Why such an effort to prove the Bible wrong?

[jdavison]

Why is there such an attack at the bible. Why do you strive so hard to not accept it. There is so many facts that prove the bible reliable but you wish to believe science which questionable. I'm not trying to convince everyone but the subject has shown up in several threats and I would just like to know the reasons.

Thanks,
John

I find the bible VERY hard to believe.

[jdavison]

What's so hard to believe?

I dont believe in evolution anymore.
not because of the bible, but it did have an influence.

but I took a look at some of the "ape to man" charts, and there is an ape, then a caveman, then its modern human,
how can something go from something as dumb, and ape-like as a caveman.. to a human?
science has alot of things to prove that evolution is real, but if it is, why are there apes at all?
why hasnt everything that COULD NOT survive died?
because, people say that the reason things evolve is so they can survive, but if the previous species was so inferior, and could not survive, then why arent the apes and stuff Dead??

I am not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but like the saying goes, there are only 2 things that are for sure in life

• Dying
  and
• Taxes

The same reason why Jesus is so controversal.

[jdavison]

Darwin even renouced his own theory and said it really didn't hold water. But like you said the previous species should have died off. Thats the way the theory works, yet there are still apes among us. so where did humans evolve from??? Here is another interesting thing, the Isrealites(Jews) can trace there family tree back to Adam and Eve because there heritage is of such great importance to them. But then again they probably just made it up, or did they?

[Gen-X]

jdavidson

Why is there such an attack at the bible

Because someone decided to post a topic on the scientific proof of Gods existance, made an absolute mess of it and then claimed it still stood despite all the contradictions it contained.

That naturally flowed on to the Bible and all its contradictions. The Bible wasn't "attacked"... but I understand how it "appears" that way.

When you are testing the boiling point of water do you consider the water to be "Attacked"??? Of course not, you call it rigourous study, scientific evaluation...

But of course when it comes to something PERSONAL like the bible then you use words like "attacked". This only highlights that the text is not seen by its own merrits but through the values already placed within it by the persons belief.

Why do you strive so hard to not accept it

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

Strive so hard? There isn't a need to strive AT ALL!. Not accepting it is a logical and reaonsable conclusion based on the evidence presented.

You never get people quibbling over the existance of atoms, or the fact that light is carried by particles known as photons.... Because the evidence is undisputable and it stands APART from personal views.

Things like the bible however ARE personal... they are about concepts and beliefs and you cannot provide ANY factual evidence.

Scientists accept that the Bible was written 2000 years ago, they acept it is a combined work of multiple authors and they accept that it contains historical references.

THAT is the evidence that can be seen... what CANNOT be seen is that there was some omniscient entity directing its writing... THAT cannot be proved.

There is so many facts that prove the bible reliable but you wish to believe science which questionable

And for each fact that proves it reliable there is a mistake that proves it is unreliable. Those "grey" areas religious people claim "symbolism" to disguise the fact it isn't clear what the intention was.

Lets look at God talking to Adam after he ate of the apple. I hope I quote this well enough for VVB or else I might get a smack.

"And God said to Adam... Where art thou?"

Was he actually asking where Adam was located within the Garden of Eden? Considering he knew everything he already knew where Adam was...

So we call this verse "symbolic"

Then theologists sit around debating about what the symbol actually means and they come up with something along the lines of "This is a symbol representing the fact Adam had lost his way from Gods Path and therefor God as actually asking Adam where he was in relation to this path, what had happened".

I am sure those who reply will have ANOTHER meaning to this, a different one...

Here is another possible meaning.

It was said eating of the fruit would give them all the answers to the universe... that they would be Gods themselves... Perhaps then in eating the fruit, God could no longer see them with his omniscience... they were now "INVISIBLE" to his infinate sight because they had gained this new knowledge.

But people will say "That interpretation is WRONG". How can it be!?!?!? Its symbolism for #Q@$(*&#@ sake. That means it has whatever meaning I can reasonably put into it.

What's so hard to believe?

That an omniscient being was responsible for the creating of the entire universe specifically for the purpose of our existance. That he performed many miracles 2000 years ago, wrote a book to guide his creations and then somehow over the next 2000 years those miracles became smaller and his "presence" faded to the point where only those that ALREADY believed actually saw him.

