Also some “reasonable doubt” exists because this entire story about Jesus does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts we have. If you look at a bible, you will see this fact marked by a footnote. Apparently, the story first appeared in the 3rd-4th centuries so even most evangelical scholars these days think it was inserted later by a scribe as an “interpolation”. Perhaps it was based on an oral tradition about Jesus that was circulating.
3 Likes
Unculturable bacteria are still the product of reproduction. In fact, they are at the end of a 3.5 billion year long line of reproduction (as is all life on Earth).
We need to keep in mind that human language is always going to fall short of accurately describing reality. In the end, when scientists talk about life they are talking about something with a definitive inside and outside, and activity that strives to keep the inside different than the outside (i.e. homeostasis, metabolism). We are also looking for something that grows and reproduces. If something is the product of reproduction but dies before reproducing itself, it is still life because it is still the product of reproduction.
2 Likes
All I am saying is that those are claims, not evidence.
its turtles all the way down :-). If God has and can give eternal life, how can he be the product of reproduction?
Fallacy of equivocation: “living” as applied to material creation is not the same as applied to God. The second is analogical.
One may as well argue that God must be material as He created the state of being material.
No, but that is not justification for following the tradition of man that you adopt.
For all we know He was writing out Exodus 20:16 or Leviticus 20:10, or maybe I Kings 8:46, or even Ecclesiastes 7:20.
Maybe he was writing the Hebrew alphabet to see how far He could get before they wised up.
There are no such cross-references – there is only Jesus drawing in the dirt, the one time.
The comparison fails: no one went through and added all the references that show two Yahweh’s in the OT, or that call the Father “God”, call the Son “God”, or call the Holy Spirit “God”.
BTW, there is no “vast majority of Christianity” that believes the Trinity – Christians believe the Trinity, period.
Some suggestions I can remember from ancient readings, as to what Jesus wrote:
- the names of prostitutes members of the crowd had visited
- one or more Torah verses
- one or more other OT verses (an interesting suggestion is from Genesis 3:19)
- a spiral
There is a variety of proposals because we don’t know. Some have pointed out that most of the observers wouldn’t have been able to see what He was writing anyway, merely that He was drawing something, and guilty consciences would have jumped to something convicting.
Oh for my old class notes!
One professor said the story, once it appeared, wasn’t always even attached to John’s Gospel. He held to the oral tradition position.
2 Likes
To be kept in mind also in terms of theology!
Just noting that what Adam claims about Peter is also just a claim – the evidence is not what he says it is.
1 Like
I was under the impression that we were talking about natural life, biological life. I think we are all in agreement that these don’t apply to the supernatural.
i talked about life which to me is the control of the physical by the metaphysical
Hey, @adamjedgar!
You said you could prove that any honest person must answer yes to this:
- Was Christ an eyewitness to creation (the answer is in the 1 john 1)
My answer is “No”.
Are you going to prove I must answer yes or be dishonest, or are you going to scuttle off and hide because your bluff has been called and you don’t want to admit you can’t back up your bluster?
1 Like
I think scientists would find that definition difficult to apply if they are looking for life on a different planet or moon (e.g. Mars, Europa).
?
So if humans ever succeed in creating life in a lab, that would imply that they are not alive themselves?
I’m not following the logic here.
2 Likes
Yeah, this is a case where terms need defining, a bunch of which the discussion tries to do. “Life” and “create” would seem to be the most critical.
Just as an illustration, in 1st-century Judea/Palestine, these all counted as living:
- people
- domestic animals
- fish
- angels
- rivers
and yet each was regarded as having its own kind of life. Some scholars have suggested that “being alive” as applied to rivers and angles (and God) is used by analogy, but I think that fails to take the ancient thinking seriously, so when we say that God is alive we are not talking about the same kind of life as when we say a pet dog is alive – trying to make those the same seems a category error.
2 Likes
For the Christian, our only evidence is the bible!
Bulldust…
I cite more than enough bible texts that directly make identical historical claims…it is impossible for anyone who can read to take the view that the texts do not agree with the flood account in Genesis or that its simply a mythical fairytale of morality.
The really problematic reference is the one recording Christ statement about the flood…
In Matthew 24, Christ is making a prophetic physical statement about a future reality (The literal Second Coming)…he cannot be telling us the Second Coming is a real physical event whilst at the same time using a mythical faiytale of morality as supporting evidence. That is not how the use of evidence to support a future prophecy of that kind works and we have plenty of biblical evidences of prophecy that mirror this claim…(ie one famous example… the dreams of king Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was given direct examples of cause and effect…bad choices and consequences for those bad choices if he ignored the advice God gave him via those dreams and went ahead anyway ).
I can also go one better…look up the cross references in your bible concordances…they all reference those exact same texts about the flood account (2 peter 2:3, matthew 24), genesis 6)…so the fact is, these are not my views…they are the scholarly references via a huge number of biblocal scholars around the world who help write and maintain those concordances.
So 100%, you are just flat out plain wrong there…you may as well be calling white black thats how absurd your claim is.
The ONLY way you can continue to believe whst you do there is to dig a hole in the sand and bury your head it in so you cannot see the above cross references.
In my experience, there are plenty of Christians who understand the difference between claims (i.e. the Bible) and evidence. Their faith is strong enough that they don’t have to mischaracterize claims as evidence.
1 Like
How many times must someone tell you that referencing is not proof of reality!
When I quote Star Trek which i do, often, I am not claiming any reality.
Richard
1 Like
See, that’s your claim, that they were speaking/writing historically. The text does not say that, you’re bringing it to the text.
It’s not problematic at all unless you demand Jesus fits a MSWV.
He isn’t saying, “Just as the Flood was global”, He’s saying, “Just as the people back then were surprised (though they were warned)”.
This is something important about reading literature, the Bible or otherwise: you have to be able to discern the point of comparison!
They do not reference them in the way you demand.
I see the cross references, I read them in the original, and they don’t say what you demand that they do.
Learn to read literature. Learn how language works!
The irony is that YEC’s first “evidence” is not the foundation of their thinking, it is a set of a priori assumptions that they refuse to recognize.