How can anyone believe an English translation of a Hebrew book that is a compilation of stories passed down from word of mouth for a generation before they were put down on paper?
first manuscript of the new testament dates back to 30-60 years after Christ.
There are also more original manuscripts than any other book including Illiad. There are something like 24,000 original manuscripts compared to 700 or so for the Illiad.
Plus, researchers have found that all copies of the bible say pretty much the same thing as the original manuscripts.
That doesn't cover the "word-of-mouth" thing.
You're a little confused there.
NT is Koine Greek. Its books were written either by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry or to students under those eyewitnesses. Even to a nonbeliever, its do entary evidence is at least as reliable as any other work of antiquity, and in most cases, far more so. A nonbeliever may choose to discount the supernatural aspects of the books.
OT is Hebrew. Its books were written down as much as hundreds of years after the occurences they describe. They were passed down by oral tradition until that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
No one knows about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.
Unless you agree with DR that no one knows about God including the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa then you totally misunderstood what I was responding to in his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj
That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.
In the future pay close attention to what's bolded (or don't) and don't switch what I bolded to fit your misunderstanding.
The call out stands.
Great post. I totally agree.
Has anyone said yes to the original question?
Can anyone quote EXACTLY where in the bible that dinosaurs, NOT beasts, are mentioned?
And can someone LOGICALLY explain the difference between religion and cults?
Beyond popularity?
Seriously - cults are founded upon greed and insanity. Religions are more in tune to man's intuitive grasp that a greater power exists, until greed and insanity take control.
Does that answer your question? Best I can do this time of the morning.
So ultimately, they are both one and the same?
Not sure where the question comes from, but just to play... God's Advocate?
Job 40: Behemoth was a Apatosaurus. Job 41: Leviathan was a Plesiosaurus (not actually a dinosaur, but close enough).
Nope.
Behemoth was an elephant.
Leviathan was a whale.
Were they? Are you sure? Were you there? Because there's quite a debate among historians and theologians as to what exactly they represent. Were they Spiritual allegory? A Water Buffalo and Crocodile? Symbols of Good and Evil? The results of a bad Hashish trip? That's the point. We weren't there, we don't know. That's why it's called Faith. Any attempts to cast Biblical accounts as solid fact are as futile as attempts to cast the entire Bible as a fairytale book. We just don't know.
(By the way, Whale is a interpretation of the modern Hebrew word Leviathan, not a description of the animal mentioned in Job. In ancient Hebrew it meant Coiled or Twisted.)
Just looked it up in the King James to check the accuracy of the books that you made mention of.
Check for yourself. You'll probably find the same thing I did.
I usually use the NKJV or NIV translations, but here's the KJV translation, now what was it you wanted to point out?
Again, where is the mention of dinosaurs?
I'm not seeing it.
Do you expect the author of Job to call creatures by names invented in the 19th century? I would point out that elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar". Also whales do not usually have "teeth" that "are terrible round about", "scales", smoking "nostrils" or a "neck". All that said, I personally have no idea what these creatures described in the book of Job were, if they were creatures at all. I was just pointing out that they could possibly describe dinosaurs (or a dinosaur and an aquatic reptile).
I won't use big bold letters, but BS. ID simply doesn't "ask questions" it proposes a theory for the origins of the universe/life, albeit a vague one (yet IDers must think non-IDers are stupid to not see through the thinly veiled vaugeness that is trying to hide the fact that most of them believe that the intelligent designer is in fact the Christian God).
All things you just pointed out that ID supposedly does can all be done without ever mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" and yet you want Intelligent Designed mentioned in science classrooms, which is pretty direct evidence that ID is more than those things you just mentioned. In fact, the one year of HS I spent in public school (freshman), my biology teacher specially said that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just the origins of species and how life changes. And never once did she say anything about ID... amazing.
As for "why is it so hard to understand???" It's because your points are void of logic. If this is how all your arguements are framed, it's no wonder you think scientists are dismissive.
!!!
I didn't say first-hand evidence, I said scientific evidence. Are you changing your story now?True, there is no 'first-hand' evidence available for origins... Since no one alive was there to gather data... We therefore have to seek out answers based on observations of how the natural world functions around us... Enter fields such as Chemistry and Molecular Biology...
