Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > Accurate Bible?


Posted by: reddrake79 29-Jun-2004, 06:07 PM
ok. In discussing several topics I have noticed people either completely believeing the Bible, Believing only part of it or believing none of it. I put the following under another topic earlier but moved it here because it realy wasn't about the topic in that string. It's a little lengthy and I am sure that some people will disagree with me.

There are problems with texts written by man, yes. The Bible was written by men, yes. Can God do anything, yes.

I believe in a God that is a distinct entity. An individual, existing in three presonalities but unified. God also claims to divinly protect his word. God claims it and I believe it.

If an all powerful God could not protect his precious word from us meddling humans, then He is not worthy of my faith or devotion. If the Bible is wrong in some part then God did not protect it and is not worthy of my faith or devotion. How do I know which part He did choose to protect if any? The Bible has proven to be accurate in History, Science, philosophy, as well as other areas. Why not religion and what it says about the hereafter?

The Old Testament is what the Jews have believed for millenia. Quite possibly the oldest thriving religion still around. The New Testament is what Christians believe, both Catholics, Protestants, and others. I myself am a protestant. The protestant reformation came about because a catholic priest read the Bible (oh no! mock horror) and realized that several prevalent thoughts about the Bible were errored. This is an example of man meddling with the Bible but the Bible not changing. Most errors about the Bible come because the person has not read all of it. The Bible was the influence for the majority of pioneering scientists to pursue their theories or modify them. The Bible is quite possibly the most famous book in the entire world. It is used as a synonym in the english language for any book that is difinitive about its subject. It was the main reason for education in early america. The Bible is the most powerful book on the planet. It has caused wars, it has stopped wars, Queen Victoria said it was the reason for English prosperity. It reveals LAWS of nature before they were officially discoverd by Science. There are more copies of the Bible than any other book.

These are some reasons why I believe the Bible. The main reason is because God said he would protect it. That is why I use it in my arguments. It is difinative for most religions.

My God is capable of protecting His word.

This is not about interpretations of the Bible (i.e. King james, NIV, NASB, etc..)

This is a question of faith and belief. As is the case with all questions of religious teachings. What is your faith in?

Here is the major topic of this string. Is the Bible Accurate? Why or why not?
This is also kinda of a poll. I am a little curious as to what people think about the Bible.

Posted by: Shadows 29-Jun-2004, 09:53 PM
Which Bible do you refer to? The one today is so far removed from the original Greek texts that it in no way resembles the word of "god"!

The new testiment has been manipulated to gain control over the believers, most of the original books were not included in the "newer " versions of the 1400's on. There are many works hidden in the vaults of the Vatican that would open your eyes and make you real in your faith... I have seen some!

Posted by: SCShamrock 30-Jun-2004, 02:51 AM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 29-Jun-2004, 10:53 PM)
The one today is so far removed from the original Greek texts that it in no way resembles the word of "god"!

There are many works hidden in the vaults of the Vatican that would open your eyes and make you real in your faith... I have seen some!

Shadows, I have to question this. You say which Bible. Then you say the one today is so far removed from the original Greek Texts.

So, which one today? You seem to be referring to a particular one when you say it "is so far removed" but don't explain which one you are talking about.

As for the works hidden in the Vatican? If they are hidden then how did you see them? If the ultra-wealthy religious elites that operate in the Vatican wish to hide something, don't you think it would be truly hidden? Also, you called them works. I can't believe you would give these mysterious texts any Devine relevance if you casually refer to them as "works". But you then go on to say that these works would make someone "real" in their faith. That's quite a sweeping statement. If you have this wonderful insight into true faith, then why aren't you compelled to share that with the world?

You mention the Greek texts. The New Testament is where you will find mostly Greek. However, there are actually three languages that are prevalent in the original scripts. Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Were you actually stating that only the ancient Greek texts were truly God inspired, or were you saying that the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were accurately translated, included, and canonized?

Posted by: barddas 30-Jun-2004, 06:24 AM
Here is a complete list of Books of the bible. With the inclusion of the 'missing' books as well.( ie Thomas ( which was to be the only book written while Christ lived) etc....)


Check out the site Comparative Religions.com link below

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/





Full Index

NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA complete index

 
1. Pseudo-Jesus apocrypha


1.1 The Epistles of Jesus to Abgarus

2. Pseudo-apostolic (general) apocrypha


2.1 Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
2.2 Epistle of the Apostles


3. Pseudo-apostolic (specific - by Apostle) apocrypha

3.1 - Andrew -

3.1.1 Acts of Andrew
3.1.2 Acts of Andrew and Matthias*

3.2 - Barnabas -

3.2.1 Acts of Barnabas*
3.2.2 Epistle of Barnabas
3.2.3 Gospel of Barnabas

3.3 - Bartholomew -

3.3.1 Gospel of Bartholomew
3.3.2 Martyrdom of Bartholomew*

3.4 - James -

3.4.1 Apocryphon of James
3.4.2 Book of James (protevangelium)
3.4.3 First Apocalypse of James
3.4.4 Second Apocalypse of James

3.5 - John -

3.5.1 Acts of John
3.5.2 Acts of John the Theologian*
3.5.3 Apocryphon of John (long version)
3.5.4 Book of John the Evangelist
3.5.5 Revelation of John the Theologian*

3.6 - Mark -

3.6.1 Secret Gospel of Mark

3.7 - Matthew -

3.7.1 Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
3.7.2 The Martyrdom of Matthew

3.8 - Nicodemus -

3.8.1 Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)

3.9 - Peter -

3.9.1 Acts of Peter
3.9.2 Acts of Peter and Andrew
3.9.3 Apocalypse of Peter - version 1
3.9.4 Apocalypse of Peter - version 2
3.9.5 Gospel of Peter
3.9.6 Letter of Peter to Philip

3.10 - Philip -

3.10.1 Acts of Philip
3.10.2 Gospel of Philip

3.11 - Thaddeus -

3.11.1 Acts of Thaddeus (Epistles of Pontius Pilate)*
3.11.2 Teaching of Thaddeus

3.12 - Thomas -

3.12.1 Acts of Thomas
3.12.2 Apocalypse of Thomas
3.12.3 Book of Thomas the Contender
3.12.4 Consumation of Thomas
3.12.5 Gospel of Thomas


4. Pseudo-Pauline apocrypha


4.1 3 Corinthians
4.2 Acts 29
4.3 Acts of Paul
4.4 Acts of Paul and Thecla
4.5 Acts of Peter and Paul*
4.6 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
4.7 Apocalypse of Paul
4.8 Apocalypse of Paul - other version
4.9 Epistle to the Laodiceans
4.10 Revelation of Paul*
4.11 Paul and Seneca


5. Infancy Gospels apocrypha


5.1 Arabic Infancy Gospel
5.2 First Infancy Gospel of Jesus Christ
5.3 Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
5.4 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek A
5.5 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek B
5.6 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Latin


6. Relatives of Jesus apocrypha


6.1 Gospel of Mary
6.2 Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
6.3 Book of John concerning the dormition of Mary (transitus marić)*
6.4 History of Joseph the Carpenter*
6.5 Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea


7. Sub-canonical (disputed canon) apocrypha


7.1 Shepherd of Hermas
7.2 II Clement
7.3 Diatession
7.4 Gospel of the Lord (Marcion)


8. Other significant Epistles and pseudomynous writings and apocrypha


8.1 I Clement
8.2 Avenging of the Saviour
8,3 Epistles of Pontius Pilate
8.4 Letter of Aristeas
8.5 Sentences of the Sextus
8.6 Alexandrians
8.7 Revelations of Stephen
8.8 Muratonian Canon (fragment)


9. Fragments of lost apocryphal books


9.1 Gospel of the Ebionites
9.2 Gospel of the Egyptians
9.3 Egerton Gospel (Egerton Papyrus 2)*
9.4 Gospel of the Hebrews
9.5 Traditions of Mattias
9.6 Gospel of the Nazaraeans
9.7 Preaching of Peter


10. Apostolic Constitutions (Didascalia Apostolorum)


10.1 Book 1
10.2 Book 2
10.3 Book 3
10.4 Book 4
10.5 Book 5
10.6 Book 6
10.7 Book 7
10.8 Book 8


11. Psuedo-Sibylline Oracles


11.0 Preface
11.1 Chapter I
11.2 Chapter II
11.3 Chapter III
11.4 Chapter IV
11.5 Chapter V
11.6 Chapter VI
11.7 Chapter VII
11.8 Chapter VIII
11.9 Chapter XI
11.10 Chapter XII
11.11 Chapter XIII
11.12 Chapter XIV
11.13 Appendices - Fragments



 

* copyright work, used with express permission.

** I have no idea why the numbering system of this work jumps from 8 to 11. I presume that the error lies with the Roman numerals, with IX (9) mistakenly written as XI (11) at the source. However, it is my policy not to change textual information, so it remains.

Posted by: birddog20002001 30-Jun-2004, 06:40 AM
There are many books that the Church had "taken" from the public in order to make sure the public could be pushed into the direction they wanted, some of the early cults of Christianity were completely different than anything observable in the Church today , for example the Gnostics. Also some books were removed due to repetition of other books ( the gospels are accounts based on other works and often repeat them selves). Here are a few examples of the missing books.

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch

The Book of Jubilees

Haggadah

Manichaean Creation Myths

The Secret Book of John

On the origin of the World

The Apocalypse of Adam

Kabbalah

The Dead Sea Scrolls (many books)

The Gospel of Thomas

The Secret Gospel of Mark

The Apocryon of James

the Gospel of Bartholomew

The Gospel of Nicodemus

At least 5 infancy Gospels

the Acts of John, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and Thomas.

At least 16 accounts of the Apocalypse

Simon Magnus

and many other, If you look at the names of those that have written the books nany of them are names of the disiples we learned as children and wondered what did they do why didn't they write, well the did and it did not fit with the cannonical policy of the Church.

Posted by: reddrake79 30-Jun-2004, 08:59 AM
Why were these books not included in the cannon? Why has no one really tried to make them mainstream cannon? So many different denominations copied the old and new testaments during the early Catholic times times. I.E. George Whitfield and others, yet they include the same books. My understanding about cannonicity is that they chose the books that agreed with each other and the old testament which was already established by judaism. Regardless of why, if God wanted them in the Cannon they would have been. If you say God is just putting them back in now, then we must also question everybody's faith who came before this startling revelation that the Bible is not whole.

If God Loves us and wants us to understand Him then He would not allow several hundred years of misinformation to go by before He did something. And He didn't.
Even while the Pope had excessive political power, there were groups that didn't agree with the catholic Church. There were even those within the Church that didn't completely agree with it (Martin Luther). Yet they kept the same Books in the Bible. (OK so Martin Luther wanted to throw out the book of James, but I believe he ended up not doing that since the Lutherans I know still teach from the book of James).

Posted by: reddrake79 30-Jun-2004, 09:07 AM
I still havn't seen any proof that the current Bible we have is inaccurate only that other books were once considered and then dismissed. Just because the other books were dismissed does not mean that they prove that the current Bible is inaccurate. They could have been dismissed because they were believed to be the inaccurate ones, not because of some conspiracy to hide the truth. It is easy and fun to believe that the vatican has the power to completely pull the wool over the eyes of every last person on earth and thwart the will of God, but ultimatly inconclusive. The vatican did not always have the power that it enjoys now.

You want us to give the vatican enough credit for over centuries of deciet but not enough credit that they would destroy the evidence.

However, we have only discussed the new testament. what about the Old? It still teaches the same things as the New Testament we currently have.

Posted by: Camchak 30-Jun-2004, 11:50 AM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 30-Jun-2004, 07:40 AM)
There are many books that the Church had "taken" from the public in order to make sure the public could be pushed into the direction they wanted, some of the early cults of Christianity were completely different than anything observable in the Church today , for example the Gnostics.

This is always a very heated topic! When we start a conversation about "religion" and use the term "cult", we have already poked a finger in someones eye. Some of the groups I have heard referred to as "cults are: A football team, the U.S. Marines, etc. To say what you believing is not factual because it is not written in this langauge is an assumption created by man. We are told it is by faith that we believe and that faith is not of ourselves. That faith is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. If the Bible tells us that the only way to the Father is through Jesus and we believe that to be true then we show our faith in that word. We are never told in the Bible that we must change the way everyone believes to believe this one thing! We are told that we are responsible to tell them what we believe no more than that. To argue that I am right and you are wrong or the other way around is not part of the equation. God gave each of us a free will to chose on our own and that is what each of us must do and do alone. If I say here is a free gift, for you to have this gift you must pick it up and take it as your own. If you believe the gift to be free you can do no more than tell others hey, that guy gave me a free gift. If you go to him he will give you one also. If the other person says he did not give you a free gift what more can you do but say "go to him yourself and see if he gives you a free gift." We will all make our own discission, and each of us will be accountable for that discission.

Posted by: Raven 30-Jun-2004, 12:11 PM
I don't know how many of these books any of you have read (in addition to the whole new and Old Testaments to establish a baseline for comparison) I have not read all of these so called hidden books, but the ones that I have read including the Apocrypha and the Thomas books are obviosly not cut from the same cloth as the books that are known as the Canon of Scripture. (at least to my eyes and apparently to the real experts) The most obvious difference is man solving man's problems (non-cannonized books) as opposed to man being totally dependant on God for his solutions (cannonized books - I would think this dependance should extend to trusting God to keep His inspired word in tact with no ommisions) biggrin.gif

I do agree with Shadows on this point that the Roman Catholic Church has exercised a certain amount of control over the access to scripture to manipulate the masses (no pun intended wink.gif ) But they are responsible for the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, something even the Authors of the Old Testament (the Jews) do not agree with.

Given the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls are only a relatively recent discovery it is not appropriate to include them in works that the Catholic church has supressed from the Canon of scripture and I do not believe there is any evidence to support that all of the scrolls were ever written with such an intention.

As far as the canon of scripture of today being so far removed from the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew text, that is simply not true. The Canon of scripture was established by the end of the first century (prior to the forming of the Roman Catholic Church - I know some will argue this point but lets just define the establishment of this particular church as when the organization became official wink.gif )

There are Greek manuscripts that date nearly to this time. Most translations with the notable exception of the King James and NKJV translations come from a collection as opposed to a single manuscript (not that this makes it any less reliable) By all accounts from literary experts the New Testament is the most reliable book of antiquity with the Old Testament running a close 2nd. BTW I do not know off the top of my head the date ascribed to the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV translation manuscript) but I am sure that would not be difficult to acertain.

I have a lot of information on this subject as I am an avid student of Biblical Apologetics if anyone is interested in more.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 30-Jun-2004, 12:50 PM
I looked up when the Canon was became closed. This is not about official catholic church closing the canon, but when the books were commonly accepted among believers. The date given was a little earlier than 200 a.d. The early church fathers quoted widely or used in their messages the books we now consider the Bible. The apocryha was not commonly accepted as scripture during this time.

Posted by: birddog20002001 30-Jun-2004, 01:35 PM
QUOTE
There are many books that the Church had "taken" from the public in order to make sure the public could be pushed into the direction they wanted, some of the early cults of Christianity were completely different than anything observable in the Church today , for example the Gnostics.



This is always a very heated topic! When we start a conversation about "religion" and use the term "cult", we have already poked a finger in someones eye. Some of the groups I have heard referred to as "cults are: A football team, the U.S. Marines, etc.


Perhaps my choice of words was not the most clear. I was refering to seperate individual groups in Judeo-Christian history as a cult, I was not using the traditional definition of a cult that is taken in a negative context such as a secret group with an agenda seperate from mainstrean society but I was using it as A group of people with unique creeds and beliefs and goals. In this context the Marines and football teams can correctly be refered to as a cult The Marines recite the Riflemans Creed They "believe" that it is part of their calling to protect the United States and it's people from all enemies foreign and domestic, and they take an oath to do so and they train in order to make that goal a priority one that is greater than the sum total of their lives.

Each individual branch of the Church including the Catholic Church are in fact cults branches off shooting from the same tree. Protestantisim is the offspring of Catholic Church which was created as a protest to Jadaeism as it was practiced 2,000 years ago.

The Jewish Rabbinical council even states that the first five books (The Pentauch) is mythic history and did not happen.

In Genisis there are actually several creation of man stories and you can see that they are independent of each other is you read it strait through.

Also there is two stories written with two seperate protagonists but the same antagonist a king (and this is from a long memory so forgive me if I am wrong) Abraham and Sari come to a foreign land he tells her to pretend that she is his sister so he will not be killed so the king can marry her. The king sleeps with her and a plague befals the land. The king does not know why eventually he finds out and sends Abraham out of the country for decieving the king and allowing him to commit adultery. That exact story is repeated I believe in the same book mayby just a few chapters later by the same king with a different couple.

Also Moses wrote the first five books how did he write about his funeral?

I was raised by a Catholic father and a Southern Baptist mother they damned each other to hell as heretics every week, I am agnostic.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 30-Jun-2004, 06:55 PM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 30-Jun-2004, 03:35 PM)
Also there is two stories written with two seperate protagonists but the same antagonist a king (and this is from a long memory so forgive me if I am wrong) Abraham and Sari come to a foreign land he tells her to pretend that she is his sister so he will not be killed so the king can marry her. The king sleeps with her and a plague befals the land. The king does not know why eventually he finds out and sends Abraham out of the country for decieving the king and allowing him to commit adultery. That exact story is repeated I believe in the same book mayby just a few chapters later by the same king with a different couple.

Actually, Birddog, the information you give here is incorrect. In neither case did the king sleep with the wife. The first instance, with Abraham and Sarah, is found in Genesis 20:1-17. The second, with Isaac and Rebekah, is in Genesis 26:1-11.

Posted by: birddog20002001 30-Jun-2004, 07:49 PM
Ablimech is the kings name in both cases but in the first with Abraham it says in Gen: 20 2-7 "Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife." God then said "therefore I suffered thee not to touch her. Now therefore the man his wife..." what I get out of that is that he "took" her for a wife but did not consumate the marrige.

Also look at Genesis 12 12-20 Abram and Sari go into Egypt...Say "thou art my sister that it may be well with thee for thy sake..." same story which they were brother and sister. My main point was that the story is a repeater.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 30-Jun-2004, 07:57 PM
Just because identical things happened to two different couples does not make it a mistake! As a matter of fact the Bible itself lets readers know that these were two separate incidents! Look at Gen 26:1 "And there was a famine in the land, BESIDE the famine that was in the days of Abraham." It is warning readers that these were two separate incidents! Obviously Isaac did not learn from the mistakes of his father, rather he repeated them! Don't kids today make the same mistakes their fathers made, even though parents go out of their way to warn them? Sorry, I don't think you can justify this one!

Posted by: birddog20002001 30-Jun-2004, 08:10 PM
But the fact that the kings name is the same and what is up with Numbers 21 4-9 "And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness..." the Lord sent Fiery serpents among the people. 8"And the Lord said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and setit up upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." Moses made a brass serpent and they "looked upon it" and lived. That sounds alot like the graven image Commandment in Numbers.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 30-Jun-2004, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 30-Jun-2004, 09:49 PM)
Also look at Genesis 12 12-20 Abram and Sari go into Egypt...Say "thou art my sister that it may be well with thee for thy sake..." same story which they were brother and sister. My main point was that the story is a repeater.

Bud, you've made a msitake on this one too. In the sotry you have quoted here, the protagonist is NOT Abimelech, but Pharaoh of Egypt. Abraham tried this trick first here with Pharaoh in Gen 12:12-20. Obviously it worked! He was not killed and he and Sarah were set free. so why would he NOT try it again with Abimelech? And it obviously worked BOTH times for Abraham, so why WOULDN'T Isaac try it? Hey, if it worked for dad.... I think you're stretching on this one...

Posted by: WizardofOwls 30-Jun-2004, 08:29 PM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 30-Jun-2004, 10:10 PM)
But the fact that the kings name is the same and what is up with Numbers 21 4-9 "And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness..." the Lord sent Fiery serpents among the people. 8"And the Lord said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and setit up upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." Moses made a brass serpent and they "looked upon it" and lived. That sounds alot like the graven image Commandment in Numbers.

Also, once again, just becasue the king's name is the same does not mean it is a mistake! Two possibilites: 1) Abimelech was just plain dumb or naieve and fell for the same trick twice, or 2) two different kings named Abimelech. Sorry you have yet to prove to me that this is a mistake.

As for the second part, the people were commanded, as you say, to LOOK upon it (Num 21:9), NOT to worship it (Exodus 20:4-5). This snake is a foreshadowing of Jesus' death.

Next?

Posted by: birddog20002001 01-Jul-2004, 04:14 AM
I disagree the story is repeated 3 times between Gen 12-26, it is the same template, but in the first two tellings Abraham and Sarah are the same and in the second two stories the king is the same Abimelech king of Gerar.


QUOTE
NOT to worship it (Exodus 20:4-5). This snake is a foreshadowing of Jesus' death.


Exodus 20:4 Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Plus Jesus is not traditionally know as the serpent, usually he is called the lamb because of the sacrifice he made. And don't you think that the serpent has a negative connotation from his work in the garden.

Another question if Mary did have the immaculate conception why did the list Joseph's linneage in the beginning of the Gospel. They tied him into history 42 generations but all's he did was not denounce Mary? They should have listed hers as a carrier of the Christ (though not actually his biological parent).

Posted by: reddrake79 01-Jul-2004, 08:51 AM
as for listing joseph's lineage in the gospel it istablished Jesus legal claim to the throne of david to fulfill the prophecy in the old testament that the Messiah would be of the lineage of david. Mary was the biological (if you will) connection to the throne. However the jews would ignore this since it came through the mother not the father.

BTW the Bible is clear that it is three different stories involving many of the same characters but 3 seperate stories. In Genesis 12 it says that God sent Abraham. Then the suceeding chapters tell where Abraham went. Genesis 20 says "from there Abraham went.." There being the plain of Sodom and Gamorah. That is not where Abraham started his journey from when God told him to go. Genesis 26 says during a famine, but NOT the famine of abraham that sent abraham to egypt in Genesis 12.

