Prime Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 I've tried to go with evolution theory, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot give up my belief in a Creator. But does one really exclude the other? Could there not be a Creator who set the mechanisms of the world (of which evolution is a part) in motion. Originally posted by rccar328 Evolution is certainly a viable theory, but it's false. Convincing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 But does one really exclude the other? Could there not be a Creator who set the mechanisms of the world (of which evolution is a part) in motion. Not according to the Bible. This debate really made me call into question what I believe, and the validity of those beliefs. The site that I posted earlier really opened up my eyes to how the Earth can fit into the Creationist model, and believe me, I'm going to spend some time this summer researching this. Convincing Once again, read the website - I agree with what it says, and that's why I believe evolution theory is false. Skin- I don't know if you were speedreading or what, but one of (if not the) main arguments on the site is that the world is not millions (or billions) of years old, as evolution theory suggests. Also, Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes I don't know if this was a case of incorrect punctuation on your part, but I checked, and it definitely is not part of the quote on the web site. In any case, according to the rest of the quote, if it had been DNA (or heme), it woule not have survived 65 million years - and on top of that, the bones were not fossilized. Basically what I'm getting down to here, people, is that we're just gonna have to agree to disagree - I'm not turning away from Biblical Truth, and you obviously aren't turning away from scientific evidence. And as far as the actual topic of this thread goes, I stick to my original argument - this is all political correctness gone awry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Frankly, this debate has become quite pointless - How can I possible debate faith (which can't be proven) with people who refuse to understand a belief in something that cannot be proven with physical evidence. ...Peter Pan cannot bre proven.. ...Santa Claus cannot be proven... ...Middle Earth cannot be proven... ...you expect me to believe in all of the above because THEY CAN'T BE PROVEN?!!!! Try a bit harder than that my friend!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 ...you expect me to believe in all of the above because THEY CAN'T BE PROVEN?!!!! I don't expect you to believe anything. I offered my views, they were rejected because they require faith as opposed to physical evidence, and I hereby declare persuading anyone on this issue a hopeless cause (unless God grants me a miracle). And I'm sure that if I tried to argue the existence of Santa Clause, Peter Pan or Middle Earth, they would be rejected for the same reason. What's more, I haven't even brought any of these up at all, I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to persuade people to believe in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 I offered my views, they were rejected because they require faith as opposed to physical evidence does this mean that anybody can make up any 'reality' they like - as as long as the 'creators' say "to believe this, you require faith", that means that anything they say is true?!! ..if you want to live in a dream world for the rest of your life, your going the right way about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 And I'm sure that if I tried to argue the existence of Santa Clause, Peter Pan or Middle Earth, they would be rejected for the same reason. Do you not see the sense in what you just said?! Didn't you just equate belief in the things you mentioned with a 'fantasy'...?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Didn't you just equate belief in the things you mentioned with a 'fantasy'...?! No, I didn't. Santa Clause: A man who lived, but whose image was taken, popularized and commercialized beyond recognition. A man who is also very dead. Peter Pan: A fictional character who never existed, but was, in fact, made up. Middle Earth: Perhaps one of the best-described fictional worlds in all of literature, but once again, fictional. Made up. The Bible: Some areas cannot be proven, but others are backed up with historical facts corroborated by other sources: Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ in the religion forum Actually, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian recorded the existence of Jesus. (Antiquities, XVIII, III) Also, Cornelius Tacitus (in A.D. 1120) was a Roman historian who wrote about the reign of emperor Nero. He mentioned Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome. (Annals, XV, 44) Another reference to Jesus was in the book, Life of Claudius, written by another Roman historian, Seutonius. The difference between the Bible and other "mythology" is that there are many facts in our world that corroborate the Bible, as opposed to the fictional characters/worlds that you described. (Also, according to the Bible, Jesus spoke in front of about 500 people after he was ressurected from the dead, something Santa Clause has never done.) Unless you count that guy in the mall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Skin- I don't know if you were speedreading or what, but one of (if not the) main arguments on the site is that the world is not millions (or billions) of years old, as evolution theory