Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Problem is that it's called a book. I don't think Revelation in context of it's timeframe even had books to begin with.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The myths of Genesis
- Thread starter Ted Evans
- Start date
Here's the chronology of the universe from 10e-43 of a second after it began. That's trillions of times less time than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer evert devised.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia
Prior to that its all guesswork and faith
That is true, however, I am perfectly willing to defend my "opinions" by answering every question that I am asked, IF, the one challenging them will agree to do the same.
Can you prove that assertion or, is it only your opinion?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct. Atheists preach and proselytize as much as any preacher. They say they aren't a religion because they believe in nothing, but that nothingness sure turns into something when they are pontificating about their faith. Most know very little about the Bible, Biblical archaeology, or history in relation to the Bible. They know virtually nothing about the prophecy you are speaking of, and for all their talk of "open minds" they refuse to look. I once took one of these ignorant through Daniels prophecy re the statue first proving beyond doubt it was before the event, and was exactly right in every detail. His response, "just a coincidence" When I offered to give him more, he broke off. That is the religion challenging Christianity.
In my opinion, it's the other way around. The skeptic has the open mind, and the believer has closed his mind to the possibility that the book has as many internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors ascribed to a god, and errors of science and history as it does.
The believer has already decided that such things cannot be there, and so, while looking through a faith based confirmation bias that filters the evidence admits only that which seems to support that which is believed by faith, his mind is closed to the possibility that he is in error however much evidence there is that he is.
Anyone experienced with an apologist trying to reconcile these defects is familiar with this process. Whatever parts he wants to go away are made to go away with claims of translation error, metaphor, cultural relativism, arbitrary and unsupported claims (biblical slavery was indentured servitude), "you took it out of context," "that no longer applies," etc.
That's closed-mindedness, not open-mindedness. Look at how you dismissed away most biblical ambiguity with a wave of the hand. Why would anybody want the Bible to be ambiguous? How could you know how much effort any unbeliever has expended trying to make sense of it.
Incidentally, open-mindedness doesn't include accepting what you read. It only requires an impartial consideration of what has been read and a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. There is no duty to believe uncritically.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Ah, PROVEN by evidence. Much evidence proves nothing.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Regarding this topic of making claims? Certainly. However questions outside the scope of this discussion would be pointless.
Already you have strayed outside the book of genesis to find a claim about the book of genesis.
But even so, you have not found a later claim that forces a claim in Genesis. Furthermore, you have not articulated a claim that would require a literal reading of the book of Genesis, which is what I anticipate you are trying to achieve.
This really gets old but of course, it is nothing more than excuses. Forget about "books" go to the the original copies of MSS and tell me what is in the "books" that are not in those MSS, can you do that?
Your opinion is noted and duly filed under "wow, just wow"
Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Sounds like you have been hurt by other atheists. It is unfortunate. Not all atheists claim to believe in nothing.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Who determines what the evidence PROVES, you or me ?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
NO, not at all. I was once a raging atheist, and I am sad to say I displayed all the arrogance and sense of superiority some show here. Your last sentence is intriguing. a / theist non theist. So, what do some atheists believe in ?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
A great man once said, " what is truth ? "
Curious George
Veteran Member
The concept that no god exists.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I already agreed given the question will be regarding the scope of our current conversation. If you are not interested, then I understand.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
There it is then, "no God exists", therefore you believer re theism, nothing.