Now he hides in shadows and whispers, letting his creations make up whatever they want while guiding them subtly and from the shadows... never enough to be known by anyone but those who already believe.

THAT is what I find hard to believe.

denniswrenn

I dont believe in evolution anymore.
not because of the bible, but it did have an influence.

Read my first posting in Evolution (For those who care). It explains the flaws you mention here and provides an alternative called "Natural progression"

[jdavison]

Several years ago the bible was testes by SCIENTISTS to prove that it was invalid. They did a writing analysis on it. Seeing that it was written by 40+ authors, they were going to prove that it was written by individuals and inspired by God. When they ran the test they failed. It came up written by one Author. They ran this test several time and got the same result which is an impossibility when you consider the number of authors and the time span it covered.
Have you seen an atom, no of course not, nobody has actually seen an atom. You take it on faith that the machine works the way you expect. The difference is God has actually been seen and documented by several people through out history and that would hold up in court legally. Can you scientifically prove you ate breakfast this morning.

As far as the Adam hiding from God, God knew where Adam was and Knew also about them eating the apple. The difference is would Adam hide or own up. Parent test there children all the time.

Also Several archeological finds have been found due to the accuracy of the Bible and many of the events are written into the history of other outside cultures as well.

So what is so unbelievable in the bible???

John

[Gen-X]

Which bible did they test?

I mean which PHYSICAL copy?

Or did they test the one that was printed by King James?

Was it before being translated into english?

Is Hebrew a lanauage that allows itself differencial analysis using techniques designed for the english lanuage?

Its a nice "story" but I am sure you were told it in church which means you got the religious version of the story.

Have you seen an atom, no of course not, nobody has actually seen an atom. You take it on faith that the machine works the way you expect

Actually I have seen an atom, several billion in fact and I can repetitiously perform tests and experiments that time and time again PROVE the existance of this atom.

I can do tests that show the difference in atoms and I can calculate all the results I want and compare them to the real world and get the same answers.

Any single person on the surface of the planet can do the SAME test and get the SAME answer. They can repeat it a million times and STILL the answer will be the SAME.

But ask 2 people about their belief in God and you will ALWAYS get 2 slightly different answers... 2 answers that while being similar in most ways have differences, personal views, slight alterations...

Take that to a global level and ask the WORLD about God and you will get a BILLION different answers.

jdavison... are you so absolutely blind that you do not see this? Can you explain this?

The difference is God has actually been seen and documented by several people through out history and that would hold up in court legally

Actually it wouldn't hold up in court at all. The person would be charged with purgory and the "evidence" would be thrown out as being circumstancial and hearsay.... the "witnesses" would be called bias and the defence attourney would ask them to be removed because they are not experts in their field and cannot be validated by an independant council.

As far as the Adam hiding from God, God knew where Adam was and Knew also about them eating the apple

So which "symbolism" was being meant then?

So what is so unbelievable in the bible???

The fact people like yourself believe in it. That despite being asked questions you avoid them, that despite giving answers they are always FLIMSY.

Let me make a point....

Postulation : "If I walk into a wall I will not pass through"

Can anyone refute that? Can anyone provide even the slightest possible alternative? Does there exist even the tiniest possiblity this will NOT happen?

So we consider it true.

When the time comes that the you can make a SINGLE point like this about the Bible you will have provided evidence...

That you are attempting to show the validity of a written book based on events that occured 2000 years ago when you don't even know how the Bible GOT here from that time... you don't know the "source" of the bible you are reading, what script they copied it from, what script THAT was copied from... Where was the bible during the 12th century? Or the 8th for that matter?

How do you know it wasn't doctored? How do you know that when it was copied word were not changed? They didn't have printing presses until the 18th century which means ALL copies of the book had to be translated by HAND.

There are so many factors that go into disproving the validty of this it isn't funny...

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Calvinist, Seven Day Adventist, etc etc etc etc etc

The Bible provides rules for a people to live in harmony in their time frame. A lot of the parables no longer hold water in high tech Western Society.

