Humans - Imperfect beings?

[emprworm]

It means that not every part of the bible is accurate. But if it is proven to be accurate (which would require that the evidence that it is inaccurate must be replaced by more evidence that it is accurate and explain why there was evidence for the inaccuracies.), then it all of it can be accurate.

Jesus baptised - John 3:22

Jesus did not baptise - John 4:2

Either one of them is accurate, and the other is not. The other that is not includes an inaccuracy in the bible. Thus, all of the bible is not accurate - said after the claim that all of the bible is accurate. I am not saying that the whole bible is inaccurate, but simply that in the bible, if there is one inaccuracy, then ALL of the bible cannot be accurate.

how about this: Jesus baptised....then Jesus did not baptise.

day 1: emprworm ate lunch

day 2: emprworm did not eat lunch

what is it with you nitpicking atheists always commiting mutual exclusion fallacies with the Bible? ::)

[TMA_1]

you forgot to add time to that factor.lol he was baptizing people and after a while he stopped. when the pharasees came he was not baptizing but john was.

its as simple as that. read it for yourself and dont take other people's opinions so lightly.

[Acriku]

emprworm, the verses were not meant for discussion, so instead you attack my example instead of my point. If this will continue, I see no reason to post in here.

[Caid Ivik]

"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." - Jn 3,22

"He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee." - Jn 4,2

I see no point here...

[Acriku]

Caid, stop discussing my example and discuss my point! I could very well put up another contradiction, it doesn't matter, what matters is my point that I made.

[emprworm]

" I am not saying that the whole bible is inaccurate, but simply that in the bible, if there is one inaccuracy, then ALL of the bible cannot be accurate"

i agree with that.

but which part is inaccurate?

[TMA_1]

Caid, stop discussing my example and discuss my point! I could very well put up another contradiction, it doesn't matter, what matters is my point that I made.

huh? lol the whole point was he completely blew away your idea. The fact is, is that you bring up "problems" in the bible but you have not read it yourself. that is the most important thing to do.

[Acriku]

but which part is inaccurate?

Ok, let's see. The bible says that there was a global flood that wiped everything out except a select few - Noah and his family. That is a myth, and was abundant with evidence to support it a myth. Such as "Andrew White reports that nineteenth century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before the biblical Flood of Noah and that no such flood had ever interrupted it." or "Additionally, the book of Esther insists that the Persian empire was divided into one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, but historians tell us that there was no such division of the empire. Also contrary to what the book of Esther says, historians state that Xerxes I did not order Jews in his territories to attack his Persian subjects." or how the bible shows a young earth, from Jesus' ancestry dating back to Adam - seventy-six generations - and there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

Since it was written by humans, it is obvious that there would be inaccuracies in it.

[emprworm]

but which part is inaccurate?

Ok, let's see. The bible says that there was a global flood that wiped everything out except a select few - Noah and his family. That is a myth, and was abundant with evidence to support it a myth. Such as "Andrew White reports that nineteenth century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before the biblical Flood of Noah and that no such flood had ever interrupted it." or "Additionally, the book of Esther insists that the Persian empire was divided into one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, but historians tell us that there was no such division of the empire. Also contrary to what the book of Esther says, historians state that Xerxes I did not order Jews in his territories to attack his Persian subjects." or how the bible shows a young earth, from Jesus' ancestry dating back to Adam - seventy-six generations - and there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

Since it was written by humans, it is obvious that there would be inaccuracies in it.

it is universally accepted world wide that the earth was once flooded. seashells have been found on mountains all over the world. there is more than enough water on this planet to flood it. keep in mind mountains were much smaller back then as well. (i believe that pangea existed before the flood, and that with the flood itself there was a massive tearing of the continents . Something in ancient history ripped the continents apart- they have been drifting ever since.)

[Caid Ivik]

Flood was a fact. It's fascinating that nearly every ancient culture in the world has mentioned big flood in their myths. Also, some proves were found there was something like it. But Noah shouldn't be only one who survived. He was only of his nation, cleaned to maintain a new treaty between God and human.

Caid, stop discussing my example and discuss my point! I could very well put up another contradiction, it doesn't matter, what matters is my point that I made.

I DON'T SEE ANY POINT! Your example is a non-sense. You are trying to negate Bible, because there are sometimes harder words some of us cannot explain.