As for Abimalech could it not be a title similar to pharoh. If we use your logic earlier that because it lists the same name twice that it is the same man then egypt only had one ruler throught history? The other possibilty is the Abimalech was realy long lived.

How do you get 3 creation accounts in Genesis?

I only count 1.

Genesis chapter 1 is an overview of the 6 days of creation. Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of what he created during the 6th day. remember, chapter and verse divisions were not originally part of the Hebrew scriptures. They were added later for convenience.

Posted by: barddas 01-Jul-2004, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 01-Jul-2004, 10:51 AM)
remember, chapter and verse divisions were not originally part of the Hebrew scriptures. They were added later for convenience.

Ok, I know I am 'picking', and this is meant to be lighthearted.... But a real question still.... I swear I amnot trying to be an Antagonist.wink.gif

If the word of God is what the Bible is, then why would it have to be changed for convenience???? And not left in its original form......That then changes the 'word of god'. And that is the point I was trying to make earlier. Mans interfernece over 2000 yrs, who is to say what is legit? I know it comes down to faith.......

And just in reading this discussion there are already 3 differant interpritations of basically the same thing.......

I am not saying the bible is the word of god, but I am also not saying it isn't. I am mearly saying that with a 2000 yr old text being translated, and retranslated over and over language, to language ( and with out a spell check!!!!) that there are bound to be mistakes, from the interpritation of the original. None of us have ever seen the original text. So 'we' are completely going on faith.........Which is what the whole religion is based upon.
I think I answered this already for you..... unsure.gif


I think I am rambling.....LOL!!!!

Posted by: Raven 01-Jul-2004, 09:45 AM
QUOTE (barddas @ 01-Jul-2004, 10:11 AM)
Ok, I know I am 'picking', and this is meant to be lighthearted.... But a real question still.... I swear I amnot trying to be an Antagonist.wink.gif

If the word of God is what the Bible is, then why would it have to be changed for convenience???? And not left in its original form......That then changes the 'word of god'. And that is the point I was trying to make earlier. Mans interfernece over 2000 yrs, who is to say what is legit? I know it comes down to faith.......

And just in reading this discussion there are already 3 differant interpritations of basically the same thing.......

I am not saying the bible is the word of god, but I am also not saying it isn't. I am mearly saying that with a 2000 yr old text being translated, and retranslated over and over language, to language ( and with out a spell check!!!!) that there are bound to be mistakes, from the interpritation of the original. None of us have ever seen the original text. So 'we' are completely going on faith.........Which is what the whole religion is based upon.
I think I answered this already for you..... unsure.gif


I think I am rambling.....LOL!!!!

Jason

I think this is just a matter of semantics biggrin.gif . The Chapter and verse designations are not a part of the original manuscript they were added later for convenience in referencing the various verses and to make it easier to read. Punctuation was not a part of the original text and the same for vowels. This is part of the translation process.

As far as the Bible being translated from language to language I used to think the same thing and then I found out that all of the modern translations - german, english, chinese, etc... are all translated from the oldest Greek,Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts some of which predate Christ.

It is not like they were translated from Hebrew to Latin to Greek to German to English and then back to German again tongue.gif

I have more information on this subject at home if I have some extra time tonight I will post it. I personally find the whole thing fascinating.

Birddog as far as the King having the same name (I do not believe it to be a title) It is not and never has been unusual for people (even rulers) to have the same name. Even though you personally believe the stories to be to similar and the name is just more evidence to you that they are contrived. Consider that Isaac in all likelyhood learned the trick of calling his wife his sister from his father or that it may have been a common way to keep from being killed by a king for your wife in those days.

Simply deciding that the Kings are the same person lacks empiracle evidence and It is not a point that will come to any conclusive end, therefore it is probably not worth belaboring as it will simply come down to a matter of opinion. Who do you trust? Obviously you do not trust the author in this case?

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 01-Jul-2004, 02:47 PM
I was expecting someone to ask about the verse divisions as soon as I posted it. biggrin.gif
Thanks to raven for sharing his studies with us.

In response to barddas wink.gif

discussions about the Bible are longwinded enough. Without the chapters and verses people would have to wait forever to find the passage they were looking for (where is that passage about Isaac decieving the King....can't find it...know its here somewhere...its neer the middle... AAhhh there it is.) Then trying to tell someone (its after the calling of abraham...no further...near the middle..after that...there you go.) Convinience does not mean inacuracy or malicious medling.

It does mean that someone tried to make it easier to access and follow along in.

"We will be starting in Genesis 26:1 today" not "we will be starting in Genesis, the story of Isaac. You'll find it after the story of Sodom and Gamorrah - russle, russle, russle- Its on page 126 of my Bible."
"but pastor mine wasn't made by the same company"

5 minutes later everyone is on the same page.

smile.gif

Posted by: WizardofOwls 01-Jul-2004, 09:11 PM
Birddog - a couple more points about the Abimelech story...

First, look at Gen 20:13, "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at EVERY PLACE whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother." So Abraham had REQUIRED Sarah to say every where they stopped that she was his sister. Its a good thing the Bible only records these two instances of them stopping or there would have been more than just 2 similar stories!

Second, you said that the Abraham/Sarah story was identical to the Isaac/Rebekah story. Well, there are major differences: Abimelech took Sarah with the intention of making her his wife. However, not Rebekah! Isaac and Rebekah were merely living in the country! Abimilech did not take her as he had Sarah! And Abimilech had been upset with Abraham becasue he himself had almost slept with Sarah, but at Gen 26:10, Abimilech says to Isaac: "What is this thou hast done unto us? ONE OF THE PEOPLE might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us." One of the people, not he himself.

On a different topic, you said "Also Moses wrote the first five books how did he write about his funeral?" I'm sorry but I found this a little humorous. You didn't even question the idea that God had revealed to Moses things that had happened hundreds, maybe even thousands of years in the past, things he could not have possibly known about, intimate details of the creation of the unverse and man, entire life stories, even personal conversations, but you DO question that Moses had knowledge of things that happened just a few short years in the future? Sorry, but that hit my funny bone. You have missed a couple of possiblities: 1) perhaps God did indeed give Moses a vision of his own demise and the events that followed, or 2) perhaps someone else wrote the last chapter for him, recording the events that happened after his death, and they were included with the works of Moses for the sake of keeping his life story whole and in one place. It would be very important when recording the details of a pivotal person's life to keep all of those details together and in order with the other details of history. If you'll notice, the very last chapter of Deuteronomy flows almost seamlessly into the first chapter of Joshua. Perhaps Joshua, or the author of Joshua, wrote that last chapter.

Posted by: birddog20002001 01-Jul-2004, 09:35 PM
QUOTE
So Abraham had REQUIRED Sarah to say every where they stopped that she was his sister


Sarah Was his sister

Gen 20:12 and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 01-Jul-2004, 09:38 PM
Yes, I know that. My point was that Abraham required her to tell everyone. That's why the story was repeated from Pharaoh to Abimilech.

Posted by: Annabelle 01-Jul-2004, 10:29 PM
There are so many versions of the bible and the St. James version with al the thee's and thou's confuse me so I use the Living Bible.

A

Posted by: CelticRose 02-Jul-2004, 02:26 AM
I personally prefer the New American Standard Bible as I was told it was the most accurate from the original scrolls.

Wizzard! You have some really wonderful things to say and have encouraged me as a believer!

Posted by: Raven 02-Jul-2004, 09:12 AM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 02-Jul-2004, 03:26 AM)
I personally prefer the New American Standard Bible as I was told it was the most accurate from the original scrolls.


This is probably what you mean't to say Rose, but I am a stickler for semantics when talking about the bible as it seems like a little crack in the conversation can turn into a bottomless gorge otherwise. tongue.gif

New American Standard Translation is held up to be the most accurate translation.
Meaning that there is felt to be accurate interpretation of how the original language should be rendered into English.

The King James Version is held up as the most literal translation meaning that there is very little or at least less interpretation of how the words are translated.

Even thought these translations come from 2 different manuscripts they are essentially the same. By that I mean that there are no inconsistencies between them and the difference in the manuscripts is very miniscule indeed with the (i think they call it)the Majority Texts being essentially a few missing verses (these manuscripts are essentially a complete text assembled from many different original texts to make up a complete New Testament) The missing passages being at the end of Mark and I John 5:7. Both of which contain concepts that are repeated elsewhere hence I say essentially no difference.

Peace

Mike

Posted by: urian 02-Jul-2004, 01:13 PM
I will come back later and write more but,for now, I will say this:

From an analytical standpoint, if I take into consideration the gnostic texts that were discovered at the beginning of last century and the apocrypha plus throw into it the fact that man has had his grubby paws on most of the material for centuries,I find it hard to believe that the bible is 100% accurate.

The gnostic texts (for those who dont know) are a collection of texts that were written by other groups of christ followers. These sects were ,subsequently, destroyed, persecuted and harrassed into extinction by the one sect that would become the Catholic church. These texts portray Christ and his teachings in a more esoteric light than the accepted scriptures. Many of the scriptures that were found were carbon dated and found to have been written during Christ's life as opposed to 30,40 or a hundred years after his death.

The apocrypha were a little better. These scriptures were a little more "PC" but didnt fall into what the emerging church wanted so they were left out as well. These have many interesting stories about christ as a child and shed more light on Mary.

Then we have man. Man corrupts what he touches. Sometimes accidently but it happens nonetheless. Many hands have touched the scriptures and many minds have had their say in way was included in what we know as the BIBLE. Some were pure of heart and only wanted to convey the Lord's Teaching. Some were trying to push a specific agenda and dogma so they might not have done things with the purest intent. A good example of what I'm talking about is the game you play as a kid called Trcikle Down(or a dezon other names) where I tell someone something and they tell someone else and so on until the end where it doesnt sound anything like my first phrase. This happens through misunderstandings and misinterpretations and (with some people) a want to change something to suit their needs. Let's be realistic, the books we have in the scriptures have been bound together for almost 2000 years. Someone is bound to have "tweeked" something here and there.

Do I believe that the bible is 100% accurate? No. Do I beleive that some sections were tampered with to suit the needs of the emerging church/world power? Yes. Do I think that some parts were more "tweeked" than others? Yes, I believe that. I think some parts were fairly untouched. Jesus's sermon on the mount is a good example(matthew chp. 5). I think it was left alone or lightly touched because it conveyed a lot of Christ's teachings in a nut shell.

On a personl note I think its sad that so many wars have been waged in the name of a book the (at least the NT) taught forgiveness and caring and understanding. So much hate can be generated using this(the tome of God) as an excuse to hate. So many take bits and pieces out of context to forward their own causes..*sigh*

*back on subject*I think the question of whether the bible is accurate or not is a moot point that will not be known until we stand in front of the Powers That Be and get a chance to ask them.
It's not whether it is accurate or how many people have changed it because ,in the end, we will not be judged by the ink on paper..we will be juded by what we have done to exemplify those basic teachings. Love ,forgiveness, understanding and walking in the Lord's Light.

My ramblings
Urian


Posted by: Aaediwen 02-Jul-2004, 01:58 PM
Amen Urian!

As I understand it, the KJV is called the King James Version because it was written in such a way as to not offend King James. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a bit done to increase the power and importance of a king in that version as well; to the point of being second only to the devine.

At least the core message remains, and that's what is important. However, I also have trouble believing that everything happened exactly as stated. The core history is there. That has been proven, but between telling a story to relay a deepre message, and tamperings like I mentioned for helping a political agenda... I'd say some of the individual stories are probably not the same as what actually happened. They aren't what is important anyway though. What is important is the lessons they teach.

To help express my view, I'll use a question that was often asked of Jesus himself, and is core to the Christian belief. Is Jesus the son of God? Personally, I'd say he may well have been. Sure, I'll agree that he probably was. However, in the end, is it important? He knew what he was talking about either way. The teachings are the same, reguardless of how he came to be on Earth. Several religons speak of God having a human son. (Sometimes this is plural, sometimes Daughters) For so many to believe it, I'd say it's true. According to the NT, the son is Jesus, so yes, I'll believe he is the son of God. Again, not that it matters to me one way or the other. He still knew what he was talking about and knew how to teach it; perticularly so it would be accepted.

Anyway, back to summerise my point and bring this back to the original topic; Do I believe everything in the Bible is correct and untouched? no, there are innacuracies. However the message remains. It's just a matter of not getting too wrapped up in the little things to see the truth of what is being said.

/me gets off the soap box and tries to stop rambling

Posted by: Raven 02-Jul-2004, 02:33 PM
A couple of points I have discovered that make the answers in this thread less definitive.

Is the Bible accurate? Needs to be defined.

Do you believe that the Bible is Translated Accurately?

Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate?

Do you believe that the original manuscripts that comprise the Bible were accurately preserved up to translation?

Do you believe that the Bible accurately conveys God's word?

Also this is from the analytical viewpoint. (being part Vulcan tongue.gif )

If you believe that the Bible should include more than it does already(i.e. other texts that have never been included in the Cannon or are not widely accepted as part of it) Why?

Also if you believe that the Bible should include more or less, have you read the Bible in it's entirety, Old and New Testaments and other texts that you believe should be a part of the Bible to see if it makes sense to you that the other texts are not a part of the Bible. (obviously someone did that at some time and if I was disputing them I would want to see if I could see what they saw)

If you believe part of the Bible has been changed or deleted to suit the church and it's agenda, why and what evidence can you offer to support this? Or are you basing what you believe about the Bible on what you percieve to be possible or not possible.

Ulitmately faith equates with trust. If you believe in an all powerful creator, do you believe do you believe that he is capable of keeping his word in tact for all of his followers to read?


Certainly some things are provable and others not. It seems senseless to argue what can not be proven one way or another. If you have already made up your mind that the authors and characters in the Bible are guilty until proven inocent then in many cases (such as Issac and Abraham) the most solid evidence that you have is what is presented by the characters in the story by the author and at some point you either decide to trust the story and the author or not. Reasoning about a story happening more than once are not conclusive and are arbitrary. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that history could repeat itself on some level and maybe quite closely. (this happens all the time)

I see how some have arrived at their opinions, but I would like to know how others have and what they are based on or if they had even considered where those opinions came from previously.

I personally formed my opinion about the Bible by reading it intitially (with the idea that the stories would be full of wholes but that I may find some truth in it) Then examining it in light of external evidence. (I.E. archeology, preservation methods, translation and methods, etc...) Then cross referencing for difficulties (apparent contradictions) and seeing if they could really be reconciled (with in the Bible itself and across various English translations)

I compared it with what science says are there any contradictions?(provable hard science, not theories as they are frequently unsubstantiated)

From a literature standpoint, can the Bible be trusted as an accurate representation of what it was originally in all parts.

Finally the Cannon, what about other works, should they be given equal weight or any weight at all compared to the Bible. (I.E. Gnostic works, other Gospels, Apochrypha, Book of Mormon, etc....not meaning that I have read every single work that was not deamed worthy of being included in the Cannon of Scripture, but a very significant amount, enough to convince me that the Cannon is as it should be)

I have spent the last 18 years of my adult life working on this endeavor as I for one want to know why I believe what I believe and I am not suggesting that anyone should take my word for it. I simply think that in considering whether or not the Bible is the word of God a substantial amount of effort should be put forth because if it is indeed his devine word, this is one of the most important decisions that anyone will ever make in their lives.

(sorry for the long winded ness wink.gif )

Mikel

Posted by: WizardofOwls 02-Jul-2004, 02:34 PM
Well, I will just say that I am of the old school of Christain beliefs: I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. I believe it AS WRITTEN and prefer the KJV because I believe it is the closest and most powerful of the written versions (though I do have other versions in case I find something difficult to understand in the KJV). Yes, the KJV was written at the behest of King James, but I do believe that he was inspired by God to do so and that translators he employed to do so were led by God. I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible says the world was created in seven day, I believe it was a literal seven days as we know them. And yes I believe that God IS all-powerful, and is powerful enough to keep His own Word pure.

Nuff said by me.

A bumper sticker I saw once that best expreeses my views:
The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

Posted by: Raven 02-Jul-2004, 03:14 PM
QUOTE (WizardofOwls @ 02-Jul-2004, 03:34 PM)
I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible says the world was created in seven day, I believe it was a literal seven days as we know them. And yes I believe that God IS all-powerful, and is powerful enough to keep His own Word pure.


I'm going to use you just for an example here Alan, I hope you don't mind unsure.gif

This is what I am talking about Bible accuracy, Alan believes that the Bible is to be taken literally and this has nothing to do with the translation being literal, but the interpretation.

Alan obviously believes that the Bible is completely accurate (as I do, just for different reasons biggrin.gif )

This is just where the semantics can lead to confusion about what we are actually talking about. At some point if we consider the Bible we will make one of 3 choices, I believe, I don't believe, not enough evidence to make a decision.


Peace

Mikel

Posted by: CelticRose 02-Jul-2004, 04:08 PM
Wow! Very interesting conversation. I am like in Allen in the point that I believe the Bible is the literal word of God that God inspired men to write. I am sure that down through the ages that written translations got messed up somehow. I know that I wrote that I was told that the New American Standard was the most accurate, but personally I much prefer the New American Standard.........much easier reading biggrin.gif

You all bring up some very good points!

Peace and love!

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Jul-2004, 04:23 PM
I did not come to you with eloquence of speech, I came to you preaching Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Paul

unsure.gif I believe we can get too wrapped up in wandering wondering. I'm not saying that the thoughts in this thread are aimless, just that I like to interject what I find to be the most important reality in all of man's understanding. Jesus. Without him we can do nothing. We are poor, wretched, and miserable.

The Bible says that God writes his word upon our hearts. If that is true, then why are there so many that say "this is what this means" and "this is what that means". The word written in the texts may in some instances be just that, word. The word written on the heart is The Word. Our need for our Creator, and His Son, Jesus, is I think, part of our DNA. The fact that we can deny that part of ourself as a matter of decision is very interesting, but we can, and so many do. But that Word is there nonetheless. I hope that somewere along this post as many as contribute will evidence their scholarly interest with a real knowledge of Him, that which can not be learned in a classroom.

Posted by: reddrake79 05-Jul-2004, 11:37 AM
without the Bible, we would not know what Jesus is like and what he taught. Yes, God wrote the need for him into us, i dont neccessarily think it was the DNA smile.gif. That is why you will find men or women who don't know anything about the Bible but are searching for God. That is why every culture in the world has some sort of religious belief. However, God specifically reveals himself in the Bible, His charachter, His promises, His comandments. currently there are forces at work in our culture that wish to eliminate the Bible from public places and history. Most notably the ACLU. (after all they just attacked the pledge of allegience because two words were added in the 60's-Under God) That is why we need to know if we can trust the Bible. If you don't, I can give you reasons to at least reevaluate that, if you do great but how many attacks on that belief can you stand up too? (I am asking this hypothetically please don't feel that I am asking you to respond to this)

The bible says to always be ready with an answer for the faith that you have. Saying that it is your faith is a valid answer. But is there more?

If you believe the Bible has innacurate statements, which parts are innacurate?

Is it where abraham lied to abimalech or where Christ died on the cross for our sins?

I find that most people say it is the part they disagree with, or that they cannot believe, not that the Bible disagrees with itself.

The many translations, im talking main streem ones such as KJV, NIV, NASB, etc., agree even though they were translated at different times. The NIV wasn't until Late 1800' or early 1900's (I cant remember exactly when, somebody please cone up with the specific date). Well after the time the Catholic church lots its monopoly on religious thought. Yet, They still agree with the KJV which was translated in 1611. The Books of the Bible are written by close to 50 different authors over more than 1000 years. That many people cant agree on pizza toppings, yet they agreed on religous philosophy and what the character of God was and how Christ came to earth to be our sacrifice. We have had what, roughly 10-15 people post here maybe less, about half us so far believe the Bible to be the accurate word of God, the other half believe it is fallible.

I prefer the King James, I grew up using the NIV. I like the imagry that only the King james uses. The thees and thous never really confused me. I also believe it is the most accurate word for word translation. I say this to let people know where I am coming from not to cause another debate.

The King James Bible is called that because it was COMISSIONED by King James not because it pleased King James. Who by the way persecuted protestants so why would he have a bible written that could readily be used by protestants, if he was going to mess with it.

I see a lot of opinion on the matter, which is good smile.gif But if opinion is backed up by more opinion than it is nothing more than faith. I can list many reasons why I believe the Bible is 100% accurate. A big chunk of those reasons is my faith that God did what He said he would do, I believe in an all powerfull, personal God. Some other reasons are extrabiblical. Such as the accurate history, accurate psychology, accurate science (not including creation because science cannot prove creation or disprove it. )

So far I believe only 1 subject has been braught up to show the Bible has errors, Abraham and Issaac and the story with pharoh and abimalech. In my mind this was settled, I believe the text clearly shows that they are three different stories not misinformed retellings of the same story. No error on this subject.

Posted by: Shadows 05-Jul-2004, 02:15 PM
If you take any 2 bibles, the KJV and one other and read and compair passage to passage you will see there is a great difference in the meanings presented by both. My daughter, who at the time was 7, was asked to read a passage at her mothers church , we have many versions of bibles in this house, and she saw the differences in meaning right off in the pasages she was to read. REMEMBER they are written by men who claim to be of god.

Posted by: CelticRose 05-Jul-2004, 08:09 PM
They were men who claimed to be "inspired" by God.........there is a difference. God ordained these men himself and inspired them to write what He wanted written for the rest of us mankind. Just my humble opinion. smile.gif

Posted by: Raven 05-Jul-2004, 09:27 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 05-Jul-2004, 03:15 PM)
If you take any 2 bibles, the KJV and one other and read and compair passage to passage you will see there is a great difference in the meanings presented by both. My daughter, who at the time was 7, was asked to read a passage at her mothers church , we have many versions of bibles in this house, and she saw the differences in meaning right off in the pasages she was to read. REMEMBER they are written by men who claim to be of god.

