19
   

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

 
 
neologist
 
  2  
Tue 3 Jun, 2014 07:24 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I'm asking only for evidence that there is a supreme being who created the universe in more or less the way indicated in Genesis. If you don't believe that the Babylon prediction supports this, then you've given me exactly zero evidence.
I do believe the Babylon prediction supports this
Brandon9000 wrote:
You're suggesting that Daniel's predictions about Jesus's timeline support the existence of divine inspiration and, thereby, support the rest of the Bible including creation? Is that the argument you're making?
Yes.
There is not an awful lot to grab hold of in ch.1 and ch.2. And, so far no one has grabbed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 03:19 am
@neologist,
I see . . . you're unimpressed by people who don't accept your tortured exegesis to make claims which cannot, in fact, be substantiated, and yet you expect Brandon to accept your bullshit claims about biblical accuracy, which contain ZERO scholarship. You're profoundly deluded. I suspect that you live in constant fear that the Watch Tower folks will order your shunning (once again), and that you'll lose your home and family. That would be part and parcel of the the biblical bullshit, which wants us to fear their silly god.
Setanta
 
  0  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 03:26 am
@Brandon9000,
What Neo is suggesting is that his scripture is accurate in selected examples which he presents (it certainly is not in many about which he touts the accuracy), and that it is divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant. He wants you to accept his argument on the basis of that inerrancy, so that's why he drags in silly **** like his phony baloney prophecy of the fall of Babylon, which, if examined in detail, is false. Note that when asked about those texts which directly describe his cosmogony, he immediately begins to hedge and to hem and haw, and to trot out that idiotic line about what ancient people would have understood. Not only does that imply that the authors of his fairy tale could have given a accurate account (oh please), but it ignores that other cultures in southeast Europe and in western Asia were already providing much more accurate descriptions of the world than is contained in his silly book of fairy tales.
BDV
 
  2  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 06:05 pm
@Setanta,
the truth has no place here
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 06:07 pm
Give that man the prize for understatement of the year.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:44 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I see . . . you're unimpressed by people who don't accept your tortured exegesis to make claims which cannot, in fact, be substantiated, and yet you expect Brandon to accept your bullshit claims about biblical accuracy, which contain ZERO scholarship. You're profoundly deluded. I suspect that you live in constant fear that the Watch Tower folks will order your shunning (once again), and that you'll lose your home and family. That would be part and parcel of the the biblical bullshit, which wants us to fear their silly god.
Where did you get the idea that disfellowshipping would result in loss of home and family? And what would I have to fear of God? If I'm wrong, the worst that could happen to me is death. It's all I expected before I became a Witness and it's all I deserve. It's possible that I could realize the promise made to Adam and Eve; I pretty much know what to do; but I could be turned just as they were.

(I realize that's Pascal's Wager, but I'll take it anyway.)
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 08:54 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Not only does that imply that the authors of his fairy tale could have given a accurate account (oh please) . .
Sorry if I gave the impression that Moses could have given a more detailed account. I don't know that one way or the other. All I said was the first 2 chapters had the order of creation essentially correct, including the unspecified time periods, and they told man why he was here - all that was needed for starters, IMO.
Setanta wrote:
. . .but it ignores that other cultures in southeast Europe and in western Asia were already providing much more accurate descriptions of the world than is contained in his silly book of fairy tales.
I haven't said anything about the remainder of the Bible, including quotations from Job and Isaiah that obviously did not appear in chapters 1 and 2.

But, like Tristram Shandy, it appears we may never get beyond my first attempts to satisfy Brandon.
glitterbag
 
  0  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 09:21 pm
Trying to legitimize or debunk a religious belief is (at least to me) like trying to determine which hair and eye color are the only ones smart people should have. I understand the frustration of fending off religious zealots, it's tedious, I hate it, but the anti-religion zealots can be equally tiresome.

How's this, the perfect and only acceptable hair color is any shade of red and blue for eyes. Anything else should be roundly condemned until the appropriate hair dye and blue contacts are acquired by the non-compliant. Mr. Glitterbag gets a pass since most of his hair is now a stately shade of white. Skin color is not to be considered, simply the most important definition, just the appropriate hair and eye color.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2014 10:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

You've never seemed like the sort to lure fundamentalist Christians to a site just so you belittle them for their beliefs.

Surely you don't think you are going to enlighten them with scientific fact and convert them do you?
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 12:15 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what the reason is for asking this question.

It's pretty clear that no one can provide you with an answer that will invoke a response like "Well, I never thought of that before. You may just be right."

You've never seemed like the sort to lure fundamentalist Christians to a site just so you belittle them for their beliefs.

Surely you don't think you are going to enlighten them with scientific fact and convert them do you?
And I never thought to convert Brandon, only perhaps to point out the Bible does not say what many believe it to say.

But you are right. So far this thread has wound merrily around the spool without mending a thing.
Setanta
 
  0  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:17 am
@neologist,
Oh, i see. So now you're going to imply, without substantiation, that other bits of your scripture supply the want of detail and accuracy in Genesis. You just can't let it go, can you? You just have to claim your book of fairy tales has got it right, even in the face of evidence that it's just a book of fairy tales.
neologist
 
  0  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 10:00 am
@Setanta,
No, I don't think Isaiah's claim the earth is round adds anything to the creation account. Anyone looking out upon the sea should be aware of that,
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 10:08 am
You just can't help yourself, can you? Isaiah said "the circle of the earth." That is not evidence that the hillbillies who wrote those fairy tales knew the earth was a sphere.
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 11:00 am
@Setanta,
As I said. Anyone standing on the seashore would know that plainly. I mentioned it in contrast to the scores of religious writings claiming such things as the earth resting on the back of a turtle, etc.

The bible is not a scientific treatise. If it offends you that spheres may have been considered circular by the ancients, I apologize on their behalf.
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 11:08 am
@neologist,
You are one snotty son of a bitch, and you're a disgusting player of word games who'll say anything to continue ot pretend that you stupid book of fairy tales is some kind of document worth cherishing. You are the one who keeps dragging irrelevant passage of so-called scripture into this discussion, attempting to claim that they mean what they patently do not say, and trotting out that tired old bullshit about what people could and could not have understood 2500 years ago. The one thing you've never done in this thread is to do what the author asked and provide a reasonable basis to accept the biblical account of creation. When challenged, you just get snottier and snottier, and trot out you typical scriptural bait and switch program. YOU brought up other scriptural texts as though you could say more but wren't going to out of respect for the topic. YOU are the one who brought up that "circle of the earth" BS, as though that in some bizarre fashion validates the malarkey that passes for a cosmogony in your favorite book of fairy tales.

You are compulsively dishonest, and i suspect you've been doing it so long you'll never be able to reform.
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 11:18 am
@Setanta,
Can't add much here.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 11:20 am
You can't add anything. It's all bullshit, and you've run out of stories to make up. You have utterly failed to address the question of the thread.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:12 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You are one snotty son of a bitch. . . disgusting . . . you stupid book of fairy tales . . .. irrelevant passage of so-called scripture . .. . tired old bullshit . . . snottier and snottier . . . you typical scriptural bait and switch program. . . .. . BS, . . . bizarre . . . malarkey . . . .book of fairy tales.
. . . .compulsively dishonest. . . .
Awww. You say that to everybody.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 6 Jun, 2014 02:48 am
No, you snide bastard, i only say that to the bullshit peddlers . . . like you.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Fri 6 Jun, 2014 12:48 pm
@Setanta,
We're all BS peddlers to you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 07:11:55