 Enter at own risk!The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.
 Accurate Bible?, controversy |
|
maisky  |
Posted: 16-Dec-2004, 12:45 PM
|
King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group: Founder
Posts: 4,633
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
Zodiac: Ivy
Realm: Easton, PA
|
| QUOTE | | Maisky, when you've got the time I'd love to hear elaborations on why you believe in isotope dating's accuracy, and what arguments you consider to be whining. |
First I do NOT set out to belittle anybody's religious beliefs, so I apologize if I have. Isotope dating is based on clearly measurable isotope decomposition rates. The rates are NOT different on Thursday than the rest of the week. We can measure QUITE closely when a fossilized tree or bug died. I have reviewed much "evidence" that "disproves" evolution. It is not even science, let alone "questionable" science. Empirical evidence will overtake theoretical evidence in MY mind most ANY day. Besides, there is NO conflict between MY religion and science, so I can understand why people struggle so hard to disprove scientific evidence that might suggest that there are flaws in what they are taught in their religion. 
--------------------
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan
|
|
|
| reddrake79 |
Posted: 17-Dec-2004, 09:49 AM
|
Braveheart Member
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
Zodiac: Rowan
Realm: oregon
|
Maisky, you are absolutly right when you say the decomposition rates that science has observed are the same. By comparing the amount of parent element and the daughter element we have now to what was there when the animal died you can get a fairly accurate year of death. That is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in that scientists have to make ASSUMTIONS about how much parent and daughter element were in the organism when it died. There is no way to know that unless a person was there to measure it at the time of death (which no on was). I have heard of two different scientists using different assumtions on the same fossil some up with wildly different dates.
heather marie, I also believe those objections were dealt with and shown to be a moot point (unless I missed one in there somewhere). Sorry if those pages were a bit technical.  I am a high school science teacher and my students will tell you I get a bit technical at times. (Johnny why do you have that blank look on your face?) its something I'm working on. You are right I don't think he was trying to disprove God only that the earth is older than some people think.
What empiracle evidence proves evolution. Even the evolutionary scientists say they have no idea how life started, or how the mind (not the physical brain but what freaud (sp) called the ego) arose from chemical reactions. (so far all the experiments dealing with the "spark of life" have been counterproductive. Proving that life could not have arrisen the way they were thinking. Evolution and Creation must neccessarily deal with the theoretical because no one observed it happening.
I may recomend this book a lot, its because I am currently reading it, The Case for Creation by Lee Stroble is a very scientific look at the evidence for creation and evolution. It is technical yet at the same time easily understandable, a rare thing in a scientific book. It was recommended to me by a friend who is not into science.
As far as I am concerned, no one is offending me yet.
Maisky which evidence have you reviewed? I try to stay on top of it all and the theories and evidence are changing from year to year (on both sides). When I was younger the big bang was believed to be evolutionary ground. No christian would accept it. Now scientists are using the big bang hypothosis (and the subsequent physics and mathmatical proofs) to prove the need for a creator to explain the universe, instead of naturalistic theories. You wont see that in a high school text book. ( I am not trying to say that is the only thing you have reviewed just that "the times, they are a changing")
One reason why many Christians, including me (although I try to go about it in a civilized manner, am I succeeding?), get a little bothered when someone says that evolution is a fact is because if it is, that says the Christian Bible is wrong. Now Christians put there faith in their Bible. The Bible is what tells us how to get to heaven. If our Bible is said to be false, which part of it can we trust, after all in one chapter of the Bible it tells us the entire Bible is useful and trustworthy. Are we only to throw out the first 9 chapters of Genesis (as some do) or is it the chapters that tell us about salvation. It would be tantamount to saying that the person who taught you, freekenny, about the Great Spirit was a known liar.
In Science we do have laws, Theories that have stood up to every (so far) test against them. These are accepted as being always true, regardless of weather you believe them or not. Law of Gravity, Laws of planetary motion, Laws of thermodynamics. If I throw a ball (with just my arm) you would think I was nuts If I said that the Ball is going to take orbit because I don't believe the law of gravity exists.