I've already addressed my reasons for not putting much credibility in your calculation of odds, but aside from that... this someone means there must have been an Intelligent Designer??? Not sure where you are going here.The study of chemical reactions today allows us to quantify the entropic values for the reactions that produce DNA. More importantly we realize that the lack of required enzymes in the earliest 'chemical broth' would pose an even greater hurdle and hamper the kinetics of said formation... DNA replication alone requires about 30 different proteins and the translation process another 90... WOW!!! with a capital W. As I said earlier... this is quantifiable, and reproducible scientific data... stemming from scientific observation.
The odds for the formation of large DNA strands without the help of said enzymes or enzyme altered concentrations is for all intents and purposes zero. More specifically, the probability of success for the formation of a growing polypeptide chain is a function of the number of bases required for the requested DNA or RNA strand.
You are mistaken that I ever brought up "first hand" data. I brought up "scientific evidence" being the foundation of teaching things in science classrooms. So after all time that you admit to having no possible way of gathering scientific evidence short of a time machine, you are now going to change your story and say you DO have scientific evidence?And you are also mistaken that the absence of 'first-hand' data dictates that a concept cannot be taught in a science classroom. No one has seen the core of the earth, we can only infer what lies at the center of our planet based on observations of earth's magnetic field (i.e. 'second-hand' data)... The same was true for the other concepts I mentioned in the earlier post (dark-matter). We have 'second-hand' data for dark-matter that is inferred from gravitational pulls on other celestial bodies and from rotational inconsistencies observed for certain galaxies, not from 'first-hand' data... And yet, we teach those concepts in school... No one raises about it either...
ID is relagated to the same thing as all scientific concepts... having scientific evidence. You seem to think that because other scientists aren't buying into it (based on your admitted lack of scientific evidence) that they are somehow being dismissive or you are being held to an unfair standard. But you've already admitted to having no scientific evidence.Also, a theory does not have to provide the answers it seeks out before it is classified as science... in fact, the concept of anti-matter is the subject of much study and yet many consider the search for proof in said field to be speculative in nature while others classify the field as pure 'science fiction'...
Somehow, ID is relegated into having to provide 'first-hand' data when everyone knows it cannot be provided. What I'm getting at is that the data IDers do have is 'second-hand' data... but that in this case we are being told that the data isn't enough... Many also question how a field which bases its entire platform on trying to decipher the issue of origins, can even be a field. To that, I point to the anti-matter analogy. Scientific proponents wanting to discredit the theory of Intelligent Design can't have it both ways.
It probably is unfair that ID is seen as the platform for Creationists, however there is some truth to it as Creationists jump on the ID bandwagon and try to use it that way. Maybe there are IDers who don't have the Creationist agenda in mind, but the most outspoken ID proponents seem to. And as the Dover case pointed out, some ID textbooks are literal word-for-word reproductions of Creationist textbooks with the words "Creationism" swapped out for "ID".The bigger problem and essentially the core of this great controversy (boutons_ alludes to it all the time) is that the ID movement is seen as the platform for Creationists... when by all practical definitions they are not the same thing. This perspective is unfair and dismissive... and goes completely against the scientific ideals and principles established for all fields of study. Science is a tool that aids in the search for truth, and helps us describe our natural world... not one that exists to prove or disprove the existence of GOD... or for that matter dispel the beliefs of the world's religions. That was never the intent... And yet many people have placed their whole-hearted faith on science alone... Ironic isn't it???
In the end, you have pretty much solidified for me why ID shouldn't be taught in science classrooms... there is no science behind it. It seems only IDers think ID is a scientific movement... you claim its because scientists are against you - but it appears more obvious than that: you aren't talking science, you are talking philisophical theories on the origin of the universe.
There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of understanding and developing philisophical theories, but they still aren't science no matter how many letters you put in bold.
[QUOTE]Throughout his Word he's speaking specifically to everyone (difficult to fathom?). Anyone who reads, believes and chooses to receive it the way he intended for it to be received reaps the benefits of what he meant for all.
I know because I've experienced it in a tangible way and that makes it more than a belief. You choose to dismiss it outright without an honest look into it.How would you know? You dont know that. You believe that.
We have all been called to God and many have willingly submitted themselves to this call. His followers or disciples have gravited toward their creator. God is the epicenter and we have surrounded him and He's the main focus and reason like-minded individuals have this inclination for binding together.You think you do only because you surround yourselves with like-minded individuals to prop yourselves up.
We see God in each other, he's the common bond.