suggests. Never mind the mathematics of atomic theory that readily demonstrate the age? Or the plate tectonics that produce magnetic banding, which spreads along with the seafloor at places like the mid-Atlantic Ridge? Or the astronomical data gathered which supports the ages of the Universe? Just disregard all the chemistry, physics, geology and mathematics... the same hard sciences and the same hypotheses that have produced our advanced technology and medicine? Originally posted by rccar328 I don't know if this was a case of incorrect punctuation on your part, but I checked, and it definitely is not part of the quote on the web site. It absolutely was not. You are correct. I looked at the source of the website's quote of Schweitzer. I left the source at the end of my post. Originally posted by rccar328 In any case, according to the rest of the quote, if it had been DNA (or heme), it woule not have survived 65 million years - and on top of that, the bones were not fossilized. And I ask you: "why not?" I'm not saying that it will or it will not, I'm just asking if you know the answer to what would cause the degradation of hemoglobin structures to the point that they would not be recognizable over 65+ millions of years. I don't know either (yet), but I agree that it's counter-intuitive. It gives me pause to ask questions, but I am reminded that Schweitzer, herself, pointed out that contamination was very possible during the excavation. Originally posted by rccar328 Basically what I'm getting down to here, people, is that we're just gonna have to agree to disagree - I'm not turning away from Biblical Truth, and you obviously aren't turning away from scientific evidence. Yeah, but I'm going to do my best to make sure that the fence-sitters and the lurkers who haven't yet made up their minds swing my direction. @Master_Keralys Here's the problem, Skin: you're failing to acknowledge that ID is a valid theory. Of course I am. See my earlier posts as to why. The best place to start is Darwin on Trial. He's not so much trying to prove ID as to show why many scientists are dissatisfied with the Darwinist theories dominating the scientific world. And thus, where the concepts behind ID have come from. Phillip Johnson, the author of Darwin on Trial, all but plagerized Michael Denton, who wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler, 1986). In fact, much of Johnson's work seems to be very beholding to Denton's, in spite of the fact that Johnson only lists Denton four times in his index. Not that I agree with Denton either In his Epilogue, Johnson says about Darwin on Trial, "[it] was to legitimate the assertation of a theistic world-view in the secular universities." He also claims that Darwinists are involved in a war against theism. Throughout his book, Johnson attacks Darwinism, and also rejects Creationism, but offers no theory of his own! At least his theory can't be criticized... it doesn't exist! Some of his attacks are unfair, too. He invokes Karl Popper on several occasions (somewhere around p. 65, I think) demonstrate how Darwinism is 'bad science.' But Popper actually rejects the idea that a theory can ultimately be proven (April 1974), "science is not a system of certain, or well-established, statements, [...]every scientific statemetn must remain tentative for ever." In fact, Johnson seems to overlook the fact that Darwin devoted an entire chapter (chap. 6) called Difficulties on Theory. Darwin was one of Darwin's most outspoken critics, which is a testament to his good science. Even Denton recognized this about Darwin, but I don't recall a chapter similar to this in Johnson's book! And there are, indeed, some difficulties with Darwin on Trial. Popper, Karl (April 1974). Logic of Scientific Discovery. Seventh Impression, p280. Hutchinson & Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 The Bible: Some areas cannot be proven, but others are backed up with historical facts corroborated by other sources: The difference between the Bible and other "mythology" is that there are many facts in our world that corroborate the Bible, No more than in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. The Mississippi River is real, so are the towns and the manner in which people were described to talk and dress. But it was fiction nonetheless. Most events in the bible remain unproven and unverifiable, in fact, Jesus Christ himself appears to have been largely a fictional character since there is no artifactual or epigraphical evidence to support his existence outside the gospels (which are all very similar in detail, as though the written accounts of a popular myth). (Also, according to the Bible, Jesus spoke in front of about 500 people after he was ressurected from the dead, something Santa Clause has never done.) Ahhhh... but none of those 500 people seem to have left any epigraphical evidence of what they saw. Could they have not been impressed enough to write about it? In addition, Santa Clause delievers toys to every child in the world in under 24 hours! THAT miracle beats walking on water hands-down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker In addition, Santa Clause delievers toys to every child in the world in under 24 hours! THAT miracle beats walking on water hands-down! He doesn't deliver to the Jewish kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Jesus Christ himself appears to have been largely a fictional character since there is no artifactual or epigraphical evidence to support his existence outside the gospels (which are all very similar in detail, as