I saw a very interesting debate on the page recently and wanted to discuss it.
Do Science and Christianity contradict each other?
I don't think they do, but I am open to discussion.
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
Christianity requires faith not evidence. Science requires evidence not faith.
It is only a matter of interpretation and it is especially harmful the deliberately anti-science interpretations. Like "literally believing" God made from the core to the biosphere in 6 days, because all evidence would be circular reasoning, as it would have come from nowhere except historical scrolls and organized transcripts from them.
Christianity requires faith not evidenceScience requires evidence not faith
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000.
Don't you think it's pathetic to recur to science just so Christianity has a little bit of credibility
Meaning that this is not literal, but simply a Metaphor.A metaphor that shows that time for God is different than time for us.
And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
but a thousand years is an equation, not a metaphor.
. The metaphor says it's like a thousand years. It does not say "a day for god is like 223 million years."
Christianity has a lot of credibility.For one, the bible was written over a span of 2000 years, but has over 63,000 cross references.Secondly, all reliable biblical scholars and even some atheist ones agree without a shadow of a doubt on Jesus's existence.And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
See:Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate HeresyIn the space of this hard-hitting monograph and supplemental interview, dissident scholar Kenneth Humphreys interrogates the biblical and historical evidence to offer this concise and pithy exposition of a “fringe” idea whose time has come. Not content to merely poke holes in tall tales from antiquity, Humphreys presents a surprisingly straightforward case that Jesus, thought by millions of naïve believers to have been God incarnate, or at least the Son of God, was not even a man.Until now, most scholars of religion have, at least publicly, been content to repeat the safe and conciliatory assurance that a Jesus “probably” existed. But we may well be approaching a tipping point when those same scholars, confronted with powerful evidence and an inquisitive public, will summon the courage to aver that Jesus “probably” never existed after all.Having devoted much of his life to the careful study of ancient history, Humphreys harbors no doubt: Jesus, the non-existent son of a non-existent father, will soon be consigned to a place among his ancestors–Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses–in the realm of mythology, not history.