My Wife is a Pagan....some Scottish version of Wicca...and their belief is in the sanctity of the individual the natural environment and mans own acceptance of the godhead.
Their view is that the Bible constricts what man can become and gives no credence to the truth of freedom of action.

The Bible is attacked because it is held up as the one true source of Gods word. I have Muslim friends who believe the same about the Koran. This Book is a concoction of previous civilizations stories and fables and was presented as a didactic theorm to prove one groups inheriant superiority over other groups. Not a very christian thought!!!!!!

[frank ashley]

Do people still really believe in a literal interpretation of the bible (whatever religion they belong to).

Darwin did not renounce his theory, he continually modified it. Darwin was a sickly person and couldn't face publishing Origin of Species as it was contrary to the Church which was an integral part of the establishment and it was also contrary to his religious beliefs. Darwin's problem was that how could a good, noble god have designed nature to be so violent and unforgiving.

It was only 20 years later when Thomas Huxley championed Darwin's theory (with his own slant) that Darwin published.

I suggest lots of reading of British Society & Cultural influences 1820-1900. Enjoy.

[frank ashley]

An 'inferior' species (ape) has not been wiped out by a 'superior' species (man) because that is not how natural
selection works.

Natural selection is the filling of a niche in nature that a species makes its own.

The apes have adapted to their environment, man has adapted to his, problem solved.

Tags such as inferior/superior in comparing species are always being misused and are not relevant in this context.

[jdavison]

All I get is everybodys opinion but no one has given any actual reason. I know about wicca because I used to practice it. During my practice I discovered the lies that it taught me. You can believe what you will. But every explanation I have gotten has been retalitor and very arguable. Know has given a solid proof of inaccuracy or scientific impossibility. Not One. I get opinions based on unreliable and unproven scientific theory. But they are just that Theory. Every attempt at disproving it has been scientifically failed. Al I know is at least you never mentioned carbon dating.

Don't discard other peoples arguements, when your own are subjective. WHICH BIBLE you haven't answered this yet.

If you read Roman History, then you will know that yes there was a block called Jesus who lived in the middle east. However he was viewed as leading a radical sect of Jews in open rebellion to Roman Law. Historians have argued that the Bible New Testament is nothing more than propaganda used to undermine the Imperium.....

Your arguements smack of new age christianity, where a religon is created to foster the beliefs, no matter how off the wall, of the founder(s).

Now which bible. In the new testament Jesus states to Peter, "You are my rock, on you l shall found my church"...this is paraphrased.... Therefore if you believe the Bible, you must be talking about the Catholic Bible...cause Peter was the first Pope. Therefore, a belief in non-catholic doctrine is a direct contradiction of what the Bible states.

[frank ashley]

The christian bible was not compiled until about 400ad. The first written texts involving a Jew named Jesus didn't appear until about about 70ad. It appears highly likely then that the person/persons who wrote the bible were not present when the first texts were written down by person/persons who were probably not alive when Jesus was.

Around 400ad things started to get organised and the post of pope jerusalem was created. The church was de-centralised in those days and a pope was really the modern day equivalent of bishop.

Peter was acknowleged as the first pope and subsequent popes are supposed to be in a direct line from him, but, as nothing happened between peter and 400ad this doesn't hold up.

Around 1100ad the christian church split into eastern orthodox and western. Around 1500ad protestantism was founded. Then there's calvinism, lutherans and so on.

Language has changed, words meanings have changed, cultural values change within a single generation.

How can you then believe, as Jethro mentions, whatever translation by person/persons with their own agenda to pursue, written in the language of the time with the cultural beliefs of the time?

And, last but not least, there are religions far older than christianity: are they wrong, and condemned to a pestilential hell! (which the church created in about 1250ad because they had to promote heaven in order to separate people from their money)?

One last thing, if there is life on other planets would they need redemption or would they redeem us?