though the written accounts of a popular myth). Actually, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian recorded the existence of Jesus. (Antiquities, XVIII, III) Also, Cornelius Tacitus (in A.D. 1120) was a Roman historian who wrote about the reign of emperor Nero. He mentioned Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome. (Annals, XV, 44) Another reference to Jesus was in the book, Life of Claudius, written by another Roman historian, Seutonius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 16, 2004 Author Share Posted February 16, 2004 Personally, I think it's likely that a man existed who was called Jesus... but I think that, given the human propensity to believe and embellish, it's extremely unlikely he did more than challenge authority. In book 20 of Josephus' Antiquities, he refers to Jesus as the "so-called" or "alleged" christ when he describes the events leading up to James' death. In fact, it's interesting that Josephus' account of James' death differs from that of Hegesippus, who said James was thrown from the roof of a temple not stoned as Josephus records. But the general consensus, from my studies, is that Antiquities is an interpolation at best, fraudulent at worst. As far as Tacitus goes, there really isn't any mention of "Jesus of Nazarath. Tacitus' works were written in the 2nd century, he does NOT name Jesus correctly, he titles Pilate wrongly, and he gives no sources. Suetonius wrote in early 2nd century and refers to a "Chrestus" (which is a valid Greek name meaning "good", and also a title for an initiate/hierophant of the mysteries) causing disturbance in Rome in the 60s - this can hardly be Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 the BBC did a documentary "walking with dinosaurs" style search for the "real jesus" a year or so ago. I thought it was fairly simplified science, but i assume it was based on reasonable reseach. Anyway, they came to the conclusion that most of the historical evidence indicated jesus as a kind of freedom fighter against the current repressive regime. rccar328: I'm starting to be confused by your argument. You are willing to concede that there have been errors in translation in the bible (so six days might mean 2 billion years). You obviously agree with most moderate christians then that the bible isn't the word of god, but rather the recollections and teachings of events as written by men. It is therefore subject to both mistranslations, misunderstandings and author's cultural background influencing it at it's original writing and at each subsequent translation. If you are willing to accept this then surely you must accept at least the possibility that not all the stories in it are "fact". Might some be parables or metaphors made to try to explain god to a fairly primitive culture???? In which case, surely we are back to evolution, possibly with god setting it all in motion, as the only currently supportable theory. Which is in no way inconsistent with the bible or your faith in god. It is only if you believe that the bible is the direct, unaltered word of god that you should have a problem with evolution. And if you believe that then you run into problems almost immediately with not only the 6 day creation bit, but several inconsistencies, with different christian groups translating it in different ways and with even Jesus overturning some of the stuff from the old testament. The existance of god is pretty much unprovable, unless he decides to show himself, (even then, it might be some form of higher intelligence that only appeared to be a god to our eyes) and so a matter of faith and not really debatable. Evolution as a theory is supportable. Creationsim isn't. This has nothing to do with faith or god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 You are willing to concede that there have been errors in translation in the bible (so six days might mean 2 billion years). I was willing to concede that, but after some research, I have changed my views. The language in Genesis is quite clear - the word used for "day" means one solar cycle, or a 24-hour period. According to the Bible, the Earth was created in 6 days, or 144 hours (approxamately). You obviously agree with most moderate christians then that the bible isn't the word of god, but rather the recollections and teachings of events as written by men. It is therefore subject to both mistranslations, misunderstandings and author's cultural background influencing it at it's original writing and at each subsequent translation. I believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, meaning it was written by men, but they were given the words through the Holy Spirit, which is a part of God. I do believe that the Bible is subject ot mistranslations, though, and we sometimes must go back to the original language to see what the Bible is really saying as opposed to how it was translated. If you are willing to accept this then surely you must accept at least the possibility that not all the stories in it are "fact". Might some be parables or metaphors made to try to explain god to a fairly primitive culture? There are some parables in the Bible, but those were stories told by Jesus to the people in an effort to help them understand what he was trying to convey. I believe that the Bible is true in its entirety. The stories in the Old Testament are not parables, they are historical. It is only if you believe that the bible is the direct, unaltered word of god that you should have a problem with evolution. And if you believe that then you run into