<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 23 2003, 03:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 23 2003, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sex sells. Seems the Bible is no exception (see Song of Songs)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you have a vivid fantasy. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, as quite a number of a Christians here have already stated, you need to put things in <i>context</i>. I can imagine this being quite erotic / taboo/ racy back in the day.
Think about it. The Bible has fantastic tales of creation, people being swallowed by whales, murder, intrigue, passion, sex, miracles, violence and so on. It is designed to be an interesting read wouldn't you say ? Looks like people wanted to make it such so that it would keep the readers interest. Just like modern novels ?
The Songs of Songs was considered VERY racy back in ancient Palestine. So racy in fact that Jewish men were forbidden to read it until a certain age and after marriage. A lot of people get really hung up on the idea that God hates sex. He created it, he called it Good. He made it intensely pleasureable because he wanted man and women to have something special to bring them even closer when they married.
Most of the really exciting stuff is Jewish history. And as many people can tell you, it can get pretty darn boring. Massive lists of who begat who. The idea that these people wrote there history to try and maintain its appeal over the ages is really weird. The idea of reading for entertainment is a relatively new phenomenon. That wouldnt have even occured to ancient Jewish scribes. Copying history was business, and a very serious business at that, especially when it related to religious matters.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 23 2003, 06:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 23 2003, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most of the really exciting stuff is Jewish history. And as many people can tell you, it can get pretty darn boring. Massive lists of who begat who. The idea that these people wrote there history to try and maintain its appeal over the ages is really weird. The idea of reading for entertainment is a relatively new phenomenon. That wouldnt have even occured to ancient Jewish scribes. Copying history was business, and a very serious business at that, especially when it related to religious matters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alot of us have the desire to leave something of ourselves behind when we die. That idea is really not new I think. Why is it so hard to imagine a people not wanting their story to be forgotten ? And thus making things interesting would probably encourage more to want to read it. Just my opinion at any rate.
As you mentioned, long lists of who begat who son-of son-of ala Monty Python is very boring. So how would you go about 'spicing things up' a bit ? My point is that something like Song of Songs does this rather well.
Also, the faith described in the Bible had numerous competing religions of various other peoples. I would then suggest that you would not want to be 'out-done' by anyone else. That is, your god is the best, the strongest, the most powerful. It seems reasonable to argue that the fantastic miracles mentioned are in part a way to take power away from your competing faiths.
I can see where you are coming from Larry. However, you must remember that the Jews had absolutely no intention of converting anyone to their religion. None what so ever. If you want to be a Jew, you have to be born a Jew. Thus, the Bible was written for the Jews themselves, not as a Zionist Advertising Brochure. The Jews didnt want/care who else read it, because its not conversion material. Its their history, their laws. And the Jews had no worries about their history being lost, because of their faith in God. They believed they were his chosen people, that the big guy was looking out for them.
It is possible they "Razzed it up a bit" to make themselves feel even cooler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but thats impossible to prove/disprove without resorting to faith.
Marine01, I have kind of personal question, I hope you don't mind. Others might answer as well.
Now, you believe in bible and think it's right? So you believe that one should turn the other cheek and thou shalt not kill etc, right? And in the same time, IIRC, you defend USA going in to war and causing several people to die?
Imo if you are religious, in christian kind of way, and support _any_ war or killing _any_ human being. If you want any kind of vengeance or think that one can fight evil with evil, you are not doing what it's said in the bible.
Well please dont reply to this except in pm because I dont want this thread to lose its way.
A couple of weeks ago I posted saying firstly that the Americans should crush the Iraqi's and take their oil because the Iraqi's are miserable creatures who would never do anything with it, and if we had to kill a few civilians along the way then so be it. However, I got a pm similar to your post, pointing out the inconsistency between "crush the miserable" and "Jesus loves you".
So I apologised and retracted that statement. If the choice was mine, I wouldnt have started a war. I cannot support killing as a Christian, even in self defence. I do however defend the actions of the US government. I can see why they did it, and I see serious flaws in the arguements against them, especially the "holier then thou" attitude of certain EU nations.
I dont know if you saw a previous thread I started entitled "Christians and War, should they really be fighting" but I pretty much outlined in there that no, they shouldnt.
Answering the original question - yes I do think that it is possible to become a Christian whilst at the same time questioning the validity of the Bible. My own faith leads me to believe that God gave me this fabulous thing called a brain and I would be doing him a disservice if I did not use it. The Bible needs to be looked at in an Academic way and to look at it as purely the divine word of God and infallible is incorrect.
My own faiths views is that the Bible is <i>inspired</i> by God. This means that the original thought came from God but that the instrument she used is human and they put their own slant upon this understanding. The gospel of Luke for example uses excellent Greek for most of it (Bar the description of Jesus early life which is in Aramaic) and is written in a methodical style. Deductions have therefore been made that he was Greek and a doctor from his style of writing and other descriptions of historical texts of the time. Redaction and source criticism give us a further understanding above and beyond a literal interpretation of the text. It lets us know he was a gentile and would explain his attention to non-Jews, women and children and the focus he has upon them within his gospel
Evidence of this can also be seen elsewhere within the Bible as well. Historically and Academically speaking Genesis was not written after the creation of the world! However for me there is evidence of divine inspiration in the story of Gods creation and the fact that for life first you need light, with light comes darkness, then water, then land, then plants then animals and finally humans. Has anyone else noticed that this is a parable of evolution? Now Genesis is not the literal world of god but can you seriously tell me that someone could write a parable of evolution 3000 years before Darwin come along without divine inspiration?
There are plenty more examples within the bible of if you apply academic and historical procedures to them of getting further truths from scripture. Evangelicals have it wrong in their total certainty that the literal interpretation of scripture is the only way to go. They are not using the brains god gave them and the greater truths that lie beneath after academic study are hidden from them.
Well I agree that people were inspired but still had their own unique styles and slants.
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. It talks about sin and death entering the world AFTER Adam and Eve are created. For God to have evolved things towards eventually showing up with Adam and Eve means sin and death must have existed BEFORE them. Evolution requires the savage pruning of survival of the fittest to work, supposedly. It contradicts itself if its supporting evolution, which it clearly does not.
Genesis 1:1 and onward are laid down as FACT, not parable. Dont believe me? Find me a Biblical historian with a comprehensive understanding of ancient greek and hebrew who disagrees. They are incredibly few and far between.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 24 2003, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 24 2003, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well I agree that people were inspired but still had their own unique styles and slants.