[jdavison]

If mine are flimsy what are yours gen. You have not given one example of inacuracy in the bible yourself. Not one contradiction either which was your initial arguement. I have repeatedly asked for these but never repeat never recieved on. Also you can run test but it is imposible for you to see an atom(that infers singular) with your own to eyes) And documented eyewitness accounts are legal in a court of law. Many of the figures in the bible are historically record like Moses is record into egyptian history and the plagues were recorded. But I guess you believe in the big bang thoery dont ya. Aand on the parables, the meaning are still useful. although the example is outdated, the point behind them is still valid. Also in there is a reference to dinosaurs in the bible in the original hebrew writing it was refered to as the great lizard in the book of Job. And the test was ran on the manuscripts no on the assembled bible as we know it. Science has been full of holes for centuries and theories have been changed multiple times through out time but God word has held true despite what you may think. Ask some Doctors what they think some time They have some interesting stories for you that contradict science. Also on the manuscript frank, That isnt quite acturate anymore. They have them dated about 25 years after the death of Christ. You should try reading More than a Carpenter. ITs a good book who did his research trying to disprove the bible with an open mind. Something I haven't seen much of by the obvious lack of specific examples here.

[frank ashley]

jdavison,

are you a creationist?

[frank ashley]

jdavison

Can you remember speech verbatim from last week let alone 25 years ago?

[jdavison]

Depends on what discussion your talking about.

[jdavison]

But if thats the case then why do 4 distict authors stories match so acurately?

Yes, the bible is used for personal gain. In this case, the Catholics sought to claim a divine lineage and separate you from your money while not allowing you to read the bible for yourselves, lest you discover truth. But today you can read/listen to it on your own.

This is a Greek/English Interlinear at "http://inthebeginning.net/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm"

The Greek fonts didn't paste right, but a search for "Matthew 16" at this page will give you the right fonts.

My understanding of this is...
Jesus: Who do (other) men say that I am?
Some Disciples: Some say this guy, some say some other guy, etc.
Jesus: Okay, and who do YOU DISCIPLES say that I am?
Peter: You are the Christ.
Jesus: Dude, you didn't come to this on your own, God hooked you up with this knowledge. You are petros (a little rock), and on petra (the Big Rock I just asked you guys who everyone thought is) I will build my assembly.

There are other verses that say Jesus is the Rock. And that there is only one Head. And only one Father. So the Popes have overstepped their bounds (and blasphemy by the title "Father"). Also, in a Catholic bible, you will find that it says in later days, corrupt leaders will forbid marriage and certain meats. Catholics are the ones that do this.

People, try to find the best original texts.