I know more because I've wanted more and searched for more and found what I was searching for, i.e., what he wanted me (and you) to find all along. We're told that we will seek him and find him when we search for him with all of our hearts.Deut. 4: 29-31 I've done that and because I have I'm more knowledgeable about God. If you had done it and I hadn't then you would be more knowledgeable.You know nothing more or less than me. Just because you read a book or worship at some building, does not make you better or more knowledgeable about God, his intentions, or his control.
Finally, you admit it. Youre better than me.
GG. You win at the internet.
Cultist.
That is only your opinion and yet you have the audicity to call the literal definition of 'Intelligent Design' B.S.??? Oh that's great... let's just base curriculae on people's paranoic opinions instead of objective concerns.
P.S. The bold letters were so that you knew what part of the paragraph I was emphasizing... I didn't realize you were taking a personal attack from the use of said feature.
And you accepted this without looking back??? Your example personifies the problem. Everybody accepts 'evolution' as the ultimate model describing the biological world... and I'm willing to bet over half of them don't understand all of its implications...
Void of logic..... hardy har har... since when did this discussion turn into a clown party? My posts have contained real scientific concerns, that logically, require answers...
Aside from opinions, you've failed to bring any legitimate scientific counterpoints to my examples... In fact, the only personal attempt to do so proved that you didn't even understand my calculations to begin with. Calling the formation of DNA a pure random walk... another stroke of genius on your part. Citing papers on speciation without any of them actually addressing how 'random' mutation led to 'natural selection' is another personal favorite. But I can't expect someone, who accepted everything their teachers told them without reproof, to understand why that would be an issue.
Yes... if you've noticed... I'm tired of trying to be Mr. Nice. All the while, you've been trying to discredit my work, 1) without really understanding it, 2) by claiming my motives are tainted, and 3) by letting your opinions do the talking...
Scientific data as evidence is evidence... in the scientific community, however, we characterize the relevance of said evidence based on whether something can be directly measured or indirectly measured.... i.e. 'first' or 'second' hand evidence... I mentioned it, since apparently you were unaware of said distinction. And just what was I basing this on? Another little gem of yours, since you misunderstood my comment, "there is no evidence on origins without a time-machine" and took that for meaning that there was no scientific evidence at all for I.D... Unfortunately you ran rampant with that one little admission, trying to use it as your 'catch-all' argument... but you never really understood it either.
And I've already told you they were without base. And that's not an opinion either.
Where this is going is that there are engineering elements present in biological organisms that go beyond their formation... a purpose was addressed before the functionality was engineered. Evolution requires that this sequence be followed depite the fact that this order is not observed for any biological, physical or chemical process today... and yet we are being told to accept the fact that this is the way it went down. Others much like myself don't buy it.
Addressed above... on a side note, I believed I was talking to fellow scientist... but your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles gave it away. Hey, you wanted an answer didn't you. Now you got called out.
Same as the theory of earth's core, or the theory of dark-matter, of neutrinos, of baryons... all fields of study classified as science. Not to mention the string theory, the multiverse theory, the theory of anti-matter... theories still referred to as science but all with less 'second-hand' data than what I've provided you in favor of I.D.
The Dover proponents were not counseled properly.... they were fools. Don't confuse me or other true seekers of truth for them.
I distinctly recall the 'Big-Bang' Theory addressing the origin of our universe and being taught at school.... for that matter I was also told to accept the fact that the first biotic molecules were formed in a 'chemical-broth' pool... funny how they never scientifically prooved it.
By your own admission I take it you classify the 'big-bang' theory as a philosophical one instead of a scientific one... hmmm... what a dilemma you've placed yourself in.
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-10-2006 at 09:15 PM.
I found this on another forum:
Yes, that's how it came to be. The Bible was written by the Apostles of Christ and the apostles of the Apostles, so ultimately, it was written by uneducated jew 2000 years ago.
Really, that's how the bible came to be?
Why don't you learn about a topic before writting the first moronic thought that pops your mind. It will make you look less stupid. You have a tendency to do this (look stupid, that is).
No, it's not. The Bible was written in the span of 50 years. 70 years after Christ's death, it was all said and done.
Because there are more than a billion Christians.
How many Scientologists are there (aside from Cruise)?
Glad to see that after almost 500 posts in this thread your thirst for the truth was quenched.
Epistemophobic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
