Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Big Bang theory does not state that "something came from nothing." (From the quote above, it doesn't appear that Davies is referring exclusively to the Big Bang theory.)
The Big Bang theory shows that expansion began from a singularity. The Big Bang theory does not show from where or how this singularity came into existence.
The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. Out of the Big Bang, time began. God is outside the realm of time (as noted in The Bible). This is why, I believe, that the origin of the universe had a cause and is vastly more plausible than an all eternal past before the Big Bang. The story of Genesis also puts this right in line with the Big Bang.
Note: One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity have come and gone.
What kind of proof are you looking for? Ask and I'll try and answer. Btw, i was thinking the other day about the question some people ask in terms of why isn't there MORE evidence and writings from the people who witnessed Jesus, etc. Frankly, have you checked out the material that has come from that century? There's not much of ANYTHING! We fail to rememebr that the Bible is a collection of writings, documents, and oral excerpts all gathered together--it's not just one book that came from one source. This vastly outnumbers anything else written then about anything else. I guess, to some, that's not enough evidence.
But seriously, ask me what kind of evidence you are looking for and I'll try and respond. To me, I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of historical evidence there is.
Well I guess start with this vast amount of historical evidence you're talking about.
Okay, but first lets clarify what it is you want evidence for. The resurrection of Jesus or the reliability of the New Testament? I think you already know the historical validity of the New Testament has already been confirmed by 80% of New Testament scholars (some non-Christian). I think the real question is the reliability of the events that happened within the books, right? The cornerstone message is the resurrection of Jesus. I can talk about the historical reliabity of that.
I'll do this later this evening if I have time. I should be getting some work done here.
I think many people who are not necessarily Christian believe that Jesus existed in some form. I imagine he did, in some form. He probably was a nutter, similar to any other raving lunatic who stands on street corners and gives out doomsday messages. The Roman Empire probably crucified him because he was stirring up anti-Roman Empire sentiment (the socialist! ).
What I can't believe is that he walked on water, or turned water into wine, or rose from the dead. There is absolutely no proof of any of that.
You're going to have to clarify what you mean by the historical validity has been confirmed.
Placed in context with historical timelines as well as archeological proof is an argument that the Bible is true, not to mention the fact that the Bible is 99% accurate when matched with the original Greek text that was written by witnesses of Jesus from within 2-5 years after his death. I think I read that only about 1,400 words out of 340,000 were found not to be original. Fortunately, nothing important was changed...most of them were petty things like the colors of a leaf, etc. My point: This evidence refutes the argument that the Bible was altered. In terms of Jesus/Bible becoming "legend", contemporary scholars say that not enough time has elapsed between the composing of the Bible to lend any credence to the story possibly becoming legendary.
The bible is already well grounded in historical evidence. In terms of the validity of Jesus Christ as someone whom he says he is, I'll argue this soon. I want to be sure that we first understand that there's no possible way that the story of the resurrection could have been altered in the text.
Placing a story within the context of historical events doesn't show proof of anything. Writers have been doing that for centuries before and after the alleged time of Jesus. You have no proof exactly when the books of the new testament were written, who wrote them and how the earliest known copies may have been changed from their original forms. Then there's the evidence that gospels Matthew and Luke were both based on an earlier, yet to be found gospel (referred to as "Q"). Then there are the discoveries at Nag Hammadi.
Despite all of this, we're still talking about a collection of books written about a guy we don't have proof of existing and about a god who's proof of existing is another group of books written by Jews long, long ago with some stories based on stories from neighboring cultures which are riddled with contradictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