Shadows,

I don't think you understand that these are not different Bibles, . unsure.gif These are simply different translations of the same texts into English. I think that if you are using the translations as your only method of comparison and then say all the versions are different, then you are ignoring the fact that of archaic langage in the KJV and different methodology of translation (i.e. literal vs accurate, modern language vs poetic language, paraphrase vs translation, etc...)

Remember that they are only translated by men. The original manuscripts (those used to render all modern English translations) are the same verse for verse.

But don't take my word for it check out a couple of different interlinear Bibles from the library. (an interlinear Bible has a parallel translation with the original Greek/Hebrew/Interlinear text) Get one for the KJV or NKJV and one for any other popular version including, NIV, RSV,NSRV etc... and you will have all of the available manuscripts.

It is not like there are a bunch of conflicting manuscripts floating around. The 2 available are 99% the same with just a couple of missing verses. (i.e. the last part of the last chapter of Mark, 1John5:7) that's it and everything said in each of those passages is actually stated elsewhere anyway.

I know there has been a lot of conversation here about what people believe the Bible to be but the question is about Biblical accuracy.

The main question seems to be the reliability of the scriptures as far as how they have been handed down. I would recomend to anyone who is truly interested to read a book by Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" It is heavily documented from many extra Biblical and scientific secular sources. It presents many very compelling arguments for the historical, and bibliographical reliabiliy of the Bible as a work of antiquity.

Chapter 4 deals exclusively with this subject. Check it out it is well worth the little bit of time it takes to read.

Peace

Mikel

BTW - what reddrake said also wink.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Jul-2004, 04:26 AM
Although I can't name them offhand, I have heard some scientists speak, and even reference other scientists as well, who have set out to prove the Bible inaccurate. To show the fallability of scripture, to show the Bible's contradictions, and to disprove the entire account of the Creation. These men set out to disprove, and end up believers. I'm not saying all scientists who study the Bible end up Christians, but the numbers that have should at least serve as a testimony of the power of the word.

There is another person, I have read his book "The Case for Christ". He also has written "The Case for Faith". He was an atheistic investigative reporter for a major newspaper (I think the Chicago Tribune), and he did much the same as so many scientists have. He used his investigating talants to research the reliability of Biblical text. He too became a Christian, and a true believer. I think that his name is Lee Strobel.

Anyway, I thought some of you might find this interesting.

Posted by: birddog20002001 06-Jul-2004, 05:24 AM
I found this interesting article about who "owns" the Bible at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/kjvcopy.htm this article is in the same vane as this forum discussion because it covers a profit motive for creating new translations.

QUOTE
The most bizarre reason for rejecting the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, or the New King James Version is that these ? and apparently all other major versions since 1881 ? were copyrighted. The argument is that the publishers, by copyrighting their new Bibles, insure themselves a hefty royalty from every copy sold, and in fact made the new translations with the sinister motive of making a profit on the gullibility of religious people who buy every new Bible that comes along. The KJV, in contrast, is characterized as being far superior to any other version because it is "the only Bible published without a copyright!" as one recent publication stated. God just won't use a copyrighted Bible, some insist.


QUOTE
To the present day the KJV is published in England under copyright. Private conversation with Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville, Tennessee, the world's largest Bible publisher, confirmed that there are currently four license holders with legal authority in England to publish the KJV ? the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode. In illustration of this fact, let me note that my father owns two KJV New Testaments, both printed in England, with one published by Oxford and the other by Cambridge. Both were purchased new in 1971. Below the respective coat of arms of each university are the words "cum privilegio." These New Testaments were printed under copyright.


this is an interesting portion from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm

QUOTE
At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones (like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture with items of modern ones.

Palestine became transformed into the modern American South; Jerusalem turned into Atlanta; Matthew the tax collector worked for the Internal Revenue Service; and Jesus became a roughshod inhabitant of Valdosta, Georgia.(3)

Consider how the CPV and the NIV render Matthew 9:16-17:

"Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that's been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage" (CPV).

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (NIV).

Between the extremes of the Concordant Version and the Cotton-Patch Version is a spectrum of respectable translations which strike different balances between literal and dynamic equivalence.

Posted by: birddog20002001 06-Jul-2004, 05:50 AM
The article found here http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html shows that the KJV a protestant Bible did not have full access to the stores of works at the Vatican an some mistakes were made due to this

QUOTE
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."



QUOTE
Unjustified Additions to the KJV Derived From Latin Vulgate, Not in Greek Text

These additions should be omitted from the KJV:

Matthew 27:35
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This verse appears properly in John 19:24.
John 8:9-10
Delete: "being convicted by their own conscience . . . unto the last . . . alone . . . and saw none but the woman . . . those thine accusers."

The Greek properly reads: "But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left with the woman being before him. Jesus lifted himself up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'"

Acts 9:5-6
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."
Acts 10:6
"he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 10:21
"which were sent unto him from Cornelius"
Acts 21:8
"that were of Paul's company"
Romans 13:9
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Romans 16:20
"Amen"
Colossians 1:14
"through his blood"
Hebrews 2:7
"and didst set him over the works of thy hands"
Hebrews 11:13
"and were persuaded of them and embraced them"
Hebrews 12:20
"or with a dart shot through"
I John 2:23
"(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" is placed in italics in the KJV. The Greek Text omits this portion entirely.
I John 5:7-8
"in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these thee are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" As previously explained, this is not part of the original Greek text.
Revelation 1:8
"the beginning and the ending"
Revelation 1:11
"I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia"
Revelation 1:20
"which thou sawest"
Revelation 2:17
"to eat of"
Revelation 5:4
"and to read"
Revelation 5:14
"four and twenty . . . him that lives forever and ever"
Revelation 11:1
"and the angel stood"
Revelation 12:12
"the inhabiters of"
Revelation 14:5
"before the throne of God"
Revelation 15:2
"over his mark"
Revelation 16:7
"another out of"
Revelation 16:14
"of the earth and"
Revelation 21:3
"and be their God"
Misplaced Verses in the KJV

In Matthew 23:13-14, the proper order is: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Romans 16:25-27 belongs after Romans 14:23, not at the end of the book.

Items Wrongly Substituted or Left Out of the KJV, Should be Reinstated

Matthew 27:49
"And another took a spear and pierced his side and out came water and blood."
[The Orthodox Church says this was part of the Greek Text until mistakenly deleted in 511 A.D.]

Luke 9:50
". . . for his is not against you."
This verse should read: "And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not, for he is not against you. For whoever is not against you is for you."

Luke 10:22
"And having turned to the disciples, he said:"
John 1:28
"Bethany" instead of "Bethabara", which was a corrupt Egyptian reading.
Acts 9:19
Should read, "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at the time in Damascus."
Acts 20:28
Should read, " . . . the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood."
Philippians 3:3
Should be "serve in (the) Spirit of God" rather than "serve God in the spirit."
Colossians 1:6
Should have added "and is growing" after "bringeth forth fruits."
Colossians 2:13
Should read, "And you--being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh--you hath He quickened together with him, having forgiven us all the trespasses . . . "
I Thess. 5:21
Should read, "Despise not prophesyings, but prove all things . . . ."
II Timothy 2:19
"of (the) Lord" rather than "of Christ."
Hebrews 8:8
"To them", not "with them."
Hebrews 13:9
"Carried away", not "carried about."
James 5:12
Should be "into hypocrisy" instead of "under judgment."
I Peter 2:2
End of verse should have added: "unto salvation."
Revelation 2:21
Should be " . . . and she wills not to repent of her fornication."
Revelation 6:12
Should be " . . . and the whole moon became blood . . . ."
Revelation 8:7
Should be " . . . and the third part of the land was burnt up, and the third part of the trees . . . ."
Revelation 8:13
"eagle" rather than "angel."
Revelation 11:18
"nations" instead of "dead."
Revelation 12:6
Should read, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has there a place prepared of God . . . ."
Revelation 13:5
Should read, " . . . and power was given it to make war forty-two months . . . ."
Revelation 14:1
Should read, "having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads . . . ."
Revelation 15:3
"nations" instead of "saints."
Revelation 17:8
Should read, " . . . when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall be present . . . ."
Revelation 18:17
Should read, " . . . everyone who sails to any place . . . " instead of "and all the company in ships."
Revelation 18:20
Should read, " . . . ye holy saints and apostles and prophets."
Revelation 19:12
Should read, " . . . and on his head were many crowns, having names written, and a name written that no man knew . . . ."
Revelation 19:17
Should read, " . . . gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God . . . ", not "supper of the great God."
Revelation 21:24
Should read, "And the nations shall walk by means of its light."
Revelation 22:19
Should read, "tree of life" instead of "book of life."
Revelation 22:21
Should close with "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of the saints. Amen."

Posted by: Raven 06-Jul-2004, 06:49 AM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 06-Jul-2004, 06:24 AM)
I found this interesting article about who "owns" the Bible at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/kjvcopy.htm this article is in the same vane as this forum discussion because it covers a profit motive for creating new translations.


While interesting reasearch Bird Dog this is a little bit of a different discussion. This is more which translation.

There are a number of people who say that the KJV is the only reliable Translation. I personally find these arguments to be without merit and have found most of the points of contintion to be on minutia. I have read all of the poplular translations and have found them to say essentially the same thing even when read in parallel. Of course in some cases it would be possible to come up with different meanings if you ignore the larger context and are not familiar with Biblical exegis. I have also read portions of some ridiculous (i hesitate to call some of them translations, they were so bad and far removed from anything that resembled a serious work that I assumed them to be at the best a paraphrase with a lot of literary license being used, i.e the Cotton Patch Bible, the White Mans Bible...at the least written with a definite ax to grind and not to be compared to serious translation efforts) I have read enough in these to know that I do not want to waste my time on a complete reading.

Onward starwars.gif

Mikel

Posted by: Raven 06-Jul-2004, 07:32 AM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 06-Jul-2004, 06:50 AM)
The article found here http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html shows that the KJV a protestant Bible did not have full access to the stores of works at the Vatican an some mistakes were made due to this

I found this article interesting even though I am not unfamiliar with most of these articles. I also found it interesting that while stating

"No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead."

then attempts to correct words that are simply archaic in their use. Also if you were to rely on this critisism you see that this author has made a judgement about the doctrine of the King James Bible, most likely because it does not line up with his own.

So I don't spend all day here and not get any work done here are just a few more examples of the inaccuracy of this article and then we can move on.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Reads
10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is
said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

Example of archaic use of language. i.e difference between the King's English in the 16th century and modern. Also author give's his opinion as fact as far as his perception of the connotation given here. For example reading the same passage I have never had the idea that Nimrod was a good guy as a result.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Another example of archaic language. The word scapegoat taken from the context of the translation bears just this meaning. What they are talking about in this particular passage is actually goats which are being used for atonement in a sacrificial way. The idea is that the goats are not guiltyof anythingthat is why they are an acceptable sacrifice. That is where the modern idea comes from even though the connotation today is not exact with what is represented in Leviticus. The author then goes on to make an unsupported statement that The Azazel goal represents Satan you can not get that from the context even substituting the translation he suggests.

Actually reads
16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (Insert - one removed or separated here)
16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot
fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,
shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement
with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the
wilderness.

I would have to make the assumption that scape added to goat in the 16th century mean't just what it was translated to mean.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11

The author is simply making a judgement call here about the proper sense. I also did a little research on the author and could not find that he had any credintials that would ad credence to his opinion over the opinions of mainstream modern translators who have acknowledged that the KJV is the most literal modern translation. I said before that I was not unfamiliar with most of this and that is because this author is bringing his critisism from a particular theological bent, which means that these aledged discrepancies do not line up with his theology.

I selected these particular portions of this article because they were the easiest to deal with given my limited time this morning. Also when I find glaring discrepancies in an article such as this and unsupported statements made by someone without any credintials to back them up, I find that in most cases you can discount much more of what they say, if there case is so weak to begin with that they feel they must bolster it with more weak argument like this.

I could go on and will later if you would like tongue.gif

But I must run for now.

TTFN

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 06-Jul-2004, 10:58 AM
In response to the copyright issue. I havn't looked at these specific instances yet, but last time I checked two companies could not copyright the exact same thing, or idea. It has to be different in some way. This said I don't believe it is the translation that is neccessarily copyrighted but the study notes and crossreferances. The little helpful things that publishers add into the Bible but don't claim that it is part of the direct revelation from God. Like Historical background, authors, who the epistles were written to. I use the Life Application Bible KJV. If I put it next to any other KJV the text is exactly the same except for the study notes if any.

Also, first the vatican is accused of hiding texts and altering them, now the later translators are being accused of errors because they did not use the manuscripts the vatican had ( again we are assuming that these powerful people were to stupid to destroy or alter anything they didn't want revealed later). I thaught that would have been a mark in their favor. wink.gif

Posted by: Raven 07-Jul-2004, 08:11 AM
You are right Reddrake. 2 different people or organizations cannot hold copyright on the exact same thing. And what they own are the study notes. The KJV is in the Public Domain.

I to find it amazing that these powerful smart people are so stupid tongue.gif

Actually I find it amazing the amount of undocumented/poorly documented information that is put out as fact by people who have an ax to grind on a particular doctrine.......on second thought I guess that isn't so suprising or amazing after all wink.gif

Slainte

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 07-Jul-2004, 02:51 PM
Another thing about this Vatican coverup,

I sincerely doubt they were able to get every copy of every document in existence that they didn't want circulating. However, if they are the only ones with a copy now, what does that say about what other people thought about the document? Apparently it wasn't worthy enough to be copied by the then current owner. What does that say about the document? The person who had possetion (sp?) didn't think that it was completly accurate or trustworthy or important enough to save it for later generations. It is usually the letter that nobody reads that gets tossed or misplaced. The ones that everybody reads get used and copied and used and copied etc. Just because the document dates back earlier than others does not neccessarily mean that it is the most accurate. Look at the circumstances surrounding how some of those documents were found in the vatican. Many were found in odd ball places where people had forgotten them. Doesn't sound like they were important documents to the people of that time does it? smile.gif

sorry, had to get that out of my system wink.gif

now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. smile.gif

can we get back to using hard evidence to prove or diprove the accuracy of the Bible.

as was stated earlier the suppose vatican cover up will prove to be incoclusive. Not enough hard evidence.

Posted by: reddrake79 07-Jul-2004, 03:48 PM
this is from a previous post:

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

My response:

It is scientifically inaccurate to say that the spear is what killed Christ. Blood does not seperate into blood AND water until it has been sitting for a while. When you cut yourself, do you bleed blood and water? Moffatt is incorrect in interpreting that verse to mean that the spear killed Christ. What does it prove? That Christ was actually and literally dead before He was speared. While you are living, water and blood cannot come out of you when you are cut. Revelation does not hint at that translation either. Revelation 1:7 (in both NIV and KJV) says "...even those who pierced him..." That could be the soldier with the spear, the soldiers with the nails, the Jewish priests, those that continue to reject Christ. That passage is showing that ALL will see the second coming of Christ, even those that don't believe His message. Apparently the KJV translators knew their science and interpreted that passage so that it actually makes sense.

from a previous post:
We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate.

My response:
John was shown this information, it would make more sense since he wrote it from a first person perspective as if it were happening right now, because it was happening right now: to John. It may have happened in the past, according to our calander but John saw it as if it were happening now.

Most of what is shown is open to individual interpretaition, but does not mean it is inaccurate. (If a person is baptized IN water are they not then baptized WITH water?)

in other cases I found that what was said to be ommitted or changed was actually there, just in a language foreign to most of us: Proper Formal English of the 1600's

There might be a case for updating the english used to modern english, but not for inaccuracy.

Posted by: Raven 08-Jul-2004, 07:18 AM
I have some information at home about the amount of known copies and translations in circulation of the New Testament in particular at home and if I am not mistaken it amounts to 10,000 copies (manuscripts hand copied)

This is part of the scientific test for the accuracy of any work of antiquity. It gives a basis for comparison from copy to copy to allow for a conclusive decision as to whether a work has been preserved accurately based on imperical evidence.

I find and have found that most of the argument about whether the Bible is accurate has been based on issues about how it is translated and arguing that the translators did not know how to do their job or did not want to do a good accurate job due to personal preferences. This definitely begs the question and side steps the issue as to whether the Bible itself is accurate as opposed to, "has the Bible been translated accurately." As I have stated before, my personal studies have indicated that even the differences in translation styles, methods and ideas have boiled down to nothing signifintly different even with all of the variables added to the equation by translation.

We have so many preconcieved notions going into examining the scriptures that it is often difficult to be coldly objective and leave behind what we have previously heard/learned, so that we can examine the facts as to whether the text has been accurately preserved.

Here are some things that I have examined personally and found to be conclusive.
  • how does the text compare to outside extra Biblical evidence
  • such as archealogical evidence. Does it support or disagree?
  • How does the text compare to itself ? - Are there contradictions or does it match perfectly? Bare in mind that when comparing text for harmonization purposes, to be objective we can not make arbitrary judgement calls as to whether something is made up because it is similar to another text or what is described does not seem possible. The case I am talking about is contradiction. E.G if the Bible were to say in one place that the mother of Jesus was Mary and then in another that the mother of Jesus is Martha. That would be a contradiction.
  • This next part I have found fascinating - Does the Bible disagree with what we know about science? Hard provable science, not theories, but the laws of Physics.

I once believed strongly that the Bible was not reliable, that it was full of contradiction, error and inaccuracies. When I set out to prove it, I came up empty.

I learned that the error and inaccuracy actually lay with those who had been telling me in their ignorance why the Bible could not be trusted. (please don't anyone take this personal because these are things I myself used to believe until I took a closer look)
- the Bible has been through so many translations is has to be full of error (covered this one in an earlier post)
- remember that this book was written by man
- science is at odds with the Bible, what about the theory of evolution? Didn't we form from the primordial sludge by happenstance? (a topic covered elsewhere on this board but never the less theory vs theory with no empiracle evidence to support it - just a brief aside as I used to believe this also - but then realized why it is still after all these years called a theory -no conclusive proof - this theory is at odds with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
- so many of the Biblical stories seem impossible, it must be fairy tales. E.G. the long day of Joshua.


Posted by: CelticRose 08-Jul-2004, 04:42 PM
Raven, have you ever read anything by Josh MacDowell? He was an atheisit who set out to prove the Bible wrong and instead became a Christian! I love his writings and would highly recommend his books for anybody who has questions.

Posted by: Raven 09-Jul-2004, 09:26 AM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 08-Jul-2004, 05:42 PM)
Raven, have you ever read anything by Josh MacDowell? He was an atheisit who set out to prove the Bible wrong and instead became a Christian! I love his writings and would highly recommend his books for anybody who has questions.

Why yes Rose I have read 3 books by Josh.

He is my favorite author on Christian Apologetics as he is the only one that I have found that presents a totally logical and balanced argument. (not colored with opinions and information that is suspect - that sort of thing destroys much of an authors credibility with me)

I have read Evidence that Demands a Verdict 1 & 2, plus more than a carpenter. As far as Biblical Apologetics and a case for the reliability of the scriptures, I have to say that Evidence 1 is without question, the definitive work.

Perhaps I should start an Apologetics thread in the Book forum? You wouldn't know that I read as much as I do by my lack of posts there tongue.gif

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: CelticRose 09-Jul-2004, 04:59 PM
Whoa! Raven! That is really cool! Good for you! That would be great if you started a apolegetics thread. Imagine what trouble we could get ourselves into there! biggrin.gif

Posted by: behan 18-Jul-2004, 10:24 AM
I FIND ALL RELIGION DISGUSTING AND VENOMOUS , ACCORDING TO MENSA MAGAZINE THE FACT IS THAT THE HIGHER SOMEONES IQ OR EDUCATION THE LESS LIKELY THEY WILL TO BELIVE IN THE FALLACY OF GOD , I PERSONALLY BELIVE RELIGION TO BE A HORRIBLE AFFLICTION ON OUR SOCIETY I BELIVE IT RIPS APART COMMUNITIES AND STOPS THE ADVANCMENT OF HUMAN SOCIETY , THE BIBLE AND CHRISITIANITY JUST LIKE THE KORAN AND ISLAM IARE BOTH PRIMITIVE BELIEFES AND I CANNOT BELIVE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE PEOPLE READ THIS TERRIBLE RAG AND TAKE IT SERIOSLY I AM LUCKY ENOUGH TO COME FROM SOCIALIST LIBERAL EUROPE WHERE CHURCH ATTENDANCE IS DOWN TO 5 % UNLIKE , 70 % IN AMERICA , SO I BELIVE THIS TO BE A VICTORY AGAINST THIS SO CALLED GOD , TO THINK THAT CHRISITIANITY WILL EXIST IN 100 YEARS IS MORONIC AND UNTRUE PEOPLE WILL LOOK BACK AT THESE HORRIBLE BELIEFS AND BE THANKFUL WHEN THEY ARE EXTINGUASED FROM OUR LIVES .

IF THOSE CHRISITIANS HAD THEIR WAY THE EARTH WOULD STILL BE FLAT WITH HELL DOWN BELOW AND HEAVEN A LITTLE LEFT OF THE MOON .

Posted by: Shadows 18-Jul-2004, 03:03 PM
QUOTE (behan @ 18-Jul-2004, 11:24 AM)
I FIND ALL RELIGION DISGUSTING AND VENOMOUS , ACCORDING TO MENSA MAGAZINE THE FACT IS THAT THE HIGHER SOMEONES IQ OR EDUCATION THE LESS LIKELY THEY WILL TO BELIVE IN THE FALLACY OF GOD , I PERSONALLY BELIVE RELIGION TO BE A HORRIBLE AFFLICTION ON OUR SOCIETY I BELIVE IT RIPS APART COMMUNITIES AND STOPS THE ADVANCMENT OF HUMAN SOCIETY , THE BIBLE AND CHRISITIANITY JUST LIKE THE KORAN AND ISLAM IARE BOTH PRIMITIVE BELIEFES AND I CANNOT BELIVE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE PEOPLE READ THIS TERRIBLE RAG AND TAKE IT SERIOSLY I AM LUCKY ENOUGH TO COME FROM SOCIALIST LIBERAL EUROPE WHERE CHURCH ATTENDANCE IS DOWN TO 5 % UNLIKE , 70 % IN AMERICA , SO I BELIVE THIS TO BE A VICTORY AGAINST THIS SO CALLED GOD , TO THINK THAT CHRISITIANITY WILL EXIST IN 100 YEARS IS MORONIC AND UNTRUE PEOPLE WILL LOOK BACK AT THESE HORRIBLE BELIEFS AND BE THANKFUL WHEN THEY ARE EXTINGUASED FROM OUR LIVES .

