Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[Radrook]

I would love to see a list of those facts and history. Are any of them from sources other than the bible?

Sure.

No, the nitpicking serves to determine whether the reference (in this case, the bible) is a legitimate one. If I read a scientific research paper that was rife with spelling and grammatical errors, I would have to wonder, "If these guys couldn't be bothered to use a spell check, what else have they screwed up?"

If the bible can't keep its story straight on how long a day is, or the linneage of Jesus, or any one of a number of contradictions, I have to wonder, "What else is wrong in there?"

That is your opinion to which you are entitled.

I've never quite faced egotism like this before, so I don't really know how to respond to it. I'm a bit flabbergasted.

I am an egostist? I thought you were interested in the Christian viewpoint--not in getting in snide remarks.

Ah yes, blame the audience. So if I were to say to you, "Blue horse gel, overcome computer staple, lids on mug time.", I can then complain that the reason you didn't understand the true meaning of my message is because you have the wrong attitude? Because you choose not to understand?

Understanding isn't allowed just anyone-especially when the person doing the reading is really out to trash everything biblical he can get his meat hooks into.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the majority was written in Aramaic. I should have googled first: "A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic." The New Testament was written in Greek.

Koine Greek to be exact.

Unless you are prepared for the inevitable mistranslations and misinterpretations that follow from translation, then yes, you do need to be a Hebrew scholar. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that a particular play by a Russian playwright really needs to be seen in Russian. Or that a particular word in Spanish doesn't really have an English equivalent.

Knowing Hebrew doesn't guarantee lack of bias. Also, the Bible uses simple language. Words describing everyday things like trees, rivers, houses, stars, heaven and do forth. Words common to every language. If indeed there is mistranslation it isn't based on difficulty but on doctrinal bias of those doing the translating.

Besides, you haven't really experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon.

It is translated with sufficient clarity to allow understanding of its central theme-the salvation of mankind via the Ransom sacrifice.

First of all, if it was intended to be understood, it's doing a singularly bad job of it. There are a little more than 2.1 billion Christians in the world, not even a majority. Which means this book has not been "truly understood" by two-thirds of all people currently living.

Especially since those people reject it practically from birth due to cultural influences and not because of attempting to understand it.

Within Christianity, you have all the different sects who cannot agree on meaning and interpretation. I don't know what sect you are associated with, so I don't know how many people agree with your interpretation, but no matter how you look at it, the bible is not well understood by the large majority of people. So if God wrote it, or inspired it to be written, to be understood, well, maybe the Holy Spirit should have written it instead. Because then it'd be a Ghost writer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

First, the Bible itself tells us that there would come a time when its Christian teachings would be twisted into diverse doctrines after the death of the Apostles.

Acts 20:
29.For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Timothy 4:3, 4

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

It is referred to as the Apostasy and it is attributed to the efforts of God's enemy Satan and those who feign Christianity but who are really in Satan's service. Jesus referred to it as the sowing of the weed among the wheat.

2 Corinthians 11:14-16

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

As for a host of people who don't understand, you are wrong in assuming it is because of any inherent flaw. It is common knowledge that socialization programs people to accept or reject certain ideas while preferring others. This is the case in China, India, and other parts of Asia and Africa just to mention a few.

Neither was it meant to be understood by those seeking to trash it.

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

But for those who come in contact with it and are willing to humbly learn, it is written sufficiently clearly to get its primary message across, the salvation of mankind via the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. That is the main theme that runs through all sects calling themselves Christians because that is the essential message of the Bible. All other disagreements do not annul a person's faith in that Ransom.

I mention "presumptuous" because a) you claim to understand the bible, and b) you say it is understood with reference to God's intentions. Which means you need to know God's intentions. So tell me: how do you know God's intentions?

And if you do, maybe you can finally explain all the horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Most religious people I ask say "It's not for us to know the will of God." But since you have an inside line, perhaps you could enlighten us.

There is NOTHING mysterious about knowing God's intentions since he makes those intentions known from the very beginning of human history starting in Genesis and terminating in Revelations.

One thing he makes clear is that he will direnctly terminate this situation by directly intervening.

Daniel 2:44
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

The conditions he plans to establish once that is done are also described.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Nothing mystrerious about that.

As for our present situation, again the bible tells us clearly why we are in this mess and what God plans to do about it.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

So if there is a mystery in what's on GOd's mind it isn't supposed to be a mystery to a Christian or anyone else reading the BIble who is humbly seeking to understand it and not trash it.

BTW
I don't like to be talked about in the second person in my presence. I find it disrespectful and annoying and am asking you to please desist if you wish this conversation to continue.
If you want to use ad hominem I suggest you do so by using the private message option. Otherwise you are baiting me into a heated argument-a method I respond to not by arguing but by simply terminating the discussion with the person or person's involved in the attacks.

 

[Radrook]

If it's incorrect there must be a flaw in the evidence. You said you have William Ryan and Walter Pitman's book and read parts of it regularly. Where are the flaws in the evidence?

I don't reject the evidence they present. What I reject is their conclusion that it was the flood described in Genesis. So the evidence isn't really relevant since that flood could have followed the Genesis flood or even have occurred prior to the Genesis flood.
It all depends on how they are dating it. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't the Genesis flood since the Genesis flood is described as being worldwide.

That tells me nothing except that Adam died in the same 'day'. It only says a 'day' is at least 1000 years. Apparently he would have been immortal otherwise? Let's begin clearing things up. These are two quotes from Genesis both using 'day' and meaning, as you say, two different things. I propose the following changes:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the dayC that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
And all the dayAs that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/b]

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one dayB is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Let dayA be of the 24 hr variety, dayB is defined by Peter to be 1000 years, and dayC be the day whose length has yet to be defined. It may also be 1000 years and therefore equal to dayB, but also possibly either 6000 years, or 766,660,000 years.

Evasion is when in response to my questions you give several examples of what a length of a day is when you could have simply said a day is (fill in the blank) years. Or if the length of day changes throughout Gen 1 then you could have simply edited it to show how long a day means in each context.

Several, means three. I only provided two. Neither did I say that both applied to the same time period. The thousand year one obviously applies to Adam and Eve. The longer one, and it is longer since that rest day was spoken of being still in effect thousands of years later during our first century, obviously applies to the rest day. So when you ask, these two duration's have to be in the answer. As to my not taking a definite stand, that doesn't mean that I don't accept the 1000 year period or reject the longer creative day period. It simply means that I prefer to reserve my opinion as to how long the creative days were though I do accept that they were longer than 24 hours. Actually, the six thousand year for each creative day would make the creative week 36,000 years long.

BTW

Here is another reference to the way God might choose to view a day.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Some have suggested that his ability to choose to view a day as any length can be attributed to his being in the eternal now and not within the stream of time itself.

Actually, the concept isn't that difficult to understand when we consider the effects that faster than light travel can have on our perception of time. Also, by the way time seems to flow faster and faster as we age. God being eternal has had a long time to age and time perception might very well have been affected in this manner. But that is mere speculation and deviates somewhat from the subject.

BTW
You are right in concluding that Adam and Eve were designed for eternal life. Immortality? Well, that's another subject altogether.

Evasion: you could have simply stated "Let there be light refers to (fill in the event).

Sorry if I gave the impression of evasion. You are right. I should have immediately provided a direct clarification and avoided all the ensuing confusion. My bad. But not intentional. Health problems make concentration difficult sometimes.

No, I'd really like to know why science teachers are increasingly asked to ignore scientific evidence and give lip service to completely unproven superstitions. You doubt that the incidents I cited above about science education exist? Would this knowledge of the glory of the lord enable me to look past the fact that seas are made of water and not covered by water?

How in heaven's name did you reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches that the seas are not made of water?

This reminds me so much of Kissing Hank's Ass...

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[DrBaltar]

If Radrook were born in Saudi Arabia, he would probably be a devout Muslim and would consider Jesus a false prophet.

 

[Radrook]

If Radrook were born in Saudi Arabia, he would probably be a devout Muslim and would consider Jesus a false prophet.

Actually, I have never encountered a Muslim who has spoken disrespectfully of Jesus. Quite to the contrary, they honor him as a prophet and even say something along the lines of "Blessed be his name" whenever they mention him. They don't, however, accept him as being the Son of God nor as being God's final prophet. Instead they say that he promised the coming of Mohammed which is God's final prophet. But you are right, everyone's views are affected in one way or another by the culture in which he or she is socialized.


Excerpt

Q. What does the Qur'an say about Jesus?

From Huda, Your Guide to Islam.

A. In the Qur'an, stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (called 'Isa in Arabic) are abundant. The Qur'an recalls his miraculous birth, his teachings, the miracles he performed by God's permission, and his life as a respected prophet of God. The Qur'an also repeatedly reminds that Jesus was a human prophet sent by God, not part of God Himself
islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_quran.htm

 

[PBTree]

I agree with Jesus and his Apostles who considered the Flood not nonsense, as you do, but as an historical fact.

You point to jesus as a verifier of the flood. How does this make it a fact? There is no proof that even he exists. What other book from the period of his existence mentions him? Point me to something that mentions his name. Surely healing the blind, bringing someone back from the dead, vandalising the temple, feeding thousands with a few fish sandwiches and personally coming back from the dead, would rate a mention in someone's diary/book/government papers etc etc from that period.

And, where are all of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and/or writings that mention plagues of locust, rivers of blood, firstborn deaths, red sea opening, armys being drowned. Or didn't the egyptians think any of this was important enough to write about. I mean, why would they care that all of their servants/slaves/workers had just gone on strike and were heading home with some bloke called moses.

Strange that we have found so much of their writings and they wrote about so many un-important things but didn't mention any of this.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Sure.

Ok...are you going to give examples, or just tell me they exist? This is a very unhelpful and evasive response.

Understanding isn't allowed just anyone-especially when the person doing the reading is really out to trash everything biblical he can get his meat hooks into.

I could have sworn that somewhere in the bible it talks about how God's word is meant for everyone.

Also, the Bible uses simple language. Words describing everyday things like trees, rivers, houses, stars, heaven and do forth. Words common to every language.
If indeed there is mistranslation it isn't based on difficulty but on doctrinal bias of those doing the translating.

Oh, you mean words like "day"?

Especially since those people reject it practically from birth due to cultural influences and not because of attempting to understand it.

Exactly. Which is why one of the reasons you accept it is due to an accident of birth. If you were born in a different time, or a different place, to different people, you'd think differently. Therefore, the bible isn't absolute and utter Truth with a capital T. It has meaning only to those born into a particular culture at a particular time.

As for a host of people who don't understand, you are wrong in assuming it is because of any inherent flaw. It is common knowledge that socialization programs people to accept or reject certain ideas while preferring others. This is the case in China, India, and other parts of Asia and Africa just to mention a few.

Um...it's true here, too. Chances are, you're a victim of it in some way as much as anyone else.

For example, most people in America reject the idea of dogs as food. It is perfectly acceptable in China, and if you think about it very objectively, there's no reason why a pig should be eaten and a dog shouldn't. Yet Americans, because of socialization, reject the idea. Does this make the idea that dogs shouldn't be food inherently right? No. Inherently wrong? No.

There is NOTHING mysterious about knowing God's intentions since he makes those intentions known from the very beginning of human history starting in Genesis and terminating in Revelations.

Circular logic. You know God's intentions through interpretation of the bible, and you interpret the bible by way of knowing God's intentions.

One thing he makes clear is that he will direnctly terminate this situation by directly intervening.

Does he make clear *when* or *how*?

As for our present situation, again the bible tells us clearly why we are in this mess and what God plans to do about it.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Wait...so we're in trouble because we invented things....using the creativity, forethought, and intellect that God gave us? Talk about setting us up for failure. "Here, kid, here's some paper, and paint, and a paintbrush. Go have fun. I'll come back in a bit to yell at you for getting some paint on the brush and paper."

BTW
I don't like to be talked about in the second person in my presence. I find it disrespectful and annoying and am asking you to please desist if you wish this conversation to continue.
If you want to use ad hominem I suggest you do so by using the private message option. Otherwise you are baiting me into a heated argument-a method I respond to not by arguing but by simply terminating the discussion with the person or person's involved in the attacks.

How shall we talk to you? In the third person? It would sound a lot more insulting if we did. "Radrook is pontificating again....what did Radrook say this time?....Let's put him on ignore...." etc.

I'm not really sure where this little rant came from or what it was in reference to.

I'm not intending to insult anyone, honestly. I'm just trying to gain some insight as to why people believe what they do, including why you believe what you do. I find it ironic that in doing so, I'm accused of being close-minded, unaccepting, and plain old not wanting to listen and learn.

 

[DrBaltar]

I don't reject the evidence they present. What I reject is their conclusion that it was the flood described in Genesis. So the evidence isn't really relevant since that flood could have followed the Genesis flood or even have occurred prior to the Genesis flood.
It all depends on how they are dating it. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't the Genesis flood since the Genesis flood is described as being worldwide.

The event they describe is a worldwide event. As the glaciers melted the sea levels rose everywhere. In some places it was gradual and not catastrophic. In others, like the Black Sea, it was. Ten cubic miles of water poured through to the Black Sea each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. The Bosporus flume roared and surged at this rate for at least three hundred days.

It seems pretty coincidental that this event happened at this location at about the same time as the Noah story. And if these were two separate events, it seems odd that the catastrophic event caused by the receding ice age warranted no mention.

Neither did I say that both applied to the same time period. The thousand year one obviously applies to Adam and Eve. The longer one, and it is longer since that rest day was spoken of being still in effect thousands of years later during our first century, obviously applies to the rest day.

It would have to be much longer. I did a little research, and it looks like homosapiens have been around for 150,000 - 200,000 years, rather than the 40,000 I originally thought. So after god created man, he rested one of his 'days', which lasted at least until the first century (I assume you meant A.D.). Until I have better information it's looking like god's day is at least 150,000 - 200,000 years long. And I say at least because for the last 2,000 years he still seems to be resting.

Some have suggested that his ability to choose to view a day as any length can be attributed to his being in the eternal now and not within the stream of time itself.

'Some' people suggest all kinds of things. 'Some' other people also suggest there is no god.

Actually, the concept isn't that difficult to understand when we consider the effects that faster than light travel can have on our perception of time. Also, by the way time seems to flow faster and faster as we age. God being eternal has had a long time to age and time perception might very well have been affected in this manner. But that is mere speculation and deviates somewhat from the subject.

If time flows faster and faster as we age, and god's age is infinite, then time would flow infinitely fast for him. No, I think god is able to tell time.

BTW
You are right in concluding that Adam and Eve were designed for eternal life. Immortality? Well, that's another subject altogether.

Well who's screw up shortened life spans from 930 years to 20-30 years? That's how long humans used to live. And which awesome person was so great that god extended our lifespans to the 80 or so years it is now?

Evasion: you could have simply stated "Let there be light refers to (fill in the event).

Sorry if I gave the impression of evasion. You are right. I should have immediately provided a direct clarification and avoided all the ensuing confusion. My bad. But not intentional. Health problems make concentration difficult sometimes.

LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?

How in heaven's name did you reach the conclusion that the Bible teaches that the seas are not made of water?

From your quote:

Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

If water is said to cover the sea, then it is implied that the sea is something else other than water.

This reminds me so much of Kissing Hank's Ass...

Sorry you feel that way.