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is a parable IE an allegory, of course it didn't take days evolution wise, it's a story to illustrate the truth. Evolution didn't take days but the story of genesis relects it as a parable in the order that God creates things, Light, dark, water, land, plants etc
<!--QuoteBegin--Ah forget it+Sep 24 2003, 03:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ah forget it @ Sep 24 2003, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 24 2003, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 24 2003, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well I agree that people were inspired but still had their own unique styles and slants.
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is a parable IE an allegory, of course it didn't take days evolution wise, it's a story to illustrate the truth. Evolution didn't take days but the story of genesis relects it as a parable in the order that God creates things, Light, dark, water, land, plants etc <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes, the story of creation <b>happens</b> to go along the same lines as the story of evolution. That, AFI, is where the similarity ends.
Evolution: Millions of years, Creation: 1 week Evolution: Giant comsic Fluke, Creation: Desgined for a purpose by an omnipotent being Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong), Creation: hasnt been proven either way
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The gospel of Luke for example uses excellent Greek for most of it (Bar the description of Jesus early life which is in Aramaic)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not correct. The entire NT is in Koine Greek. There are some isolated Aramaic verses in the OT.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic?
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 24 2003, 03:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 24 2003, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> LOL. Be nice, Moultano.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 24 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 24 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> eh?
evolution is only a theory. There are many problems with it (such as the impossiblity of a single circulatory system evolving into a double circulatory system)
if it has been proved, show me, and i will reconsider
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 24 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 24 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> eh?
evolution is only a theory. There are many problems with it (such as the impossiblity of a single circulatory system evolving into a double circulatory system)
if it has been proved, show me, and i will reconsider <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It hasn't been proved, nor can it really be proved because we cannot observe it happening. But AFAIK it hasn't been proven wrong, and darwin never siad it was wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Who spreads such nonsense?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After some further investigation the story in which the apostle Paul baptizes a talking lion does not appear to be biblical, so my question may be safely ignored.
my point is that your theory of evolution is just as controversial as my story of creation
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nor can it really be proved because we cannot observe it happening<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet you are still perfectly happy to argue till the cows come home that it is correct. Tell me, who has more faith - the person who believes in a story that cannot be proven, or the person that believes in a story (becasue thats all evolution is, a scientific story) that cannot be proven?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 03:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yet you are still perfectly happy to argue till the cows come home that it is correct. Tell me, who has more faith - the person who believes in a story that cannot be proven, or the person that believes in a story (becasue thats all evolution is, a scientific story) that cannot be proven? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would advise you to go read the two previous threads on this <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=45336&hl=evolution&st=0' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...=evolution&st=0</a> and <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=45190&hl=evolution&st=0' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...=evolution&st=0</a> in which aegeri laid down the proverbial smack.
(also worth noting is that both of those threads were locked and pretty thoroughly discussed the issue, so it would not be advisable to drag this thread back to that topic.)
as you have said, both those threads where locked, but i will sya this one final things. I'm not asking Aegeri, I'm asking you. You said yourself Evolution cannot be proven, so we are both at the same level.
as for the other mini topics in this thread, i believe they have all been resolved, so unless anyboy has got any other questions, im going to bed
I think Moultanos main point is that while nothing can be proven, there is pretty strong evidence for natural selection and evolution and the affects of time and radiation and such on how life changes. There is no evidence for religious explanations at all, simply a belief that they are true, based on stories handed down.
But this is a silly thing to argue, as you cannot convince a strongly religious person that religion is utter nonsense. Only life experience can.
[MonsE has taken this post further off topic, so i hereby wash my hands of any further hijacking]
I didnt say natural selection isnt happening, there is way to much evidence for that, and it makes perfect sense. What i am contesting is that natural selection does not create new species as was suggested by the theory of evolution
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 03:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> as you have said, both those threads where locked, but i will sya this one final things. I'm not asking Aegeri, I'm asking you. You said yourself Evolution cannot be proven, so we are both at the same level.
as for the other mini topics in this thread, i believe they have all been resolved, so unless anyboy has got any other questions, im going to bed
[sorry, it want you, it was skulk bait] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I said evolution can't be proven. However, as Monse pointed out (man, why does it feel so icky to agree with monse on something? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->), there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that it, or something like it, is happening. But this is all besides the point, the point of this thread was to discuss inconsistancies within the bible and this evolution tangent has gotten threads locked so lets just agree to drop it before that happens.
On a side note, I wish I could pwn creationists like Aegeri pwned creationists, that was mighty impresive. Too bad I chose a field (computer science) with little relevance to religion.
EDIT to avaoid further posting on this tangent: Marine01, what you failed to understand in that other thread, and what your currently fail to understand is that the reason scientific creationist sources are not regarded as being credable is that they arent. This is evidenced by their lack of being in Scientific Journals and being taken seriously by their peers (as Aegeri put it... more or less). There is no conspiracy against them, and this is not circular logic. They aren't being taken seriously because they have yet to produce an argument with any validity (AFAIK). Face it Marine01, you got pwned, seriously pwned, because you did not have the background nessesary to successfully argue your possition. Try not to take it so hard, as Aegeri said, there is always a bigger fish.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Sep 24 2003, 05:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 24 2003, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On a side note, I wish I could pwn creationists like Aegeri pwned creationists, that was mighty impresive. Too bad I chose a field (computer science) with little relevance to religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all! not at all! Combinatorial arguments can rock improbability arguments. The halting problem can prove the uncomputability of human action (and thus removing the need for a soul). And evolutionary algorithm design yields probably the best evidence of all that evolution can produce speciation.
Us CSers gotta stick together! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Whoa - I asked earlier in the thread that this NOT turn into an evolutionairy debate.
And as for Aegeri laying smack down on Creationists - BAH! I was the other side of that flamewar, and my position was completely untenable. I argued from sources, having no intricate knowledge of the actual subject of biology (as many of us do). And its hard enough to argue from sources with Joe Average, let alone a biological scientist. Aegeri comes along, with an incredibly intricate knowledge of the subject and sources to match. He then proceeds to deny that my sources have any credibility, and he can pick apart my own reasoning easily from his greater position of knowledge. Any sources I tabled he could easily criticise on a technical level way above my head without me knowing enough to defend them. And even then, all my sources were instantly dismissed on the basis of "creationist nonsense" before they were tabled.
