In response to mikelom's request for God's interactions/interruptions into human history, I offer several seminal events significant to man.
Creation
The Flood
The creation of a new race/ethnicity, the Jew
The virgin conception
The existence of the God/Man Jesus Christ
His death, burial, resurrection and ascension to heaven
Obviously, there are many other situations in which God intervened, as recorded in the Scripture, but these events represent the biggest, most significant historically-verified realities with which man must deal.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI understand the problem, hence I would not affirm that they are historically-debunked (except perhaps the flood, which is scientifically impossible and should have left a lot of evidence). So, conversely, to say that they are historically verified is obviously an abuse.
Therein lies the rub. By what standards do you measure the veracity of an historical event--- what are your guidelines for acceptance?
Edit - Also, what do you mean by creation of a new race? Jewish people can be shown to have a biologically common ancestry to all other races.
Originally posted by PalynkaReasons To Believe an Old Earth Creationist organization of astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, always has some interesting things to say about science and Scripture.
I understand the problem, hence I would not affirm that they are historically-debunked (except perhaps the flood, which is scientifically impossible and should have left a lot of evidence). So, conversely, to say that they are historically verified is obviously an abuse.
Edit - Also, what do you mean by creation of a new race? Jewish people can be shown to have a biologically common ancestry to all other races.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou didn't answer the question.
I understand the problem, hence I would not affirm that they are historically-debunked (except perhaps the flood, which is scientifically impossible and should have left a lot of evidence). So, conversely, to say that they are historically verified is obviously an abuse.
Edit - Also, what do you mean by creation of a new race? Jewish people can be shown to have a biologically common ancestry to all other races.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt depends on the evidence for it, obviously. There are many forms of evidence. archaeological, historical documents, etc. There are also degrees of trustworthiness regarding each form and so on.
You didn't answer the question.
Your intention to simplify the issue to "historical documents" so you can affirm the historical truth of the Bible is obvious and disingenuous. It depends when they were written, by whom, whether we have the originals, etc. Any definitive answer which isn't a case-by-case analysis is pure nonsense and obviously has an agenda in mind.
Originally posted by PalynkaLet's start there, if that is the sticking point.
It depends on the evidence for it, obviously. There are many forms of evidence. archaeological, historical documents, etc. There are also degrees of trustworthiness regarding each form and so on.
Your intention to simplify the issue to "historical documents" so you can affirm the historical truth of the Bible is obvious and disingenuous. It depends when t ...[text shortened]... wer which isn't a case-by-case analysis is pure nonsense and obviously has an agenda in mind.
Again, give your standards for acceptance of any historical event. List them.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStarting with creation.
In response to mikelom's request for God's interactions/interruptions into human history, I offer several seminal events significant to man.
Creation
The Flood
The creation of a new race/ethnicity, the Jew
The virgin conception
The existence of the God/Man Jesus Christ
His death, burial, resurrection and ascension to heaven
Obviously, there are ...[text shortened]... resent the biggest, most significant historically-verified realities with which man must deal.
Certainly there is no doubt creation took place. Here we are. So it is verifiable. The Bible's version however is just one version and is not more historically verifiable than any other creation myth such as the Norse myth of Ginnungagap for example. In fact I find the latter more plausible in that it more closely resembles the idea of the Big Bang theory.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhenever you're ready, fire away.
Are you having trouble reading? My God, what an idiot.
List the specific methods and standards you use in determining your acceptance of an historical fact. That doesn't mean you provide a general list of disciplines that relate to the study of history, it means you provide the matrix which you employ.
This shouldn't be too hard for a genius of your stature.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt depends on the evidence for it, obviously. There are many forms of evidence. archaeological, historical documents, etc. There are also degrees of trustworthiness regarding each form and so on.
Whenever you're ready, fire away.
List the specific methods and standards you use in determining your acceptance of an historical fact. That doesn't mean you provide a general list of disciplines that relate to the study of history, it means you provide the matrix which you employ.
This shouldn't be too hard for a genius of your stature.
Your intention to simplify the issue to "historical documents" so you can affirm the historical truth of the Bible is obvious and disingenuous. It depends when they were written, by whom, whether we have the originals, etc. Any definitive answer which isn't a case-by-case analysis is pure nonsense and obviously has an agenda in mind.
Originally posted by UllrThe Bible's version however is just one version and is not more historically verifiable than any other creation myth such as the Norse myth of Ginnungagap for example. In fact I find the latter more plausible in that it more closely resembles the idea of the Big Bang theory.
Starting with creation.
Certainly there is no doubt creation took place. Here we are. So it is verifiable. The Bible's version however is just one version and is not more historically verifiable than any other creation myth such as the Norse myth of Ginnungagap for example. In fact I find the latter more plausible in that it more closely resembles the idea of the Big Bang theory.
Respectfully disagree. The Ginnungagap, or yawning abyss, speaks of a primordial void which acted as a type of meeting place between and for cold and heat and the eventual creation--- corresponding with a from-chaos-comes-creation motif. While not in complete agreement with the Creation talked about in Genesis, there are striking similarities within the same.
However, this Norse myth does not speak of anything prior to chaos; therefore, it does not resemble the BB theory, in that it speaks of creation (the known universe) coming from chaos... but nothing about the nothing before, as though the chaos had always existed.
That being said, what distinguishes Genesis from other renderings is it's insistence that prior to creation (not to be mistaken with re-creation), there was nothing. This model is exactly what science has finally stumbled upon with its most recent findings.
Originally posted by PalynkaReally? This is the best you can do?
It depends on the evidence for it, obviously. There are many forms of evidence. archaeological, historical documents, etc. There are also degrees of trustworthiness regarding each form and so on.
Your intention to simplify the issue to "historical documents" so you can affirm the historical truth of the Bible is obvious and disingenuous. It depends when t ...[text shortened]... wer which isn't a case-by-case analysis is pure nonsense and obviously has an agenda in mind.
Let's make it real simple for you, then. Give me the tests you employ and apply to any document which inform your decision to accept or reject it as reliable.