IF THOSE CHRISITIANS HAD THEIR WAY THE EARTH WOULD STILL BE FLAT WITH HELL DOWN BELOW AND HEAVEN A LITTLE LEFT OF THE MOON .

To disagree with something is one thing, but to become slanderous and insulting is another! I do not believe much of what others do here, but I do give them the right to believe as they see fit. Insults and inuendoes only make you enemies... if you want to convert others to your thoughts you need to use tact and reason , you have started off on the wrong foot!


Posted by: dfilpus 18-Jul-2004, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 18-Jul-2004, 04:03 PM)
QUOTE (behan @ 18-Jul-2004, 11:24 AM)
Antireligious venom deleted

To disagree with something is one thing, but to become slanderous and insulting is another! I do not believe much of what others do here, but I do give them the right to believe as they see fit. Insults and inuendoes only make you enemies... if you want to convert others to your thoughts you need to use tact and reason , you have started off on the wrong foot!

Couldn't agree more.

This kind of behaviour is indicative of a lack of ability to argue coherently. Blindly attacking all religion is just as self-destructive as blindly attacking other religious beliefs because of belief in "The One True Faith".

Banning the poster because of his behaviour is harsh, but would help keep the level of intelligent discussion high.

Posted by: reddrake79 18-Jul-2004, 10:40 PM
Never saw that coming.

However, he makes a couple of assertions that simply aren't true, but many people have said basically the same thing but in a much more civilized way. If it weren't for religion, society would have crumbled into anarchy long ago. If anybody studies human societies you easily see that religion is what holds the society together. True, wars have been faught over religion but I think it is safe to say that those people who started the wars did so for more reasons than just religion and simply used religion to get the popularity vote. smile.gif

Do you know who kept most of the ancient literature safe through the middle ages? (such as beowulf) Monks. If it weren't for John Smith and his belief in biblical principles then the first settlers would not have survived. The puritan work ethic which let the first settlers make somthing out of a wilderness is found in the Bible.

I personaly know many people who hold Doctoral degrees in various fields of study that believe the Bible. there goes the whole IQ argument.

Actually people's belief in the bible did more for pioneering science than anything else. Most ministers were also scientists. Many of the scientists we studied in freshman science (be it college or highschool) believed the Bible. Did you know the Bible refers to the world as an orb (a sphere) long before science officially discovered it? I believe it is in the book of Job. We have the Bible to thank for the charts that tell us about the ocean's currents. A british admiral was lying sick in bed when his daughter red to him from the Bible and it talks about the "path's of the sea" He decided to study that when he got better. In the book of Job there are many referances to the physical properties of stars that science did not prove till much later (specifically about the pleides and the "bands of Orion") I could go on. I believe the bible to be accurate as do others and yet to hear a convincing (or well reasoned) argument against that position.

If the Bible is so innacurate then how has it survived over 4000 years of humans?

Posted by: SCShamrock 19-Jul-2004, 04:27 AM
Had behan not put that post in all caps, it would still have had the same effect to me. It kind of reminded me of some of the movies that have vampires, or demonic posession as in The Exorcist. This behan, were he truly Satanic, would most certainly have some sort of documented, credible research to support his arguments. However, this post came across as simple hatred, backed by a lack of education. Thanks Macfive for responding so quickly to such blatent ugliness.

Posted by: drexcia 19-Jul-2004, 09:03 AM
there is NO geographical evidence of a mass flood ,we did not come from adam and eve , the world was not created in 6 days , the world is older than stated in the bible , so dont start lecturing me on what the bible says and doesnt , the bible is porbably missing a page that states clearly : this book is fictous and all characters portrayed are not real persons any persons of these names is pure coincidence etc.

Posted by: Aragorn 19-Jul-2004, 11:25 AM
Very interesting drexcia, I appreciate your opinion. For those of us who are searching and believe otherwise, I would recommend reading the Bible before making any comments on its validity or weather it is wrong. Many people have set out to prove it wrong and have failed. I do not believe theory...because it is only theory and is not a proven fact. The scientists theorize we came from monkeys so why is this not happening today???? They use archaic methods to determine the world is so old...I am not convinced it is. So do you believe anything that people of high status and scientific knowledge tell you? (Just a question, not a flame) I for one like to do alot of research before making any kind of final verdict. People will produce theories when they can not find a definate answer or they do find an answer but it is not to their liking, theories are just another way of saying opinion. Believe what you will for I am not here to antagonize or argue, we all have the ability to think and formulate our own opinions.

The real tragedy is the fact that many people think the Bible is fictional and is just made up of a bunch of stories about people and experiences. I think it is sad they think that way but there has to be some way to explain away such terrible things right? Well, the Bible is real and it is true.

Just my thoughts.....

Posted by: birddog20002001 19-Jul-2004, 01:43 PM
So drexia is your name Sean or Dick, I would like to inform you that you are not as clever as you think you are, use the same birthday 30 Jan 84, you sign up the day after your other account is banned and in a previous note Sean wrote he was a German with a Scottish grandparent and was living in Scotland and Dick is from Germany but spouts the same line of anger. Yes I know there are 84 million Germans but these coinciences are so unlikely as to be insulting to me and the other members here. So the next time don't be hateful, get a clue, and back up your arguements with references.

Signed,
Gene Ruschenberg
a pissed agnostic

Posted by: reddrake79 21-Jul-2004, 12:04 AM
No geological evidence of a mass flood?

Study the Grand Canyon, and compare it to what we know happened with Mt. St. Helens. When Mt. St. Helens erupted it caused spirit lake to lose its water. When this happend a "mini grand canyon", 8 feet high if I remember correctly, was formed in a matter of hours. Mt. St. helens also explained how a tree can be fossilized THROUGH several layers. After the eruption divers explored spirit lake and found that trees were floating almost verically in the water because their roots had soaked up the water and minerals. They then settled into the sediment on the bottom of the lake so firmly that the divers could not move them. There is a very good video about this, but I cant remember the name of it. I saw it in Junior High and at the time didn't care what the name was only that something was blowing up. smile.gif

What would a person expect to find if a world wide flood occured? "millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."

what do we find, "millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."

-Ken Ham wink.gif

How do you know we aren't decended from adam and eve? Were you there? do you have some evidence?

How do we know the earth is older than the Bible says? The dating methods that scientists use only work if you know everything about the organism and its environment, including the ratio of parent element to daughter element that was originally in the organism when it died. Since no scientist was alive and recorded that information for us we can't accuratly, or even remotly, scientifically prove the age of the fossilized organism. Scientists have to assume certain things to use current dating methods. Assumtions do not equal facts.

Did you know that organic matter has been found in incompletely fossilized dinosour remains? (i erred earlier saying that it was blood for certain) Researchers have found something that according to their physical (i.e shape, coloring, and size) descriptions they suspect might be blood, but according to the articles I read haven't proved it conclusivly yet. wouldn't expect that after a few thousand millenia.
here iare two links for articles on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i12f.htm

also there are scientists who are working on a theory, yes it is only a theory right now and nothing has been proved although experiments are being conducted, that the speed of light has not remained constant since creation, or dawn of time if you prefer, that it has actually slowed down to what it is today. According to their model this would explain the (is it red shift or blue shift, astronomy was not my strong subject) shift in color of stars in our galaxy and how we can see the light from very distant stars.
here is a link to an artical on it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

Lets use reason, logic, and evidence instead of agenda, vitriol, and hear-say.

Posted by: Aragorn 21-Jul-2004, 10:00 AM
Thanks reddrake79, All we ask in this discussion is, if you make claims to please back them up with some kind of reference or information. To just spout off and rant is unprofessional and is inconsiderate of other who are trying to a valid point or arguement. We are all here to help each other not to judge or flame.

Posted by: Elspeth 23-Jul-2004, 12:39 PM
I have not looked into geological evidence of the deluge, but I was taught when studying Greek Mythology that most all mythologies all about the world have a myth to explain a deluge. So, if cultures all around the world have in their storytelling a flood that covered all the lands, it seems to reason it really happened.

Much of the Bible seem incomprehensible when it comes to logistics. Inaacurate? Perhaps. I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me, because the point of the Bible isn't in the nitpicky little details, but the overall message. I wouldn't toss out a novel for having a few inaccuracies, I certainly wouldn't toss out the Bible if some things appear too improbible for us to understand.

But isn't it possible that these things appear to be inacurate because we don't have all the information. My son is obsessed with reading about dinosaurs, alligators, snakes, whatever. He will quote me facts as to the size of a dinosaur heart. I have to remind him that what he read may be correct, but it is only a supposition based upon research. New information could come to light that would tell us that the dinosaur actually had four small hearts, not one.

The same is true with the Bible. Maybe someday we will find ancient texts that will explain the supposed inconsistencies. Maybe that is just the scientist in me. The Bible isn't about science or proof, it is about faith.

OK, I'll stop now because I'm starting to ramble.... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 23-Jul-2004, 02:38 PM
I agree that the bible is about faith. That is what my faith is in, what the Bible tells me. That being said, if the Bible is innacurate in one thing, ie. geology, history, science, then how do we know where else the Bible is wrong? Could it have then been wrong it what it said about Jesus' death and ressurection?

I do not believe the Bible is innacurate in the least, in anything. I brought up this topic because other people said the Bible was innacurate and I am giving them an opportunity to prove it. wink.gif

Now I admit there are some hard concepts to wrap our head around, such as the trinity and Jesus being both God and Man. However, the Bible has proved to be accurate in areas of science and history so why not eternal salvation? So far we have had some good points come up earlier in this thread, I believe we laid them to rest however and showed that the Bible was trustworthy.

We have had some points come up that neither side can prove: evolution or creation. Science cannot observe creation (it only happened once) it cannot recreate creation (we aren't God) Science has not observed evolution in either the living world or the paleantoligical (sp?) world. Scientist were not there to observe evolution happing at the dawn of time. Neither position is scientifically verifiable. They are both matters of faiith.

It is important to me that my Bible is trustworthy. I also would like others to understand the Bible and what it has to offer better.

This thread has caused me to look at my Bible more thouroughly. But the main topic here isn't about what my faith is in but about the accuracy of the Bible. Sofar no one has shown that the Bible is innacurate. (is that a challenge I hear?) smile.gif

Posted by: Shadows 23-Jul-2004, 04:51 PM
No one has proven it accurate either.

This discussion has been going on for centuries and may ( I say may only because I do not see much future for the world as we know it now ) go on for many more.

There are those who believe it as history and those who do not, there are those who say they found the truth while trying to prove it wrong and those who lost their faith while trying to prove it right.

One's beliefs can ebb and flow and only the creator knows the truth and will share that truth when he/she feels that you are ready for the truth.

Posted by: Elspeth 23-Jul-2004, 08:33 PM
Actually science sees evolution all the time. Bacteria evolves so that it is becomes immune to anti-biotics, animals have evolved, people are taller than they used to be. Evolution, in it's pure sense happens all the time.

The concept of humans evolving from apes is another matter. I love the saying if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

It's funny I have no problem with believing the Trinity of Jesus rising from the dead, but I do wonder who Cain and Able married. Either there were other people there as well, or they committed incest. For me that holds open some interesting possiblities. Could human evolution and creationism both be true? Could have God allowed apes to evolve to humans and have created Adam and Eve as well. God would not be bound by time as we know it. 7 days may be eons according to carbon dating methods. I love the mystery of it all.

Posted by: reddrake79 24-Jul-2004, 07:29 PM
Actually science does not see Macroevolution happen, what you described is natural selections. Not the change of one creature into another, say ape into man. The bacteria have a gene that creates a substance that reacts to the antibiotics and kills the bacteria. Science has just killed off those bacteria with that gene, which might be the dominant form of that bacteria. However, the bacteria that mutated (genetic replication mistake) and do not carry that gene do not die, thus becoming the dominant form of that bacteria However, it is still a bacteria not something else. This is called microevolution, or natural selection, and does not involve creatures changing into other creatures.

Man is taller now? I am barely over 5' tall and I know tons of people who are shorter than me (my wife for instance). How many asian people do you know? The overall hight of man may be taller now in the US (because women like tall men for some reason) But man has not evolved into a taller creature. The genes were always there. Evolution as commonly understood, is suppose to be the addition of genetic material to the dna. Science has never seen information added. It has seen information deformed & removed. However, this is not enough for Macroevolution

Obviously Cain and Able married their sisters. God did not tell people this was bad until He gave Moses the law several thousand years later. Jacob married his half sister after all. One reason why this could be is that Adam and Eve were perfect creations (physically and genetically perfect) There offspring would be so close to genetically perfect that any mutations would not be redundant. Everybody has imperfect genes, where this is something wrong with them, however these imperfect genes are recessive and do not cause problems in their owners. Now, two people from the same family may have those same recessive mutant genes, if they produce offspring together then their offspring may get the same recessive gene from both parents and that gene becomes dominant in the offsping causing mental or physical deformities. (I am not saying that all deformities are the result of siblings reproducing together)

If there were people around with Adam and Eve (other than their kids) then that opens up more theological problems. Jesus was the "Last Adam" 1 Corinthians 15:45 He came to give man a way out from what the "First Adam" did. The Bible teaches that death and sin entered the world because of what the first Adam did. If there were other people then were they not blameless because they had no part in the first sin? God sent the flood because there was none righteous except Noah and his family. If they were blameless then why are they condemned too. Romans 3:23 "for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" They means everybody living and dead. Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

God said "Let us create man in our own image" Genesis 1:26 The bible then Tells how he made Adam. I don't beleive God looks like an ape. Adam Got lonely and needed help, so God then performed surgery and made Woman. (she was so hot that Adam said, "WHOO, MAN.") smile.gif Why did Adam need help if there were other people around that were close enough for his kids to marry?

I would recomend going to answersingenesis.org and listening to "Adams Race" for an excellent audio recording of this specific topic.

I have one question for anyone who thinks that evolution and the Bible work together.
Where in the Bible does God say He used evolution?
Remember that evolution is not a Scientific Law, only a theory.
God says he created, and boom (according to Bill Cosby there has to be a sound effect in there smile.gif) things were created.

The Bible dispels the notion that the days of creation were more than 24 hour periods.
Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
Genesis 1:8 "...the evening and the morning were the second day."
and so on through the six days of creation. Morning-evening-day, Morning-evening-day, Morning-evening-day. I have a good notion what an evening and morning are and how they make up a day. That tells me God is talking about 6 literal 24 hr priods of time. If you believe that each morning and day is more than 24 hrs, then those are long periods of light and darkness.
Your right, God is not bound by time but He told us how much time it took him to create.

Posted by: Elspeth 24-Jul-2004, 08:49 PM
The scientific definition of evolution is not that one thing evolves into another completely different thing. The definition of evolution is that an organism modifies to fit its envornment through the process of natural selection. So, man did not come from apes through evolution. However, if God had chosen to take a creature He had created and make it into a man, then it happened.

Overall, on average, in America, people are taller than they used to be. The keyword is on average.

I am not so sure Cain and Able married sisters. It never says so. It is an assumption. Actually, we are to assume Able never married anyone. Read Genisis 4:14. Who are tho people Cain was afraid of? He went to live in the land of Nod, East of Eden. Who peopled that land? The Bible only tells us Adam and Even had Cain and Able. Who were the people of Nod? The thing is, even if there were others, by the time generations passed and people intermarried, eventually all would be able to claim Adam and Eve as their ancestors. There are things in the Bible that do not have explainations. And I believe it was meant to be that way.

It takes 24 hours in our world to be a night and a day. Who are we to say that is how long it took at the beginning of the world? At the Beginning of the World, a night and a day could have been a thousand of our years. Who is to say the earth revolved as it does now, or has always been in the same orbit.

God is HUGE. He existed before everything. I can't put Him in a box of my limited understanding. Therefore I stay open to all sorts of possibilities, as long as they do not directly contradict the message of the Bible. There are things in the Bible that do defy traditional explanation and I have no problem with that. God knows the truth, why do I need to know all the truths? I might get to know someday, but not on earth and I'm OK with that.

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Jul-2004, 09:59 AM
Im tired of people saying that I am the one putting God in a box, I am mearly trusting what He has said to us in the Bible. I am not putting words in his mouth, merely listening to what He has said. Actually I cannot think of something God talks about in the Bible He doesn't explain.

as for the term evolution it means both, however I have been using it as it is commonly used in classrooms and newsrooms (evolutionary scientists eventually come to this final end too), the change of one animal into another over a period of time. (dinosaurs to birds, ape to people). This kind of evolution has not been proved. Natural selection we do see, but is is not a change of genetic material only the loss of genetic material. The creatures already had that gene, a new one wasn't created because they needed it.

"All" means everybody, ever. What about the first people to evolve from apes, they wouldn't be under the curse of adam since they didn't come from him? Where did they end up when they died? Why did they die if they didn't disobey God? Why would they intermarry with people they would have known were cursed by God? Ape-people, "Why did you come out of that great garden?" "Why is there a flaming sword there now?"
Remember God has not made the injunction against marrying your own sister yet.

God tells us how He created Adam in chapter 2: from the dust of the ground-not apes.
Ok your right about Able, he probably died before he married. smile.gif
Genesis 5:4 " And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" So we know that Adam had daughters

Genesis 5:3 says that adam lived 130 years before he had Seth. How many people can show up in 130 years? If the people in the land of Nod were not related to Cain and Able what did Cain have to fear from them? Would you kill someone because he killed his own brother that wasn't related to you? No, you might not let him live in your community but you wouldn't kill him. What is exile to Cain? He was a farmer (as far as livestock anyway) and could take care of himself.

If God's evening and morning are different from what we have now, then what was the point of saying them? Why didn't He say it took Him 6000 years to do all this? That seems like such a small thing to hide. Even if you add thousands of years though, it is not enough for evolution to take place as scientist describe it now. They are talking about billion of years if not trillion.

Lets use literature for a moment. You can't use an analogy before you explain what the analogy is refering to. (i.e. evening and morning and day) Otherwise the analogy is pointless and people won't understand. Do you honestly think God would write it in such a way as to confuse people and give them the wrong idea? Why can't a day mean a 24 hour period of time? I am not going against ANY scientific law to say that it is. Do you also question how many days Jonah was in the Belly of the wale? Or how many days Jesus was buried? Or how long the sun stood still for Joshua? Why is this the only passage where people say that a day might mean something other than a 24 hour period of time?

As for people in america being taller: what statistic is that from?
more importantly, again with a genetics lesson, smile.gif America has become more integrated (i mean as far as having many different types of people from all over the world) then it used to be when it was founded. With all these different people groups, who have varying hights, nose shapes, hair color, etc., you will get a change in the physical characteristics of the average american person. Before this, people stayed mainly within their own country often marrying people from their own community thus not letting any other genetic material (from other people) in. Hight is also one of those characteristics that is not dominant or recessive, the two genes with hight combine to find something in between. However, they are still humans not something else.

The problem with averages is, if there is even 1 person out there who is over 7ft tall then that distorts the average to be higher.

I believe evolution does directly contradict the message of the Bible. It negates the idea of "all have sinned" and thus the possibilty that I need a savior. It also makes the Bible look untrustworthy. The Bible says "days". Everybody knows what a day is, including evolutionary scientists. If we say it is something other than a day it makes christians look like they don't trust their own bible. Who wants to believe a God who doesn't say what He means?

Posted by: birddog20002001 25-Jul-2004, 04:38 PM
QUOTE
Im tired of people saying that I am the one putting God in a box



QUOTE
God is HUGE. He existed before everything. I can't put Him in a box of my limited understanding


I don't believe that Elspeth was saying that you put God in a box but that he was beyond her comprehension


QUOTE
The problem with averages is, if there is even 1 person out there who is over 7ft tall then that distorts the average to be higher


Averages don't quite work like that, there is a rule of self correcting error for those that are over 7' tall there are those that are below 4'. Therefore still giving an "accurate" average.


QUOTE
I believe evolution does directly contradict the message of the Bible. It negates the idea of "all have sinned" and thus the possibilty that I need a savior. It also makes the Bible look untrustworthy.


I really have to disagree with you there at no time does evoloution say that original sin does not exist nor is it not important. It merely states that lifeforms have a problem and seek to overcome that problem those that do continue on to reproduce.

Personally I have been working a a different theory of evoloution that can work in conjunction with Darvins survival of the fittest. I call it the theory of random selection, it is a variant on Chaos theory and may have been thought up already.

Say there are two colonies of monkeys. Herd A and herd B. Well herd A lives five miles away from B on the coast and one day a tidal wave comes up and wipes out herd A were they less advanced than herd B? On the contrary they actually could have been more advanced, equal, or possibly less that really doesn't matter. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So their line is ended and B continues on to reproduce.



Posted by: reddrake79 25-Jul-2004, 11:45 PM
I had fortgotten about the self correcting rule of averages, thanks for the reminder. smile.gif
I am still curious about the statistic though.

I apologize to Elspeth for taking it peronally, I am used to people saying that phrase directly to me and automatically assumed that was the intent here.

Evolution, by eliminating the fact that everyone comes from Adam does eliminate the idea of original sin. If I did not decend from Adam, the man that sinned first, then do I have to worry about orginal sin? If I do need to worry about it, why? I'm not related to Adam. If evolution is true then other apes (not related to Adam) could have evolved into men. Why would they be held to account for what some other man they don't even know has done? That doesn't sound like a very fair God. Besides, humans cannot mate with apes so how would a half-human (most hybrids in nature are sterile anyway: mules for instance) creature reproduce even if it wasn't rejected by the pack? If for some reason it could mate why didn't it keep that ability because that would ensure the survival of the creature? The ability to mate with more than one group of animals would gaurantee the survival of the genetic material.