Mathew16:12 tote <5119> {THEN} sunhkan <4920> (5656) {THEY UNDERSTOOD} oti <3754> ouk <3756> {THAT} eipen <2036> (5627) {HE SAID NOT} prosecein <4337> (5721) {TO BEWARE} apo <575> {OF} thV <3588> {THE} zumhV <2219> tou <3588> {LEAVEN} artou <740> {OF BREAD,} all <235> {BUT} apo <575> {OF} thV <3588> {THE} didachV <1322> {TEACHING} twn <3588> {OF THE} farisaiwn <5330> {PHARISEES} kai <2532> {AND} saddoukaiwn <4523> {SADDUCEES.} 13 | elqwn <2064> (5631) de <1161> o <3588> {AND HAVING COME} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} eiV <1519> {INTO} ta <3588> {THE} merh <3313> {PARTS} kaisareiaV <2542> thV <3588> {OF CAESAREA} filippou <5376> {PHILIPPI} hrwta <2065> (5707) touV <3588> {HE QUESTIONED} maqhtaV <3101> autou <846> {HIS DISCIPLES,} legwn <3004> (5723) {SAYING,} tina <5101> {WHOM} me <3165> {ME} legousin <3004> (5719) oi <3588> {DO PRONOUNCE} anqrwpoi <444> {MEN} einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE} ton <3588> {THE} uion <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anqrwpou <444> {OF MAN?} 14 oi <3588> de <1161> {AND THEY} eipon <2036> (5627) oi <3588> {SAID,} men <3303> {SOME} iwannhn <2491> {JOHN} ton <3588> {THE} baptisthn <910> {BAPTIST;} alloi <243> de <1161> {AND OTHERS} hlian <2243> {ELIJAH;} eteroi <2087> de <1161> {AND OTHERS} ieremian <2408> {JEREMIAH,} h <2228> {OR} ena <1520> {ONE} twn <3588> {OF THE} profhtwn <4396> {PROPHETS.} 15 legei <3004> (5719) {HE SAYS} autoiV <846> {TO THEM,} umeiV <5210> de <1161> {BUT YE} tina <5101> {WHOM} me <3165> {ME} legete <3004> (5719) {DO YE PRONOUNCE} einai <1511> (5750) {TO BE?} 16 apokriqeiV <611> (5679) de <1161> {AND ANSWERING} simwn <4613> {SIMON} petroV <4074> {PETER} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID,} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} o <3588> {THE} cristoV <5547> {CHRIST,} o <3588> {THE} uioV <5207> tou <3588> {SON} qeou <2316> {OF GOD} tou <3588> {THE} zwntoV <2198> (5723) {LIVING.} 17 kai <2532> {AND} apokriqeiV <611> (5679) o <3588> {ANSWERING} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID} autw <846> {TO HIM,} makarioV <3107> {BLESSED} ei <1488> (5748) {ART THOU,} simwn <4613> bar <920> {SIMON} iwna <920> <2495> {BAR-JONAH,} oti <3754> {FOR} sarx <4561> {FLESH} kai <2532> {AND} aima <129> ouk <3756> {BLOOD} apekaluyen <601> (5656) {REVEALED [IT] NOT} soi <4671> {TO THEE,} all <235> o <3588> {BUT} pathr <3962> mou <3450> {MY FATHER} o <3588> {WHO [IS]} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS.} 18 kagw <2504> de <1161> {AND I ALSO} soi <4671> {TO THEE} legw <3004> (5719) {SAY,} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} petroV <4074> {PETER,} kai <2532> {AND} epi <1909> {ON} tauth <3778> th <3588> {THIS} petra <4073> {ROCK} oikodomhsw <3618> (5692) {I WILL BUILD} mou <3450> thn <3588> {MY} ekklhsian <1577> {ASSEMBLY,} kai <2532> {AND} pulai <4439> {GATES} adou <86> ou <3756> {OF HADES} katiscusousin <2729> (5692) {SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST} authV <846> {IT.} 19 kai <2532> {AND} dwsw <1325> (5692) {I WILL GIVE} soi <4671> {TO THEE} taV <3588> {THE} kleiV <2807> {KEYS} thV <3588> {OF THE} basileiaV <932> {KINGDOM} twn <3588> {OF THE} ouranwn <3772> {HEAVENS:} kai <2532> {AND} o <3739> ean <1437> {WHATEVER} dhshV <1210> (5661) {THOU MAYEST BIND} epi <1909> {ON} thV <3588> {THE} ghV <1093> {EARTH,} estai <2071> (5704) {SHALL BE} dedemenon <1210> (5772) {BOUND} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS;} kai <2532> {AND} o <3739> ean <1437> {WHATEVER} lushV <3089> (5661) {THOU MAYEST LOOSE} epi <1909> {ON} thV <3588> {THE} ghV <1093> {EARTH,} estai <2071> (5704) {SHALL BE} lelumenon <3089> (5772) {LOOSED} en <1722> {IN} toiV <3588> {THE} ouranoiV <3772> {HEAVENS.} 20 tote <5119> {THEN} diesteilato <1291> (5668) toiV <3588> {CHARGED HE} maqhtaiV <3101> {DISCIPLES} autou <846> {HIS} ina <2443> {THAT} mhdeni <3367> {TO NO ONE} eipwsin <2036> (5632) {THEY SHOULD SAY} oti <3754> {THAT} autoV <846> {HE} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} o <3588> {THE} cristoV <5547> {CHRIST.} 21 | apo <575> {FROM} tote <5119> {THAT TIME} hrxato <756> (5662) o <3588> {BEGAN} ihsouV <2424> {JESUS} deiknuein <1166> (5721) toiV <3588> {TO SHEW} maqhtaiV <3101> {TO DISCIPLES} autou <846> {HIS} oti <3754> {THAT} dei <1163> (5904) {IT IS NECESSARY FOR} auton <846> {HIM} apelqein <565> (5629) {TO GO AWAY} eiV <1519> {TO} ierosoluma <2414> {JERUSALEM,} kai <2532> {AND} polla <4183> {MANY THINGS} paqein <3958> (5629) {TO SUFFER} apo <575> {FROM} twn <3588> {THE} presbuterwn <4245> {ELDERS} kai <2532> {AND} arcierewn <749> {CHIEF PRIESTS} kai <2532> {AND} grammatewn <1122> {SCRIBES,} kai <2532> {AND} apoktanqhnai <615> (5683) {TO BE KILLED,} kai <2532> {AND} th <3588> {THE} trith <5154> {THIRD} hmera <2250> {DAY} egerqhnai <1453> (5683) {TO BE RAISED.}