Also, I apologise If I have ever made it sound like people who believe in evolution are an enemy. I don't know If that was neccessarily directed at me, but I do know my own tendencies and moderating my tone was something my mom always got after me about.
God may not ask us to defend him, but he does command us to always be ready with an answer.
--------------------
Friendship, Love, and Loyalty
|
|
|
| freekenny |
Posted: 20-Dec-2004, 03:48 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 724
Joined: 07-Jul-2004
Zodiac: Willow
Realm: Beaches of North Carolina & Mountains of Kentucky
|
| QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 17-Dec-2004, 10:49 AM) |
What empiracle evidence proves evolution. Even the evolutionary scientists say they have no idea how life started, or how the mind (not the physical brain but what freaud (sp) called the ego) arose from chemical reactions. (so far all the experiments dealing with the "spark of life" have been counterproductive. Proving that life could not have arrisen the way they were thinking. Evolution and Creation must neccessarily deal with the theoretical because no one observed it happening.
I may recomend this book a lot, its because I am currently reading it, The Case for Creation by Lee Stroble is a very scientific look at the evidence for creation and evolution. It is technical yet at the same time easily understandable, a rare thing in a scientific book. It was recommended to me by a friend who is not into science.
One reason why many Christians, including me (although I try to go about it in a civilized manner, am I succeeding?), get a little bothered when someone says that evolution is a fact is because if it is, that says the Christian Bible is wrong. Now Christians put there faith in their Bible. The Bible is what tells us how to get to heaven. If our Bible is said to be false, which part of it can we trust, after all in one chapter of the Bible it tells us the entire Bible is useful and trustworthy. Are we only to throw out the first 9 chapters of Genesis (as some do) or is it the chapters that tell us about salvation. It would be tantamount to saying that the person who taught you, freekenny, about the Great Spirit was a known liar.
In Science we do have laws, Theories that have stood up to every (so far) test against them. These are accepted as being always true, regardless of weather you believe them or not.
Also, I apologise If I have ever made it sound like people who believe in evolution are an enemy. I don't know If that was neccessarily directed at me, but I do know my own tendencies and moderating my tone was something my mom always got after me about.
God may not ask us to defend him, but he does command us to always be ready with an answer. |
O'siyo reddrake, ~ Hmmmmm....okay, am I correct in believing that you are saying whomever 'taught' me about the Great Spirit/life is a liar?!?! The definition of tantamount-equivalent in value, significance, or effect If that indeed was your meaning....well, I'm too much of a Lady to tell you what you can really do with that 'messed up' statement! Nor do YOU have the right to say on a public forum that my Papa Bluefeather also a Shaman and WELL RESPECTED Medicine Man in the Native American community and with the BIA, who has taught and shared much with me is a liar; I will stake my life on it that NONE of his 'teachings/lessons' are lies...I have no clue to who you are but, one thing is for fact....for YOU to call my Papa Bluefeather a liar, if that is indeed what you meant, is not only disrespectful but, immature and not necessary at all! Opinions are one thing reddrake, but assumptions are just that minus the letters other than ASS...If I have misinterpreted what you 'said' then I will be the first to call myself an 'ass' for an incorrect assumption..and I will be the first to apologize.. ~You are a teacher?? What, one can only be a teacher if they 'teach' only what is in books? I have read your posts, I have only commented on things that I disagree with in an intellectual manner on this forum..I have not called anyone a 'name' nor have I went out of my way to disrespect anyone or their belief system..everyone is entitled to live their life they way they see fit! ~ And for the record..I don't need nor do I require 'empiracle evidence' if the way I live my life WORKS FOR ME! You are partly correct when you say that 'evolutionary scientists' claim they have no idea how life started...well, as far as the 'religious sectors' they can't PROVE how life started either...other than what was handed down, interpretated millions of tymes and put in a book called the Bible..This debate will be just that, always a debate..and unless someone begins getting way too 'personal' it makes for an intellectual and stimulating conversation..and again, I find nothing conterproductive when it comes to researching theories, whether scientific or religious..I call it learning and adding to one's life more information that can 'assist' them with every aspect of life.. ~ And again, for the record, I have never stated that Evolution is fact beyond reasonable doubt....nor have I denied believing in many aspects that Evolution has to offer..Nor have I ever stated that I don't believe in a Higher Power..my people call this entity The Great Spirit...just because one chooses to believe in aspects of many theories that perhaps aren't mainstream or accepted in the religious sectors, doesn't make them 'un-holy' nor does it make them wrong! I never claimed your Bible was false..I simply stated many tymes that this book was written by mortals! And well...enough said there! ~ 'God may not ask to be defended but He does command us to always be ready with an answer'...the same can be said for an inqusitive mind such as mine..I may not have to 'defend' my beliefs but, you can bet your sweet ass that when I am asked to why I believe the ways I do, I will ALWAYS have an answer..it's part of the learning process and I 'pray' that I never lose sight of that nor lose interest in learning and sharing..Freud was an early pioneer in 'studying' behaviour, not evolution or religion persay... ~~Sty-U  
--------------------
I always knew one day I would travel this road;I just did not know that today would be the day....
