I believe in hyperbole, but hyperbole is obvious. From the writing style and the information given, it is clear that it was meant to convey the account factually. If people want to disbelieve it, that's preferable to trying to manufacture some kind of middle ground and treat the Bible as a children's story where maybe they exaggerated details. Read the passage. The author (presumed to be Moses) gave measurements and days to treat the subject factually, not as an old wives' tale.
A lot of people assume that the Bible to be inaccurate just because they assume anything that old is mostly fables and has a lot of made up material. But if you do the research, you'll find that what can be verified is stunningly accurate.
I'm betting anything some user who thinks he is clever will post a link to any random website claiming to "debunk" the Bible. But if you talk to historians or really take a look at the historical details in the Bible, a lot of it can be verified when you examine broader history of the ancient world, like what is given about Egypt or Assyria. The details that can't be verified are mostly because of how time, conflicts, and natural disasters have decimated various areas in and around Israel, and political reasons also keep some archaeology from being done, but that's no different from investigating any other ancient culture.
For the flood, a lot of people ask the question, "where is the evidence?" And you have to answer the question with a question, "who is doing the research?" And the answer is pretty much no one. Science is informed by the base assumptions you make, and the current modern assumption is that a global flood isn't possible, end of story. If you start of asking the question, "what kind of effects would a global flood have on the planet, and what evidence would it leave behind?", then you start to generate some further interesting questions and potential answers that start to clash with other assumptions made about geology and stratigraphy. But it's much easier for people to scoff and just make assumptions rather than do any work. It's just easier to Google a rebuttal than to challenge the worldview that our society has cemented as unchallengeable in the past century.
I'm not going to respond any more to this thread because in the past I've spent way too much time in unproductive conversations. Why cast pearls before swine.(not meant to be offensive, just saying very few of you would appreciate the back and forth).
I believe in hyperbole, but hyperbole is obvious. From the writing style and the information given, it is clear that it was meant to convey the account factually. If people want to disbelieve it, that's preferable to trying to manufacture some kind of middle ground and treat the Bible as a children's story where maybe they exaggerated details. Read the passage. The author (presumed to be Moses) gave measurements and days to treat the subject factually, not as an old wives' tale.
A lot of people assume that the Bible to be inaccurate just because they assume anything that old is mostly fables and has a lot of made up material. But if you do the research, you'll find that what can be verified is stunningly accurate.
I'm betting anything some user who thinks he is clever will post a link to any random website claiming to "debunk" the Bible. But if you talk to historians or really take a look at the historical details in the Bible, a lot of it can be verified when you examine broader history of the ancient world, like what is given about Egypt or Assyria. The details that can't be verified are mostly because of how time, conflicts, and natural disasters have decimated various areas in and around Israel, and political reasons also keep some archaeology from being done, but that's no different from investigating any other ancient culture.
For the flood, a lot of people ask the question, "where is the evidence?" And you have to answer the question with a question, "who is doing the research?" And the answer is pretty much no one. Science is informed by the base assumptions you make, and the current modern assumption is that a global flood isn't possible, end of story. If you start of asking the question, "what kind of effects would a global flood have on the planet, and what evidence would it leave behind?", then you start to generate some further interesting questions and potential answers that start to clash with other assumptions made about geology and stratigraphy. But it's much easier for people to scoff and just make assumptions rather than do any work. It's just easier to Google a rebuttal than to challenge the worldview that our society has cemented as unchallengeable in the past century.
I'm not going to respond any more to this thread because in the past I've spent way too much time in unproductive conversations. Why cast pearls before swine.
Ignorance is bliss
Jesus will forgive them all and everything will be hunky dory. LaLa land is a great place to be.
Facebook
Twitter