Birddog, you pointed out one of the major problems with Conventional evolution, however I dont think it will jive with the survival of the fitest. Because this means that just because group A is more fit than group B they won't neccessarily survive. There are also many creatures that defy evolutionary thinking. Giraffes are a good example. Without all thier biological systems that they have now they would never have survived the first generation. Check out a video by Dr. Job Martin Amazing Animals that Defy Evolution
Professional scientists already disagree with Darwin on a wide range of things, so don't be limited to what Darwin said. Thus comes the problem with science. What is "known" to be scientific fact for one generation (the sound berrier is unbreakable, man can never get to mars, the sun revolves around the earth, there is nothing smaller than an atom, man evolved from apes) is not necessarily true.

We cannot look at what man thinks and adjust the Bible to fit that, because man is fallible and not everything that we think is correct (racism for example). We must take the Bible and adjust man's thinking to fit that. In Martin Luther's day they had a different problem, theologians were trying to cram the six days of creation into one day because God is all powerful. Could God have created in 1 day? yes. Could God have created in 6000 years? yes. Did He? According to His word, no. God says He did it in six days and I believe him. It is faith. Faith that God said the truth and man has come up with an erred idea that has no physical proof. I have faith that God would not try to mislead or cause me confusion. I would not want to follow a god that wanted me confused or ignorant.

Posted by: Elspeth 26-Jul-2004, 08:19 AM
Evolution in its pure sense is an alteration of a species. However, people have used the term evolution incorrectly for so long now that it also means ape to man in many's mind. One of my pet peves. Like the word gay. Until about 30 so years ago it meant something entirely different. Still does, and yet it doesn't in the collective societial mind. Words - can't communicate with them, can't communicate without them.

And just for the record. I do not belive man and apes were ever related in any way. But I also do not belive that the Bible tells us all. It is a guideline with many mysteries purposely left. If there were no mysteries, then I would not need to go to God, trust in God. But that is me. I like having some mystery in the Bible.

I too, like birddog, have always leaned towards a Creation based natural selection view of the Universe. I believe God created man. I like to keep open some possiblities though. And as I said, if there were others - who knows maybe God created another planet as well and brought some of those people here - anyway, by the time people intermarried generations later, all would claim their inheritence back to Adam. I have a friend who it would appear I am completely unrelated to, and yet, if I go back far enough we share a grandfather eight generations back.

All I am trying to say is I don't like to go with a rigid interpretation of the Bible. Others do, and that's OK, just don't tell me mine is wrong for none of us knows completely for sure. That is God's department.

And, BTW I as well am at the diminutive end of the height scale. Short people ROCK!!!

Posted by: Elspeth 26-Jul-2004, 08:21 AM
I think what I am trying to say is that I don't belive the Bible is inaccurate, I just think that sometimes we don't understand what God is trying to tell us. smile.gif

Posted by: birddog20002001 26-Jul-2004, 11:04 AM
QUOTE
And, BTW I as well am at the diminutive end of the height scale. Short people ROCK!!!


Only if you push them over hard enough tongue.gif


QUOTE
And as I said, if there were others - who knows maybe God created another planet as well and brought some of those people here - anyway, by the time people intermarried generations later, all would claim their inheritence back to Adam


That kind of reminds me of a particular line in the old testament about the Nephilim (sp) that were angels I believe (anyone is free to correct me here I am just going on memory) that lain with woman, and their offspring were giants or "men of renound."

Posted by: Elspeth 26-Jul-2004, 11:13 AM
QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 26-Jul-2004, 12:04 PM)

Only if you push them over hard enough tongue.gif




That kind of reminds me of a particular line in the old testament about the Nephilim (sp) that were angels I believe (anyone is free to correct me here I am just going on memory) that lain with woman, and their offspring were giants or "men of renound."

Watch out birddog or I'll get a ladder and smack you. biggrin.gif

There is a thread over in the K&C I belive that addressed that thought.

Posted by: Raven 26-Jul-2004, 03:15 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 23-Jul-2004, 05:51 PM)
No one has proven it accurate either.

This discussion has been going on for centuries and may ( I say may only because I do not see much future for the world as we know it now ) go on for many more.

There are those who believe it as history and those who do not, there are those who say they found the truth while trying to prove it wrong and those who lost their faith while trying to prove it right.

One's beliefs can ebb and flow and only the creator knows the truth and will share that truth when he/she feels that you are ready for the truth.

ON the contrary Shadows

The Bible has been proven accurate in many historical aspects (by archaiological methods) such as the existence of citys once thought to be mythical.

Plus it has proven accurate in it's support of known physical laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Just to give a couple of examples.

A good book for you to read that would expand your knowledge in this area is Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

I think that you would find this very interesting reading.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: CelticRose 26-Jul-2004, 04:08 PM
I must say, Raven, that is an excellent book. I have that and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Both great books! smile.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 27-Jul-2004, 09:24 AM
Another Great book, for those who have questions about the Bible, such as "Where did Cain get his wife? What killed the Dinosaurs? etc." Is the Answers book by Ken Ham

Posted by: Shadows 27-Jul-2004, 10:24 AM
QUOTE (Raven @ 26-Jul-2004, 04:15 PM)
ON the contrary Shadows

The Bible has been proven accurate in many historical aspects (by archaiological methods) such as the existence of citys once thought to be mythical....



A good book for you to read that would expand your knowledge in this area is Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

I think that you would find this very interesting reading.

Peace

Mikel

Yes it is good reading, but did not prove to me one thing.

It is just like any book, the words of humans...

As for the cities being there... most writers us the world around them that they know as the basis for their works.

Posted by: Raven 27-Jul-2004, 11:51 AM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 27-Jul-2004, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE (Raven @ 26-Jul-2004, 04:15 PM)
ON the contrary Shadows

The Bible has been proven accurate in many historical aspects (by archaiological methods) such as the existence of citys once thought to be mythical....



A good book for you to read that would expand your knowledge in this area is Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

I think that you would find this very interesting reading.

Peace

Mikel

Yes it is good reading, but did not prove to me one thing.

It is just like any book, the words of humans...

As for the cities being there... most writers us the world around them that they know as the basis for their works.

I would just like to point out that this thread is dealing with the accuracy of the Bible and you said,"No one has proven it accurate either."

I will say again that it has been proven accurate in many areas such as accurate historical and geographical descriptions of citys. Regardless of whether you believe the stories, this is a point of accuracy. There was debate for a long time as to whether many of the Old Testament cities had ever actually existed.

Just because it is a book that is written by men does not mean that it is not accurate any more than a book on Physics, or History is any less accurate simply because it is written by men. (after all men and women are responsable for 100% of the literature on this planet)

This thread is about the accuracy of the Bible not whether you believe the theology or not. "Here is the major topic of this string. Is the Bible Accurate? Why or why not?
This is also kinda of a poll. I am a little curious as to what people think about the Bible. "

So your why not is that ,"No one has proven it accurate either." This is what I am answering.

(I am a point by point guy) If you have read,"Evidence that demands a Verdict." You know that what I am talking about is heavily documented.

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: reddrake79 27-Jul-2004, 06:38 PM
Careful birddog or I might bite your ankles off. tongue.gif

thank you raven for bringing us back to the point (i get sidetracked easily smile.gif )

Shadow, look back at some of the earlier posts in this thread too. Between Raven and Myself we bring up some points that no one has yet addressed. These points deal heavily with accuracy. at the moment I am only remembering my own. The bible deals a lot with Science. (ignore the whole creation and evolution part of the argument) Job 26:7 says the earth is hung on nothing. When did Science discover this truth? There are many scientific facts that the Bible reveals before Science officially discovered them. Ecclesiastes 1:7 tells about the water cycle. and others, i could list them if you like.

The Bible only says that the Nephalim were Giants, your thinking of the passage that reffers to "sons of God".

elspeth, I think we have a definition problem here

Columbia Encyclopedia definition: "Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ev/evolutio.html

The processes you have described are more accuratly referred to as "speciation" or "natural selection", which are fully compatible with what is OBSERVED in nature. I do not believe that biological evolution (as it is defined above) is a result of these processes and there is no evidence to say I am wrong. Where I have a problem is that evolutionists make many assumtions that are not verifiable, nor have been observed in nature.

However this argument does not prove or disprove the accuracy of the Bible since neither side can hold up conclusive proof that they are right. (except the Bible, if you believe the Bible to be accurate and not misleading)

Anyway, Like I said I get easily sidetracked tongue.gif

The following is not directed at any specific person, it is just a reminder: I notice Raven, myself and only a few others have backed up what we are saying by giving references, either Biblical or Extrabiblical.

I guess that means there is more reliable evidence for an accurate Bible then for an inaccurate. biggrin.gif

(mom always said I knew how to throw gasoline on a fire)

Posted by: PADOS 11-Aug-2004, 03:50 AM
hello everybody.

i joined the comunity only tomorrow and so I can write only today. It is an interesting discussion.

for reddrake79,

Your analysis take care only of two approach, biblic and evolutionistic. But there is a lot of different approach coming from other religion. If the god, your god, allows that there is a lot of people believing in different deities and rules it may be possible that it allows also its own followers to have a certain amount of freedom.

Bible is a Book write by men for the men. It is a collection of writing selected from a large amount and then canonised. The same thing happens to new testament.

It is important to remember that a lot of the canonising work was done in the 300 a.d. and later under the supervision of the emperor Costantino, who held council.
That means that a political power had the last word on what was canonic or not. This means an human choice based on political convenience.

Bible are right only for religious purposes and only for people who believe in that specific deity, that is not the only deity on the world.


salut
PADOS

Posted by: reddrake79 12-Aug-2004, 08:45 PM
You are right Pados in that I am excluding other religions. I would expect someone who believes in another religion that says something about how the earth began to hold to those beliefs. (no mater how rediculous I may think those beliefs to be) Yet those religions are either creationistic in approach or evolutionary, or some mixture of the two.

However, The Bible may have been canonised around 300AD yet people believed the old testament millenia before that. The old Testament has been around since before many of those religions started (maybe not in written form but at least in spoken form) Many of those religion's account of creation are earily similar to what is in the Bible. (which one is right?) The fact of the matter is that no matter what you believe about the beginning of the universe it is only that a "belief". Men cannot conclusivly prove what happened without using some form of faith. (including scientists) So which one is right? They can't all be correct. I believe the Bible is the most credible source.

Pados I refer you back to the beginning of this discussion in response to your assertions about the canonization of the Bible.

BTW The God of the Bible claims to be the only deity. Not trying to stir up trouble just pointing it out. smile.gif

Here is a question dealing with accuracy.

What evidence proves that something is accurate?


Posted by: Tassiecelt 05-Sep-2004, 09:22 AM
I believe the Bible as we have it today to be an accurate record of what God wants us to know.

It can be proven to be accurate in every way.

It is miraculous in it's writing, it's content, in it's preservation.

I once studied and believed various eastern books (the Buddhist and hindu Scriptures), I now see that only the Bible convey real Truth.

It has brought great joy, purpose and direction to my life. It has guided me through a marriage lasting 26 years and raising of five kids as well as pastoring a church.

Many may argue with it's contents, but for me - I am satisfied.

Posted by: MacAibhistin 10-Sep-2004, 11:32 PM
Well, this is an interesting discussion. I am a bit late to join it, but will offer a few thoughts. I can't help but wonder if the original question is flawed. Someone mentioned that the idea of the accuracy of the theology is not the same question as the accuracy of the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I am coming from a believer's perspective, nonetheless, it seems to me that the intent of the Bible is to reveal God and his plan for humankind. While it has great historical value, it's purpose probably was never to serve as a history of humanity. The Genesis account was written centuries, even millennia after the Adam and Eve creation supposedly happened. We know that Moses, author of Genesis, was no historian, archeologist, or scientist. So inspired by God, probably. Inspired by other creation stories popular in the Middle East, sure. Did he feel the need to provide his people with a sense of self, a sense of origin, a sense of a shared experience - sure. after all, what are well all doing on a Celtic site? We like the idea of connecting with our roots.

Okay, I am rambling. Let me cut to the chase. I don't believe the Bible was written as a historical or a scientific study. It is a collection of accounts that were written by inspired individuals. They were ultimately collected, canonised by men who, were moved likely by the Holy Spirit and the flesh. However, God has seen fit to preserve the Bible and allow it to survive to present day because it reveals who He is. It does not replace our ability to research history, geology, biology, archaeology, etc. We do not, as Christians, have to check our common sense at the door when we become a believer. At least, I hope not.

Rory

Posted by: Tassiecelt 12-Sep-2004, 07:09 AM
QUOTE
I don't believe the Bible was written as a historical or a scientific study. It is a collection of accounts that were written by inspired individuals.


I agree! however, where the Bible makes a statement that is historical or scientific - I believe it is accurate and reliable.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Posted by: ANNHAM 12-Sep-2004, 06:13 PM
QUOTE
The Genesis account was written centuries, even millennia after the Adam and Eve creation supposedly happened.


There is something about Genesis that makes me believe that if God inspired men to write it down, His importance was to emphasize the main point - God created the heavens & the earth & all that is here. For one thing, in Genesis, there are actually two slightly conflicting versions of the creation. Another is that Genesis is said to have been very similar to an ancient Babylonian folk tale which originated long before the Bible was written.
I tend to think it is best not to take all the details literally because in translation and telling and retelling of any story or even history before it is written down there are bound to be things that just aren't understood exactly as the original inspiree or God intended.

Anne

Posted by: deckers 13-Sep-2004, 12:05 PM
I remember when I was in graduate school, I was arguing with one of my classmates about the "validity" of the Bible. He said the Bible was valid because the Bible said so. And no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get him to see the circularity of his argument. You can't use a thing to prove itself when that very thing is called into question.

However, I am a liberal Christian. I believe in God, have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and attend church on a mostly-regular basis.

But I think we should make a distinction between "accurate" and "valid." While I believe that the Bible is valid and the major tenets are true, I do not believe it is ALWAYS 100%, all-of-the-time accurate.

Before you argue with me, read for yourself how Judas died. In one of the books of the Gospels, he hung himself and they buried him in the Field of Blood (isn't that what it's called?). In another, he tripped and broke his neck in the Field of Blood.

You can't hang yourself AND trip at the same time. So one method of his death must be right, which means the other isn't. Which means we run into a problem if we say the Bible is COMPLETELY accurate.

To use an absolute like that means that there must never ever be a single exception to it. And the whole Judas question is just such an exception.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Sep-2004, 02:44 PM
Erik! Just curious as I don't remember this. Where does it say that Judas tripped in a pool of blood? I don't believe I have ever read that. Doesn't mean it ain't so in the Bible. I just don't remember it saying so. Thanks! smile.gif

Posted by: Shadows 13-Sep-2004, 03:38 PM
He said " tripped and broke his neck in the field of blood " not tripped in a field of blood.


Inspiration ( god's word ) can come from many places and people... to think that the christian bible is the only source for his word leaves us in a very controled situation. The leaders of the "church" have and will continue to change the words and meanings of the original texts.

If you believe this, or not, effects me in no way... I have seen what has and is being done.

This blind belief and behavior reminds me of those that are waging war against us right now!

The creator speaks to people in many ways and who is to say which is right ( I feel thay all are ) . To close one's mind to one avenue with the total exclusion of all others leaves one in disharmony with the world.

Live , Learn, Teach, Listen and most of all LOVE!

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Sep-2004, 04:32 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 13-Sep-2004, 04:38 PM)
He said " tripped and broke his neck in the field of blood " not tripped in a field of blood.


Live , Learn, Teach, Listen and most of all LOVE!

Oops! I did goof on that one..............Thanks for correcting me Shadows! smile.gif

and I love the latter of your message of Live, Learn, Teach, Listen and most of all Love!

Posted by: Shadows 13-Sep-2004, 04:37 PM
What is the Golden RUle of the Bible?
What is the Rule of Three?

They both contain the same message!

Bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!

Rule of Three: What ever you do to others comes back to you thrice!

There is not much different between those beliefs.

Posted by: Shadows 13-Sep-2004, 04:40 PM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 13-Sep-2004, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (Shadows @ 13-Sep-2004, 04:38 PM)
He said " tripped and broke his neck in the field of blood " not tripped in a field of blood.


Live , Learn, Teach, Listen and most of all LOVE!

Oops! I did goof on that one..............Thanks for correcting me Shadows! smile.gif

and I love the latter of your message of Live, Learn, Teach, Listen and most of all Love!

The "love" I refer to here is not the secular love that most profess...

Read the books I have recommended elsewhere to see with open heart and eyes...

Free your spirit to live the life ....

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Sep-2004, 05:34 PM
Right Shadows! I have seen those books you have mentioned. Have not gotten them yet, I confess, but I believe your message. It is not a secular love...........to me it is a spiritual love that can come from no where else! smile.gif

Posted by: Tassiecelt 13-Sep-2004, 10:48 PM
QUOTE (ANNHAM @ 13-Sep-2004, 10:13 AM)

There is something about Genesis that makes me believe that if God inspired men to write it down, His importance  was to emphasize the main point - God created the heavens & the earth & all that is here.  For one thing, in Genesis, there are actually two slightly conflicting versions of the creation. Another is that Genesis is said to have been very similar to an ancient Babylonian folk tale which originated long before the Bible was written. 
I tend to think it is best not to take all the details literally because in translation and telling and retelling of any story or even history before it is written down there are bound to be things that just aren't understood exactly as the original inspiree or God intended.

Anne

ANNHAM, I agree that Genesis is a very compelling account. May I add that Gen. 1 and 2 are not conflicting, but complimentary accounts.
Chapter 1 tells us the 'when' of creation week, chapter 2 gives us the 'how'.

As far as the idea that things were not written down until much later, that's true, but don't forget that they lives to a great age in those days before the flood.

Adam would have known Methuselah, and Methuselah died the year of the Flood and would have known Noah, so that's only two generations.

There is enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4-5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth.

remembering that all Mankind came from Eden and then Noah after the Flood it is understandable that a Flood account would find it's way into various cultures and survive. Tho' as some tribes departed from the Living God, their accounts were likewise distorted.

It is interesting that most culture still have a Flood account and also observe a seven day week - which came from Genesis rather than from obvious movements of the heavenly bodies such as from whence we measure a day, month, and year.

This all goes to prove the true origins of Mankind.

More info: http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html

There is more here on "who wrote Genesis"
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c021.html

Posted by: MacAibhistin 13-Sep-2004, 11:03 PM
First, I like Deckers' point about using an item (ie. the Bible) to prove itself. I guess that is why Fundamentalists (whether Christian or Muslim or whatever) are hard to reckon with because they simply cannot allow themselves to question the source.

As per the Babylonian flood tales, yes I have read often about them and they date further back than the 4 millennia BC. In North America we often have flood tales in our aboriginal stories. Some Christians have also used this as "proof" of Noah's flood. More scientific interpretations tend to suggest these floods can be attributed to the retreating glaciers of our last ice age - some 15-20,000 years ago.

I don't think God would want us to totally abandon our senses. Nor does he want us to get too mired down in debate. What I do feel that stands up to historical criticism is the life of Christ. The gospels are a much better source of history than the early books of the OT.

Rory

Posted by: Tassiecelt 13-Sep-2004, 11:46 PM
QUOTE
don't think God would want us to totally abandon our senses. Nor does he want us to get too mired down in debate. What I do feel that stands up to historical criticism is the life of Christ. The gospels are a much better source of history than the early books of the OT.


So senses are abandoned in the study of the Bible, Jesus didn't think so either since He studied it and quoted prolifically from the OT. He would not quote what He did not believe, that I am sure of.

This is not debate, but discussion. Since this is a Christian room I guess this is the place I assume those who come here will be interested, as I am, but I'm still new here.

The OT is recognised as a wealth of reliable historical data, even from the non-Christian scholars!
Genesis is very condensed stuff, only 2 chapters to describe the Creation of the world and Universe!
Whereas 13 chapters in Exodus are used to simply describe the Temple and its contents and construction! amazing.

Posted by: Shadows 14-Sep-2004, 07:43 AM
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 14-Sep-2004, 12:46 AM)


This is not debate, but discussion. Since this is a Christian room I guess this is the place I assume those who come here will be interested, as I am, but I'm still new here.


This particular topic is not in the Christian part of these forums and is open to all to express ideas and thoughts, that is why it is call "Philosophy, Science and Religion".

Posted by: Tassiecelt 14-Sep-2004, 07:49 AM
Oops, you are right Shadows, I apologise for the error. I was getting confused with the Kirk and Chapel section. As I said, I'm new here.

Nevertheless, the post was placed here and of course I am happy to respond to anyone, Christian or otherwise.

Thank you for that correction.

Posted by: MacAibhistin 14-Sep-2004, 11:32 PM
Tassie, thanks for seeing this discussion as just that, and not debate. I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. Do you believe that our knowledge changes over time? Facts, in fact, change over time as we gain new data don't they? For example, if Jesus was giving a geography lesson based on the knowledge of his time, he probably wouldn't have taught about Antarctica, or North America. Don't you think? (and yes, as God he knew they existed, but it wouldn't be somthing he'd have talked about).

I think Jesus quoted the OT because most of it is true, all of it inspiring, and it would serve no purpose to give a detailed explanation of the creation of the world and all of its geology and emergence of organisms, etc. to a people whose intellectual development was simply not ready. I guess what I am saying, by not abandoning our senses, is that as we develop as a (human)race and we learn the scientific truths than may replace our early myths or assumptions, it does not have to take away from our belief in Christ.

One more question - how old do you think the world is? Just curious.

Thanks, Rory.

Posted by: deckers 15-Sep-2004, 01:45 PM
QUOTE (MacAibhistin @ 15-Sep-2004, 12:32 AM)
One more question - how old do you think the world is? Just curious.