'Each man is good in his sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows' --Sitting Bull
'Why do you take by force what you could obtain by love?'
--Powhatan
'HeartAches mend, HeartBreaks are everlasting'-- my own quote, seeker
|
|
|
| maisky |
Posted: 21-Dec-2004, 08:08 AM
|
King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group: Founder
Posts: 4,633
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
Zodiac: Ivy
Realm: Easton, PA
|
| QUOTE (susieq76 @ 20-Dec-2004, 04:09 PM) | Uhh...I think you may have misinterpreted what he was saying, freekenny dear. I would hope that no one would say what you thought he was saying - especially to you.
My interpretation of what he said (and it's only mine) is that if he threw out some of the Bible based on incompatibility with Science and yet kept the rest (in effect, calling God a liar, because the Bible says it is the authority, and that God wrote it through divinely inspired men) it would be the same as calling the WONDERFUL, educated family of people who taught you what you believe liars.
At least, that is what I thought I heard. But I could be wrong. I hope not. |
susieq76, ma'am, I respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is devinely inspired. |
|
|
| reddrake79 |
Posted: 21-Dec-2004, 05:28 PM
|
Braveheart Member
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
Zodiac: Rowan
Realm: oregon
|
Freekenny, I know exactly how you feel. I ment no disrespect, but you also proved the point I was trying to make . The empirical evidence remark is really only directed at those who try to say the Bible is inaccurate due to empirical evidence. (refer to some earlier posts). I may pick on evolution a lot, but it was recently a hot topic in my classroom. In most of my arguments I am using a purly scientific reasoning (again because of recent trends in my classroom) , which breaks down when it comes up against anykind of faith. However, I will say this, in my view science and faith should not be incompatible. I agree that it is wonderful that we can disagree. (is that an oxymoronic statement?) I think this thread is a good example of how people can disagree. I started it just trying to understand some of the reasoning out there about the bible. If someone doesn't accept it because of the beliefs they hold, I can't argue with that. My primary reason for believing the Bible is for the beliefs I hold. I also happen to believe there is supporting evidence for that belief. Some disagree with me. This has been a very enlightening thread for me. I have learned many new ideas and reasons (even though I may not agree with them ). That is the point for a thread like this, for all to learn.
I will use another (oh no not another one) classroom analogy. I have one student who has never really studied about evolution. He knows only some of the basic ideas. He doesn't believe in evolution, yet he cannot form a very coherant argument for why not. his only response is "I don't believe it, that is why." which is good for him, but doesn't help anyone else out (especially those confused about the whole subject). He is only a freshman (Highschool) so he is still learning and deciding about what He thinks about the world and his own beliefs so there is still hope for him.