By "The apes have adapted to their environment, man has adapted to his, problem solved.", are you taking the stance that man evolved from apes or not?

Or are you saying that some apes evolved into man (and other apes remained apes)?

[jdavison]

Do you believe a car evolved to where it is now. If you do you probably need some help then. Many people came together to create it. Yes I do believe God created the universe. Scientist agree that there was nothing in the universe initially except for a very small and very dense object which exploded (Big Bang Theory). Even if this is the case what would cause it to explode. If nothing else exists then there was nothing to cause that to happen so we should not be here. So in order for the universe to be created something had to cause this and mold it somehow. If it just exploded there would be sub attomic particles everyhwere. I don't believe the scientific theory of that its has been redefined severl times and really cant even be catagorized as a theory since the event is impossible to reproduce. The only other explanation is God. So I do beleive God created the universe. But by true defining of the bible "Let there be light..." , let is always used as a statement of permision not creation in the bible from most of my studies. but that only an opinion in this case.

I posted at the Hawking Forum about the Universe's Initial Conditions and the Black Hole contradicting the Big Bang. Basically even "Superstring Theory" gets back to the question, What caused the (initial) fluctuations?

[jdavison]

Where is that forum at?

http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/

[Gen-X]

jdavison

*sigh*... You are very confused aren't you?

On one hand you say because I haven't SEEN an atom with my own eyes I cannot say it exists... and yet in the very same breath you say you believe in God.

When did you or any living person on the face of this earth EVER actually see with their own eyes Jesus, God or ANYTHING heavenly?????

I tell you that I can "see" atoms as a reflection of their properties being displayed by reactions... and you say that doesn't mean atoms exist and yet I am sure you will say "I SEE God's existance in the world around me".

Is that not the same thing?

If you want to hold a decent conversation then don't let something refute what *I* say but then be totally ABOVE having that exact same thing refute what *YOU* say. It either stands for ALL or it stands for NOTHING.

"The earth was created in 7 days"

It wasn't... There is a point that PROVES incorrect information. Ah but you say "Its symbolic"... Funny that... the only way you can EVER explain something is to say its symbolic so you can read whatever you want into it.

I HAVE PROVED MY POINT.

VirtuallyVB
I never said man "evolved" from Ape. I said that "LIFE" evolved into both man and ape, they share the same genetic markers but one did not EVOLVE from the other... they simply each had different paths based on the conditions that was applied to them.

Its the same reason why there are LIONS in africa and TIGERS in india... one didn't EVOLVE from the other, they both share the same genetic markers in that they are both FELINE... they just evolved differently.

You cannot deny the fact that we share an almost IDENTICAL genetic heritage with the ape... but please refute that, I would dearly love to hear you actually state that we are genetically totally different from apes.

[frank ashley]

Virtually VB,

I'm saying that apes and man have a common ancestor, but at some point apes at place x adapted to their environment differently to apes at place y. The apes at x didn't do much but the apes at y invented religion!

Man and chimps also have 99% common genes.

I'm sure that I read somewhere that man and cabbages have 95% common genes, which goes to show that all life originated from the same single celled organisms.

[jdavison]

Gen u completely missed the point. I am not saying atoms dont exist, I was trying to make a point with it. You were saying that God cant exist because you cant see Him. Well you cont see an atom either but you believe in its existance. That was the point. Just because you cant see something doent mean it doesnt exist. So I wasnt refuting that point but I wasing using it as an example. Gen I am no longer going to continue this discussion. You continuously change the meaning of what I have said and have not produced any descrepincies in the bible. It is obvious you have never read it and are only going by hear say. If you would like to take up the subject after you have read it, I will be more than willing to discuss this with an open mind.