problems almost immediately with not only the 6 day creation bit, but several inconsistencies, with different christian groups translating it in different ways and with even Jesus overturning some of the stuff from the old testament. I don't quite know which "stuff" you are reffering to here - Jesus's goal here on Earth was to give the gift of salvation to all people. At the time of Jesus's ministry, the Jews were living according to Mosaic law, as laid out in Exodus and Leviticus (and, I think, Deuteronomy). These laws were very extreme, requiring long, tedious ritualistic sacrifices in order to atone for any committed sins. One of Jesus's main messages was that while they still needed to keep the Ten Commandments, His death was to be the ultimate sacrifice, atoning for all of the sins of mankind. So yes, Jesus did "overturn" some of the "stuff" from the Old Testament, but what he was doing was telling the Jewish people that they were no longer bound by the strict rituals of Mosaic law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Several cultures account for dragons and sea creatures yet, I don't think you believe in those. Perhaps I am wrong but why Believe in christ but not dragons, as they too were accounted for many times in books, journals, and etchings? Also, the existence of christians back then has no value, look at these cults that commit suicide, they exist now is that valid evidence that their "god" is real or that their "saviour" is real? no. Existence of followers does not prove the existence of what they follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Once again, read the website - I agree with what it says, and that's why I believe evolution theory is false. Actually, I did read the entire website, and it hasn't said anything to alter my views. Surprised, aren't you There are many things that I have a problem with. The biggest one that goes beyond the website is the demand that the Bible must be taken literally word for word, and taken as 100% fact, and that it is used as a basis for scientific argument. Then everything else derived from there. Since there is not enough physical proof support this claim, to me you can't then support all the other claims derived from it. Science works from the opposite direction. It takes things that can be proven, and then derives theories from there. For carbon dating, something that is known to be perhaps 50 years old can be tested to ensure this age is verified. This can be repeated with countless objects to confirm that the theory is sound. Then at least the method has at stood up to observations. Then the articles makes statements like this: "Many people think of dinosaurs as large creatures that would never have fitted into the Ark. But the average size of a dinosaur (based on the skeletons found over the earth) is about the size of a sheep. Indeed, many dinosaurs were relatively small." Great. But the "average" doesn't mean a hill of beans, because the Ark doesn't just take the average size, it must also take the largest size (Apatosaurus and so on). Certainly there have been enough dinosaurs of large sizes that they would take up significant room in the Ark. And that is even before you get to the elephants, rhinos, hippos, and so on. Conservative estimates put the total number of species on Earth at between 1.5 and 3 million. Even if Noah only took 1 percent of less than that number, we are still talking thousands of animals. Times 2 for male and female. The Ark measured 135 meters (450 feet) long, 22.5 meters (75 feet) wide, 13.5 (45 feet) meters high. 75 feet is the length of some dinosaurs. The article then goes on to say that they would only take young adults, which are smaller. But in most species, sexually mature animals are not very much, if at all, smaller than full grown adults. But okay, fair enough. I found the kicker to be this: "Some might argue that the 600 or more named species of dinosaurs could not have fitted on the Ark. But Genesis 6:20 states that representative kinds of land animals boarded the Ark. The question then is, what is a `kind' (Hebrew min)? Biblical creationists have pointed out that there can be many `species' descended from a `kind.' For example, there are many types of cats in the world, [/b]but all cat `species' probably came from only a few `kinds' of cats originally.[/b] The cat varieties today have developed by natural and artificial selection acting on the original variation in the information (genes) of the original cats. This has produced different combinations and subsets of information, and thus different types of cats. Even `speciation' could occur through these processes. Thus only a few feline pairs would have been needed on Noah's Ark." Let me get this straight. This article is saying that from the limited selection of species, other species appeared on Earth through "natural and artificial selection"? This sounds a lot like Evolution to me. So is the Bible happy with natural selection but not evolution? How does natural selection decide turned on and off so that you can get multiple types of cats from the two Noah had, but not from primates to humans or more drastic transitions in general? Why is natural selection necessary for the story of Noah's Ark to be literally feasible? And why is evolution so unacceptable when they may in essense be the same thing? Originally posted by rccar328 The difference between the Bible and other "mythology" is that there are many facts in our world that corroborate the Bible, as opposed to the fictional characters/worlds that you described. But