|
|
|
| Haldur |
Posted: 12-Jan-2005, 09:17 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 537
Joined: 04-Jan-2004
Zodiac: Willow
Realm: Grayson, KY
|
To lay things out straight:
Today's Bible has so many different versions (the King James version is the most accurate, American Standard 1901 is next best in accuracy, the most inaccurate translation being the New International Version [NIV]) and don't even get me started on the books of the Apocrypha! Basically, the Old Testament was the prophesy of the arrival of Jesus Christ, the first part known as the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deutreronomy), Greek for "five books". These first five books were the books of law for the Jewish people. The second part of the Old Testament were the books of History of Israel (Joshua through Esther), then the Books of Poetry (Job through Ecclesiastes), and Prophecy (Isaiah through Malachi). The word "canon" was first applied to the scriptures in the 4th century A.D. Uncanonical books are those books that are not in the Canon. The books of the Apocrypha belong to this class because all the evidence points to the fact that they were not inspired by God, do not have divine authority, and are not a part of the Scriptures as a "rule of faith", as Canon translates to (in Greek, "straight rod, or rule"). For a complete explanation of all of this it would be best to reference the Dickson New Analytical Study Bible (King James Version with American Standard 1901 subtext) because it lays out the entire history of the translations of the Bible we know today.
Of course, in recent times, denominationalism has given way to different takes on the Bible. That's why it is so hard, rather difficult, to discuss the truth because every denomination (i.e. Catholicism, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.) has contorted, twisted, and confused people on the true written word. This is not meant to offend anyone in any way, it is the truth of God's inspired word that rings true and that adding to or taking away from the word of God is unjust and damnable (read Revelation 22:18-19).
Again, I do this not to offend, but to educate.
--------------------
Haldr, Traveller of the Great Forest"After all is said and done, a lot more will be said than done."
- Unknown
|
|
|
| ErikDeckers |
Posted: 08-Feb-2005, 02:51 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Founder
Posts: 304
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Orlando, FL
|
| QUOTE (Haldur @ 12-Jan-2005, 10:17 PM) | To lay things out straight:
Today's Bible has so many different versions (the King James version is the most accurate, American Standard 1901 is next best in accuracy, the most inaccurate translation being the New International Version [NIV]) and don't even get me started on the books of the Apocrypha! |
I think you've got that backwards. The King James is very inaccurate, because it's a mutli-generation translation. That is, monks would copy other copies, which were copied from other copies, and so on. The copies were also translated from language to language, which if you've ever tried Alta Vista's language translation, can be a problem.
The NIV is the most accurate, because it was translated directly from the original languages by biblical scholars and linguists. It took years and years to translate by committees of scholars. As a result, it's considered to be the "best" representation because of its linguistic accuracy.
The reason many people favor the King James is based on language usage (all those thous and thys); similarly NIV is "too modern," so people dismiss it.
The books of the Apocrypha are not actually considered "official" parts of the Bible because they can't be proven to be true, so they're not even included.
Erik Deckers
--------------------
[color=blue][b]Erik Deckers Visit my weekly humor blog Laughing Stalk[COLOR=blue] |
|
|
| Tassiecelt |
Posted: 08-Feb-2005, 05:24 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 377
Joined: 02-Sep-2004
Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Tasmania, Australia
|
| QUOTE | | To lay things out straight: |
Haldur, you are spot on, the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, not as old a manuscript as those used for modern versions (Nestles), but more accurate.
The KJV is completely reliable with only one or two small exceptions, words that were not translated accurately, but these is no way detract from the message of the Bible.
The argument about successive and multiple copies leading to errors was blown out of the water by the discovery of manuscripts at Quamran (sp?).
Re. denominational differences, ALL Bible-believing Christian churches agree on the fundamentals, the essentials of salvation.
Lesser issues of faith differ between churches, and this can, with the right spirit, lead us to further study and discussion. This is the process of growth and maturity.
The sceptics, the fault-finders, the mockers and doubters will find "errors" and "faults" in the Bible, but those who approach it with a sincere desire for truth will find it.
Jesus replied Thomas with these words:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Joh 20:30,31
that's what it's all about....arriving at belief and enjoying the fruit and reward of that belief - eternal life in Christ.
--------------------
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
|
.gif)
I understand the point he was 'making' and the analogy of sorts..My apologies to you reddrake for my mistake..
Learning to have an open mind is a VERY painful experience. 
