A dead man cannot be brought back to life if he is truly dead, or walk on water, or the many other examples of bending the laws of physics.
For those reasons, the gospels cannot be used to prove any historical fact written in them.

I object, a bit, to the logic of this post.

If one starts with the premise that supernatural events are impossible this thread is really stupid (not to say it isn't anyway).

Supernatural events are impossible -> supernatural events described in bible didn't happen -> Evidence that New Testament writers told the truth must be wrong -> Thread ends 423+ pages sooner

And since I'm into quibbling:

A dead man cannot be brought back to life if he is truly dead, ...

Interesting, somebody in the same condition as somebody that was dead in the 19th century might be alive in the 21st century because the technology exists to revive him in the 21st century? So the definition of death is a moving target. Are cryogneically frozen people truly dead if one can't prove that future technology won't revive them? Exactly at what point does one pass from mostly dead to truly dead (Princess Bride reference in case you didn't notice it).

 

[Lothian]

Jesus .......

So yes, Jesus does not deny the OT like he did not deny what Moses taught about divorce. He just implies that now is the time for greater revelation. And he also implies that there is more to be taught after he is gone because he stated he will send the Holy Spirit who will teach all things.

Good. So the O.T is on topic and you can answer my questions.

 

[Craig4]

I see no problem with the logic of that post. If you can't prove that the natural laws have been or can be suspended there is no point in engaging in some silly exercise in literary or historical analysis of the Bible to determine its truth. If the goal is to prove the inerrancy of the Bible (a goal absurd on its face) you need to start there.

Doc, it would better for you to simply say "I have faith in this" and leave it at that without trying to find evidence. Your quest here as been an unmitigated failure. We need not concern ourselves with the number of posts as evidence. If you could produce actual evidence you would have by now. If you feel this need to have faith in something why not simply have faith and let it go at that?

 

[davefoc]

I see no problem with the logic of that post [referring (I believe) to amb's post above]. If you can't prove that the natural laws have been or can be suspended there is no point in engaging in some silly exercise in literary or historical analysis of the Bible to determine its truth. If the goal is to prove the inerrancy of the Bible (a goal absurd on its face) you need to start there.

...

The problem, with the logic of amb's post, as I see it, is that it it claims as fact, that which is the topic of the thread. If amb has knowledge that supernatural events have not occurred then the point of the thread would be for him to put forth the basis of that knowledge. If his claim is so obviously true that it doesn't need evidence to support it then there is no need for a thread to discuss whether the description of supernatural events in the bible are true, since they are obviously false assuming amb's claim is correct.

 

[Mojo]

And while we're on Genesis let's ask DOC where Cain and Seth's wives came from (Christians always seem to get uncomfortable when positing that God allowed them to marry their sisters , another one of those "Teleological Suspensions of the Ethical" I suppose).

"A modern solution."

 

[Craig4]

Amb adds the clarifier "to the best of our knowledge" to his statement so I'm okay with it. Absent that qualifier then I'd have a small problem with it. The point he's getting at I think is the same as mine. We need to see proof that the natural laws have been suspended not that it's impossible. We aren't going to adjust our model of the universe and how it works based simply on the unlikely and contradictory claims of one book.

 

[amb]

What we have here is some goat herders tales of the supernatural as written down in the babble. Any suspension of the laws of nature have up to this point in our history never ever been observed. Sure there are tales of such happenings two thousand years ago, and reported by such fraudsters as Joseph Smith, Jim Jones etc. But as I said before, if such phenomena was possible, don't you think that by now some scientist somewhere would have found it? A Nobel Prize after all this time has still not been won by such a discovery, or is ever likely to.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

What we have here is some goat herders tales of the supernatural as written down in the babble. Any suspension of the laws of nature have up to this point in our history never ever been observed. Sure there are tales of such happenings two thousand years ago, and reported by such fraudsters as Joseph Smith, Jim Jones etc. But as I said before, if such phenomena was possible, don't you think that by now some scientist somewhere would have found it? A Nobel Prize after all this time has still not been won by such a discovery, or is ever likely to.

Well interestingly enough, the "laws" of physics do break down under certain circumstances such as in the center of a Black Hole. However, unless DOC is positing that we live in the center of a black hole or before the Big Bang, or a parallel universe with a different set of physical laws, his hypothesis is entirely out to lunch.

GB