there are facts to corroborate the origin ideas for most of Earth's religions. I mean, you could say that there is evidence to support Zeus and the Greek and Roman gods. Why are their ideas wrong and your's right? What facts and evidence do you have that they do not? Originally posted by rccar328 I believe that the Bible was divinely inspired, meaning it was written by men, but they were given the words through the Holy Spirit, which is a part of God. I do believe that the Bible is subject ot mistranslations, though, and we sometimes must go back to the original language to see what the Bible is really saying as opposed to how it was translated. But how can you be sure that the original isn't also an interpretation. Does mankind in fact own the original copy of the Bible? Is it not correct that even the original language versions are versions that have been passed down? Besides, there are discrepancies between the four gospels. If the Bible must to be taken completely literally, who is right and who is wrong? If these parts of the Bible have discrepancies, how can you eliminate the possiblity that other parts do as well? I'm not saying they have the message wrong, but taking each part literally leads to problems, as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 the bible may have been divinely inspired. but it was written down by men, and men are fallible. Jesus overturned a few things from the old testament, or at the very least changed the empasis... does that mean god changed his mind in a few hundred years.. or that the men who wrote down the details got it a bit wrong? It has to be one or the other. The new testament is actually a collection of seperate writings by different men over a number of years (and all about 30 years after the event), so it isn't like some religious scriptures that were written directly by the phrophet involved. As such, there is no way (whether i am a christian or not) that you can convince me that the bible should be taken word for word, or even that it was ever meant to be. (not even going into the problem of translations). It is the message that is important, but a lot of christians seem to get so caught up in the specific details that it seems to me that they are actually missing the bigger message. I don't know much about such things, but who actually COMPILED the bible? Who chose that specific collection of writings and letters and decided to put them together? When did it happen? Was this man (i assume it was a man) any sort of divinely selected prophet? This person potentially had more influence over the christian religion than jesus or anyone. It is a shame jesus didn't just write stuff down himself to clear up all this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 Originally posted by toms It is the message that is important, but a lot of christians seem to get so caught up in the specific details that it seems to me that they are actually missing the bigger message. This is because the inerrancy of the bible is an important point among fundamentalists and fundamentalist apologetics. There is a fallacy among many of them that if a portion of the bible can be generally accepted as myth, legend, or otherwise not solid fact, then other portions of the bible should be questioned. This part isn't necessarily the fallacy, but believing that a religious text or document cannot contain both truth and myth is. Originally posted by toms I don't know much about such things, but who actually COMPILED the bible? Initially, it was the catholic religious leadership if memory serves correct (I read of this not too long ago), and there was much controversy over what specifically would be included. There are many christian texts that have been deliberately left out of the bible and most probably have not survived from antiquity though some have. The book of Thomas was one such example. The catholic officials of the time that chose the texts were (according to mythology) "divinely" inspired and their choices were accepted as the "will of god" even though there was apparently some controversy among them about what should be included. Originally posted by toms This person potentially had more influence over the christian religion than jesus or anyone. And if this person (or persons) had any idea what effect they would have through time, I'm sure the bible would be even more screwed up. Originally posted by toms It is a shame jesus didn't just write stuff down himself to clear up all this mess. In a couple thousand years, someone might say the same thing about Clark Kent, the Lone Ranger, or any other fictional hero that fought for "truth, justice, and the American way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Originally posted by toms Who chose that specific collection of writings and letters and decided to put them together? I'm not sure, but IIRC there were many people who wrote about the life of Jesus, and the four were selected for the Bible. But I don't know by what criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by Prime Let me get this straight. This article is saying that from the limited selection of species, other species appeared on Earth through "natural and artificial selection"? This sounds a lot like Evolution to me. So is the Bible happy with natural selection but not evolution? How does natural selection decide turned on and off so that you can get multiple types of cats from the two Noah had, but not from primates to humans or more drastic transitions in general? Why is natural selection necessary for the story of Noah's Ark to