Millions upon millions of years old. I think dinosaurs were real, and they existed millions of years ago. I don't think the Great Flood wiped them out or that the Earth is only 4000 years old.

Posted by: Tassiecelt 15-Sep-2004, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (MacAibhistin @ 15-Sep-2004, 03:32 PM)
Tassie, thanks for seeing this discussion as just that, and not debate.  I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.  Do you believe that our knowledge changes over time?  Facts, in fact, change over time as we gain new data don't they?  For example, if Jesus was giving a geography lesson based on the knowledge of his time, he probably wouldn't have taught about Antarctica, or North America.  Don't you think?  (and yes, as God he knew they existed, but it wouldn't be somthing he'd have talked about). 

I think Jesus quoted the OT because most of it is true, all of it inspiring, and it would serve no purpose to give a detailed explanation of the creation of the world and all of its geology and emergence of organisms, etc. to a people whose intellectual development was simply not ready.  I guess what I am saying, by not abandoning our senses, is that as we develop as a (human)race and we learn the scientific truths than may replace our early myths or assumptions, it does not have to take away from our belief in Christ.

One more question - how old do you think the world is?  Just curious.

Thanks, Rory.

Rory, I've not time right now to answer your question as it deserves (even if I can!) but please accept a quick reply for now.

All of the questions here arise from and are answered according to our foundational belief.
Mine, is that God exists, He sent His Son, Jesus to show the world His love, to offer a way that mankind can return to a relationship with the Creator and live according to truth and reality instead of the lies of materialism, hatred, heathenism and evolution!

I believe the Bible as we have it today to be an accurate and reliable "manual for Life" given by Inspiration of God and miraculously preserved for our benefit.

So on that basis I believe...

1.yes mans' knowledge changes, sometimes for good, sometimes not. God's knowledge is perfect, complete and unchanging. I would rather rely on that knowledge than my own. That is submission to God, willingly.

2. As our mans knowledge changes, often it is found that what the Bible says was true anyway, and that our understanding was faulty, if I had time I would give many examples of that.
So where science and Bible collide, it's usually science that has not caught up yet.

One such example is the age of the earth question, enquiring minds should check out http://christiananswers.net but..

3. I believe the Bible record and Bishop Usshers chronology of 6-10,000 years at most.
There is a lot of evidence for a young earth and the co-existence of man and dinosaurs together.
To show this takes heaps of writing and that's been done by the Creation Science people to save me time wink.gif
The Creation Science Foundation are made up of scientists, teachers and other professionals from a range of fields, who are also creationists.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 15-Sep-2004, 07:36 PM
For the sake of my faith and my beliefs, I absolutley MUST believe in a literal 6 day creation. I don't believe in playing all of these word games with the Bible. I must take it literally. If I can't trust God or His word enough to be able to believe it when it says "And the evening and the morning were the first DAY," or when it says "And on the seventh DAY God ended His work," then how can I trust Him when He says "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

I must be able to trust EVERY SINGLE WORD, because if I can't then I can't trust ANY of it.

I believe that scientists pursue their studies backward. They say "We know that the Bible can't be true, so we must look at things and try to figure out for ourselves where these things came from." If they would look at things and say "Okay, we know God's word must be true so lets look at things from a Biblical perspective and see how things fit," then I think a lot of their holes in theory would disappear.

Take for example the flood. The Bible says it happened; that it was a world-wide flood that resulted from rain falling for forty days and forty nights. The scientist says "That's not possible, so how else can we explain things?" so they go to great lengths to come up with ways and means to explain away obvious results of the flood. Then when the Bible pans out and even they must admit htat there was a flood, they try to minimalize it as much as possible. "Okay, so maybe there WAS a flood, but it didn't extend any farther than the basin of THIS river."

If they would look at it from a Biblical perspective, then they could avoid all of their fact juggling. "Oh look at this - we found the fossil of a sea-based creature on top of this mountain! Well we KNOW it didn't come from a world wide flood, so obviously, at one time this mound of dirt must have been raised up by something - perhaps an earthquake or plate tectonics or some thing else." DUH! They have to wrangle all of this stuff to make it fit THEIR perceptions and their science, when all a Christian has to do is read the Bible and it tells him, in plain language that any 6 year old could understand, EXACTLY how that fossil got there!

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools." Sounds like modern science to me!

Posted by: MacAibhistin 15-Sep-2004, 07:44 PM
Fascinating! Thank you for your honesty, Tassie. Clearly, you are not a geologist!

Anyway, I trust we can have diverging beliefs on some of these things, yet still accept each other as Christian brothers. As you have figured out, I cannot accept the authority of the Bible as the literal word of God, since it has gone through the hands of "primitive man", especially the early books. However, "inspired" word of God, I do accept.

I have read the "christian answers" website in the past and find some of their stuff makes sense, but when in comes to a young earth, their explanation of fossil fuels, and attempts to populate all of the continents of the earth (except Antarctica) within 4000 years, I simply cannot accept their "answers". They seem absolutely ridiculous. I think the problem is when you don't take a rational, scientific approach to study, but you create the answer ahead of time and then try to explain the process with the answer already determined. It compromises the study! It is like a backward form of the scientific method.

Anyway, glad we can agree on Christ and God's attempt to draw humankind to Him.

Amen,
Rory

P.S. There really is no reason why God could not have used evolution as a process of creation. wink.gif

Posted by: WizardofOwls 19-Sep-2004, 11:30 AM
QUOTE (MacAibhistin @ 15-Sep-2004, 09:44 PM)
Fascinating! Thank you for your honesty, Tassie. Clearly, you are not a geologist!

P.S. There really is no reason why God could not have used evolution as a process of creation. wink.gif

Hi MacA!

Actually, Tassie did not write this! I, WizardofOwls, did! And I agree that we can agree to disagree as brothers!

And, yes, I do disagree with your last statement! biggrin.gif I DO believe in a literal Biblical translation!

Genesis 1:20 says that the waters brought forth fowl and whales, not microscopic critters. In Genesis 1:24 the earth brought forth cattle and creeping things. And Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed life into the NOSTRILS of the man that He had just created from the dust of the earth, not into some mythic primordial soup!

And yes I believe that the earth is actually the oldest thing in the universe! According to Geneses 1:1 the earth was created on the first day, while the sun moon and stars were not created until the fourth day!

Your brother in Christ

Posted by: Shadows 19-Sep-2004, 05:17 PM
And the Bible was written by man! Inspired or not it was man's hand that wrote and has re-written it over the many centuries. Each translation from the original scrolls has had the influence of the translator included.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 19-Sep-2004, 06:06 PM
This is where faith comes into play, Shadows. I am asked to belive, by God, that He created the universe in 6 days, that He flooded and destroyed the world in a 40 day flood, that He led His children with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, that He parted the Red Sea that His children could walk across on dry land, and any number of other things that, to me, seem impossible. Believeing that He could keep His word pure despite the fumblig intentions of man seems like a tiny leap of faith compared to those! smile.gif

Posted by: Tassiecelt 19-Sep-2004, 10:24 PM
Shadows, what you say is true, but the miraculous preservation of the Bible's integrity may astound you if you look into it a bit more.

Sure there are some versions that leave a little to be desired, those arising from the Nestles Greek text would be among them, the have weaknesses, but no major teaching is obscured from the common man on its account.

The Textus Receptus, or Recieved Text is regarded as very reliable. The King James is based on this manuscript.

Discoveries such as the Dead sea Scrolls, esp. a nearly complete copy of the Book of Isaiah has demonstrated to scholars around the world that these "copies of copies" have been copied so carefully that there was little changed from this much older copy found in the cave.

Sure, Man's hand is involved, but as i study the depths of God's Word I find more and more that man alone could not have written such things unaided by divine Power.

No other collection of Books (66 in all) written by over 40 authors of a period of over 4000 years has such harmony in all it's words, and includes over 8000 verses of prophecy, 75% of which have been fullfilled in great detail.
There is even a whole seperate language of mathematics woven into the books that place the stamp of God on it as does the watermark in a bank note.

I could go on and on, this Bible we have today was written and preserved by God in a way no other sacred work can claim, and it can be proven to be so.

But like the treasure of the parable, some digging needs to be done to find it. Jesus promised that if you seek, you shall find.

Are you seeking God's truth, or do you only want to reconfirm your own opinions?
Are you willing to abandon self and human reasoning to find something of more value than you could ever imagine?

Forget the holy Grail
Forget looking to the Stars, or mars for answers
The truth is right in your hand as you hold the Bible.

Only the God of Creation can open your eyes to it, if you ask Him, He will!

Posted by: Shadows 20-Sep-2004, 07:41 AM
I am not going to sway you from your beliefs nor you I.
I have studied the bible extensively and have found much that has made my decision for me to not hold it as " the only true word ".
My study of religion and religious works has spanned 40 years and the conclusions about the bible I have come to are right for me. Yes there is some historical truths that are proven in the latter years of the OT, but there are also books of fiction from ealry man that have the same amount of historical accurieceies, you see man writes about what he knows. Look at the way our modern history books are now being changed in the schools ( this is a diferent topic all it's own ), they no longer reflect correctly what has happened to mankind. If "man" is involved it is flawed!

Posted by: Tassiecelt 20-Sep-2004, 10:17 AM
well we share a love of celtic music, so it's not all bad smile.gif

Posted by: maryellen 12-Nov-2004, 07:41 AM
If it is so "flawed", why do these universal truths of love, kindness, grace, peace and prayer still continue 2000 years later? Yes yes you can argue how everyone has been brainwashed, but come on. 2 millenia is a long time.
Also, I hope your journey also included "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It is a very very popular book. A journalist interviews the greatest biblical scholars throughout the world. It is also very compelling.

Great post Tassie! You get right to the heart of it!

In addition to Genesis and the creation of the world, one common argument is that God's voice cannot produce light. But students at a university (I think Standford?), made sound produce light.

With evolution and creation, I do not think man evolved from "monkeys". Darwin knew nothing of this magical thing called DNA. Experts like to state that 98% of our DNA is similar to chimps. Yes, but if you change 3 genes on this very very long strand of DNA, the being cannot survive.

Posted by: CelticRose 12-Nov-2004, 05:41 PM
Someone please answer this question for me. someone told me that the New Testament Gospels were written 100 years after Christ. But the people who wrote the gospels lived and walked with Christ, saw his death and resurrection! How can it be that they wrote the gospels 100 years later?! Wouldn't they have all been dead? I need to answer this question for someone, so please help me as I don't know how to answer her. Thanks! smile.gif

Posted by: maryellen 13-Nov-2004, 04:54 PM
Matthew: According to the Catholic Dictionary, It is the unanimous tradition of Christian antiquity that (Matthew) was the author of the first of the four Gospels and dated before 50 AD.

Mark: Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 AD is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 AD.

Luke: The traditional date of Luke's Gospel is 60-64 AD. Some critics place it after the destruction of the temple of Jersusalem and put the dates between 80-150 AD. Another reason the critics think that it is dated this late is because they conjecture that Mark was a source for Luke. They also say Acts was written shortly thereafter.

John: Most critical scholars place the beginning of John's writings between 50-70 AD and culminating around 95-100 AD. This final date is assumed in large part because the so-called "appendix" to the Gospel, chapter 21, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' folowers, then a death around 90-100 is expected.

However, I agree with the opinion that since no gospel, not even Acts, mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which was prophesied by Jesus, then most agree that these 5 books date before 70 AD. None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.  This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1).  This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple.  The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold.  Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D.  Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included.  But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself.  Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension.  Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.  Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews.  The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70.   If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early.

Also, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses. John was an eyewitness.

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Nov-2004, 05:08 PM
Oh thank you, MaryEllen! This has been a very big help to me! I appreciate it so much! I had this one book that explained all that and let a friend borrow it and I have since to get it back. Guess I am going to have to buy another.

Many thanks again! smile.gif

Posted by: maryellen 13-Nov-2004, 07:52 PM
No problem CelticRose! I try to back up stuff I remember with research and it is fun to find out more information about the most important aspect of ourselves- the spritual.

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Nov-2004, 08:27 PM
Well MaryEllen! I had this wonderful book by Josh McDowell who addressed all that kind of stuff, but I lent it out to friend and never got the book back...........so I have had to reorder it for myself. well no love lost in the book. The guy I lent it too actually became a Christian as a result! So it served its purpose! smile.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 15-Nov-2004, 09:43 AM
OK, I've been lurking around and watching the posts. This is such a touchy topic for many people, and I will certainly not attempt to sway anyone's opinion.

The Bible is the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the written inspired record of God's relationship with Man.

But Jesus is the Word of God. Period. Above and beyond the Bible.

He that has ears, let him hear. The Holy Spirit will speak in a still, small voice to anyone that will listen. That, my friends, is the true Word of God.

Now I'm not going to back anyone's bible. If you believe every comma and paragraph then I'm happy for you. If you believe in allegory and illusion in the text, then I'm happy for you.

The Bible does record Man's experience with God. What was written was done so by inspired people. There may be missing books, there may be too many books.

But my reliance comes from what God Himself says to me, via the Holy Spirit, and what I know of the life of Christ, the human embodyment of God on earth.

I do study the bible. Personally I study the New Living Translation simply because it's so easy to read. But I don't get too excited by "translation", "transliteration", "paraphrase", etc. I read what I have, I meditate on it, I ask God for assistance, and I listen to what He says through the Holy Spirit.

Too many wars are fought over "which one is right". The King James may, in fact, be right, but I always know that God's voice is "more right".

The "accurate bible" is spoken to me, not read by me.


Posted by: maryellen 15-Nov-2004, 01:30 PM
Very true Shama!!

I wanted to also note if anyone wanted concise where, when and how about each book of the Bible, the Life Application Bible has at the beginning of each book who wrote it, why, when, etc. all right there. It is the new international version and has lots of footnotes about the context of the times.

I will have to check out the NLT.

sigh. I wish God would just write me a letter that says do this, this and this. It would seem to be easier.... but I know it wouldnt be.

Posted by: Shamalama 16-Nov-2004, 10:30 AM
Sister maryellen, I use the NLT version of the Life Application Bible so that I get all those study helps. The Life Application Bible is a great book.