The people that could answer him in his own terms, (ie my sources, who are not present, and thus have to communicate through my posting) he refused to acknowledge, because according to him anyone who disbelieves evolution or believes in creation is obviously a mindless fool. Just before lockage Sirius came along and said "You'd think that anyone who disbelieves evolution is a complete idiot from reading this thread", he then left the name of a eminent French biologist who disbelieved it and left and stayed out. I wasnt so smart, got into a flame war over the credibility of my sources, lockage ensued.
So, I dont feel like we had the "smackdown" laid upon us. It will happen in every thread situation. People discuss say..... communism, and we all happily debate about the pro's and con's of communist government. Then Gorbachev (sp) logs in and overawes us with his intense knowledge of the subject. Now he could be lying/wrong, but its impossible for us to know because he will start talking about things outside of our experience/understanding. Only someone else of similar Soviet political grounding could actually continue to discuss.
Its great we have people like that, but an intense knowledge of the subject actually kills discussion. ESPECIALLY if you are denied the chance to offer sources. It ultimately shows nothing for or against any particular cause, but merely shows who knows most.
BUT - please NO more on evolution/creation as this thread will seriously lose its way. Make another thread fellas.
And I just found Aegeris reply to Noah's Ark so I am going to reply to that after I get back from work. Accuracy and consistency is the topic - please argue without refering to creation/evolution.
EDIT To reply to skulkbait above - Absolutely. Aegeri knew FAR more about the topic at hand then I did, so as far as that arguement went, I lost - pwned is a very good description. Totally and completely pwned. However, Aegeri is a big fish in a small pond. And he argued at a level above me. For me to answer him, I would have to find sources that debated with him on the same level, which would reduce me to basically the messenger boy between Aegeri and someone who could argue it on his level. And I'm not up for that.
Now because Aegeri knew more and pwned me and my arguements, do I therefore abandon my position as a creationist - not at all. Because I know that there are people at Aegeri's level who could answer him, they just werent present at the time. I will however not let that prevent me from checking up on what he said, because if his arguement pwns the people on his level, then I'll be joining him in ridiculing them.
Now I will give you that a lot of creationist arguements are bunk - rubbish. And for that reason they wont get into any respectable scientific journal. The same can be said for some evolutionairy articles. However, when you get to the situation that Aegeri now seems to be in, which is EVERY and ALL creationist is a fool therefore I dont even need to read his material because I know its trash - then you got problems. And that is what some creationists claim is happening - they are now automatically classified as fools for daring to suggest that evolution may be wrong. Thus they are excluded from Journals, and are told the only way to prove their credibility is to get in the Journals - circular. I dont doubt some of them firmly deserve to be thrown out of journals, but I suspect that any decent ones are being discriminated against.
So I do understand skulk, and I do admit it - Aegeri was the clear victor there. And now I've hijacked my own thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 24 2003, 12:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 24 2003, 12:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can see where you are coming from Larry. However, you must remember that the Jews had absolutely no intention of converting anyone to their religion. None what so ever. If you want to be a Jew, you have to be born a Jew. Thus, the Bible was written for the Jews themselves, not as a Zionist Advertising Brochure. The Jews didnt want/care who else read it, because its not conversion material. Its their history, their laws. And the Jews had no worries about their history being lost, because of their faith in God. They believed they were his chosen people, that the big guy was looking out for them.
It is possible they "Razzed it up a bit" to make themselves feel even cooler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but thats impossible to prove/disprove without resorting to faith. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think I can see your viewpoint also, and to an extent I find myself agreeing with you. However:
For some time now I have been interested in the idea that maybe Christianity was influenced by various 'outside' sources. I think part of what I was getting at, that besides 'spicing up' the bible for the purposes of making it an interesting read, some ideas were actually borrowed from elsewhere.
I have begun to research this, and have found some thought provoking links.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The creation of Christianity involved the adoption of the moral precepts of the wisest thinkers in western Asia and beyond, to be blended into the legend of Jesus the Christ. As one looks into ancient literature there is not a single teaching in the Gospel that cannot be likened virtually word for word in the ethical literature of Greeks, Romans, Hindus, Jews, and others.
The passage in Matthew 5:28, "Whoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart." Was taken almost word for word from one of the books of the Talmud called Challah. In the little Jewish book called the Sotar, the Catholics found the advice about the son turning against the father, the daughter against the mother, and the daughter in law against the mother in law in the time of the Messiah," when a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." So in Matthew these shocking words about hating one’s relatives are placed in the mouth of Jesus. In the writings of Lao, Tse, Buddha, Socrates, and Pittacus had been teaching that good must be returned for evil, the Jews said. "Cast not your pearls before swine" first, " He who would do injury to another has already done it," declared Seneca; "The Gods regard with delight the man who when struck does not strike back," says a Hindu proverb and lo and behold the supposed Jesus repeats them all. Over one hundred years before the Common Era began, Tiberius Gracchus said the foxes had holes and the birds had nests but man had no place to lay his head. So the Christians give the words to the supposed Jesus. As if it was his own words they have this Jesus repeat the old Jewish maxim about those who exalt themselves being humbled, and those who humble themselves being exalted. From Seneca, Plato, Buddha, even from Sibyis, the Christians borrowed words and ideas and used them to provide their Saviour with ethical and speculative credence.
The Christian establishment denies the issue of plagiarism (imitation of ideas of someone else) by claiming that the disciples and their proselytes would not have been capable of "inventing the remarkable statements of Jesus, which are so obviously stamped with personal originality combined with profundity of thought." On the other hand, the evidence indicates that the redactors (revisers or editors) had no intention of inventing anything. They confiscated, instead, the wisdom of philosophers both ancient (such as Buddha) and contemporary with the genesis of the Common Era (such as Hillel and Seneca). These documented recorded history are still available today but the supposed Jesus never left a single written word documented outside of the New Testament which was compiled and manipulated over hundreds of years. This age of Christian deceit began in the second century of the Common Era and continued well into the Middle Ages. Contradictory in the face of Job’s words "God does not need our lies" the Catholics Doctors of theology professed to believe that it was an act of virtue to deceive and to lie, when by these means the interest of religion might be promoted. Eusebuis, for example freely avowed that he would omit whatever might tend to the discredit of the church and magnify whatever might contribute to her glory.
