Jesus' Four Failed Prophecies About Him Returning In The Lifetimes Of His Apostles

[samtonga43]

Oh that is not a rash generalization but a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Once one analyzes the Bible critically it fails again and again.

So ALL biblical beliefs are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So ALL biblical beliefs are wrong?

Now who is guilty of hasty generalization? No, not all are, but enough of them are wrong to place Christianity in the mythical belief genre.

 

[samtonga43]

I am beginning to have doubts if you do. And no, I do not care to play the definition game. Instead of dropping ten dollar terminology why not try properly supporting your claims?

You used the words "proper", SZ.
But you cannot explain why. I am not surprised.

 

[samtonga43]

Now who is guilty of hasty generalization? No, not all are, but enough of them are wrong to place Christianity in the mythical belief genre.

I quoted YOU, SZ
"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

Oh, and mythical belief is not a genre...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You used the words "proper", SZ.
But you cannot explain why. I am not surprised.

You apparently abused the term so why should I expect you to respond honestly? I am simply not a fan of people that abuse terminology as if the term itself proves something. Discussing epistemology would get us nowhere.

It appears that you are willing to discuss anything except for your own personal beliefs. Perhaps your epistemology is not as strong as you pretend that it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I quoted YOU, SZ
"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

Oh, and mythical belief is not a genre...

Correct, and I explained that claim. Why was that so hard to understand?

 

[samtonga43]

Correct, and I explained that claim.

No. You explained why some are wrong.

The following implies that ALL are wrong and is, therefore. a hasty generalization:"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

You still don't understand?

 

[samtonga43]

You apparently abused the term so why should I expect you to respond honestly?

In what way did I 'abuse' the term?

 

[samtonga43]

To believe the myths of Genesis means not treating it allegorically but literally. I do agree that it does have some allegorical value. The problem is that there are many Christians that employ Black and White reasoning.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, SZ. It appears to be yet another assumption, ie that
'myth' = 'allegory'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You explained why some are wrong.

The following implies that ALL are wrong and is, therefore. a hasty generalization:"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong".

You still don't understand?

Oh please, try to follow context. When having a discussion with literalists you know as well as I do that they will claim that all of the Bible is correct. I did not claim that all biblical beliefs were wrong and if you follow the conversation you would know that I did not do that.

There was no hasty generalization there, just misinterpretation on your part.

 

[samtonga43]

"I did not claim that all biblical beliefs were wrong". SZ
"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong". SZ

Good try, but no misinterpretation here. Your own words betray you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good try, but no misinterpretation here. Your own words betray you.

Nope, try again. Quotes out of context prove nothing.

For your benefit, you are trying to claim that there is an "all" in my quote. It is not there. It is not even implied.

 

[samtonga43]

Nope, try again. Quotes out of context prove nothing.

For your benefit, you are trying to claim that there is an "all" in my quote. It is not there. It is not even implied.

The context deos not matter one little bit in this case, I'm afraid

No, I am not trying to claim anything about your post. I am simply quoting it.

You know, you really must learn to accept that it is just possible that sometimes you are wrong.

Do you see what the 'sometimes' does in that sentence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The context deos not matter one little bit in this case, I'm afraid

No, I am not trying to claim anything about your post. I am simply quoting it.

You know, you really must learn to accept that it is just possible that sometimes you are wrong.

Do you see what the 'sometimes' does in that sentence?

.Context always matters. Especially when trying to make the sort of claims that you are.

This is a typical tactic of those that have lost the debate. They cannot deal with what was actually said so they attempt to change the narrative.

 

[samtonga43]

Here is what was actually said:

"I did not claim that all biblical beliefs were wrong". SZ 1
"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong". SZ 2

SZ 2 contradicts SZ 1

Time you dealt with what you two actually said, SZ1 and SZ2.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what was actually said:

"I did not claim that all biblical beliefs were wrong". SZ 1
"It is rather clear that biblical beliefs are wrong". SZ 2

SZ 2 contradicts SZ 1

Time you dealt with what you two actually said, SZ1 and SZ2.

Nope. Once again you are assuming that there is an "all" in quote number two. It is not there. And if you look at the context it is still not there. You can make this false claims as often as you like, but it will still be wrong. Context matters.

You would have a valid point if I had said that "It is rather clear that all biblical beliefs are wrong." Do you remember when you falsely accused me of a hasty generalization? This is exactly what you have repeatedly done even after your error was explained to you.

 

[Brian2]

You don't have to have seen that to know that the Fllod story is a myth. It fails on almost every level possible.

Tell me what your version of the Flood is and I will tell you how we know it to be false.