Posted by: freekenny 30-Nov-2004, 11:58 AM
O'siyo,
~ Sheesh, why can't I just sit on my hands at tymes while biting my tongue rolleyes.gif ..cause that ain't me! whistling.gif
~ Again tis only my opinion so here goes....This book called the Bible is a great story book...tells of many great 'things' in history and of this great Healer named Jesus..but, mere mortals wrote it..it has been interpreted over and over countless tymes..much I have to believe was 'left out' because it didn't contain enough 'glory'..MUCH was left out because pure and simple no one was certain, no one had the answers...but, I can't help to think that much was left out so that we as mortals would ponder, discover for ourselves and 'live our life in the way it suits us'..I have to believe that this God and Jesus NEVER intended for all mortals to live the same way or by the same rules..I believe these '10 Commandments' are nothing more than common sense..I believe had these things not been written in this Bible we WOULD have 'figured it out'..example: We would have known that it is wrong to go around killing our fellow man/woman..what is so damn puzzling about that is, we still have to experience war.. sadwalk.gif
~ I believe like so many things in life, we were never meant to have all the answers..that wouldn't be 'normal'..that wouldn't be 'living life'...there would be no learning... unsure.gif
~ I have read this Bible, no not cover to cover, I know few that have conquered that feat...in my reading I have discovered many contradictions, many Catch-22's, and many unfinished thoughts..Personally, I am glad that I don't feel as if to be a better person and live a 'good life' I have to live by 'words from this Bible'..at the same tyme, I respect those that do feel that way because, I care about others and if this is what makes them productive and happy then rockon.gif ..
~ Aren't we as humans such SPLENDID, INNOVATIVE and WONDERFUL creatures with so much diversity!! We are truly blessed!
~~~Sty-U red_bandana.gif

Posted by: freekenny 30-Nov-2004, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (maryellen @ 12-Nov-2004, 08:41 AM)
If it is so "flawed", why do these universal truths of love, kindness, grace, peace and prayer still continue 2000 years later? Yes yes you can argue how everyone has been brainwashed, but come on. 2 millenia is a long time.
In addition to Genesis and the creation of the world, one common argument is that God's voice cannot produce light. But students at a university (I think Standford?), made sound produce light.
With evolution and creation, I do not think man evolved from "monkeys". Darwin knew nothing of this magical thing called DNA. Experts like to state that 98% of our DNA is similar to chimps. Yes, but if you change 3 genes on this very very long strand of DNA, the being cannot survive.

O'siyo maryellen,
~ wine.gif *reading the sign posted: enter at your own risk*
~ First off, the reason, like so many things, 'religion' or 'spirituality' survives over tyme is because we tend to pass it down generation after generation..I mean if it worked for our forefathers and mothers then why not pass it down to our loved ones? I tend to compare it to the Hopi Storyteller that passes history, culture and legend down to future generations so that our lineage and culture will survive!
~ Secondly, in my culture the 'light' you speak of I believe comes from 'miracles'..actions of sorts..not necessarily the voice of anyone or anything..the light shines because a miracle happened.. cool.gif
~ Thirdly, is it really true that Darwin didn't have a clue to what DNA was? I mean, he didn't use the terminology DNA but, he sure knew a helluva lot about the genes, cells and physiological make-up of we humans enough to coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest' and it relates in more than one way to DNA.. whistling.gif Although I am not going to debate whether or not I or any of my people evolved from 'monkeys' I will say that being that I really like who I am and what I am to become, if I did evolve from a 'monkey' I can honestly say, 'it ain't all that bad' wine.gif
~ To me the important things to always remember is, 'if it works for you then so be it but, don't try to force your beliefs on me or others and don't judge me or say I am wrong because I choose to believe 'different' from what one would believe to be the majority of peoples'..and before anyone becomes offended, I am not saying that anyone is trying to force me into a belief system I am just suggesting that we all keep an open mind and remain respectful of others and their belief system.. wink2.gif Nothing, and this is my opinion only, NOTHING is absolute and all things are up for debate..
~ Alright, my two-cents again for what its worth..and as always I wish to reiterate that I respect all peoples beliefs just as I expect respect about mine.. whistling.gif
~~Sty-U, Nomaste' red_bandana.gif

Posted by: maryellen 03-Dec-2004, 08:17 PM
I believe these '10 Commandments' are nothing more than common sense.


Common sense for today or when they were written? At the time they were written, Moses's people were one of the only groups in that part of the world that was monotheistic. If it was common sense, the polytheism should not have existed for so long for so many people. The thousands of ancient Greeks and Egyptains for thousands of years did not lack common sense when they worshiped many gods, they lacked the word of God.
You shall not commit adultery is another one. Polygamy is still embraced by many cultures. Despite STDs and AIDS, the sexual activity rate has not decreased.

And Darwin did not say great things like "survival of the fittest". This was iterated by Herbert Spencer.

Posted by: freekenny 03-Dec-2004, 10:55 PM
O'siyo,
~ I believe and will always believe the 10 Commandments are nothing more than 'common sense'....now and then..a foundation of sorts..guidelines if you will..polytheism should have existed and still exists because like today, many people and their cultures refuse to believe that there is only one god responsible for everything..with people comes variation and different beliefs.. sleep.gif
'Lacked the word of God'..perhaps to some but, like many people today, it is their right to question this word and to debate it and even choose not to believe it..without disrespect to the ones that believe this word of God..
~Darwinism/'survival of the fittest' is not a simple theory that is either true or false but is rather a highly complex research program that is being continuously modified and improved. This was true before the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, and it continues to be true after the synthesis. In both scholarly and popular literature one frequently finds references to "Darwin's theory of evolution", as though it were a unitary entity. In reality, Darwin's "theory" of evolution/'survival of the fittest' was a whole bundle of theories, and it is impossible to discuss Darwin's evolutionary thought constructively if one does not distinguish its various components. Darwin believed change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations, again, 'survival of the fittest'...
~One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Ernst Mayr.
~On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin
~~ These two books as well as numerous other books and references refer to Darwin as coining the phrase, 'survival of the fittest'..In my 6 years of college in Psychology, Theology and Sociology, a numerous amount of Professors whom have their Ph.D's and Psy.D's taught indeed that Darwin used the phrase 'survival of the fittest' in conjunction with the term 'natural selection'..
~ As far as Spencer is concerned, the word evolution was coined by him, not 'survival of the fittest'...Spencer was also responsible for being the man that grossly misinterpreted Darwin's Theories..
~~ Again, just wanted to post my two-cents wine.gif
~~Sty-U red_bandana.gif

Posted by: Shadows 03-Dec-2004, 11:34 PM
Most non-christian religions of the world are much , much older. The ancient Egyptians at one time dabbled in monotheism and the ruler of that time was killed. Most Eastern religions believe in one universal entity that manifests itself in many ways... much like the trinity of christianity.

It is no man's place to say that mine is better, bigger, more accurate... only that universal entity can make that call!

As for evolution, just look around... mankind is bigger, taller, and the brain pan has grown in size just since the 1700's when the average person was around 5 foot tall! Look at all the species that have gone extinct... just read about a Hawian bird .. the last known one died this week... there is so much more then the average person can concieve happening in the natural world.

I say believe what you believe, but don't expect everyone to subscribe to one belief... it has not and will never happen...and I don't believe that the universal entity plays favorites.


Posted by: maisky 06-Dec-2004, 08:17 AM
It shouldn't surprise me, based on some of her other posts that Freekenny is a well educated person, as well as being a deep thinker (which I already knew).

Sir Shadows, your "interfaith" comment is right on the mark. There is far too much of a tendency in the world for people to dismiss or belittle the religions of others.

I find the depth of thought refreshing, here in what is basically a religious thread. Keep up the good work, friends. biggrin.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 07-Dec-2004, 01:54 AM
Its been awhile since I have visited the website. Got a new job teaching Science (including biology) in southern Oregon. I was rather suprised to see this thread at the top of this forum. In the last several posts there are references to biological evolution, almost as if it disproves the Bible. Since this is not a discussion about evolution and creation I will keep my answers limited to those already raised.
You CANNOT Scientifically prove either creation or evolution.

four good books on the topics:
refuting evolution - by, Dr. Sarfati (spelling may be wrong) - fairly technical reading
The case for A creator Lee Strobel - very easy to read and understand, well documented - a ,once atheistic evolution believing, Journalists approach to the topic
The evolution of a creationist - Dr. Job Martin - a biologist who became a christian
Darwin's black box cant remember the author

"the average human is taller"-what is this based on? if it is true, I think it would be more acurate to say the average european is taller. Most african tribes tend to be on the taller side of the equation. Again the combing of the different racial groups in our world would easily acount for this statistic. Before the 1700s it was rare for someone to marry or have offspring with someone of a different culture much less a different racial group.
Shadows also brings up the fact that some animals have gone extinct. Not to be rude, but, so what. Extinction does not prove evolution. It may prove survival of the fittest or over hunting by humans, which no right thinking scientist will dispute. But survival of the fittest does not prove evolution either.
By the away that egyptian you were probably talking about was Ahkenahten (sp)
One book I read, cant remember the title but found it in Books-a-million, about him mentioned a jewish person that may have advised him and influenced him. monotheistic judaism has been around much longer that any religion I can think of. (hinduism, christianity, buddhism, egyptian, greek, roman etc.)
as a matter of fact many of the worlds religions are based out of Judaism (Christian, Muslim, and many different sects of each)
If the Bible is not true why were thousands of Christians killed by Nero and other roman emperors. Why were many Christians killed or imprisoned in Comunist countries during the era of the iron curtain? Why are many Christians killed today in countries such as Sudan. All they would have to do is give up christianity in order to live. This does not sound like a religion that would survive throughout human history. Why would millions of people over thousands of years be willing to die for a lie?

Here is a question one of my students asked me:

"If humans only use part of their brain, why does the size of the brain pan matter?"

here is another question:

What if the "universal entity" has made that call? The Bible is the the only book that claims to be written by God. 2 timothy 3:16

Posted by: reddrake79 07-Dec-2004, 01:58 AM
couldn't find the edit button..

I am 5ft 4in tall, does that mean that someone who is 6ft3in tall is more evolved than me?

Posted by: Tassiecelt 07-Dec-2004, 07:31 AM
QUOTE
Most non-christian religions of the world are much older


Older?? The God of the Bible Whom Christians refer to as the Father, in concert with the Son, whom we call Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth and on the sixth day created the first man and woman.

Adam and Eve were created to serve and honour their Creator and enjoy the paradise He had placed them in.

The descendants of Adam and Eve (that didn't wander off to heathenism) maintained a belief in that God.
That belief was formalised on mount Sinai and continued for thousands of years through God's chosen - Israel, to the prophecied Coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Since AD 30 or so the disciples of Jesus Christ have taught belief in the One True God.

believe what you like, but it doesn't get any older than that!

Posted by: Shadows 07-Dec-2004, 10:09 AM
If you believe the bible as the begining ( and accurate )... then yes... but I do not see it as so... there were other tribes besides Israel.

Posted by: CelticRose 07-Dec-2004, 05:40 PM
reddrake, I really appreciated what you had written. You brought up some good points.

this statement you made: If the Bible is not true why were thousands of Christians killed by Nero and other roman emperors. Why were many Christians killed or imprisoned in Comunist countries during the era of the iron curtain? Why are many Christians killed today in countries such as Sudan. All they would have to do is give up christianity in order to live. This does not sound like a religion that would survive throughout human history. Why would millions of people over thousands of years be willing to die for a lie?


I would ask further. Why have people felt Christianity such a threat and the need to be killed by others?

Posted by: maryellen 08-Dec-2004, 11:52 AM
Quoted from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:

The term "survival of the fittest" was first used by Herbert Spencer in his 1851 work "Social Statics". It was used by Charles Darwin in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species, in a secondary header of Chapter 4 about natural selection and at several places in the text, mostly using the phrase "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest". He gave full cedit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.". At this time the word "fittest" would have primarily meant "most suitable" or "most appropriate" rather than "in the best physical shape". In the first five editions of "The Origin of Species", Darwin used the phrase natural selection.

Posted by: deckers 08-Dec-2004, 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 07-Dec-2004, 08:31 AM)

Older?? The God of the Bible Whom Christians refer to as the Father, in concert with the Son, whom we call Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth and on the sixth day created the first man and woman.

Adam and Eve were created to serve and honour their Creator and enjoy the paradise He had placed them in.

The descendants of Adam and Eve (that didn't wander off to heathenism) maintained a belief in that God.
That belief was formalised on mount Sinai and continued for thousands of years through God's chosen - Israel, to the prophecied Coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Since AD 30 or so the disciples of Jesus Christ have taught belief in the One True God.

believe what you like, but it doesn't get any older than that!

Yes, there are plenty of religions and practices that are thousands of years older than Christianity, that is, the religion that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ (1 AD - 30 AD).

Judaism, for example, is one that you name in your own post. It has been around pretty much since God created Adam and Eve, as you state. I'm sure you agree that Judaism is different from Christianity, since they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

Hinduism is another. So are any of the religions that were observed by Mayans, Incans, and are still observed by American Indians today, since their civilizations existed for several centuries before Jesus was born.

Judaism, Hinduism, and American Indian religions are still in practice today. But let's not forget the others that are long gone, but existed before Jesus: Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Sumerian, etc. Need I go on?

Whether you discount them as "heathenism" or not does not change the fact that these belief systems existed before Christianity became a religion.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: Tassiecelt 08-Dec-2004, 06:59 PM
Erik, briefly, I guess my point was that you cannot go back any further than adam unless you accept the myth of evolution.

The God that created Adam is the same God that Moses met on the mountain, that Israel served and that Christians believe in.
Sure I understand that the jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah (well some do, most don't).

However the god of hinduism, buddhism and other non-Judaic-Christian religions is not the God of Creation.

That was my point.

Posted by: birddog20002001 08-Dec-2004, 07:30 PM
I feel that is fine for you to accept Christian creationism on faith I would not begrudge anyone of their personal faith, but scientific proof demands something more tangible than a collection of stories for an explanation of creation (I won't say that they are not true stories, just that there needs to be forensic evidence)
I can claim all day long (and write a book) that it is the god Umbuku that makes the sun rise but until I provide some real proof I would be laughed out of town.


Posted by: reddrake79 08-Dec-2004, 08:00 PM
Scientific proof also demands more than speculation and theory. These are the starting points for the scientific process but not the middle and certainly not the end. Most scientists prior to darwin believed in special creation by a devine being (usually the God of the Bible). In the Book The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, Strobel interviews several recognized scientific experts that have multiple degrees including doctoral. One of these experts, cant remember which, said the burden of proof now lies on evolutionists. Many of the recent findings (with this person it was specifically the area of cosmology, study of space) point towards the need for a creator. He admitted that they do not neccessarily point to the God of the Bible but simply the need for a creator, weather it be God or Zeus. Why do people readilly accept the THEORY of Evolution without questioning many of the "proofs" that are used. Most text books on the subject, including Christian text books, refer to proofs of evolution that current experts don't even believe anymore and consider to be wrong?

What kind of evidence are you willing to accept? Would forensic evidence include archeology? Would it include scientific principles? Would it include shared ideas with other cultures of different faiths?

Did you know that the Bible talks about the Water Cycle in Ecclesiastes long before Science officially discovered it? It also refers to the earth as a sphere well before it was accepted. It also tells us that the earth is suspended on nothing. Which we have only known for about 200 years. It tells us about the ocean currents, which were discovered in the 1800's All of these references can be found in the Jewish Bible. These were revealed hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Christ was born.

The bible gives a list of Kings and events of Isreal that are accurate. Ask the Jews. It refers to many historical events that we know to be true, ie: the capture of isreal, Pontius Pilot, Herod, and others. Archeology has discovered the whereabouts of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible.

The Muslims believe in God and Abraham this is one of their disputes with Isreal. Every culture has a shared story of a flood destroying the world and only one family surviving with all the animals. Now there are variations to the story depending on the culture but they have the same plot and theme, Judgment by a sad or angry God. A Shared cultural experience would account for this.

Posted by: maryellen 09-Dec-2004, 11:06 PM
Here, here reddrake! Very good information.
May be going off topic:....
I would also like to add a "mistake" in many science textbooks (6th gr.-college): almost every textbook on "natural selection" (which is usually in the same unit as evolution) uses the example of the peppered moth. During the Industrial age in Britain, the trees became sooty and black. The darker moths became more abundant and the lighter ones died out.
The famous biologist L. Harrison Matthews, writing in the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, pointed out that the Peppered Moth observations showed natural selection, but not evolution in action.  As he put it, natural selection is an important part of evolution, but it is certainly not the same thing.  If anything, natural selection preserves the genetic information already present. When people soon found out that Peppered Moths do not actually rest on tree trunks in the day time, but rather hide under leaves in treetops, the hoax began to unravel.
However, did anyone bother to ask any real questions? Like, what was the main predator of the moths? Well, it happens to be the night-flying bat. And bats are blind.

More information can be found in "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper

An example of a typical text:
Let's look at an example to help make natural selection clear.

Industrial melanism is a phenomenon that affected over 70 species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern (see Figure 3). Dark colored or melanic moths were rare and were therefore collectors' items.

Posted by: birddog20002001 10-Dec-2004, 04:41 AM
The problem that I have with this conversation is that evoloution and Creation are two parts of two DIFFERENT arguments. Evoloution does not say or even attempt to say how "it" started but how "it" changed since it has started. It is easy to see that species change on a regular basis either through turning on previously hidden traits or the mutation of existing traits.

At one point in the beginning somewhere there was some sort of spark that jumpstarted the whole thing now THAT is what you should be argueing about. But if you want to see evoloution look at corn, it is basically a grass, but it is quite open to mutation and change hence you have some varieties that have almost no ear, some that develop the sweetness of the kernel and size (which we eat) and others that only really develop size and not sweetness(feed lot corn for cattle)

Posted by: susieq76 10-Dec-2004, 10:08 AM
That is a fabulous point, birddog....one I never, in my wee mind, stopped to think about. That is why I love being here. Because I learn something new every day, and grow in the process. Thanks!!

*wanders off in search of more knowledge*

Posted by: reddrake79 11-Dec-2004, 12:34 PM
Actually, one of the things that evolution is about is the attempt to explain how the universe came into existence without any outside force, which is why many evolutionary scientists have abandoned the idea of the Big Bang because it still needs something outside this universe to start it. Stephen hawking popularized the cyclical universe that has always been expanding and contracting (over billions of years). There are some problems with this theory, but that's not important at the moment. Biological evolution also tries to show how man could have come about without any outside force (i.e. God, Zeus, or any deity) a result of this is that many students of science who believe evolution become athiests.

The corn is a wonderful example of diversity within a genus. However, is it an example of mutation or selective breeding by farmers? As far as I know no scientists has observed a mutation in corn that has lead to the current species we have now. They can all be traced back to the genes (that have always been around) that were in the parent plants. As a general rule, the mutations that science has observed tend to be harmful to the organism. examples: albinism, cycle cell anemia, four wings on a fruit fly (causes problems in mating) most mutations observed in humans.

We see changes within a species, but again is that evolution or regular genetics taking place? Scientists will agree that in all observed species we do not see mutations causing the differences but the chance pairing of genes from the mom and dad. The one thing evolution has not shown (among others) is how lizards could have a common ancestor with birds, or how man can have a common ancestor with apes. So even as an explanation of how things change it is lacking in evidence.

Here is another question. Physics says that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It also says the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. (no new energy being added or taken away) Where did the force come from that started that spark? All of the energy in the universe would have had to have been held within the matter that was sparked. since matter is a form of energy, where did the matter come from that was sparked? e=mc2

Posted by: birddog20002001 11-Dec-2004, 02:52 PM
mutation occurs naturally and often in life just on a level not seen very often by the average person. I don't have the book with me that I would like to use to explain the process with but I will try and peice togeter a legible and comprehensive definition of mutation in sexual reproduction.

Most cells in the body are diploid meaning has 2 sets of chromosomes. Sex cells are haploid meaning a single set of chromosomes. for example humans have 46 chromosomes, this is known as their 2N number. Sex cells only have 23 chromosomes this is called the 1N number sex cells are also called gametes. A cellular process called meiosis converts 1 diploid cell into 4 haploid cells. Meiosis is actually 4 processes collectively called PMAT Prophase, Metaphase, Anaphase & Telophase This is also called reduction-division Durring the process of the cells dividing they should theoretically be the same copies of the parent cell but something special happens called crossing over this is when the DNA spiral is ripped in hapf during division and before it can regenerate the other half the ends of the spiral get ripped off of one strand and attach themselves to another strand as they are separating into two different cells each half then reproduces the missing half of the spiral and you now have four unlike cells from one like cell. This occurs for foth the male and female sex cells which are haploid. During conception only one egg and sperm of the four original are typically used and the remains are a waste product of the process. This shows why one mother and father can produce dozens of children all similar but different in small fundamental ways. Crossing over is the key in mutation of life on a genetic level there are many other chemical and physical ways to manipulate the cells though.

*Most of the proceding is from my interpretation of Cliffs quick review of Biology and my Botany teacher .




QUOTE
Here is another question. Physics says that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It also says the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. (no new energy being added or taken away) Where did the force come from that started that spark? All of the energy in the universe would have had to have been held within the matter that was sparked. since matter is a form of energy, where did the matter come from that was sparked?


I believe that it could be the simple transfer of potential to kinetic energy. The process was jumpstarted when an existing energy pushed the rock over the hill and then it rolled Noting in life is static nature is always in a state of flux.

Posted by: Shadows 11-Dec-2004, 11:59 PM
Now we have our thinking caps on!! LOL!!!

Changes in a species no matter how small or trite they may seem are a form of evolution... regular genetics is "evolution".

I have not ever argued against the inital "spark" that started it all, but I have and do have major discord when the time frame set by a book written by men, who claim to have been divine inspired is used as a basis of fact when evidence shows different. I am a scientist and a student of archeology and forensics and evidence speaks louder to me then words of ancient men.

Posted by: reddrake79 12-Dec-2004, 01:57 AM
Even in the case you mentioned birddog the genetic information hasn't mutated, one gamete hasn't gained new information. The current information was just rearanged. The offspring would still have the genetic traits of its parents. If this scenario were very prevelant then DNA evidence for court cases should be thrown out, yet it is accepted and usually proves beyond a shadow of any doubt. This is not enough. In order for evolution to ocure the actuall genes need to change from the gene that produces scales to the gene that produces feathers, or the gene for lungs to a gene usefull for amphibians. And it does matter how small the change is. Some minor variations within a genus or species are not enough. An evolutionist needs many minor changes to major systems that would actually change the way that system works: ie the circulatory system from lizards to birds. The changes observed by science are not enough to completly change the system (in current animals or the fossil record). Regular genetics has not proven evolution. I say minor variations are completly consistant with a creative God that loves diversity within his creation

Maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier. The Laws of thermodynamics state that ALL energy in the universe is constant, even potential. Where did the potential energy come from? What was it in relation to? A book only has gravitational potential energy when we place it on a shelf and the distance is increased between it and the surface of the earth. You need a referance point when talking about potential energy. In general there are three major types of potential energy: Gravitational, elastic, and electric (think two oppositly charged objects) What was the referance point for the "initial spark"? It can't have itself as a referance point.

How do we know that ANY work of literature is true? First off, it claims to be true - Which the Bible does. Secondly, It contains info that is varified in other sources. Lets see.... The kings of Isreal and other countries, many scientific facts that were revealed long before science actually discovered them. (see previous posts for some specific examples). The advice the Bible gives about finances are the same ones given by financial advisors. Archeology evidendce also supports the Bible. So there is evidence supporting the Bible's claim that it is true. Where is the evidence that says the bible is lying to us. Evolution is not a good example, because science cannot prove it (or biblical creation) 100%.

Posted by: freekenny 14-Dec-2004, 12:39 PM
O'siyo,
~ Just some 'hodgepodge' of thoughts... happy.gif
~~Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest Origin of Species was published in 1859 describing evolution and natural selection and giving a theoretical explanation for the diversity among living and fossil beings. Charles Robert Darwin (1809?1882). His book was not well received among the general population who felt threatened at the notion that humans were descended from ape-like creatures. The scientific community, however, did grasp his theories and today his book forms the basis for many contemporary archaeological theories.
~~Let us not forget Sir Charles Lyell's term, 'uniformity of change' which applies to 'survival of the fittest', 'evolution', and 'natural selection'...Uniformity of change considered, if we turn to the present state of the animate creation, and enquire whether it has now become fixed and stationary, we discover that, on the contrary, it is in a state of continual flux?that there are many causes in action which tend to the extinction of species, and which are conclusive against the doctrine of their unlimited durability;a slow change of species is in simultaneous operation everywhere throughout the habitable surface of sea and land; Let the mortality of the population represent the successive extinction of species, and the births of new individuals, the introduction of new species.. rolleyes.gif
~~Spencer was greatly influenced by the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Spencer claimed that knowledge was of two kinds: (1) knowledge gained by the individual, and (2) knowledge gained by the race. He said that intuition, or knowledge learned unconsciously, was the inherited knowledge or experience of the race. He also believed that there is a basic and final reality beyond our knowledge, which he called the Unknowable unsure.gif Herbert Spencer was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought known as "Social Darwinism".
~~ Sty-U red_bandana.gif

Posted by: deckers 15-Dec-2004, 10:42 AM
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 08-Dec-2004, 07:59 PM)
Erik, briefly, I guess my point was that you cannot go back any further than adam unless you accept the myth of evolution.

