Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(26-02-2015 11:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe every word of the Bible is literal and true where it plainly speaks literally, not poetically. Hebrew scholars have said that "son of" can also indicate "notable descendant" as in "a true son of Scotland wouldn't drink" Wink or "Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David!

Gotcha.

So how do you know that events like the resurrection are literal and not just a poetic representation about God's love for us? Perhaps Jesus' walk on earth wasn't meant to be taken literally. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
26-02-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(26-02-2015 11:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe every word of the Bible is literal and true where it plainly speaks literally, not poetically. Hebrew scholars have said that "son of" can also indicate "notable descendant" as in "a true son of Scotland wouldn't drink" Wink or "Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David! (But no--TTA members can't sit tight without telling me the Bishop of Usher said Creation was 5:15 and 30 seconds AM 6000 and 3.14159265358 years ago, so the Bishop understands the Bible--not that TTA members agree with the Bishop about ANYTHING else the Bishop says about the Bible.)

In other words, repeating, there is no date for Creation or the Noahic Flood in the Bible. None. Zero. Zilch. But there IS scientific evidence that titanic (pun not intended) and continent-spanning bodies of water affected the geography of the Earth. Repeating also, the ice--melted--leaving continent-sized glaciation earth movement as these glaciers "calved".

Would you like to all do another two pages of "Oh, man, I don't get it, Q is crazy," or really, really talk about evidence for a Flood? (Don't bother--I wouldn't dream of asking you to read an entire book on the subject.)

An ice age is not a flood. Try again.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
Quote:Are you saying it's not possible to believe both in Evolution and that God singled out two persons to work the beginnings of sin and redemption?

People "believe" all sorts of stupid shit. Doesn't make it real.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(26-02-2015 12:17 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 11:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe every word of the Bible is literal and true where it plainly speaks literally, not poetically. Hebrew scholars have said that "son of" can also indicate "notable descendant" as in "a true son of Scotland wouldn't drink" Wink or "Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David!

Gotcha.

So how do you know that events like the resurrection are literal and not just a poetic representation about God's love for us? Perhaps Jesus' walk on earth wasn't meant to be taken literally. Consider

1. Because in both cases, I'm being literal with the text. Jesus really was 27 generations beneath David and called a Son of David. Do you disagree?

2. There are dozens of scriptural passages emphasizing the bodily, not spiritual or philosophical, resurrection of Christ. Do you disagree? (I know Bucky might, but that's his problem.)

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
Quote:Jesus really was 27 generations beneath David and called a Son of David.

Now all you need is evidence that 'david' was any more real than the rest of your bullshit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(27-02-2015 11:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Because in both cases, I'm being literal with the text. Jesus really was 27 generations beneath David and called a Son of David. Do you disagree?

You earlier muddied the waters with mentions of "notable descendant":

(26-02-2015 11:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe every word of the Bible is literal and true where it plainly speaks literally, not poetically. Hebrew scholars have said that "son of" can also indicate "notable descendant" as in "a true son of Scotland wouldn't drink" Wink or "Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David!

I'm not disagreeing that the Bible doesn't list 27 generations between the two; I'm asking you if you think the lineages(pick one) listed in the Bible are accurate or if you think there are any "missing generations" in that list. Is the list from Adam to Joseph complete, or are there generations missing in there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
27-02-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
Quote:Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David!

Of course, your precious gospels disagree on that. Lukey has over 40.


Just another of the minor little fuckups that don't bother you, eh?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
02-03-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(27-02-2015 11:41 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Because in both cases, I'm being literal with the text. Jesus really was 27 generations beneath David and called a Son of David. Do you disagree?

You earlier muddied the waters with mentions of "notable descendant":

(26-02-2015 11:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe every word of the Bible is literal and true where it plainly speaks literally, not poetically. Hebrew scholars have said that "son of" can also indicate "notable descendant" as in "a true son of Scotland wouldn't drink" Wink or "Jesus, Son of David" since there are 27 generations between Jesus and David!

I'm not disagreeing that the Bible doesn't list 27 generations between the two; I'm asking you if you think the lineages(pick one) listed in the Bible are accurate or if you think there are any "missing generations" in that list. Is the list from Adam to Joseph complete, or are there generations missing in there?

How would I know, since "son of" means both literal "son of" and also "notable descendant of"? You are asking a loaded question based on the fact that I'm explaining why dating the Flood and Creation is fruitless. What you're asking isn't in the Hebrew.

Other than this, we can see that the patriarchs' diminishing lifespans follows an interesting curve pattern. I've heard one scientist question whether toxic metals in trace amounts (oxidants) were released into the troposphere following the Flood, and thus reduced our lifespans to their current duration.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(23-02-2015 02:07 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:For me the only certainty is that religion came into existence by humans to control wide swaths of population as a device.

There are animistic religions today and they generally serve small, isolated populations. I suspect the earliest spiritual thinking involved inventing answers for their own environment and issues of life/death. You don't have to control a wide swath of population if you have a clan of 30-40 people living in a small valley.

Generally, the growth of serious religion begins with the agrarian revolution which led to an increase in population and an end to the wanderings of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Agriculture led to food surplus which allowed specialization. Worse, agriculture required that the people who grew the food had to be protected while they were doing so and the attachment to the land meant that a warrior class was needed. Further, farmers are dependent on weather conditions which led to a whole new class of gods to bring rain or sun as needed and con men who acted as if they could influence those elements by dealing with the 'gods.' We have the same shit today and call them popes or mullahs or pastors or whatever but they are still the same fucking con artists they always have been.

That may be correct for all I know. I wonder though... at some point why did we stop accepting careless deaths as nothing to pause for? Because we evolved into the question? That seems harder to convince versus the elite and privileged establishing a device that would successfully mythic-ally control behaviors with fear out of good 'ole fashioned greed of course.

I agree it's the same shit today no matter how it gets sliced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: Chauvet Cave - 40,000 yrs BC
(02-03-2015 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:41 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You earlier muddied the waters with mentions of "notable descendant":


I'm not disagreeing that the Bible doesn't list 27 generations between the two; I'm asking you if you think the lineages(pick one) listed in the Bible are accurate or if you think there are any "missing generations" in that list. Is the list from Adam to Joseph complete, or are there generations missing in there?

How would I know, since "son of" means both literal "son of" and also "notable descendant of"? You are asking a loaded question based on the fact that I'm explaining why dating the Flood and Creation is fruitless. What you're asking isn't in the Hebrew.

Other than this, we can see that the patriarchs' diminishing lifespans follows an interesting curve pattern. I've heard one scientist question whether toxic metals in trace amounts (oxidants) were released into the troposphere following the Flood, and thus reduced our lifespans to their current duration.

The patriarchs ain't got nothin' on the Babylonians, who, according to their myths, lived for thousands of years. Of course, there's no scientific evidence that humans have ever had longer lifespans than they do now -- quite the opposite, in fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: