Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[nvidiot]

1:19 And it was so, and Science saw that it was goopy, and it was the very start of life

That's just awesome.

mmmmmmmmmm.....

Goooooooooooopy.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'd add:

1:31 And lo, the humans created cellophane and science said, "FINALLY!"

1:32 Science went forth and collected the mounds of cellophane and destroyed the universe, for its purpose was complete.

 

[Aitch]

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the size of books or the number of posts. Why is that? The volume of writing is of no significance. Or to put it another way, a giant bucket of yak vomit is still a giant bucket of yak vomit. Just because there's is more of it does not make the yak vomit more valuable.

I think that's a common problem. I remember, a long time ago when I was at school, I always had trouble with essays. Other people would produce essays twice the size of mine, even though I had managed to put in all the relevant information. I suspect they used a certain amount of filler text - a mixture of irrelevance and repetition?

A sort of argumentum ad waffle?

 

[amb]

I can't believe anyone would bring up Genesis and science in the same sentence.

 

[DOC]

Just for DOC. I'd be more impressed with the bible writers if they'd come up with something like the following.

The Gospel according to Science.

1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Science, and the word was Bang!
1:2 And Science said, "Let there be matter and energy and gravity, oh, and electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces", and it was so, and Science saw that it was good.
1:3 And Science blew upon the matter and energy to cool it and inflate it.
1:4 And Science said, "Let there be protons and neutrons and electrons and photons, and let the photons decouple from the matter", and it was so.
1:5 And Science said, "Let there be Hydrogen and some Helium, and maybe some Lithium, for verily, I like Lithium."
1:6 Then Science rested for a while.
1:7 And then Science said, "Let the Hydrogen and other stuff collapse under gravity to form super-massive stars."
And Science said, "Let these stars last but a short time, and via nucleosynthesis produce heavier elements. And let these stars explode and scatter these heavier elements into the cosmos, for they will be needed to make the next stars."
1:8 And then Science rested for a few million years.
1:9 And when the interstellar medium was rich with intermediate elements Science said, "Let the Hydrogen form new stars with these heavier elements, and let these stars last longer, except for the bigger ones, which will form more heavy elements and then explode as supernovae making even heavier elements which will be needed later on to form planets and life."
1:10 And it was so, and Science saw that it was good.
1:11 And Science rested for a couple of billion years.
1:12 And then Science said, "Let there be a third generation of stars, and let them form accretion disks from the heavier elements like Iron and Silicon, for the formation of the stars involves rotation, and this acts like unto a centrifuge, wherein the heavier components are pushed away from the centre, and rotate around the outer edges of the star. 1:13 And let these heavier elements form molecules and compounds, and from these form planets, both small and rocky, and large and gaseous. And let there also form comets and asteroids, and other junk left over from the planet formation."
1:14 And it was so, and Science saw that it was good.
1:15 And Science rested for another few billion years.
1:16 And after its long nap Science said, "Let there be water upon the Earth, and also other of the planets, and let this water be both liquid and gas, and sometimes solid."
1:17 And Science said, "Let there be pools in tidal areas, wherein there are some complex chemical reactions going on, 1:18 and let these reactions form simple replicating molecules."
1:19 And it was so, and Science saw that it was goopy, and it was the very start of life.
1:20 And Science said, "Let these chemicals evolve and form ever more complicated chemicals that will interact with each other in ever more complicated ways."
1:21 And the chemicals evolved and interacted in ever more complicated ways, and formed groups of chemicals that worked together for mutual benefit, and these were the first cells.
1:22 And Science saw that it was good.
1:23 And Science said, "Let these cells interact and work together to form bacteria and the bodies of animals and plants and fungi, and maybe even lichens, 'cause they're cool."
1:24 And so the animals and plants and fungi evolved as Science had decreed, and became a myriad of forms. And from this evolution some species became more intelligent, for it gave them an advantage.
1:25 And one species became human, and they were very intelligent, although not as intelligent as many of them thought.
1:26 And some of these humans looked around at the world and said, "Wow, this is such a perfect place, someone must have made it just for us."
1:27 And Science saw that this was bad
1:28 And the humans said, "Hey, let's call this someone God, and let's kill each other in his name, and make slaves of other humans who don't think the same way we do."
1:29 And Science shook its head and looked sad.
1:30 And the humans made up stories about how the world was formed by God in seven days, and they were wrong, for it took billions of years.

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

 

[Mister Earl]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

You're right about one thing, it isn't a science book. That's why it needs to be kept out of science classes. Glad we agree there. How do you know god created the universe? What if he inherited it from an another god before we came around? How do you or the bible know we aren't a pan-galactic hand-me-down? And eternity? What evidence do you have there even is such a thing? Can god microwave a burrito so hot, that even he can't eat it?

 

[carlitos]

DOC's argument against teaching "intelligent design" in science class

The bible is not a science book, ...

Correct.

 

[Mojo]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

So why did you try to claim it was scientifically accurate?

This statement would have more credibility if you hadn't made it after posting that and seeing it shot down in flames.