" It is not we who take our opinions from others," argued the Catholics in response to critics, "but they who take theirs from us." And this statement invariably led to the lament that the " deceiving serpent" had counterfeited Catholic practices in the mystery religions that antedated the appearance of the Christian saviour god. Some Christians presumed to declare that Greek philosophy was derived from what they call Hebrew wisdom, and they supported their thesis with spurious quotations from the ancient Greek poetry. The Christian deceit continues to this very day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Larry's page he linked to was pretty small, so I thought I'd quote it here, partly to make sure everyone sees it, partly to save myself on ALT TABbage.
First off, I'd like to point out that few religious texts in this world have ever undergone the extensive research and intensive scrutiny as the Bible has. I'd wager nearly every verse at some stage has been the subject of scrutiny of a thesis or a book. The sheer mass of writing on everything, from translation to interpretation is mind boggling. A very often cited but useful example is the massive book written on a single comma in John 3:16. You try writing a book about a comma, and the influence of that comma on a statement. If you think there is something in/about the Bible that the Christians might have missed, by all means post it, but your chances of being the first to have ever thought of that are really small.
Second of all, I notice that the author of the above actually fails to provide proof that this plagurism actually occured. Its just "Well someone has written something similar before, therefore they must have stolen it." Absolutely nothing concrete. No Biblical scribes grave opened to find a copy of the Talmud, a copy of the Bible, a bottle of glue and a pair of scissors. Just a "well they could have" arguement.
Jesus himself would have read the Talmud during his lifetime. His grasp of the Jewish scriptures was comprehensive. Infact, large sections, if not all of it, he would have overseen in the making if his claim of Godhood was in fact true. I simply fail to see how Jesus quoting a statement in a Jewish religious text shows how Christians later put the words in his mouth. Why COULDNT he have said that? What would have been stopping him? At no stage did Jesus claim - "everything that I say will be completely unheard of before me, it will all be new, bow down while I bust out moves of amazing originality."
The Jews claim the Talmud is God breathed, therefore if Jesus IS God, then he's quoting himself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in Matthew these shocking words about hating one’s relatives are placed in the mouth of Jesus<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, prove it. Show me how you know these words were placed there and Jesus didnt actually say them. Thats a hell of a statement to make without the smallest scrap of hard evidence.
The teachings of Christ are supposed to be Wisdom itself ie nothing but Gold here fellas, nothing but pure unalloyed quality. The arguement that someone has written the same good advice somewhere else therefore obviously the scribes of the NT copied it just doesnt hold up. And who here honestly thinks these guys actually had read Lao, Tse, Buddha, Socrates, and Pittacus. There writing werent exactly available at the local bookstore. We only have a few copies of each of their writings left today, I dont think they were available enmasse to the ancients.
As for the Catholic doctors, every group has its fruitloops and over zealous fools. You also get the impression from the article that he doubts Jesus ever existed. If I am indeed correct in percieving that he denies the existance of a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago, then he really hasnt done his homework.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This age of Christian deceit began in the second century of the Common Era and continued well into the Middle Ages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he is claiming that the Bible has been manipulated between the 2nd century CE and the Middle Ages then I am stunned. Surely then we would have manuscripts containing serious discrepancies to the modern as people attempted to edit it throughout the ages, instead of the thousands of ancient copies which all say exactly the same thing.
The writing of most of these people that the Christians supposedly stole from I highly doubt the original scribes of the NT had even heard of, let alone read their material. Just because someone else before Jesus had the same idea doesnt mean that obviously he or later scribes stole the idea.
And that is just my preliminary criticism of the article. I noticed you asked for sources, so I'll try and find some for you. Put that down on my to do list.
*licks fingers, opens notepad* 1. Buy HL 2 2. Find out if new and helpful genetic information actually has/can come about by random mutation 3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri 4. Compile response to inconsistent Bible verses posted earlier 5. Get sources to rebut above article 6. Seek for meaningful relationship.
Its ON the list.....
EDIT No worries about off topic, I didnt actually lay it out in my first post that we didnt want evolutionairy arguements here, even though they are a great point against the accuracy of the Bible.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 24 2003, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 24 2003, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> as you have said, both those threads where locked, but i will sya this one final things. I'm not asking Aegeri, I'm asking you. You said yourself Evolution cannot be proven, so we are both at the same level. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gravity cannot be proven either, in fact we're only sure gravity exists because things pretty much stay on the ground. It can also be that we have an AMAZING amount of evidence that supports the idea that the <b>theory</b> of gravity is actually true. Now, you won't see gravity called a theory very often because it has such overwhelming evidence behind it, as such it is called the law of gravity.
This is the same with evolution. Although only a theory right now, this does not mean it hasn't been supported or has any evidence. To the contrary, there is a large amount of people who would like to see evolution changed to the 'law' of evolution (as opposed to theory) due to the overwhelming amount of evidence for it. This doesn't mean we 100% sure know evolution happened, because, just like gravity where we can say with 99.999999999% certainty that an apple WILL fall down, we can say with similar certainty that evolution occured based on the current evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong), <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First thing explained above.
The second one is a fun Creationist argument that has long since been buried (by Creationists btw, even Gibbering in Genesis will agree that Darwin never said that, and that is HARDCORE!). I have no idea where it came about however, who started it or who then smacked it down. It is a very outdated creationist argument (as I said previously, all about debating skills).
More boggle, and BEST QUOTE EVAR (IMO)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could say that the smallest asteroid in the asteroid belt is made of strawberry jam and speaks french, and nobody could prove that i was wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOOOHOOOO! EXACTLY! This is the #1 reason I do not accept ANY internet source in a scientific (sometimes historical) argument. They simply can be any crap anyone can shove onto the internet. 3 classic examples are the already smacked Answers in Genesis, the needs to be smacked Madge site (you won't be familiar with this, anti GE site that defines 'ignorant') and the needs to be smacked REALLY hard anti aspartame head site (Methyl groups are poisonous, I mean, what the hell <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Books/Journals/Historical essays>websites.
Moultano
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can speak fondly of your dog, and the importance of cleaning and feeding them, but that doesn't mean you respect your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and disagree, it depends on the person speaking. In context, that could mean you just want to make sure you take the best care of your pet and so it lives the best life it can. That can be done in a loving way from someone who genuinely cares about the animal or not. It is all up to the persons interpretation of what you are saying.
