-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
Werbung:
What sort of nutter would bother? And no - if it is part of someone's 'faith' that the moon is cheese that person will refuse to be convinced anyway.
Cashmcall. Any hatred is entirely in your own mind. If you want to discuss the New Testament, fine. We were discussing lives of 800 years, which is entirely another matter.
lolo...first that is the old testament...You want to discuss the bible, so be it.. But remember, The Bible tells us about things outside our experience.... So in order to accept the Bible, we must bridge the gap between what we know or believe, and what we trust... In my case that bridge is not reason; it is faith.
Adam lived 930 years and then he died." The mere assertion that humans could live more than 900 years-as states-seems, for many people, nothing short of absurdity... The mention of long life spans in Genesis 5 hinders these people from openly exploring the Christian faith. Unable to accept 900-year human life spans, skeptics and others view the Bible as unreliable, a book of human myth rather than divine revelation...
This skepticism towards the long life spans of Genesis 5 is understandable. Tremendous advances have been made and will continue to be made in medical science and technology to conquer many dreaded diseases. The Western world has widespread access to health services, and for most Americans, nutrition is not a vital concern. And yet, the average life span in the U.S. is less than 80 years... Over the last century, human life expectancy has increased, but only by a handful of years. In light of these facts, how can the long life spans described in Genesis 5 conceivably be true? Yet another stumbling block crops up in Genesis 6:3, which declares that God intervened to shorten man's life span from about 900 to 120 years.... Even though a maximum life expectancy of about 120 years accords with current data, the abrupt shortening of human life spans creates another hurdle for skeptics. How can this dramatic change in human life spans be scientifically rational?
The recent progress of research in the biochemistry of aging, along with the cosmic radiation caused by the Vela supernova eruption, makes the long life spans of Genesis 5 and the decrease of human life spans at the time of the Flood scientifically plausible... Exactly how God altered human life spans no one knows. However, recent discoveries in the biochemistry of aging continue to build the case for the reliability of Scripture even of Genesis 5 and 6. Researchers stand on the threshold of additional breakthroughs in understanding the aging process...
Just in case you don't want to research it.. Before the Vela supernova, only a fraction of the current level of deadly cosmic radiation bathed the Earth... Under these lower radiation conditions life spans of up to 900 years might have been possible I repeat might have been... Scientists do acknowledge that this higher-level radiation silently bombarding the Earth since Vela plays a significant role in limiting life expectancy. Moreover, a significant radiation event such as Vela would explain the mathematical curve, the gradual, reduction in life spans, from about 900 to 120 years reported in Genesis 11.
they cannot as they have demonstrated.
the funny part is that they might be able to with a little effort but they are content in their self righteous elitism. but they are neither elite nor capable.
and yet they believe themselves suporior to God.
Sad really...
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Look if you are going to live by the sword you will die by the sword
It is logical impossible to prove a negative existential statement
This is what you are relying on
But if you adopt this reasoning you are obliged to believe in fairies, elves, unicorns etc because you cannot prove they did not exist. So your method of reasoning makes you a lunatic
And cash call faith is believing in stuff without evidence
Otherwise it would be called knowledge
Nobody has ever lived for 900 years
Anyone believing that has had their brain taken out and replaced with a clockwork mouse
Christians the most intelligent people on earth?
Oh dear, they locked Galileo up for saying the earth goes round the sun
Genius
It is logical impossible to prove a negative existential statement
This is what you are relying on
But if you adopt this reasoning you are obliged to believe in fairies, elves, unicorns etc because you cannot prove they did not exist. So your method of reasoning makes you a lunatic
And cash call faith is believing in stuff without evidence
Otherwise it would be called knowledge
Nobody has ever lived for 900 years
Anyone believing that has had their brain taken out and replaced with a clockwork mouse
Christians the most intelligent people on earth?
Oh dear, they locked Galileo up for saying the earth goes round the sun
Genius
I said I was prepared to discuss the New Testament. The Old Testament is a collection of much-edited and much re-written allsorst from tribal creation myth to poetical and philosophical speculation and includes what looks - certainly in the Authorised Version - as some very fine poetry, but as a guide to living it doesn't seem to have much point for us, and the Church included all that stuff largely to include the prophesies relevant to the Messiah, some of which are influencial on some of the folksier bits of the NT, because its earliest members and converts were Jews. I have to tell you that I do not regard fundamentalists as in any sense Christian: they worship the Letter and deny obvious truth, which is extremely wicked. It was for this reason I specified the New Testament, which is historical in a very different way. You'll excuse me, therefore, if I avoid discussions of the pretty far-fetched arguments for far-fetched notions, myths, mis-translations and the like. We are not just unlikely to agree - we inhabit different thoughtworlds here, and merely contradicting one another has little purpose.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Let us not forget that the New Testament purveys lies about people walking on water, virgins getting pregnant, water turning into wine, dead people coming back to life etc
It is a load of old bollocks and anyone who believes such shit is a mentally ill
It is a load of old bollocks and anyone who believes such shit is a mentally ill
You excused..you really don't want to talk about it , do ya?