 

[John Jones]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

Then stop making appeals to science!

 

[Aepervius]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

In other word you just admitted that at least the old testament writer did not tell the truth.

Now if we could get you to admit it for the NT...


ETA: And THIS

So why did you try to claim it was scientifically accurate?

This statement would have more credibility if you hadn't made it after posting that and seeing it shot down in flames.

 

[DOC]

...why are there two different versions of the genesis myth? Don't be coy and insist that there aren't differences, that would just be dishonest. In order to preserve your integrity, I will indicate the differences below:


First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof...

The red flag in your post is that it required the injection of your wording to make the argument. You added the wording “after” and “before”. Those words are not in the biblical text you used. You're assuming and adding things that are not there to help your argument.

And in Chapter two he is no longer talking about the world as a whole he is talking about a specific place "Eden" (Genesis 2; 8) (Genesis 2:15). And when he says in Gen 2; 19

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air"

He does not give a time when this was done; he could have been referring to when this was done in Genesis chapter 1. And even if he was not referring that, he simply could be referring to new animals and fowl he formed in Eden only and not the world as a whole which was already done in Chapter 1.

Although the above is not easy reading, I see no contradiction unless you assume something that is not there. And there is no law that the writer of Genesis had to be a great writer who made everything crystal clear. I mean Moses was a stutterer, David murdered a man, Peter was awkward and a coward for a while, and Paul hated Christians originally. The bible says God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-27.htm

 

[zooterkin]

The red flag in your post is that it required the injection of your wording to make the argument. You added the wording “after” and “before”. Those words are not in the biblical text you used. You're assuming and adding things that are not there to help your argument.

FFS, DOC, can you read? The commentary is simply highlighting the order of the events.

 

[DOC]

FFS, DOC, can you read? The commentary is simply highlighting the order of the events.

Yes, but that order of events is based on an assumption by welshdean, and not the actual literal text. There are no words "after" or "before" in the text, those are welshdean's words.

 

[Resume]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe.. And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

Then why did you bother to bring Musterman's pseudeoscientific nonsense into this in the first place? Just admit it's all faith and there's no real evidence to offer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, but that order of events is based on an assumption by welshdean, and not the actual literal text. There are no words "after" or "before" in the text, those are welshdean's words.

What assumptions was Ralph Muncaster making?


ETA: Beaten by Resume by that much!

 

[Sun Countess]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe..

Ah, yes, the creation of man. God picking up some dust and blowing breath into it. Not very sciency, is it?

And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it.

Is that because the stories are silly? I can't imagine anybody could spend much time thinking about those stories without recognizing how utterly ridiculous they are. Better to just ignorantly enjoy knowing that a magic man made you because he loves you! How blissful it must be.

I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

Where does any life go after it dies? What makes you think your life goes on to a special place while all the bugs, birds, and fish just cease to exist in any form? Oh right. Because the magic man loves you. And he wanted to make sure that everybody knew the secrets of the universe by entrusting them to a small middle eastern slave/slave-owning tribe of people who passed them on by oral tradition.

 

[Mister Earl]

And in Chapter two he is no longer talking about the world as a whole he is talking about a specific place "Eden" (Genesis 2; 8) (Genesis 2:15). And when he says in Gen 2; 19

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air"

He does not give a time when this was done; he could have been referring to when this was done in Genesis chapter 1. And even if he was not referring that, he simply could be referring to new animals and fowl he formed in Eden only and not the world as a whole which was already done in Chapter 1.

Doc, I couldn't help but notice that you wrote the above as if saying that god himself wrote that part of the bible. So I have to ask: Doc, do you believe that god wrote any part of the bible?

 

[joobz]

The bible is not a science book, it deals with God's relationship with mankind and spiritual truths, which is probably why it only devotes about 2 pages (out of 1400 pages) to the creation of man and everything in the universe..

Yes. The bible spends time on much more important things like:
How to treat slaves.
That it is good to kill women and children if god demands it.
that you can be guilty of sin for simply thinking something.
That it is good to send bears to maul children who mock a bald guy.
If at first you don't succeed, Drown nearly everything and try again.

And personally I don't really care much about how God created the universe and how long it took to do it. I'm more concerned about my life and where I and others are going to be in eternity.

Why do you assume those two things aren't related concepts?
shouldn't you be concerned about the reliability of a text when it is so clearly wrong about things we do know?

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, but that order of events is based on an assumption by welshdean, and not the actual literal text. There are no words "after" or "before" in the text, those are welshdean's words.

Oh. please. The accepted scholastic theory is that the second account is an older one, the first account a changed up and more pimped one. And somebody in the copying inverted some order, changed the number of animals for pure/impute animals etc... The also accepted theory is that it is a rip off of older myth, and is only a nice faery tale. A myth.

Anybody trying to see it as having happened, as moral, or even as matching what science knows, should stop smoking plastic.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, but that order of events is based on an assumption by welshdean, and not the actual literal text. There are no words "after" or "before" in the text, those are welshdean's words.

What assumption? That things happened in the order they were described? If they happened in a different order, then they would have been given in a different order.