It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bible say it use to not rain??? Please help

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
There has not been any external evidance to contradict the bible.


There has been external evidence to contradict the bible.

We can just continue to argue and argue, but if no points are made to back up such statements they are pretty much meaningless.


You forget that the bible is largely a historical text.


To forget something, means that you have learnt and accepted it at a prior time. I have done no such thing concerning the bible being literal.


There is details that are covered like the age of the patriarchs and the geneology that makes no sense if it was purely symbolic. Are ytou saying all the Jewish laws covered in Numbers and Duteronomy are just there for show, and guidlines? and have no meaning beyond that?


There are different books in the bible. Can it be possible that some of them were written symbolically while some of them were indeed literal historical accounts?

Do you believe all parts of Revelations to be literal?


you cannot pick and choose which parts you want to follow in the bible and then say whatever you don't want to follow is a parable.


Actually I can, and I have done so
.




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
can you please provide examples of external evidance that contradicts the bible? please also provide sources of information and corrisponding evidance. also in order to leave out mis-interpitations of poor translations I suggest you use the NIV translation. The burden of proof lies with you. It is meaningless becasue you don't bother to provide any evidance.

Archeologests discovered Jericho and one of the interesting facts is the walls fell outwards while the city itself was suddenly deserted. not to metion a small section where a couple of Isrealites escaped, jsut as it was recorded int he bible. Thus a place where contradiction could occur, but instead fully supports the bibilical account of the fall of jericho


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by Amethyst
Yes, the creation account is a literal account, not symbolic, not mythical.


How do you know this?

I've always thought about it symbolically...



you cannot pick and choose which parts you want to follow in the bible and then say whatever you don't want to follow is a parable.


Actually I can, and I have done so
.


you sir, have just contradicted yourself. And have ignored previous statments I have made. If you deny parts of the bible that are suppose to be litteral and factual (which i have given reasons based on Herbew definitions of words), and instead think of them as a parable or symbolic, or even a metaphor. You are stating that you do not belive the bible is a complete whole. To me anyone who denys the bible is a complete whole is lacking in faith, and thus is not a true christian or beliver of the bible.

You can pick apart my statmes and pull them out of context, but i see no further point in this discussion when you seem to only read the parts of my post you feel you can attack, while ignoring the rest



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
can you please provide examples of external evidance that contradicts the bible?


YOU are the one that needs to provide external evidence in order to back up the historical accuracy of the bible.

I'm not saying the bible is historically flawed, and as such I have no ambition to subjectively interpret the wide array of works in the subject. All I'm saying is that I consider some parts of the bible to be symbolical.


Archeologests discovered Jericho and one of the interesting facts is the walls fell outwards while the city itself was suddenly deserted. not to metion a small section where a couple of Isrealites escaped, jsut as it was recorded int he bible.


I have no way of confirming your story, so there's no point on me commenting on it.



Thus a place where contradiction could occur, but instead fully supports the bibilical account of the fall of jericho


If the finds were indeed as you described, and the bible agrees with them, all is good. I'm not saying that the bible is historically flawed....


you sir, have just contradicted yourself.


I see no contradiction. You quoted my belief of the Genesis creation story being symbolic, and my belief that some books in the bible are historical while others are symbolic. There is NO contradiction here. The book of Genesis is one of the books I hold to be purely symbolic.


And have ignored previous statments I have made.


Please either U2U me, retype, or somehow lead me to the points I have missed, so that I may answer them. If I have missed any of your points it was either because I agreed with them, they were irrelevent to the discussion, or it wasn't necessary to quote the entire paragraph of point in order to make my point. Some MODS can get angry if you quote irrelevent parts of posts.


If you deny parts of the bible that are suppose to be litteral and factual (which i have given reasons based on Herbew definitions of words),


Even if you define every word in the bible for me, the point remains that it is not the meaning of words that I'm basing my symbolical judgement on. It is based on intuition, my common sense, and scientifical theories.


You are stating that you do not belive the bible is a complete whole.


No I am not, nor do I intend to do so in the future. Please do not say that I have stated things, which I have not. What I did state though, was that I do not believe every book in the bible to be a literal account of chronological events. Just because I believe certain books to be symbolic does not mean I don't believe in them...



To me anyone who denys the bible is a complete whole is lacking in faith, and thus is not a true christian or beliver of the bible.


I never said I was a true Christian.

Whether or not you believe that I don't believe in the bible does not add anything to your argument...



You can pick apart my statmes and pull them out of context, but i see no further point in this discussion when you seem to only read the parts of my post you feel you can attack, while ignoring the rest


Feel free to do the same with my posts. Do you wish me to quote your entire post at once, and then discuss it? Do you wish for me to just write 3 paragraphs about my point, while ignoring your individual ones?

The only way I can reply to your points, is if I quote them, and then reply to them.

[edit on 25/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join