[noone]

Jdavidsion, you seem to be totally ignoring when Gen-X points out "mistake" in the bible and saying he hasnt.

Didn't they (the proverbial "they") relatively recently conclude that we have more in common with some animal other than an ape? (A surprising animal at that)

The statements like "evening and morning the nth day" sound like 24 hour days, but I wonder what the writer meant because there are other "in the 'day' of ..." statements that are longer than 24 hours. For that I'd need a Hebrew/English Interlinear Bible.

If there is a God (and "He" is The God of The Bible), I wouldn't doubt that it was 7 literal 24 hour days. But I am not convinced yet on the time frames.

Isn't it interesting that the order of life is the same (or similar) for creationists as to the order of evolutionists? The heavens, plant life, sea creatures, birds, land creatures, man. Wasn't there an "evolutionary link" between scales and feathers?

Regards.

Frank,

Total agreement Dude. All animal/plant/etc is about 95% similar genetically. That 5% sure makes a difference.

VirtuallyVB

Modern Dinosaur theories argue that the Dinos evolved into modern birds rather than became extinct.

Gen-X

Sounds like the guy is going to pick up his bat and ball and go home.

jdavidson

So you would argue that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong, or the Koori Dreamtime is wrong, or Judaism is wrong.

The Bible is nothing but parables, used to condition society to the christian way of life. Look at the Devil myth, now you don't believe in the Devil do you. If so l can give you the complete time line for this myth from well before christian/Jewish times.

Looking forward to more debate

By the way

Ultimate good cannot exist in the absence of ultimate evil. Good is defined by evil.

[frank ashley]

jdavidson (if you're still there)

I believe what you're after is a factual discrepancy in the bible, (whichever one that is, so i'll assume a generic christian one).

OK, does it say that the earth was created in 7 days.

I do not believe that this is so!

[jdavison]

Ok I will respond to the question. The bible says in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Therefore the earth was in existance. The seven days was not actually the creation. Whenever let was used in the bible, this was a statement of permission, not creation. Opinions may very on this subject because of traditional teachings. But this seems to tell me that the earth was created before. You also have to remeber whos days your going by. For "one day is a thousand years with the Lord". I do believe I made comment to this before but as usual you ignore and change my comments.

[Iain17]

All

I'm not sure of this has been brought up in this topic or not yet, but it is a very interesting fact for all of you to consider.

We (as the human race), can be traced back to one women in Africa. We are all descendants of this one person.

Now before you start going, "Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve, i told you the bible was right", let me tell you this. There were other people alive at the time, it is just that her offspring are the ones that survived.


Next question. How did they trace everybody back to one women?

Using mitochondrial DNA.

Just some food for thought.

[jdavison]

Actually everything would be traced back to Noahs family. which was about 4 families all together if I remember right.
Just a side note

[Iain17]

jdavison

I think you need to consider what you are saying. By saying the above, you are implying that noah came out of no-where.

Noah had a mother didn't he, and so did his mother, and so on. Just becuase they are dead, doesn't mean we can't include them.

Otherwise once you parents were dead, we could say that you were the start of all of your descendants. Which is obviously wrong.

So we could, if it happened, trace everyone back to Noah, but from there we could trace noah back.

[jdavison]

I was just trying to say we would all be traceable back to noah and there were othere people arround then also. Of course Noah had a mother but at the point of the flood we would have continued on from noahs genetic line but there were other people during that time.

[frank ashley]

Iain17,

I don't think jdavison wants to go back before Noah!

Even though jdavison has stopped posting I can't resist pointing out that in his 3rd from last post he says

'Whenever let was used in the bible, this was a statement of permission, not creation. Opinions may very on this subject because of traditional teachings'

and

'But this seems to tell me that the earth'

these are subjective and therefore not valid if you are trying to prove something which is what jdavison was after all along!

[jdavison]

That wasnt subjective, it was stating how the bible defines in comparison to the conventional teachings.