[Acriku]

It is not universally accepted. The idea of a global flood is proposterous.

Seashells on mountains does not prove Noah's flood. The seashells found are not on the mountain, they are found in the mountain. Answer that. And fossil deposits found on the mountain would only imply that it has been underwater once upon a time, and if you know how mountains work then you would know that mountains are pushed up by tectonic plates - one time ago they could very well have been underwater, and the move of tectonic plates push this piece of land upwards into the mountain it is today.

There is not more than enough water to flood the earth. Where is this water? Certainly not the polar ice caps, as the amount of water displaced by the ice caps is relatively equal to the amount of water in the ice. Certainly not in the atmosphere, as gravity has an effect that tends to bring such water out.

The mountains have not changed that much in 4000 years, probably 100-150 feet.

That something that has 'ripped' the continents apart is a little thing called tectonic plate movement. Forever moving. They were away, moved together to form Pangaea, and moving away again...

[Caid Ivik]

Have you ever tought about some outer influence? Meteor, causing melting of the caps?

[emprworm]

It is not universally accepted. The idea of a global flood is proposterous.

careful, acriku!!! you speak not what you know. THere is enough water on this earth right now to cover it all up to 8500 ft. Yea!!! I'd say that is a flood of massive proportions.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

326 million cubic miles of water are on this planet. Did you know that Antarctica is the size of the US? And there is also a solid brick of ice there more than a mile deep. The volume of water is here, Acriku. It is all right here! THe idea is not preposterous. THe idea is what we call in science....POSSIBLE

[Acriku]

As I have explained, the polar caps could not have possibly have flooded the earth. And a meteor wouldn't cause a flood - if anything it would cause deserts.

[Caid Ivik]

Like you have seen one ;D

[emprworm]

As I have explained, the polar caps could not have possibly have flooded the earth. And a meteor wouldn't cause a flood - if anything it would cause deserts.

who said anything about a meteor? LOL!

[Acriku]

who said anything about a meteor? LOL!

Caid... lol. Anything else, or will you admit the global flood is impossible?

Caid, I have seen one - but that isn't what you meant :D A meteor big enough would destroy all life, except bacteria ;), and lay the land to wastelands.

[Caid Ivik]

Just an idea. But flood was even if there was not such meteor...

[emprworm]

who said anything about a meteor? LOL!

Caid... lol. Anything else, or will you admit the global flood is impossible?

of course it's not impossible. it happened, and there is evidence to suggest it happened...and there is enough water on this planet right now to grant credence to it happening. enough water to cover the earth to 8000 feet.

[Acriku]

Ok first off, we aren't including the intervention of god, correct?

This would mean that the global flood would have happened by natural occurrences.

[emprworm]

uhhh....the flood took place on this natural earth so there will be natural evidence. i believe the cause of the flood to be supernatural, however all evidence of the flood will be fully natural.

the cause is irrelevant to the subject of whether or not there was a flood.

[Acriku]

The cause is relevant, because if God intervened, then it doesn't matter if it is scientifically impossible - god did it. So, did god intervene, or was this a solitarily natural occurrence?

[emprworm]

we aren't looking at the cause, we are looking to see if there is evidence for a world wide flood.

OH WAIT! sorry, almost forgot:

III. I believe a priori against the possibility of miracles. No matter where science points, it is impossible to point to a supernatural cause because I wont accept it no matter what. Any explanation for something, no matter how radical and extreme, no matter how fantastic and absurd, if it does not imply theism, it is and will always be more rational. The supernatural has been ruled out before science even begins.

yet the fact remains, that there is evidence for a flood...and there is enough water to make it fully possible.

[Acriku]

I was completely unbiased toward such supernatural intervention, I was just asking if you are starting with that God began the flood, and made it possible - which is completely relevant to the discussion that such a flood can exist, not that it did.

About the evidence. What evidence? You haven't stated one valid piece of evidence.

Where did all the water come from? I have already explained this...

[emprworm]

I was completely unbiased toward such supernatural intervention, I was just asking if you are starting with that God began the flood, and made it possible - which is completely relevant to the discussion that such a flood can exist, not that it did.

About the evidence. What evidence? You haven't stated one valid piece of evidence.

Where did all the water come from? I have already explained this...

the water was already here. what do you mean where it came from? even in atheistic evolutionary theory, the world once did not have polar ice caps.