It doesn't indicate though that you respect your dog, but it on the other hand does not indicate that you don't have any love/respect for your dog.
Personally, I rather like my little Australian Terriers.
Moultano and Skulkbait:
I thought it was more of a little slap rather than an pwning myself. I haven't gone in pwnage mode <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> (which I really only do when discussing certain aspects of World War 2).
Marine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats kinda scary, a physisist who doesn't know that boiling temeratures are lowered by <b>lower</b> pressure (as evidenced by astronaughts exposed to vacum who's blood boils [actually, I suppose more cosmonauts have died that way...])... Oh well, nobody is perfect.
<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>EDIT</span></b>: Oops, I read that wrong, you said you were <b>not</b> a physisist. Stupid 3:00am posts....
Comments
It seems you have a vivid fantasy. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, as quite a number of a Christians here have already stated, you need to put things in <i>context</i>. I can imagine this being quite erotic / taboo/ racy back in the day.
<a href='http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH16/CH16_1.HTM' target='_blank'>Some SoS</a>
Think about it. The Bible has fantastic tales of creation, people being swallowed by whales, murder, intrigue, passion, sex, miracles, violence and so on. It is designed to be an interesting read wouldn't you say ? Looks like people wanted to make it such so that it would keep the readers interest. Just like modern novels ?
Most of the really exciting stuff is Jewish history. And as many people can tell you, it can get pretty darn boring. Massive lists of who begat who. The idea that these people wrote there history to try and maintain its appeal over the ages is really weird. The idea of reading for entertainment is a relatively new phenomenon. That wouldnt have even occured to ancient Jewish scribes. Copying history was business, and a very serious business at that, especially when it related to religious matters.
Alot of us have the desire to leave something of ourselves behind when we die. That idea is really not new I think. Why is it so hard to imagine a people not wanting their story to be forgotten ? And thus making things interesting would probably encourage more to want to read it. Just my opinion at any rate.
As you mentioned, long lists of who begat who son-of son-of ala Monty Python is very boring. So how would you go about 'spicing things up' a bit ? My point is that something like Song of Songs does this rather well.
Also, the faith described in the Bible had numerous competing religions of various other peoples. I would then suggest that you would not want to be 'out-done' by anyone else. That is, your god is the best, the strongest, the most powerful. It seems reasonable to argue that the fantastic miracles mentioned are in part a way to take power away from your competing faiths.
It is possible they "Razzed it up a bit" to make themselves feel even cooler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but thats impossible to prove/disprove without resorting to faith.
Now, you believe in bible and think it's right? So you believe that one should turn the other cheek and thou shalt not kill etc, right? And in the same time, IIRC, you defend USA going in to war and causing several people to die?
Imo if you are religious, in christian kind of way, and support _any_ war or killing _any_ human being. If you want any kind of vengeance or think that one can fight evil with evil, you are not doing what it's said in the bible.
So what do you think? Just curious.
A couple of weeks ago I posted saying firstly that the Americans should crush the Iraqi's and take their oil because the Iraqi's are miserable creatures who would never do anything with it, and if we had to kill a few civilians along the way then so be it. However, I got a pm similar to your post, pointing out the inconsistency between "crush the miserable" and "Jesus loves you".
So I apologised and retracted that statement. If the choice was mine, I wouldnt have started a war. I cannot support killing as a Christian, even in self defence. I do however defend the actions of the US government. I can see why they did it, and I see serious flaws in the arguements against them, especially the "holier then thou" attitude of certain EU nations.
I dont know if you saw a previous thread I started entitled "Christians and War, should they really be fighting" but I pretty much outlined in there that no, they shouldnt.
My own faiths views is that the Bible is <i>inspired</i> by God. This means that the original thought came from God but that the instrument she used is human and they put their own slant upon this understanding. The gospel of Luke for example uses excellent Greek for most of it (Bar the description of Jesus early life which is in Aramaic) and is written in a methodical style. Deductions have therefore been made that he was Greek and a doctor from his style of writing and other descriptions of historical texts of the time. Redaction and source criticism give us a further understanding above and beyond a literal interpretation of the text. It lets us know he was a gentile and would explain his attention to non-Jews, women and children and the focus he has upon them within his gospel
Evidence of this can also be seen elsewhere within the Bible as well. Historically and Academically speaking Genesis was not written after the creation of the world! However for me there is evidence of divine inspiration in the story of Gods creation and the fact that for life first you need light, with light comes darkness, then water, then land, then plants then animals and finally humans. Has anyone else noticed that this is a parable of evolution? Now Genesis is not the literal world of god but can you seriously tell me that someone could write a parable of evolution 3000 years before Darwin come along without divine inspiration?
There are plenty more examples within the bible of if you apply academic and historical procedures to them of getting further truths from scripture. Evangelicals have it wrong in their total certainty that the literal interpretation of scripture is the only way to go. They are not using the brains god gave them and the greater truths that lie beneath after academic study are hidden from them.
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. It talks about sin and death entering the world AFTER Adam and Eve are created. For God to have evolved things towards eventually showing up with Adam and Eve means sin and death must have existed BEFORE them. Evolution requires the savage pruning of survival of the fittest to work, supposedly. It contradicts itself if its supporting evolution, which it clearly does not.
Genesis 1:1 and onward are laid down as FACT, not parable. Dont believe me? Find me a Biblical historian with a comprehensive understanding of ancient greek and hebrew who disagrees. They are incredibly few and far between.
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a parable IE an allegory, of course it didn't take days evolution wise, it's a story to illustrate the truth. Evolution didn't take days but the story of genesis relects it as a parable in the order that God creates things, Light, dark, water, land, plants etc
However to claim that the Creation story ala Genesis is a parable of evolution is insane. It talks about literal DAYS in Genesis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a parable IE an allegory, of course it didn't take days evolution wise, it's a story to illustrate the truth. Evolution didn't take days but the story of genesis relects it as a parable in the order that God creates things, Light, dark, water, land, plants etc <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, the story of creation <b>happens</b> to go along the same lines as the story of evolution. That, AFI, is where the similarity ends.
Evolution: Millions of years, Creation: 1 week
Evolution: Giant comsic Fluke, Creation: Desgined for a purpose by an omnipotent being
Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong), Creation: hasnt been proven either way
That's not correct. The entire NT is in Koine Greek. There are some isolated Aramaic verses in the OT.
Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic?
Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL. Be nice, Moultano.
Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh?
evolution is only a theory. There are many problems with it (such as the impossiblity of a single circulatory system evolving into a double circulatory system)
if it has been proved, show me, and i will reconsider
Might I have a sample of your chosen narcotic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eh?
evolution is only a theory. There are many problems with it (such as the impossiblity of a single circulatory system evolving into a double circulatory system)
if it has been proved, show me, and i will reconsider <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It hasn't been proved, nor can it really be proved because we cannot observe it happening. But AFAIK it hasn't been proven wrong, and darwin never siad it was wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Didn't an apostle (or a saint or something) once baptise a lion?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Who spreads such nonsense?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After some further investigation the story in which the apostle Paul baptizes a talking lion does not appear to be biblical, so my question may be safely ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->nor can it really be proved because we cannot observe it happening<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet you are still perfectly happy to argue till the cows come home that it is correct. Tell me, who has more faith - the person who believes in a story that cannot be proven, or the person that believes in a story (becasue thats all evolution is, a scientific story) that cannot be proven?
I would advise you to go read the two previous threads on this <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=45336&hl=evolution&st=0' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...=evolution&st=0</a>
and <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=45190&hl=evolution&st=0' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...=evolution&st=0</a>
in which aegeri laid down the proverbial smack.
(also worth noting is that both of those threads were locked and pretty thoroughly discussed the issue, so it would not be advisable to drag this thread back to that topic.)
as for the other mini topics in this thread, i believe they have all been resolved, so unless anyboy has got any other questions, im going to bed
[sorry, it want you, it was skulk bait]
But this is a silly thing to argue, as you cannot convince a strongly religious person that religion is utter nonsense. Only life experience can.
[MonsE has taken this post further off topic, so i hereby wash my hands of any further hijacking]
I didnt say natural selection isnt happening, there is way to much evidence for that, and it makes perfect sense. What i am contesting is that natural selection does not create new species as was suggested by the theory of evolution
as for the other mini topics in this thread, i believe they have all been resolved, so unless anyboy has got any other questions, im going to bed
[sorry, it want you, it was skulk bait] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I said evolution can't be proven. However, as Monse pointed out (man, why does it feel so icky to agree with monse on something? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->), there is a significant body of evidence to suggest that it, or something like it, is happening. But this is all besides the point, the point of this thread was to discuss inconsistancies within the bible and this evolution tangent has gotten threads locked so lets just agree to drop it before that happens.
On a side note, I wish I could pwn creationists like Aegeri pwned creationists, that was mighty impresive. Too bad I chose a field (computer science) with little relevance to religion.
EDIT to avaoid further posting on this tangent: Marine01, what you failed to understand in that other thread, and what your currently fail to understand is that the reason scientific creationist sources are not regarded as being credable is that they arent. This is evidenced by their lack of being in Scientific Journals and being taken seriously by their peers (as Aegeri put it... more or less). There is no conspiracy against them, and this is not circular logic. They aren't being taken seriously because they have yet to produce an argument with any validity (AFAIK). Face it Marine01, you got pwned, seriously pwned, because you did not have the background nessesary to successfully argue your possition. Try not to take it so hard, as Aegeri said, there is always a bigger fish.
Not at all! not at all! Combinatorial arguments can rock improbability arguments. The halting problem can prove the uncomputability of human action (and thus removing the need for a soul). And evolutionary algorithm design yields probably the best evidence of all that evolution can produce speciation.
Us CSers gotta stick together! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for Aegeri laying smack down on Creationists - BAH! I was the other side of that flamewar, and my position was completely untenable. I argued from sources, having no intricate knowledge of the actual subject of biology (as many of us do). And its hard enough to argue from sources with Joe Average, let alone a biological scientist. Aegeri comes along, with an incredibly intricate knowledge of the subject and sources to match. He then proceeds to deny that my sources have any credibility, and he can pick apart my own reasoning easily from his greater position of knowledge. Any sources I tabled he could easily criticise on a technical level way above my head without me knowing enough to defend them. And even then, all my sources were instantly dismissed on the basis of "creationist nonsense" before they were tabled.
The people that could answer him in his own terms, (ie my sources, who are not present, and thus have to communicate through my posting) he refused to acknowledge, because according to him anyone who disbelieves evolution or believes in creation is obviously a mindless fool. Just before lockage Sirius came along and said "You'd think that anyone who disbelieves evolution is a complete idiot from reading this thread", he then left the name of a eminent French biologist who disbelieved it and left and stayed out. I wasnt so smart, got into a flame war over the credibility of my sources, lockage ensued.
So, I dont feel like we had the "smackdown" laid upon us. It will happen in every thread situation. People discuss say..... communism, and we all happily debate about the pro's and con's of communist government. Then Gorbachev (sp) logs in and overawes us with his intense knowledge of the subject. Now he could be lying/wrong, but its impossible for us to know because he will start talking about things outside of our experience/understanding. Only someone else of similar Soviet political grounding could actually continue to discuss.
Its great we have people like that, but an intense knowledge of the subject actually kills discussion. ESPECIALLY if you are denied the chance to offer sources. It ultimately shows nothing for or against any particular cause, but merely shows who knows most.
BUT - please NO more on evolution/creation as this thread will seriously lose its way. Make another thread fellas.
And I just found Aegeris reply to Noah's Ark so I am going to reply to that after I get back from work. Accuracy and consistency is the topic - please argue without refering to creation/evolution.
EDIT To reply to skulkbait above - Absolutely. Aegeri knew FAR more about the topic at hand then I did, so as far as that arguement went, I lost - pwned is a very good description. Totally and completely pwned. However, Aegeri is a big fish in a small pond. And he argued at a level above me. For me to answer him, I would have to find sources that debated with him on the same level, which would reduce me to basically the messenger boy between Aegeri and someone who could argue it on his level. And I'm not up for that.
Now because Aegeri knew more and pwned me and my arguements, do I therefore abandon my position as a creationist - not at all. Because I know that there are people at Aegeri's level who could answer him, they just werent present at the time. I will however not let that prevent me from checking up on what he said, because if his arguement pwns the people on his level, then I'll be joining him in ridiculing them.
