The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by galveston75
Give up Robbie. He sees some of the truth your saying but he will not admit it as that shows he's wrong.

Is that so? This is what i posted on the 17th Nov in this thread -

Look Rob, i don't doubt the Bible has some historical accuracy to it and have never denied as such.

I guess that makes you wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look it was cited to show the textual integrity has been preserved, are you stating that the quotations that i cited don't demonstrate this, no, well either accept it or make with some reddies to the contrary, you people demand exactitude of statement and its nonsense, but not surprising, you must grasp at something!

Are you deliberately being thick?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this was in reference to Zhalansi, your answer is below, i mean above now and just for the record i said nothing of the sort. I accept a literal interpretation of the events recorded.

You are acting difficult. I can find the answer, or you can repeat the answer. If Zahlansis question is not exactly the same as my question, then the answer is irrelevant.

...else...

You have just told me that the part of the bible is wrong, lies, and subject to heavy interpretation. Or just stories, and nothing more. I take the librty to interprete your evasion to answer my question as I see fit.

There wasn't ever any Adam and Eve. Concluded. Thank you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,

the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.

Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.

The story about Adam and Eve was only stories to be told at the campfires. Nothing to care about.
Evolution works, and the Universe is about 13.7 billion of years old. Confirmed by robbie himself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you haven't checked it, but suspect that the archaeological evidence is to be found wanting, my goodness man, Babylon remains uninhabited to this day, its easy to check, all that is left of Jerusalem is a wall, the Romans thoroughly levelled the temple to the ground, as per the prophecy of the Christ.

I dispute the last charge that archaeolog ...[text shortened]... o not know.

bad ol putty cat is actually a term of endearment from Tweety pie and Sylvester.

I think I must have phrased my last response poorly, or perhaps you may have misread. I do not doubt that the archaeological evidence supports the existence and fall of Tyre, Babylon and Jerusalem, I thought I'd made that clear - if not, I apologise. I do dispute that there is archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Christ or of Pilate. There is, of course, some historical evidence for these people.

I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to realise that the archaeological and historical evidence provide no support whatsoever for the tales of magic and miracle expounded in scripture. Any corpus of material which includes such must be viewed with suspicion and scepticism by any rational reader and I don't feel inclined to try to illustrate this further as you seem determined to avoid this issue whatever I say. Please understand, I am not arguing that the bible is false or incorrect, merely that your argument (that archaeology "provides ample evidence that [the bible as a whole] is trustworthy" ) is specious.

Originally posted by Taoman
Please be more specific about important facts! The brand and type of whisky, please.

Laphroaig. I also had a nip or two of Buffalo Trace which is really rather good too, although not a patch on a good peaty malt.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you deliberately being thick?

are you deliberately being pedantic or does it come naturally?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I think I must have phrased my last response poorly, or perhaps you may have misread. I do not doubt that the archaeological evidence supports the existence and fall of Tyre, Babylon and Jerusalem, I thought I'd made that clear - if not, I apologise. I do dispute that there is archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Christ or of Pilate. eology "provides ample evidence that [the bible as a whole] is trustworthy" ) is specious.

sure thing, the evidence in the case of miraculous events, such as those performed by Christ himself rely upon the details found in scripture. It is these very human elements which confirm the authenticity of the events themselves.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Look, luckily for you my dear old thing i am listening to Henry Blofeld, what a genius he is!

these little elements, dear Noobster, are in themselves nothing, we are trying to weave a tapestry and the individual threads themselves are nothing in themselves, when weaved into a whole then yes, in specific instances we can corroborate certain biblica ...[text shortened]... ions prevent certain infections (Trichinosis)
that the scriptural integrity is sound

etc etc

the fall of Tyre Existed and fell, no doubt.
the fall of Babylon Existed and fell, no doubt.
the destruction of Jerusalem Existed and destroyed, no doubt.
the creation of man No evidence, story as related in scripture somewhat, er, fantastic, let's say.
that the earth is spherical not flat This is not stated in the bible.
that the earth hinges upon an invisible force What does this mean? Entirely open to subjective interpretation.
that Christ was a real person No doubt.
that Pilate was a real person No doubt.
that dietary laws such as prohibitions prevent certain infections (Trichinosis) No doubt.
that the scriptural integrity is sound Some scriptural integrity is demonstrated. It does not follow that the content of said scripture is true.

Does this mean that one can rationally place trust in, for example, the story of Jesus walking on water in defiance of natural laws? Of course not.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Laphroaig. I also had a nip or two of Buffalo Trace which is really rather good too, although not a patch on a good peaty malt.

meh Laphriog is ok, cannae beat a Lagavulin for luxury, or a Talisker if you want to invigorate your palate, or a Bowmore if you want to get roastie toastie from the waste up. Glenmorangie make some fine speyside malts and Highland Park from Orkney is in my opinion a fine whiskey.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure thing, the evidence in the case of miraculous events, such as those performed by Christ himself rely upon the details found in scripture. It is these very human elements which confirm the authenticity of the events themselves.

Not so. Some people, for whatever reasons, sometimes lie. Other people, for whatever reasons, sometimes believe these fabrications. These things are demonstrated, provable and true. There is no evidence beyond hearsay that miracles occur. Scripture detailing miraculous events clearly does not, therefore, confirm the authenticity of these events. None of which gainsays the scriptural accounts, of course.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]the fall of Tyre Existed and fell, no doubt.
the fall of Babylon Existed and fell, no doubt.
the destruction of Jerusalem Existed and destroyed, no doubt.
the creation of man No evidence, story as related in scripture somewhat, er, fantastic, let's say.
that the earth is spherical not flat This is not stated ...[text shortened]... , for example, the story of Jesus walking on water in defiance of natural laws? Of course not.[/b]

these miraculous events are confirmed in the details of the accounts themselves, in the purely human aspects. For example in the case of Christ walking upon water, we learn that Peter jumped into the water when he saw the Christ. Is this in harmony with the personality revealed to us in scripture, entirely, for it is understood that Peter was a very impetuous individual. He ran to the tomb where Christ was laid and without hesitation ran inside and examined the bandages, he cut off the ear of the high priests slave, Malchus with a sword, etc etc

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Not so. Some people, for whatever reasons, sometimes lie. Other people, for whatever reasons, sometimes believe these fabrications. These things are demonstrated, provable and true. There is no evidence beyond hearsay that miracles occur. Scripture detailing miraculous events clearly does not, therefore, confirm the authenticity of these events. None of which gainsays the scriptural accounts, of course.

see the text above. If you like you can pick a scriptural account of the Christ and i can try to demonstrate how the human elements lend themselves to the actuality of a real event, take the healing of the blind man at the pool of Bethsaida, for example, its full of them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
meh Laphriog is ok, cannae beat a Lagavulin for luxury, or a Talisker if you want to invigorate your palate, or a Bowmore if you want to get roastie toastie from the waste up. Glenmorangie make some fine speyside malts and Highland Park from Orkney is in my opinion a fine whiskey.

Agreed, all good tipples - particularly the Lagavulin (although I'm not a fan of Glenmorangie's 10yr old - tastes a bit buttery to me). I usually fall back on Laphroaig or Highland Park. I also have a weakness for Abelour for some reason. There's a faint overtone of what tastes a bit like stagnant water which I know shouldn't enhance it, but somehow it does!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you deliberately being pedantic or does it come naturally?

Unfortunately it comes naturally.