Reply With Quote
God was working within every translator and editor.
Theres a lot of interesting research done into the actual history behind the stories in the bible and how they came about. The reality is that most of the stories have roots in real world situations of some sort. Thats not to say that the stories played out exactly as the bible says they did, but that rather that they are symbolic representations of beliefs or occurrences.
IE: The story of Cain and Abel is really a story that is meant to prop up the hunter/nomadic lifestyle of certain tribes of the age as opposed to the real story of Adam and Eve. That is why God was unhappy with Cain's offering and happy with Abel's offering.
I admit Hector, that I find it very that someone of your intelligence believes what they do. Not that you believe in God, but rather that you take a literal interpretation of certain events (Noah's flood for example) rather than much likely and simple explanations.
I don't believe in the super natural, because the super natural is a crutch for what cannot be explained. If God does exist, then I think 'super natural' is an incorrect term.
God was working within every translator and editor.
Jesus built my hot rod.
jesus built my car
it's a love affair
mainly jesus and my hot rod
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
all of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world
so there was only one thing that I could do
was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.
Midget and LaMarcus.... go back into your troll cave.
Suck my balls.
As written by man and translated and edited numerous times.
Ummmmm Genesis was written in Hebrew... and read as such.
You can read Hebrew?
So you're telling me the original version in Hebrew was written down as the stories within happened? How was this possible? Surely there are no errors in oral myths passed down generation to generation....the simple fact that god told them these stories made all story tellers remember it 100% accurately. They were probably even smarter than you when it comes to religious credentials.+
You guys act like each translation of the Bible is translated from the version directly before it.
The false positive you alluded to earlier is the crux of the argument. Carbon dating the fossils directly (since they are the actual organism) reveal that they are all young. It doesn't matter what 'geologic' layer they happen to be unnearthed from.
In fact the repe ion you claim above is also not as linear as suggested by your argument... there is so much scatter to the data that definitive conclusions should not even be presented. Oh and geologic layers above aren't always younger than each subsequent layer below. Again the statistical anomaly for the high prevalence of this phenomena would render any linear correlation of this concept highly suspect.
Have any of you even been on a Paleontology expedition? They are highly fascinating and very revealing. I completely stumped my guide. He really didn't realize how warped (subjective) his training had been.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-10-2007 at 07:15 PM.
Somewhat.... I've taken a few courses.... I'd consider myself a beginner on the written language.
As for many cultures having flood stories....
The birthplaces of civilizations usually have something in common. They all seem to start in very fertile river valleys. These locations are fertile because they are in the flood plains. Its easy to see how when a huge river such as the Mississippi or the Nile floods, how much actually area it occupies. Its not the same as when the Guadalupe overflows its banks, its MASSIVE. Obviously most of these cultures would have experienced these floods.
Also, coastal cultures were very much at risk for tsunami. We all saw how massive that looked as well.
The reason almost every culture in this world has a flood story of some sort is because floods are very common.
Also, because these stories came from the jewish/christian/muslim god, the translators were automatically made incapable of making careless mistakes whilst translating.
But Hegamboa does not believe in "directionless" errors in translation, just read one of his 10000 word posts about how god was behind them.
Therefore, we can conclude that all errors made in translating the bible were directly intended by the jewish/christian/muslim god him(her?)self, and Hegamboa is once again owning us at an argument he always owns us at.
Well, that is what happens with stories that are passed down from generation to generation. You're not arguing that Genesis was put down in wri ing the first time it was told are you?
Last edited by tlongII; 01-10-2007 at 07:26 PM.
According to the Christian belief it was written down by Moses.Well, that is what happens with stories that are passed down from generation to generation. You're not arguing that Genesis was put down in wri ing the first time it was told are you?
But that's not really what I was talking about, and I may have been completely off topic... I was referring to various translations/versions in the past 1900 years.
Radio carbon dating is good for, at the extremes, up to about 70,000 years. Any use of it to date anything suspected to be older will produce a date of about that. It would be stupid to use a measuring tool that is only 50 units long to attempt to measure 100,000 unit long thing.
The physics demands that this be the limit. Up to that limit C14 dating has been well calibrated with various independent approaches.
If one were stupid enough, or dishonest enough, to submit samples of suspected great age for C14 dating one would get back nonsense numbers.
Let me put it this way....
Moses wrote the first five books of the current Biblical cannon (at least it is believed he wrote all five), the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Torah.
There are so many details that Moses (or any author) would have no way of knowing unless he was being guided from above. I'm pretty sure that no one kept references of the geneologies all the way to Adam. Particularly because most of the people that lived before Noah's flood lived to ages all but impossible to attain in the post-flood world (In fact GOD himself capped man's age at 120 years right after the flood). How then would Moses know that Methuselah was 969 years old (I'm pretty sure even Methuselah himself had lost count), or that Adam lived to be 935 years old? I'm not even sure Moses realized that Methuselah himself died the very year of the flood.
Why even present such factual statements? If all that was needed was a simple "Methuselah or so and so lived to be a ripe old man." The fact is that they are significant in the context of the Messianic prophecy of JESUS Christ. Furthermore, why would these ridiculous ages not strike the reader as odd?
There is much about the Bible that renders all concept of coincidences null.
The following contains some quotes from a creationist article and rebukes of them...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man ( rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we follow the link to check what t he article actually says it states that the bones dated were "animal bones" - and that there is "no clear-cut relation between these bones and the skull of rhodesienus"
A clear case of misrepresentation.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to t he Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These
were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new dates on the human bones do not call into question the age of the archaeological material (which was previously radiocarbon-dated to the Aurignacian period), Smith says. He, Conard and third author Peter Grootes thus conc luded that Neolithic humans unknowingly buried their dead near the entrances to Vogelherd Cave amidst relics of times long gone, and that is why Riek found the bones stratigraphically located next to older artifacts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(emphasis mine)
So we find t hat it is only the bones which have been redated - and that carbon dating CONFIRMED the age of the artifacts.
And this is just silly
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The carbon dating databases will ONLY include items that have been carbon dated. Most fossils are k nown to be too old to be usefully carbon dated and so the process will simply not be applied to them. Thus the claim must be false since we will not have carbon dates for anything more than a small proportion of fossils - and that biased towards those th ought to be young enough to give a useful date.
The story of Noah's flood was lifted and adapted from an early mesopotamian flood myth, during the Babylonian exile.
Or being guided by opium and a vivid imagination.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