Now I will give you that a lot of creationist arguements are bunk - rubbish. And for that reason they wont get into any respectable scientific journal. The same can be said for some evolutionairy articles. However, when you get to the situation that Aegeri now seems to be in, which is EVERY and ALL creationist is a fool therefore I dont even need to read his material because I know its trash - then you got problems. And that is what some creationists claim is happening - they are now automatically classified as fools for daring to suggest that evolution may be wrong. Thus they are excluded from Journals, and are told the only way to prove their credibility is to get in the Journals - circular. I dont doubt some of them firmly deserve to be thrown out of journals, but I suspect that any decent ones are being discriminated against.
So I do understand skulk, and I do admit it - Aegeri was the clear victor there. And now I've hijacked my own thread.
It is possible they "Razzed it up a bit" to make themselves feel even cooler <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but thats impossible to prove/disprove without resorting to faith. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I can see your viewpoint also, and to an extent I find myself agreeing with you. However:
For some time now I have been interested in the idea that maybe Christianity was influenced by various 'outside' sources. I think part of what I was getting at, that besides 'spicing up' the bible for the purposes of making it an interesting read, some ideas were actually borrowed from elsewhere.
I have begun to research this, and have found some thought provoking links.
<a href='http://plagiarism' target='_blank'> <a href='http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/christian_deceit.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/christi...tian_deceit.htm</a> </a>
Anyone have any comments about this ? Done any research in this area ? I would be highly interested and any sources would be appreciated.
The passage in Matthew 5:28, "Whoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart." Was taken almost word for word from one of the books of the Talmud called Challah. In the little Jewish book called the Sotar, the Catholics found the advice about the son turning against the father, the daughter against the mother, and the daughter in law against the mother in law in the time of the Messiah," when a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." So in Matthew these shocking words about hating one’s relatives are placed in the mouth of Jesus. In the writings of Lao, Tse, Buddha, Socrates, and Pittacus had been teaching that good must be returned for evil, the Jews said. "Cast not your pearls before swine" first, " He who would do injury to another has already done it," declared Seneca; "The Gods regard with delight the man who when struck does not strike back," says a Hindu proverb and lo and behold the supposed Jesus repeats them all. Over one hundred years before the Common Era began, Tiberius Gracchus said the foxes had holes and the birds had nests but man had no place to lay his head. So the Christians give the words to the supposed Jesus. As if it was his own words they have this Jesus repeat the old Jewish maxim about those who exalt themselves being humbled, and those who humble themselves being exalted. From Seneca, Plato, Buddha, even from Sibyis, the Christians borrowed words and ideas and used them to provide their Saviour with ethical and speculative credence.
The Christian establishment denies the issue of plagiarism (imitation of ideas of someone else) by claiming that the disciples and their proselytes would not have been capable of "inventing the remarkable statements of Jesus, which are so obviously stamped with personal originality combined with profundity of thought." On the other hand, the evidence indicates that the redactors (revisers or editors) had no intention of inventing anything. They confiscated, instead, the wisdom of philosophers both ancient (such as Buddha) and contemporary with the genesis of the Common Era (such as Hillel and Seneca). These documented recorded history are still available today but the supposed Jesus never left a single written word documented outside of the New Testament which was compiled and manipulated over hundreds of years. This age of Christian deceit began in the second century of the Common Era and continued well into the Middle Ages. Contradictory in the face of Job’s words "God does not need our lies" the Catholics Doctors of theology professed to believe that it was an act of virtue to deceive and to lie, when by these means the interest of religion might be promoted. Eusebuis, for example freely avowed that he would omit whatever might tend to the discredit of the church and magnify whatever might contribute to her glory.
" It is not we who take our opinions from others," argued the Catholics in response to critics, "but they who take theirs from us." And this statement invariably led to the lament that the " deceiving serpent" had counterfeited Catholic practices in the mystery religions that antedated the appearance of the Christian saviour god. Some Christians presumed to declare that Greek philosophy was derived from what they call Hebrew wisdom, and they supported their thesis with spurious quotations from the ancient Greek poetry. The Christian deceit continues to this very day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Larry's page he linked to was pretty small, so I thought I'd quote it here, partly to make sure everyone sees it, partly to save myself on ALT TABbage.
First off, I'd like to point out that few religious texts in this world have ever undergone the extensive research and intensive scrutiny as the Bible has. I'd wager nearly every verse at some stage has been the subject of scrutiny of a thesis or a book. The sheer mass of writing on everything, from translation to interpretation is mind boggling. A very often cited but useful example is the massive book written on a single comma in John 3:16. You try writing a book about a comma, and the influence of that comma on a statement. If you think there is something in/about the Bible that the Christians might have missed, by all means post it, but your chances of being the first to have ever thought of that are really small.
Second of all, I notice that the author of the above actually fails to provide proof that this plagurism actually occured. Its just "Well someone has written something similar before, therefore they must have stolen it." Absolutely nothing concrete. No Biblical scribes grave opened to find a copy of the Talmud, a copy of the Bible, a bottle of glue and a pair of scissors. Just a "well they could have" arguement.
Jesus himself would have read the Talmud during his lifetime. His grasp of the Jewish scriptures was comprehensive. Infact, large sections, if not all of it, he would have overseen in the making if his claim of Godhood was in fact true. I simply fail to see how Jesus quoting a statement in a Jewish religious text shows how Christians later put the words in his mouth. Why COULDNT he have said that? What would have been stopping him? At no stage did Jesus claim - "everything that I say will be completely unheard of before me, it will all be new, bow down while I bust out moves of amazing originality."
The Jews claim the Talmud is God breathed, therefore if Jesus IS God, then he's quoting himself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in Matthew these shocking words about hating one’s relatives are placed in the mouth of Jesus<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, prove it. Show me how you know these words were placed there and Jesus didnt actually say them. Thats a hell of a statement to make without the smallest scrap of hard evidence.
The teachings of Christ are supposed to be Wisdom itself ie nothing but Gold here fellas, nothing but pure unalloyed quality. The arguement that someone has written the same good advice somewhere else therefore obviously the scribes of the NT copied it just doesnt hold up. And who here honestly thinks these guys actually had read Lao, Tse, Buddha, Socrates, and Pittacus. There writing werent exactly available at the local bookstore. We only have a few copies of each of their writings left today, I dont think they were available enmasse to the ancients.