be literally feasible? And why is evolution so unacceptable when they may in essense be the same thing? The actual natural selection (that I took as like breeding, from the article) is observed (and done!). But evolution is not directly observable. But how can you be sure that the original isn't also an interpretation. Does mankind in fact own the original copy of the Bible? Is it not correct that even the original language versions are versions that have been passed down? The manuscripts found closest to the time of the event is only about 100 years. Besides, there are discrepancies between the four gospels. If the Bible must to be taken completely literally, who is right and who is wrong? If these parts of the Bible have discrepancies, how can you eliminate the possiblity that other parts do as well? I'll explain further down.... I'm not saying they have the message wrong, but taking each part literally leads to problems, as far as I can tell. But not everything can be taken figuratively either. Originally posted by SkinWalker This is because the inerrancy of the bible is an important point among fundamentalists and fundamentalist apologetics. There is a fallacy among many of them that if a portion of the bible can be generally accepted as myth, legend, or otherwise not solid fact, then other portions of the bible should be questioned. This part isn't necessarily the fallacy, but believing that a religious text or document cannot contain both truth and myth is. But it's the fact that if there is one fallacy, then it can not be accepted as divinely inspired. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Now, for that website The Virgin Birth: John 1:45 does not deny the virgin birth. Joseph "officially" got married to Mary, but nothing happened. Miracles Performed By Jesus: John did not say that there were few, he said that a lot of miracles were done in John 21:25. Duration of the Ministry: John talked more about the ministry than the other authors. The last five on the list were explained in the page itself. Most of the others are just different viewpoints. That's the reason for four gospels instead of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ The manuscripts found closest to the time of the event is only about 100 years. 100 years after jesus or 100 years after the bible was created? A lost can change in people's memories, recollections and by word of mouth in 100 years. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ But not everything can be taken figuratively either. Nor should it, but i still feel it is possible to accept the message of jesus from the bible without taking every word as literal fact straight from the mouth of god. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ But it's the fact that if there is one fallacy, then it can not be accepted as divinely inspired. Who says? If it was divinely created directly by god or jesus then that would be the case. One fallacy would undermine their whole existance. But it wasn't, it was written by men and then edited by a group of religious scholars. At any of these points minor inconsistencies or misunderstandings could have been introduced. It would still be divinely inspired. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ Most of the others are just different viewpoints. That's the reason for four gospels instead of one. Er....?????!!!! Exactly. They are Viewpoints, not fact or the "direct word of god". That is the whole point. ----- As for the ark thing, the options seem to be that joseph got 2 of every animal that has ever lived onto a small boat, or he got a small selection on and the rest EVOLVED from that. Or maybe it was a localised flood that just appeared to cover the whole world in water to a primitive culture who's "whole world" was basically just a region covering a few countries. I can't remember, was he supposed to have whales, polar bears, koalas on the arc? Must have had a hell of a job finding koalas in the middle east. ------ Santa claus is actually an interesting one as it is one of many cases of the cristian church adapting existing beliefs and cultures into it's religion. Heck, christmas is on the date of an old pagan festival instead of whatever the "proper" date should be. Valentines day is another example. If the early church was this willing to incorporate existing festivals, events and cultural beliefs into it's own, then I don't think you can asume everything in the bible is "fact" and not influenced in some way by the beliefs and cultures around the writers and editors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 rereading the whole thread, there is one question coming to mind... what should we teach our children?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PerfectAgent_ Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Personally, I think it's likely that a man existed who was called Jesus... but I think that, given the human propensity to believe and embellish, it's extremely unlikely he did more than challenge authority. In book 20 of Josephus' Antiquities, he refers to Jesus as the "so-called" or "alleged" christ when he describes the events leading up to James' death. In fact, it's interesting that Josephus' account of James' death differs from that of Hegesippus, who said James was thrown from the roof of a temple not stoned as Josephus records. But the general consensus, from my studies, is that Antiquities is an interpolation at best, fraudulent at worst. As far as Tacitus goes, there really isn't any mention of "Jesus of Nazarath. Tacitus' works were