twhitehead, do you realize New Zealand was first settled by its indigenous population around 1300 CE?
Do you also realize the Old Testament dates back to at least 1,000 BCE?
Over two thousand years (at least!) passed before people ever even saw New Zealand from when that story was written down.
Anyway, New Zealand hasn't been flooded, has it? The Persian Gulf seems to have an awfully lot of evidence that it was flooded many thousands of years ago. First piece of evidence - it's underwater. Second piece of evidence - it wasn't underwater thousands of years ago. These are well known facts.
When and where did writing and civilization begin? Thousands of years ago around the Persian Gulf.
HMMMMMMM.
Were there any foreign chariot people in the area? How about Sea People? Did Philistines live in the Gaza Strip? Was all this written down to fulfill prophecy? No. These things actually happened. We know this.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNevertheless, in this case, it is clear that everything mentioned has to do with supporting OT prophesy.
1. Wrong. People often write down details about events that are dramatic.
2. Your opinion of what intuitively seems unlikely is irrelevant and unsupported by the fact that the Gospel writers referenced earlier documents, some of which have been found.
I don't get your logic here. How does the fact that the gospel writers referenced earlier documents (something I acknowledge) change anything I said?
4. I agree the census story is probably false. Thus I take the Gospel that mentioned it with more skepticism than the other three.
But do you understand why it was mentioned? It was mentioned specifically to give a reason for Jesus being born in another town in order to fit with prophesy.
What you don't seem to understand is that Jesus was a nobody son of a carpenter who only started preaching at the age of 30 or so after meeting John the Baptist.
Yes you have. Tell me - what did the Gospels get right?
No, you quote me. You claim I have said something. Prove it. What I say now will have no bearing on what I have said earlier in the thread.
There was no civilization in New Zealand at that time. No writing.
At what time? And how would you know?
New Zealand is inconsistent with all of the specific details that are written in the book.
The specific details were written down long after Noah by someone who obviously thought the location was in Iran.
No, Eden is by definition located in a very specific place as described in detail. What "definition" are you getting this from?
Eden is an imaginary place told about in a story in the OT never intended to be taken literally. Those that do take it literally are superstitious. That the Bible also identifies Eden with a real place does not make it any less fictional. If we identified the rivers in "Lord of the Rings" with some real world rivers would that mean we now know where "Middle Earth" is? Would it make "Middle Earth" a real place?