By the way, there is evidence of past floods in the history of the world, there is not evidence of simultaneous flooding. Events in geology can usually be dated.

In the case of people living in low areas why didn't people just walk away from the floods that you proposed?

I have seen quite a few estimates for when floods may have happened at the end of the last ice age. It is as if there is a lot of guesswork involved.
If people were on low lying land and floods came rapidly then there would be no chance of walking away.
If people did have a chance of walking up a hill then the floods could have been enough to cover most hills that people may have used.
I see many sites that claim a or many catastrophic floods could have happened at a similar time.
Combine this with an earth quake or 2 to produce tsunamis and there we have it.
I don't even rule out the possibility that some of the vast stores of water in the earth's mantle could have poured out to help things along.
Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen quite a few estimates for when floods may have happened at the end of the last ice age. It is as if there is a lot of guesswork involved.
If people were on low lying land and floods came rapidly then there would be no chance of walking away.
If people did have a chance of walking up a hill then the floods could have been enough to cover most hills that people may have used.

*
What floods are you talking about? There were local floods that can be dated by various means. Guesswork as you call it is not allowed in the sciences. Please bring up specific examples. I studied a series of floods in New York state one summer and they could be shown to be sequential. It might take me a while to look them up if you want to read about them. They were due to the retreating glacier and as it retreated further the water levels involved were continually lower and as a result a series of different floods resulted. But they were extremely local. And as I said, geology is only one science that disproves the flood. Cheetahs do to. Actually cheetahs demonstrate what happens when a population is reduced to Noah's Flood levels. You might want to look up the concept of a Population Bottleneck. The Flood myth predicts a universal extreme Population Bottleneck. For all land life We do not see that. No population bottleneck, no flood.

 

[Brian2]

*
What floods are you talking about? There were local floods that can be dated by various means. Guesswork as you call it is not allowed in the sciences. Please bring up specific examples. I studied a series of floods in New York state one summer and they could be shown to be sequential. It might take me a while to look them up if you want to read about them. They were due to the retreating glacier and as it retreated further the water levels involved were continually lower and as a result a series of different floods resulted. But they were extremely local. And as I said, geology is only one science that disproves the flood. Cheetahs do to. Actually cheetahs demonstrate what happens when a population is reduced to Noah's Flood levels. You might want to look up the concept of a Population Bottleneck. The Flood myth predicts a universal extreme Population Bottleneck. For all land life We do not see that. No population bottleneck, no flood.

I did add a bit to the other post 457, no doubt as you were replying to it.
I think that instead of one huge world wide flood there could have been many more localised floods caused by the same things that caused the Noah's flood in that area.
While the waters were going down over time I seem to remember the Bible saying that the water came and went, sort of like tidal coming and going, and this may look like a series of floods in geology even if it is part of the one flood.
I don't think that all the animals were killed. There would be enough for continued breeding without any bottlenecks.
With humans I have heard of a possible bottleneck about 70,000 years ago and about the mitochondrial Eve of 100-200,000 years ago. I do not rule out the possibility of the flood going back that sort of distance, but it seem most likely to have happened closer to now than that.
If there were many localised floods then I don't think there would be any bottleneck problem either for humans or animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did add a bit to the other post 457, no doubt as you were replying to it.
I think that instead of one huge world wide flood there could have been many more localised floods caused by the same things that caused the Noah's flood in that area.
While the waters were going down over time I seem to remember the Bible saying that the water came and went, sort of like tidal coming and going, and this may look like a series of floods in geology even if it is part of the one flood.
I don't think that all the animals were killed. There would be enough for continued breeding without any bottlenecks.
With humans I have heard of a possible bottleneck about 70,000 years ago and about the mitochondrial Eve of 100-200,000 years ago. I do not rule out the possibility of the flood going back that sort of distance, but it seem most likely to have happened closer to now than that.
If there were many localised floods then I don't think there would be any bottleneck problem either for humans or animals.

The problem is that none of those floods would be the Flood of Noah. No one is denying that floods have occurred. There was never a flood that made a boat necessary. People were never threatened with extinction in that matter.

And yes, there appears to have been a human bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. Do you know the extent of that bottleneck? The population got down to about 1,000 people. And that left a mark. Think of what a Noah's Ark type flood would do. Let me give you an example. You know how hard it is to transplant organs I assume. The body will reject foreign tissues. Cheetahs went through an almost Noah's Ark level of bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. They have no problem with transplants. There have been experiments where skin tissue was transplanted between two random cheetahs. The tissues were not rejected. Any two random cheetahs share more DNA than you do with your own brothers or sisters (assuming that you are not an identical twin).