written in the 2nd century, he does NOT name Jesus correctly, he titles Pilate wrongly, and he gives no sources. Suetonius wrote in early 2nd century and refers to a "Chrestus" (which is a valid Greek name meaning "good", and also a title for an initiate/hierophant of the mysteries) causing disturbance in Rome in the 60s - this can hardly be Jesus. Just because the authors made mistakes does not mean that they are completely wrong. I have a biology book that mistakenly names a fern gametophyte as a sporophyte, but still does not mean that the book also misnamed the spores and roots. Originally posted by toms 100 years after jesus or 100 years after the bible was created? A lost can change in people's memories, recollections and by word of mouth in 100 years. But many other documents with many fewer manuscripts and those manuscripts are dated much later than the 100 years of the manuscripts of the New Testament books and yet they are taken as fact. Originally posted by toms Who says? If it was divinely created directly by god or jesus then that would be the case. One fallacy would undermine their whole existance. But it wasn't, it was written by men and then edited by a group of religious scholars. At any of these points minor inconsistencies or misunderstandings could have been introduced. It would still be divinely inspired. I'm saying that it if the original documents had any mistakes, then it can not be divinely inspired. The copying of the documents were done by hand, with meticulous detail. If three mistakes were made, they had to throw away everything and start over again. Originally posted by toms Er....?????!!!! Exactly. They are Viewpoints, not fact or the "direct word of god". That is the whole point. I mean that the Gospel of Luke was in detail and focused mostly on the history, John was on Jesus and His saving of people, and so on. Originally posted by toms As for the ark thing, the options seem to be that joseph got 2 of every animal that has ever lived onto a small boat, or he got a small selection on and the rest EVOLVED from that. Or maybe it was a localised flood that just appeared to cover the whole world in water to a primitive culture who's "whole world" was basically just a region covering a few countries. Noah got the animals while they were young. Many animals are quite small, especially when they are young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ The actual natural selection (that I took as like breeding, from the article) is observed (and done!). But evolution is not directly observable. Breeding would the the aformentioned artifical selection. Natural selection is selection done by nature. Or otherwise known as evolution. And evolution can be directly observable, as has been pointed out earlier. It has been seen directly in creatures such as bacteria and fruit flies, both in the lab and in nature. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ The manuscripts found closest to the time of the event is only about 100 years. Plenty of time for things to gte misinterpreted... Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ But not everything can be taken figuratively either. Of course not. No one is claiming it should be. It is the claim that everything should be taken literally that is being challenged. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ But it's the fact that if there is one fallacy, then it can not be accepted as divinely inspired. I agree with toms. Divinely inspired is different from divinely created. Again, man wrote the Bible (in the physical sense), and man is fallible. That does not mean the message isn't from God. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ Now, for that website The Virgin Birth: John 1:45 does not deny the virgin birth. Joseph "officially" got married to Mary, but nothing happened. Miracles Performed By Jesus: John did not say that there were few, he said that a lot of miracles were done in John 21:25. Duration of the Ministry: John talked more about the ministry than the other authors. The last five on the list were explained in the page itself. Good, you've now neatened up all the consistencies in a neat little package Originally posted by toms Er....?????!!!! Exactly. They are Viewpoints, not fact or the "direct word of god". That is the whole point. Indeed it is the point. How can the different viewpoints all be taken as literal fact? If the Bible is to be taken as 100% literal, then how can there be viewpoints at all? In that case, there would only need to be one gospel, because that one would have all the facts and no viewpoints. Once you have four gospels with different viewpoints, you are now dealling with different interpretations. These interpretations are not facts, but viewpoints based on facts. Well, you get the idea. Originally posted by toms As for the ark thing, the options seem to be that joseph got 2 of every animal that has ever lived onto a small boat, or he got a small selection on and the rest EVOLVED from that. First, I'm pretty sure it was Noah who had the Ark, not Joseph This is the point that I don't understand. The website says that there needs to be natural selection for the story of Noah to be taken literally. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. So what is the problem with evolution? Originally posted by toms I can't remember, was he supposed to have whales, polar bears, koalas on the arc? Must have had a hell of a job finding koalas in the middle east. This is a good point. Surely Noah could not have had access to things like polar bears and penguins, siberian tigers and kangeroos, or other animals that did not inhabit his geographical area. So either all the animals came to him, or natural selection/evolution had to develop them after the fact. The problem with all the animals coming to him is that they could not all survive in that specific climate. Or did the Ark have refrigeration units? Polar bears and penguins could not survive near the equator, and so on. If natural selection is necessary, then why the argument against evolution? Another question is what about all the plants? Covering the world with water would be just as devastating to plants as was to animals (40 days underwater would kill most of them). So presumably most of the trees and flowers were destroyed as well as the animals. How did they recover? Did Noah take lots of seeds along with him? How did he have seeds for each and every plant in the world? If he did, how did he get them all? If he didn't, then once again natural selection is required to produce the variety we see today. It would seem in that case that these stories rely heavily on evolutionary processes. Another problem is the length of time. If the world is indeed 6000 or so years old, how do all the forests and vegetation get to the current state? If the flood must have wiped the world clean of land-living creatures (both trees and animals), then Noah must have started the process to revegetate the world. He obviously didn't replant all the forests himself. So then we have to rely on the natural reproduction of plants to do this. The problem is the length of time required. A tree gets a new ring every year. From this we know that there are trees that are over 1000 years old (is this disputed by creationists as well?). How does Noah go from seeds to having forests (tens of thousands of trees?) in the west of North America in so few generations? And how does it go from a evergreen to a palm tree in that time using natural selection? Even scientists don't claim that is possible. Do creationists claim that natural selection occurs much faster? They have to for the story to work literally. If I am wrong, what is the flaw in the above argument? Originally posted by RayJones rereading the whole thread, there is one question coming to mind... what should we teach our children?? In my opinion, if creationism must be taught in school, then there should be a new class created to discuss not only the Christian view of creation, but also the views of all the other major religions as well. Creationism should not be taught in a science class, because it does not rely on the Scientific Method to come to its conclusion. In other words, it should not appear in a science class because it is not based on science. If you want everything in one class, don't call it a science class. That's my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I wrote my last post while _PerfectAgent_ was posting his. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ I'm saying that it if the original documents had any mistakes, then it can not be divinely inspired. I disagree for the reasons stated previously. Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ I mean that the Gospel of Luke was in detail and focused mostly on the history, John was on Jesus and His saving of people, and so on. But do the parts where they talk about the same thing 100% identical? Originally posted by _PerfectAgent_ Noah got the animals while they were young. Many animals are quite small, especially when they are young. But some newborns are quite large, such as giraffes and elephants. And without natural selection, you are still having to house tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of animals on a 450 ft boat. But again, that isn't the only problem. If all Noah is taking is babies, how does he feed these things? In the wild, mammals babies feed almost exclusively from their mothers . But now all the mothers are dead, because only babies were taken on the Ark. So how did all the babies survive without the food provided by their mothers' milk? Even if they could survive without their mothers' milk, Noah would still have to store over a months worth of food for tens of thousands of hungry animals (and 8 people). This also includes the different kinds of foods for herbivores and carnivores. Where is all this stored when you you already have tens of thousands of animals on a 450' boat? Then there is the, ahem, waste disposal and caring for the animals. There were 8 people on Noah's Ark. How did they get rid of the waste for that many animals as well asn feed that many? After the waters receeded, how did all those babies survive? They have no parents to teach them to hunt or whatever other skills they normally learn from their parents. You couldn't just throw them out into the wild and expect them to survive. Then you get into the problems of trying to create a viable populations from 2 animals. The gene pool would be so limited that the potential offspring of the original two would be siblings trying to produce offspring together. Also, there is the problem with weights and displacements for that many animals on that small a boat. I won't go into that at this point So how does the Bible solve all these problems? And some Chirstians seem to believe that not every single type of animal was included on the Ark, but only general kinds. Others believe that every single kind of animal was included. Who is right? It should be clear since everything in the Bible must be taken literally. Why the differences in belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.