As for the Catholic doctors, every group has its fruitloops and over zealous fools. You also get the impression from the article that he doubts Jesus ever existed. If I am indeed correct in percieving that he denies the existance of a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago, then he really hasnt done his homework.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This age of Christian deceit began in the second century of the Common Era and continued well into the Middle Ages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he is claiming that the Bible has been manipulated between the 2nd century CE and the Middle Ages then I am stunned. Surely then we would have manuscripts containing serious discrepancies to the modern as people attempted to edit it throughout the ages, instead of the thousands of ancient copies which all say exactly the same thing.
The writing of most of these people that the Christians supposedly stole from I highly doubt the original scribes of the NT had even heard of, let alone read their material. Just because someone else before Jesus had the same idea doesnt mean that obviously he or later scribes stole the idea.
And that is just my preliminary criticism of the article. I noticed you asked for sources, so I'll try and find some for you. Put that down on my to do list.
*licks fingers, opens notepad* 1. Buy HL 2 2. Find out if new and helpful genetic information actually has/can come about by random mutation 3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri 4. Compile response to inconsistent Bible verses posted earlier 5. Get sources to rebut above article 6. Seek for meaningful relationship.
Its ON the list.....
EDIT No worries about off topic, I didnt actually lay it out in my first post that we didnt want evolutionairy arguements here, even though they are a great point against the accuracy of the Bible.
I could say that the smallest asteroid in the asteroid belt is made of strawberry jam and speaks french, and nobody could prove that i was wrong.
What ever you read on the internet, take with a large pinch of salt.
Gravity cannot be proven either, in fact we're only sure gravity exists because things pretty much stay on the ground. It can also be that we have an AMAZING amount of evidence that supports the idea that the <b>theory</b> of gravity is actually true. Now, you won't see gravity called a theory very often because it has such overwhelming evidence behind it, as such it is called the law of gravity.
This is the same with evolution. Although only a theory right now, this does not mean it hasn't been supported or has any evidence. To the contrary, there is a large amount of people who would like to see evolution changed to the 'law' of evolution (as opposed to theory) due to the overwhelming amount of evidence for it. This doesn't mean we 100% sure know evolution happened, because, just like gravity where we can say with 99.999999999% certainty that an apple WILL fall down, we can say with similar certainty that evolution occured based on the current evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution: still only a theory (i believe it has been proven wrong, darwin himself said it was wrong), <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First thing explained above.
The second one is a fun Creationist argument that has long since been buried (by Creationists btw, even Gibbering in Genesis will agree that Darwin never said that, and that is HARDCORE!). I have no idea where it came about however, who started it or who then smacked it down. It is a very outdated creationist argument (as I said previously, all about debating skills).
More boggle, and BEST QUOTE EVAR (IMO)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could say that the smallest asteroid in the asteroid belt is made of strawberry jam and speaks french, and nobody could prove that i was wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOOOHOOOO! EXACTLY! This is the #1 reason I do not accept ANY internet source in a scientific (sometimes historical) argument. They simply can be any crap anyone can shove onto the internet. 3 classic examples are the already smacked Answers in Genesis, the needs to be smacked Madge site (you won't be familiar with this, anti GE site that defines 'ignorant') and the needs to be smacked REALLY hard anti aspartame head site (Methyl groups are poisonous, I mean, what the hell <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Books/Journals/Historical essays>websites.
Moultano
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can speak fondly of your dog, and the importance of cleaning and feeding them, but that doesn't mean you respect your dog. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and disagree, it depends on the person speaking. In context, that could mean you just want to make sure you take the best care of your pet and so it lives the best life it can. That can be done in a loving way from someone who genuinely cares about the animal or not. It is all up to the persons interpretation of what you are saying.
It doesn't indicate though that you respect your dog, but it on the other hand does not indicate that you don't have any love/respect for your dog.
Personally, I rather like my little Australian Terriers.
Moultano and Skulkbait:
I thought it was more of a little slap rather than an pwning myself. I haven't gone in pwnage mode <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> (which I really only do when discussing certain aspects of World War 2).
Marine:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Compile response to Noah reply from Aegeri <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I think it would be rather futile as there is NO way you are going to convince me of getting 1 million odd animal species into one boat, nor is there any way you can ever make a sane argument that 300,000,000+ insect species will survive for 40 days on vegetation mats. This is one of the many reasons creationism btw is often disregarded straight away. I'd like to see the last article on Noahs ark in Nature, like, EVER. We aren't even getting into how this thing *floats* with that much weight, where the oil comes from to seal the wood (so it doesn't break apart from leaks) and many many other aspects.
In fact, there isn't a sane argument anywhere for the defence of Noahs ark, it is THAT improbable. First argument though can be one I didn't cover, how do you get the required water (for the flood) in the atmosphere without raising the pressure on the surface of the earth to such levels it would crush a human being inside out? Likewise, why isn't all the water on the surface of the earth boiling constantly (higher pressure lowers the boiling point of water if IIRC, could be other way - Believe it or not, I'm not a physicist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Likewise, explain how Noah, and every other animal on earth (and sea critters) suddenly and rapidly adjusted to the sudden pressure change? Bacteria I know COULD achieve this feat, Noah on the other hand would actually explode and so would most other critters. (Contemporary College Physics, Jones/Childers. If you want to look up the physics yourself. It is a readable textbook)
As I said, there isn't a sane scientific argument that can ever be put forth for noahs ark, and I've pretty much read most of it. It would essentially turn into the previous argument, I'd demand journal references, eg that there are a limited number of kinds of animals, that could reproduce the massive amount of earths diversity in 4,000 years feasibly, which is essentially impossible (from what we know of genetics) etc etc. Eventually it would generate back into that silly argument as to the evil scientific community journal conspiracy et al. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I do however think something like Noahs ark happened. It involved a man, a certain flood previously mentioned, a crudely built boat with a goat and a sheep and a LOT of exaggeration. I have a good feeling that is where it probably came from.
Thats kinda scary, a physisist who doesn't know that boiling temeratures are lowered by <b>lower</b> pressure (as evidenced by astronaughts exposed to vacum who's blood boils [actually, I suppose more cosmonauts have died that way...])... Oh well, nobody is perfect.
<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>EDIT</span></b>: Oops, I read that wrong, you said you were <b>not</b> a physisist. Stupid 3:00am posts....