You said..
It is logical impossible to prove a negative existential statement
This is what you are relying on..
No it's not, I took the time to give you my thoughts
Otherwise it would be called knowledge...ever thing I posted is well known knowledge
Why do you care what I believe?
Makes him feel superior to cut-n-paste someone else's silly notions. reference the namesake.
As a former agnostic, what really struck me in reading the Bible for the first time in my 30's (I think) was the degree of candor displayed in the writings. In fact, if I had been writing those kinds of stories, I would not have put all the non-complimentary stuff that one finds in the Bible. It turns out that the Bible's heroes do all kinds of stupid and immoral things. In addition, many of the doctrines of the Church are not what any normal male would make up...
Skeptics say that the writings of the Bible have the character of mythology. In addition, stories of numerous miracles make it unlikely that the Bible is true. However, if God is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, He would certainly be able to perform miracles. Although there are miracles in the Bible, greater than 99% of the text describes non-miraculous events. So, who wrote the Bible? If the disciples made up the events in the Bible, would they write it in the way it is written?
The virgin birth of Jesus is one of the most unbelievable aspects of Christianity. It would have been very risky to document and claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. In the Middle East there were honor killings for women who conceived out of wedlock, so to speak of a virgin birth was extremely dishonorable. In fact, the Bible alludes to some disparaging remarks made by the religious opponents of Jesus. In addition, if you look at the anti-Christian literature at the time, much of it focused on this aspect of Christianity. This makes one wonder why, if Christians were just making up a religion, they say something that would offend virtually everybody in the Middle East. It makes no sense to make up something offensive , unless it were true.
If I had been Jesus, I certainly wouldn't have chosen the band of misfits that He picked. There was Peter, the loudmouth, John, his main competitor (and Jesus' favorite, according to his own words) Matthew, the corrupt taxman, and Thomas, the ultimate skeptic. As a group, they were slow learners who constantly demonstrated a lack of faith in Jesus despite all the miracles He performed in their presence.
Peter was an interesting choice as the disciple to lead the early church. As an uneducated fisherman, he would often act first and think about it later. Peter himself admitted to Jesus that he was a sinful man. In one instance, Jesus blessed Peter and not five verses later called him Satan. Peter made the pronouncement that he would never leave Jesus, being even willing to die before denying Him. However, Peter denied knowing Jesus three times after He was arrested and fled to go into hiding with the rest of the disciples.
John is thought of being a quiet disciple who was deeply devoted to Jesus. However, John had definite jealousy issues with Peter. After being told of Jesus' resurrection by the women who followed Him, John describes in his gospel racing Peter to the empty tomb - and winning! Peter was actively involved in this rivalry, being jealous of John at the last supper, asking Jesus, Lord, and what about this man? Jesus solidly rebuked Peter, basically telling him to mind his own business. The rivalry among the disciples was not limited to just Peter and John. At one point, they all started to argue about which of the disciples was the greatest. Jesus suggested that those who would be greatest would serve others.
Jesus helped a number of women, many of whom followed Him, along with the disciples. After Jesus was arrested and crucified, the disciples all fled and hid, being afraid that they would suffer the same fate. However, the women wanted to finish the burial, which had been left unfinished because of the approaching Sabbath. So Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, wife of Zebedee, walked to the tomb early in the morning of the third day. However, they found the stone rolled away, the body of Jesus gone, and angels sitting in His place. The fact that the discovery of the empty tomb was made by women is not something that would have been fabricated, since, at the time, women were not considered to be reliable witnesses.
This is going to come to a shock to most non-Christians (and maybe even some Christians), but God's people are referred to as female,not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the daughters of Zion. The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the bride of Christ and God is said to be our husband. Paul even describes the members of the church as being presented to her husband, Jesus, as a pure virgin. Whenever referred to by sex, the Church is described as she or her. In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun. Obviously, if men had made up the Bible, they would have made the church a male!
Werbung:
This was written by William Fonseca..Sorry