The God that created Adam is the same God that Moses met on the mountain, that Israel served and that Christians believe in.
Sure I understand that the jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah (well some do, most don't).

However the god of hinduism, buddhism and other non-Judaic-Christian religions is not the God of Creation.

That was my point.

Well, first I disagree with the premise that evolution is a myth. There are scientific methods that can demonstrate the age of rocks, soil, and dinosaur bones. These methods have been used and replicated for decades around the world. That's not a myth. There are other living cultures that have been around for longer than 4000 years -- American Indians and Chinese -- that dispute this idea.

I have trouble believing that the world -- in fact, the entire universe -- is only 4,000 years old. Not when there is actual scientific proof and evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Actually, the God of Islam is the same God of the Judeo-Christian religions. They believe -- and admit they believe -- in the same God. However, they think Jews and Christians worship Him improperly. They believe Jesus existed and that he was a great prophet. However, they don't recognize Him as the son of God.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: maryellen 15-Dec-2004, 01:45 PM
If we are going to base a theory on the data produced by carbon dating and other methods, then we must scrutinize these methods and make sure they are 100% accurate.

However, if you read "The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods" the article will state and cite other scientific articles presenting large flaws in these methods.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Posted by: HeatherMarie 15-Dec-2004, 02:44 PM
I don't have the time to do more than skim the whole thing right now, but http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Etisco/yeclaimsbeta.html gives some good evidence in support of an old Earth, as well as an argument for http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Etisco/yeclaimsbeta.html#radiometric

Posted by: reddrake79 16-Dec-2004, 01:06 AM
I didn't have much time so I skimmed the document mentioned above and did a little research online. I found two websites. one that explains the isochron dating method

i have a problem believing that the earth is millions of years old when the methods the scientists use to prove it are questionable at best.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isochron
And I have this question, in this article (which is old-earth friendly) He said that Isochron dating lines up with accepted dates for old-earth geologists. One Problem, We are using a faulty radiocarbon dating method to verify the outcome of a new method. As i understand it, this method is only useful for dating rocks not bioligcal organisms. It also mentions that scientists can accidentaly get stray isochrons that are not related to the creation of the rock formation, but instead related to the magma flow underground. How do we know which ones the scientists are measuring?

another article also talks about isochron dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/dating.asp
Isotopic fractionation, which can cause the isochron method to breakdown, is so prevalent that it is automatically adjusted for. ANY fractionation for ANY reason is adjusted by comparing it to an ARBITRARILY chosen standard. Weather the fractionation was from environmental reasons or labratory. The actual method they use causes fractionation and contaminates the sample.

BTW most young earthers would say the earth is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I know, doesn't change the argument much just pointing it out. How can you prove these cultures are more than 6,000 years old without using carbon14 dating

I also checked the aformentioned article for the c14 argument and didn't find one that proved the accuracy of c14, maybe i just didn't look hard enough there is a lot of information at that site. I saw two related paragraphs about c14 dating in specifc instances but no overall deffense of the method, which is faulty. It still requires scientists to ASSUME they know how much daughter element and parent element were in the organism when it died.

Myth might be a poor chose of words in regards to the theory of evolution, unproven theory would be more accurate. What proof and evidence do you refer to about the age of the earth? Darwin predicted we would find transitional fossils. After over 100 years of digging and research we havn't found any. He also said that if we find any structure in an organism that cannot come about by small gradual changes then his theory would fall apart. Respected biologists have found many examples of such occurances. The term is "ireducibly complex" or "ireducible complexity". They find such structures in single cell organisms.

random thought: Why is it that many people are ready to debate using evolution but no other reason for not believing the Bible?

Apart form the whole age of earth, evolution or creation argument, Many scientist, that are experts in their field and hold Doctoral degrees, have come to believe that their MUST be a supernatural explanation for some of what they observed. Some Astronomers believe it because of the unique placement of our planet within the solar system and the unique placement of our solarsystem in the galaxy and the shape of the galaxy we happen to be in. Some biologists believe there is a creator because of their studies of DNA and proteins. Honestly, I don't know if they neccessarily believe in a young earth or old earth but they do believe there is a creator. This is based on the experiments they have done and the observations they have made. Consequently they have come to be Christians.

Also, not to be too picky but the website mentioned in the last post is almost 5 years old and does not consider any new objections or explanations by young earthers yet. But it does a good job of explaining things from an old earth perspective. Most young earth arguments were taken from only one source, which may or may not have explained the arguments fully and acuratly.

wow this is kinda long. hope no one falls asleep smile.gif

Posted by: freekenny 16-Dec-2004, 02:46 AM
O'siyo,
~ Personally, I believe the majority of scientific work/methods/research and theories could always be labeled 'questionable at best'..after all, is it fair to say any one 'way' applies to everything and therefore we are to accept it as such? Just because Doctorates, Scientists or Experts in a field claim they have the 'truth', 'it has to be this way because', doesn't mean that I am going to accept it..perhaps I don't have the 'intelligence' or 'skill' to disprove it but, I certainly am not going to be so egocentric and naive at the same tyme to believe that it is for fact true..besides, if that were the case with many of our 'new discoveries/theories/ideas/philosophies' and such, we wouldn't continue to see 'improvement' or 'new, supposedly correct' evidence added to pre-existing 'theories/ideas/philosophies' and such..just as one accepts a certain 'way' I choose to keep an open mind to all 'ways' and then choose what I believe to be connected with...just because a belief or idea works for you doesn't mean it works for me..that is the case with everything from politics/culture/philosophy/religion/spirituality/economy and the list could go on and on..
~One with a strong belief and that lives a life that works for them isn't the enemy..especially an enemy to those that wish to follow God and Christianity..I do not debate nor study Evolution/Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection because I wish to oppose the Bible in malicious ways or make a statement against Christianity or Christians, for that matter anyone that chooses to believe in God and calls this entity God..and I certainly don't do it to 'piss' people off so that it will begin making me feel as if the debate/conversation as well as my own thoughts and ideas have to be constantly defended; I enjoy debates for intellect...Afterall, God doesn't want anyone to defend Him or Christianity..I choose to share the reasons I believe the way I do, why it works for me..a lot of what I believe has to do with my Native American background and although I don't call the Master Creator/Higher Entity God, I call this Entity The Great Spirit...and though The Great Spirit isn't listed in any book called the Bible, it doesn't make it any less spiritual, 'true' or just as important as God, Buddha and so on; and just as I have been 'challenged' to prove their isn't a God since I 'believe' in Darwinism/Evolution I challenge those to prove The Great Spirit to my people doesn't exist; what a never ending battle that is eh? I cannot in any way 'prove' the age of Earth just as I believe the majority of humans cannot prove we, for fact, did not evolve from 'ape-like creatures' for lack of better words; But, I have a RIGHT to believe what I choose based on my research and my 'connections'..I pray to a Greater Entity, I give much Ni Ya We (thanks), I pray because it makes my soul/spirit feel pure and it feels good! It bothers me when Christians and those of other Faiths claim that if one chooses to believe in Evolution/Darwinism we are attempting to 'debunk' and 'disrespect' their religion..that has never been my intention and in the same breath I will say, those of different values/beliefs/lifestyles are just as important in the eyes of this Higher Entity that has so many 'names'..there is no bias in the eyes of The Great Spirit for there is no such thing as perfection/judgement..Science, I am sorry, at best is not perfect, and neither is any specified Religion; if it 'works' for you, you are pure of heart/soul/spirit thats what matters..everyone's beliefs/ideas/values are going to be judged and challenged..hell, we are just now seeing the beginning's of challenges towards DNA technology and being that I am not an expert on DNA I am not going to debate it..
~One thing that I find makes for disrespect to others 'ways' is people always having to have something proved for 'fact'..why can't something just work and in some cases perhaps can't be explained and must we always label this as 'supernatural'?..Several Scientists in every field 'said' this would happen and 'that would happen' and it never did..was it meant too for fact or was it speculation based on research thus far? Isn't part of life/theories/ideas etc. based on manipulation?..change?.. Hell, why can't Science be anything but predictable? Why would that be so hard to digest? Many can claim 'this cannot be true' because there has been so much 'manipulation' and still others if they don't agree with a fraction of 'it' don't take the tyme to delve into any other aspects of 'it'..almost as if any other belief is 'automatically wrong' and that is wrong in itself; simply put, it doesn't work for you so you choose not to believe but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to tell anyone else that their wrong etc. it just doesn't; we as mere mortals can do a helluva lot of speculating but, I highly believe that none of us should be so narcisstic/egocentric to claim 'our way' is the 'only way'! It just doesn't.....
~We are such a diverse race..I believe 'titles' cause us to be close-minded, and in my opinion only, that makes for ignorance..I believe opinions, ideas and thoughts allow us to share with others, and in my opinion only, lends insight...Insight can be applied to/with everything...Ignorance has no place; it cannot be applied to anything and wastes valuable tyme...Well enough of my two-cents... wine.gif
~~Sty-U red_bandana.gif

Posted by: maisky 16-Dec-2004, 08:10 AM
QUOTE
Well enough of my two-cents...

WOW! That was AT LEAST a dollar!! laugh.gif
Having studied both physics and chemistry at a graduate level, I can say that the evidence for carbon (and other isotope) dating being relatively accurate is overwhelming. Claims to the contrary come down to whining. But then, whining is acceptable, since this forum is for both science and philosophy. biggrin.gif

Posted by: HeatherMarie 16-Dec-2004, 11:11 AM
Reddrake, I chose that page for two reasons - one being that he states that he is a Christian and seemed to have no agenda to disprove the actual existance of a god, and the other being that I could actually understand it. smile.gif Not a physicist, geologist, mathematician or biologist here, nor do I ever intend to be. Needless to say, the two pages you linked to flew entirely over my head, but I did understand your explanations.

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. With that, I'll return to observing the geological and evolution aspects of this fascinating discussion from afar.

QUOTE
random thought: Why is it that many people are ready to debate using evolution but no other reason for not believing the Bible?

Other reasons for not believing the Bible are given earlier in the thread - errors in translation, gaps between the date of the recorded event and the date on which it was recorded, and contradictory extra information that was not included in the original Bible.

Posted by: maisky 16-Dec-2004, 12:45 PM
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. biggrin.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 17-Dec-2004, 09:49 AM
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. smile.gif 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?) smile.gif 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. smile.gif

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. smile.gif

God may not ask us to defend him, but he does command us to always be ready with an answer.

Posted by: freekenny 20-Dec-2004, 03:48 PM
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. smile.gif
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 red_bandana.gif wine.gif

Posted by: Irish Stepper 20-Dec-2004, 04:08 PM
Umm...Freekenny, I don't think he meant disrespect. He was making an analogy that for Christians to throw out the 1st 9 chapters of the Bible would be as bad as saying that Bluefeather was a liar and therefore discounting everything you've been taught. I don't believe he was saying your Papa Bluefeather was a liar at all. At least, that's how I read it... unsure.gif

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: freekenny 20-Dec-2004, 09:14 PM
O'siyo,
~ Indeed Ladies you two are correct...I did mis-interpret reddrake's words..in turn I became defensive unjustly and that was wrong..I am an 'ass' because of my assumption coupled with mis-interpretation which breeds 'ignorance' and ignorant I am not rolleyes.gif I understand the point he was 'making' and the analogy of sorts..My apologies to you reddrake for my mistake..
~Sty-U red_bandana.gif

Posted by: maisky 21-Dec-2004, 08:08 AM
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. biggrin.gif

Posted by: susieq76 21-Dec-2004, 08:27 AM
Very true, maisky. Very true. And I for one am so grateful and thankful to live in a country where that is the case and we aren't all forced to believe one thing biggrin.gif I am also very grateful to know someone as wise as you smile.gif

Posted by: maisky 21-Dec-2004, 08:58 AM
QUOTE (susieq76 @ 21-Dec-2004, 08:27 AM)
Very true, maisky. Very true. And I for one am so grateful and thankful to live in a country where that is the case and we aren't all forced to believe one thing biggrin.gif I am also very grateful to know someone as wise as you smile.gif

Aw Shucks, ma'am!! You make me blush. wub.gif
I agree we are MOST fortunate to be living where disagreement is still allowed. biggrin.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 21-Dec-2004, 05:28 PM
Freekenny, I know exactly how you feel. I ment no disrespect, but you also proved the point I was trying to make smile.gif. 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 smile.gif ). 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.

Posted by: maisky 22-Dec-2004, 08:08 AM
QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 21-Dec-2004, 05:28 PM)
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.

He will have a bugger of a time passing science classes, too. laugh.gif Learning to have an open mind is a VERY painful experience. laugh.gif

Posted by: Haldur 12-Jan-2005, 09:17 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! 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.

Posted by: deckers 08-Feb-2005, 02:51 PM
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

Posted by: CelticRose 08-Feb-2005, 04:15 PM
Deckers, what you have said is exactly what I have read and been taught as well.

Posted by: Tassiecelt 08-Feb-2005, 05:24 PM
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.


Posted by: Siobhan Blues 09-Feb-2005, 09:24 AM
QUOTE (deckers @ 08-Feb-2005, 03:51 PM)
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 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.

I use the NIV for that very reason! Its wonderful, and I feel its reliable because it was translated from original texts.

Just last week, I checked out a Bible from my church library that has the Apocrypha in it; I'm curious to see what it has to say. Anybody read it and have any comments?

Siobhan Blues

Posted by: CelticRose 09-Feb-2005, 02:15 PM
SB, the Apocrpha is usually seen in the Catholic Bible. I have one as I was raised Catholic, as you know. However, it was never canonized as being reliable and accurate so it was never put in the "Protestant" Bibles.............any that I know of. Somebody here will be able to explain it to you better than me, I am sure.

Posted by: Shadows 09-Feb-2005, 09:48 PM
There are over 80 books that were considered biblical before the conference in Nice.... don't remember the year off hand but it was way , way , back somewhere in the 1st 1200 years after the year 1.

A bunch of clerics got together and declared Jesu the son of god and decided what would be include in the then "New" bible.

The books included were meant to control what was believed and those left out were excluded because the control over the masses could not be with them in!

All of this goes back to the books being by "man" who "claim" that they are of god.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 11-Feb-2005, 01:40 PM
Well, this Apocrypha section is interesting... so far I've read Letter of Jeremiah, and it is a rather wordy letter about idols and why the captive Israelites ought to avoid them. Good advice, and I don't know why this was omitted from the Protestant Bible, other than the fact that he spends 73 verses stressing the same fact! Jere was sincere but he just needed a good editor wink.gif

Now, Song of the Three is apparently an addition in the Greek version of Daniel, between chapter 3 verses 23 and 24...it elaborates the familiar story of Shadrach, Meshac, and Ebed-nego who King Nebuchadnezzar ordered tossed into the fiery furnace as punishment for not worshiping the 90' tall gold idol the King set up. This book is a hymn, praising God and His creation. Its nice! No controversy that I can see here; the Bible seems fine with or without it.

Oh, by the way - the translation I'm reading is called The New English Bible, and its quite an appropriate translation to be discussing on this forum... it is a translation made from the original texts, and was made at the request of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland by the Presbytery of Stirling and Dunblane! Cool.

SB

Posted by: CelticRose 11-Feb-2005, 02:53 PM
Very interesting SB. I have never read the Apocrypha myself. Maybe I should.

That is really cool about The New English Bible. I had never heard that before about it. I will have get one!

Posted by: Tassiecelt 14-Feb-2005, 04:11 AM
QUOTE

The books included were meant to control what was believed and those left out were excluded because the control over the masses could not be with them in!


Rubbish! even a brief, but honest, study of how the Bible came to be would debunk that notion.

Posted by: deckers 17-Feb-2005, 01:00 PM
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 14-Feb-2005, 05:11 AM)
QUOTE

The books included were meant to control what was believed and those left out were excluded because the control over the masses could not be with them in!


Rubbish! even a brief, but honest, study of how the Bible came to be would debunk that notion.

Actually, that's correct. There have been councils in the past that decided what books would go into the Bible and what wouldn't. A few books, such as the Book of Thomas, has never actually been proven to be written by the disciple Thomas. That, and it contradicts what the 4 books of the Gospel have said, so it was left out.

Other books were determined to have been written by people from that time, and were "Biblically accurate" (meaning they COULD HAVE been included), but they just didn't fit in with the overall theme of the Bible.

I wish I could remember names and dates, since that IS important to a discussion like this. However, I do remember studying some of this in one of my Philosophy of Religion classes when I was in college 18 years ago.


Erik Deckers

Posted by: Tassiecelt 17-Feb-2005, 05:34 PM
the only control that's going on is God's desire to "control" the sinful nature of man through ensuring that we have an accurate version of His Word to us. This God did through the guidance of His Holy Spirit. The harmony and accuracy of the 66 books in the Bible are testiment to that.

Posted by: Haldur 17-Feb-2005, 06:47 PM
This is why I stay out of topics concerning religion, politics, abortion, gay rights, and P2P downloading...because no one is ever "right".

I'd rather back down from the fight than let pride get in the way. smile.gif

Posted by: CelticRose 18-Feb-2005, 06:20 PM
I hear what you are saying Haldur. That is why I now stay away from the politics forum! Shouldn't have been in there in the first place! but I do enjoy reading other people's opinions of these topics.

Posted by: Haldur 19-Feb-2005, 06:31 PM
Oh I totally agree, Rose...I didn't mean to sound harsh or anything and I know what you mean about the politics thing! People here at work get into it over that all the time, especially around the election.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 22-Feb-2005, 12:11 PM
I know everyone has an opinion, and usually they believe they are right... that leads to heated discussions that end in hurt feelings, not any enlightened understanding of anything.

But when I read a statement like "All of this goes back to the books being by "man" who "claim" that they are of god", it just saddens me so...
what a blessing is being missed by clinging to this belief.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there's not much to be done I guess except offer one's own experience if its wanted. I don't think its often wanted tho...

SB

Posted by: Tassiecelt 23-Feb-2005, 08:12 AM
that saddens me too SB, these are times when I just have to step back and believe that the work of conviction can only be done in His time and by His Spirit.

Posted by: gwenlee 23-Feb-2005, 09:07 AM
I find it amazing that people can believe almost in anything without physical proof, but when it comes to believing in God or if the bible is handed down or inspired by God they find it hard to believe. There are somethings we accept on faith.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 24-Feb-2005, 12:21 PM
QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 23-Feb-2005, 09:12 AM)
that saddens me too SB, these are times when I just have to step back and believe that the work of conviction can only be done in His time and by His Spirit.

Mmmm-hmmm, yeah that's true...

Often it takes a tragedy or facing death itself to make the hard-hearted change their tune. It took a terminal illness to make my own grandfather turn to Jesus, and it was pitiful seeing him realize how he'd wasted a lifetime being selfish, godless & cruel to those who needed him most. The regret broke his heart, but at least he found God's forgiveness before it was too late.

SB

Posted by: Shadows 24-Feb-2005, 09:23 PM
[QOUTE]and it was pitiful seeing him realize how he'd wasted a lifetime being selfish, godless & cruel to those who needed him most. The regret broke his heart, but at least he found God's forgiveness before it was too late.[/QUOTE]

Because one does not believe in the bible as gods word does not make one selfish, godless and cruel... some of the nicest folks I know are not christian and some of the ones who claim to be are not so nice.

Posted by: susieq76 25-Feb-2005, 09:52 AM
Very, very true Shadows. Everyone matters, and they and their beliefs should be respected.

Posted by: Shadows 25-Feb-2005, 11:03 AM
Amen, Blessed BE!

Posted by: gaberlunzie 25-Feb-2005, 11:58 AM
Just a short addition....I tend to think that Siobhan adressed her statement to her grandfather's "case"; I don't think she wanted to generalise it.
It's more than obvious that noone who follows his belief is "godless" (would be a contradiction, no?), nor selfish or cruel....attitudes no belief I know supports.
I second that everyone and his beliefs have to be respected.
People take different roads through life. Just because they're not following your road doesn't mean they've gotten "lost".

Posted by: Shadows 25-Feb-2005, 12:30 PM
We should get back on track of this topic...

Bible as accurate!

Historical references in my opinion in the bible are correct for the most part ( it is the beginins of Judism that first mentioned in the bible, not mankind ) , it is the devine spiritual references as being from the creator that cause me to question the book. Most of the philosophies declared by this book were not new to the world, just to that part of the world!

If one were to study the religions of the world and the content of what they proclaim they would see we are all on the same path...just not in agreement with how, why and who delivered the message.

Again I mention the many, many sects of christianity as an example of the diversity of beliefs even among those who claim to be of the same faith; Judism has the same variations, as well as most major religions of the world. It is all in the interpretation, by "MAN" in what is believed and in who they believe sent the message. I believe the message is much older then the times of Jesu... he just was reminding those of the time of the intent and purpose of life. What we learn from all religions seems to me to be the same message, just the fevor , intensity, and zeal make the difference. You have Zealots, evangelists, bible beaters, new world, and all other types of believers all compeating for the monies, souls, and moral support that is needed to make such beliefs a secular thing, I believe that such things are between a soul ( man/woman ) and their god!

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Feb-2005, 06:28 PM
What are the sects you are refering to? If you are talking about the different denominations, i.e baptist, evangelical, etc. then you are right about there being many of them. However, they should agree, and all religions that use the Bible, should agree about the Bible's message.
This is the short version. All men & women have sinned (gone against God at some point). A Holy God cannot be around sin. Humans cannot overcome this problem. Only bloodshed can overcome this (first through sacrifice of an animal, finally throught the Last sacrifice of sinless Jesus) All Men & Women can get to heaven if they merely accept that Jesus Died for their sins. This is what the Bible teaches. The message is much older than Jesus (Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning") All "sects" of Christianity will agree to this basic statement. Others might add more to it, but that is not the focus of this string.

I thing it is safe to say that every other religion out there does not agree with the above statement.

Another question is this, what do we mean by respect. We talk alot about it, especially in this string, but what is it. If I said the sky was green, I would probably be ridiculed or accused of taking drugs. I would however be wrong. Some one could respect this by coming to me and saying that although he didn't see the sky as being green he could see why I did. Does this help me? NO. I am still wrong no matter what anyone says. Another way of respecting me is telling me simply that there is evidence to the contrary and then show me. Does this help me? YES. Now I know the truth of the matter.

The Bible claims to be truth. Not just simply a truth but THE truth. Jesus says "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE Life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (emphasis mine) That is why I ask what does it mean to respect someone. If you believe they are wrong then show them the right way. Most poeple, when they say respect they mean "Leave me alone". Now, there is a right way and a wrong way about aproaching people. Respect, as my mother taught me, is listening to someone, aknowledging when they have a good point, thinking aobut the point, and answering the point they brought up.

Here is a question specifically for shadows.

Why do the creator author references bother you?

If we take Genesis 1 at face value, God made man and had a relationship with him. Genesis talks about God walking in the Garden with Adam, and that He came looking for Adam. Adam sinned and this broke the relationship with God. If God is interested in a relationship with people, wouldn't it make sense that He would provide for a way to overcome that broken relationship?

Posted by: Shadows 26-Feb-2005, 05:08 PM
I RESPECT that you believe the bible is 100% accurate but I do not believe it so because it was written by men...

I do not fault the messages in the STORIES that it tells, yes there are historical sites mentioned, and places found that fit the bible, but look at any work of literature ( either fiction or not ) and you will find places and people that fit the story. I think the books that are in the bible are ther because a group of clerics wanted a way to the means of controling the masses... the books that were excluded did not fit the program and were tossed aside. Some conflicted with the others and were therfor deemed wrong and left out ( again because they did not fit the program ). I know I will never change your mind, nor you mine on these matters that is why I said let us get back on topic and discuss what is and what might not be accurate in the bible. One issue is ...I do not believe the world to only be 10,000 years old as the timeline in the bible so claims... the evidence is not in it's favor here.

I have never disclaimed a creator, but I do not accept the one presented in this collection of books. As in all nature it takes both ying and yang, male and female, the cup and the blade to make life happen.

I do not believe in HELL, I do believe that a spirit will continue to exist until it reaches the right combination of love, understanding, patience with other spirits, and the ability to see true right from wrong, then and only then will it be absorbed into the universal consciousness; the bible contains the same ideals of these as do the many other writtings of other more ancient religions. In my opinion no one religion can claim to be right... it is the following of ones beliefs that makes one endeared to god.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 01-Mar-2005, 12:44 PM
"I do not believe in HELL, I do believe that a spirit will continue to exist until it reaches the right combination of love, understanding, patience with other spirits, and the ability to see true right from wrong, then and only then will it be absorbed into the universal consciousness...'

May I ask on what evidence you base this belief?

SB

Posted by: reddrake79 03-Mar-2005, 11:39 AM
Actually the evidence, when looked at objectivly, points to an indertiminate age for the earth. What evidence do you base an old age for the earth on? If the answer is radiometric dating I would ask you to look earlier in this post as we covered that topic. All observed processes and laws of nature could have culminated in the world we see in only a few thousand years, unless you believe in the theory of biological evolution (which has not been observed) in which you need trillions of years.

Whenever the Bible has been read by the average man, it has resulted in a revolution not control. The catholics tried to control people by refusing to translate it into the common language of the day. Martin luther translated the Bible into German and Europe is confronted with the protestant reformation. Even before Martin Luther there were pockets of resistance to catholicism led by men who translated the Bible into the common language Wycliff, Calvin, etc. The Bible ultimatly results in freedom not control.

Also as far as works of literature, NONE of them even claim to be written by God. Only the Bible makes that claim, 2 timothy 3:16.

To make that claim without some kind of baking is ridiculous. Because, people would have the natural inclination that you have to disbelieve such a claim. Yet the authors were ready to be killed for that claim. If they were lying, I don't think they would have gone willingly to death when it coul dhave been avoided.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 05-Mar-2005, 09:45 PM
QUOTE (gaberlunzie @ 25-Feb-2005, 12:58 PM)
Just a short addition....I tend to think that Siobhan adressed her statement to her grandfather's "case"; I don't think she wanted to generalise it.
It's more than obvious that noone who follows his belief is "godless" (would be a contradiction, no?), nor selfish or cruel....attitudes no belief I know supports...

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you, G.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)