I donāt have time or energy to debate, and frankly itās not my job, and while I would love to continue there are people who are much more eloquent and prepare to have this conversation than me. And I am just a person, and am glad to talk to someone who is curious, not someone who is looking to refute it, because it will just exhaust both of us because neither of us are going to change our minds over a conversation on the internet.
Now one last time Taking this back point by point:
This alone may not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Flood is a historical account, however it is evidence for it. Radiocarbon dating makes the assumption that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. The Bible says that there were waters below and above the sky. And it didnāt rain until Noahās flood. That water would have added a protective barrier from particle and other things from space, it also would have changed how big things grew, and how long they lived.
Things covered and mud and dirt years ago, donāt tend to look the same while covered. Yes, the ark landed somewhere near Ararat, Iām well aware. The article even says so, and it also doesnāt say the name of the mountain on which it sits.
The lack of many major changes between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Bible we have today, is unfounded in any other long time religious script. People are always changing things if they can.
The Bible also leaves out information that doesnāt point to salvation through Jesus Christ. Like I said itās not the end all be all historical text, but it does contain history. There are multiple theories, most common, especially as it was a common practice throughout the world in later days, and the fact that they were told to be fruitful and multiply, is that likely, there was incest involved. In order to populate the earth. But Adam and Eve also would have, at the very least, had very similar DNA, since Eve was literally taken out of Adam. It also says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Not how many, or who, the only line thatās really focused on is the line of Seth.
Matthew and Luke focused on different parts of the birth of Christ. They were writing to different people. Matthew was writing to the Jews, Luke was writing to Theophilus. You wouldnāt write the same to your mom as you do your best friend or sibling. And Judas died by hanging himself and then when his body had rotted, it fell from where he hanged, and burst open from bloating. Also wouldnāt it be more suspicious if two people recorded events the exact same way? That indicates a rehearsed story, which would show conspiracy. But they arenāt.
So, you donāt trust stories told by veterans decades after the war they were in? Just because something being written about happened decades ago, doesnāt change the fact of it, and whoās to say that the information wasnāt being journaled when it was happening? We donāt know. And of course they were written anonymously at the time, the Roman Empire was murdering them and torturing them. And while they were glad to stand up for what they believed, they would have waited for the Spirit to tell them when and what to say. Iām also not even referring to Biblical narratives. Though if I was Saul turned Paul would be the biggest one.
You may not have personally claimed that they were lying, but belief in something doesnāt make it true. You can believe in lies. Also, for the Bible not to have been true, the disciples at the very least would have had to been lying.
Why wouldnāt people claim that Jesus lived, I mean he was born of a virgin, he did all these miracles. Even after he rose again, why do people insist he was just a guy. He was, but He was also so much more.
The world distracting us from good things is a vague idea. I get it. But itās also biblical. Satan currently has dominion over the world. He walks freely as he pleases. He doesnāt want people to see Godās work, He wants people to be selfish. Even the existence of phones and the lack of critical thinking in general in the new generation, (not everyone, but many) people are so ready to believe what theyāve heard without study, or fact checking.
My dad being alive, I get it, I know you donāt know my dad, but you asked how I knew. I donāt need to go into detail on everything. Short story is by all medical accounts, and all everything that he has gone through, my dad should be dead three times over.
They believed Jesus rose from the dead and were killed because of it. Most of them were there when it happened. Why, knowing they would die, would they continue to share the news of the resurrection, I mean. Would you die for something you knew wasnāt true? And the disciples/apostles would have known.
I might have been a little misinformed here, Iām not a historian. But even though the Greek people existed, the empire Daniel is referring to is that of Alexander the Great whose kingdom was divided into 4 main parts. And this was at least 200 years before hand.
Again, the flood stories may not solely prove on its own that the Bible is true, however it does give some credence, and youāll notice that the stories you mentioned all talk about the destruction of the whole human race meaning that it wouldnāt have been small local floods, it couldnāt have been. (Not to mention it included the nephilim, and giants of the time, who while not directly mentioned in the Bible, are mentioned in the book of Enoch, which was used as a historical text, though it wasnāt necessarily inspired by God)
It is the fact of when it happens, not that it happened. It goes to show there is credence to the Bible on its timeline.
Lee Strobel was an atheist, who set out to disprove the resurrection of Christ because if he could prove that, then all of Christianity would fall apart and he would get his wife back. (She started going to church after an incident where their daughter almost died.) I highly recommend the case for Christ as research material.
The point about Judaism is relevant because the Jews who read the Torah, and their histories, tend to come to similar conclusions as Christians, except those who are so caught up in how they are perceived like the Pharisees of Jesusās day. And Judaism today is not as focused on Mosaic law as it was originally.
Again, I said for me, but Christians becoming atheist tend to do it for one of two reasons 1) they only went to church because their parents made them and they didnāt really believe, or 2) something happened in their life that was terrible, and they canāt understand how a good God would allow such terrible things or cause such terrible things, but the truth is God is all powerful and all knowing, but He is also Holy and Just. Holy meaning perfect and pure and good, and Just meaning fair and impartial. Because He is holy, he cannot sin, and in fact He hates it. And Because He is Just, sin must be punished. No one could live up to all of the rules of Moses, that is why they did animal sacrifices. That is why Jesus died on the Cross, because he did not want to be separated from us, but sin, as it has from the beginning, did and does separate us from God. Also sometimes God allows bad things to happen to us as he was boasting about our faith and belief in him (Job in the Bible) and sometimes itās to make us realize that weāve done something wrong. Satan does everything God allows him to do to try and sow a seed of doubt into the hearts and minds of Godās children, and when that seed grows, Christians fall away. (Parable of the sower and the seed kind of) and Satan is working extra hard the closer we get to the end times. Also I mean the amount of Christians who are haphazard, or loosey goosey about their faith. They wonāt rock the boat for fear for their lives.
The Jehovahās Witness say that only 144,000 people will go to heaven, so maybe not every religion.
The Quran and the Bible may have a shared history, however, it is not derived from the Bible. The first thing that comes to mind is faith vs works. And the people may have shared ancestors, however, they donāt believe the same things at all.
My belief is that the Bible is fact. Also, I did make a bit of an assumption about what you believe, based on the stance you took. And yes it does take faith to acknowledge some of what the Bible says and that every word of it is true. However there are many historic texts and other items that corroborate what the Bible says. And here we get to the root of the problem which is that Christianity is more seen as a religion, when in reality it was meant as a relationship. It was to fix the broken relationship between God and Man in the garden of Eden by sin, and through the death and resurrection of Christ we are able to be reconciled to Christ as Children of God.
Yes a Christian proposed the big bang as a possibility. But Christians make mistakes too, and not everything one Christian says is true. Thatās where we get break off religions and cults. Also, since then, the big bang has been secularized and my point about proving it still stands. You can know something is true without having seen it. You can believe in a fact, or you can deny fact, it doesnāt change the truth. The truth doesnāt change. Only how we perceive it and what we feel towards it can, and it can be twisted and misinterpreted but this misinterpretations do not just the base truth.
You believe they are symbolic figures, I believe those places were named after people who lived. And that those nations were and are descendants of those people.
You did ask me to back mine up, suggesting your claim that I am wrong. And if I am, whatās it to you? If Iām wrong it doesnāt affect you in any way. But if Iām right, everyone who doesnāt believe will be separated from all that is good for all eternity because everything good comes from God, and sin separates us from God.
God gave us free will and with that we can believe what we want to believe, but that does not negate consequences of our choices.