Don't be sorry. The feeling I had as I wrote that was happiness as I reflected on how funny the Kissing Hank's Ass parody is.

 

[Radrook]

You point to Jesus as a verifier of the flood. How does this make it a fact?

It wasn't only Jesus who spoke of the flood as factual. The writers of the OT also spoke of all the events in Genesis as historical fact. So did Jesus' apostles. So I guess you will have to also question their existence? Additionally, I think you know full well why it makes it a fact from my standpoint so I need not go into detailed explanations. Saves time.

There is no proof that even he exists.

That is merely your opinion.

Surely healing the blind, bringing someone back from the dead, vandalizing the temple, feeding thousands with a few fish sandwiches and personally coming back from the dead, would rate a mention in someone's diary/book/government papers etc etc from that period.

Not if such people were heathens who had their own gods to whom such things would be an effrontery. Even the Jews themselves strove to discount the miracles as they still do. However, there is one thing they don't do, that is deny that Jesus ever existed.

Jesus had many enemies among the Jews. Yet there is no historical evidence that they ever challenged his having existed. They did accuse him of false teachings. But as to his existence, no opposition there. That in itself speaks volumes since his nonexistence if true, would have been a prime weapon in their arsenal. Yet, nothing.

BTW
Gospels and the rest of the NT are considered historical documents which take note of his many miracles.

What other book from the period of his existence mentions him? Point me to something that mentions his name?

Here is an article that seems to provide what you request:

Excerpt

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

“. . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . .” (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

http://cfmin.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/is-there-any-historical-proof-that-jesus-existed/

Other references are mentioned in the article. In any case, as I previoiusly said, the very fact that the Jews did not use Jesus nonexistence as a weapon proves to me thast he existed.

And, where are all of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and/or writings that mention plagues of locust, rivers of blood, firstborn deaths, red sea opening, armies being drowned. Or didn't the Egyptians think any of this was important enough to write about. I mean, why would they care that all of their
servants/slaves/workers had just gone on strike and were heading home with some bloke called Moses.Strange that we have found so much of their writings and they wrote about so many unimportant things but didn't mention any of this.

Strange to a person unfamiliar with how ancient historians operated when it came to national defeats and humiliations. The Egyptians and other ancient cultures didn't commemorate their humiliations. They either ignored them altogether or denied them. In this particular case they seem to have opted for the first. Furthermore, don't you find it strange that no ancient historian strove to refute the Exodus account. Neither the Egyptians nor even the Greeks put forth an argument against its historical accuracy. That is truly weird if the Exodus account were a lie and yet you seem to accept it tongue in cheek as if of no consequence.

 

[Radrook]

The event they describe is a worldwide event. As the glaciers melted the sea levels rose everywhere. In some places it was gradual and not catastrophic. In others, like the Black Sea, it was. Ten cubic miles of water poured through to the Black Sea each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. The Bosporus flume roared and surged at this rate for at least three hundred days.

It seems pretty coincidental that this event happened at this location at about the same time as the Noah story. And if these were two separate events, it seems odd that the catastrophic event caused by the receding ice age warranted no mention.

Coincidences do happen and are often very conducive to false interpretations.

In their book, they don't say that the flood which was caused by the influx of ocean water into that area was a worldwide event. So perhaps you misunderstood. What they say is that it was a local event which gave rise to the worldwide flood which they consider a myth.
Or considered a myth even before they found evidence of this supposed local flood. Again, I am not denying that this flood occurred. Neither am I denying an ice age as you seem to have concluded. IU am simply saying that the flood they describe doesn't fit the description of the flood described in Genesis, and since I consider Genesis an accurate historical account, I prefer to reject this interpretation which essentially is saying that all the Bible prophets, Jesus and his apostles, including Peter who was the first Catholic Pope according to them were liars.

It would have to be much longer. I did a little research, and it looks like homosapiens have been around for 150,000 - 200,000 years, rather than the 40,000 I originally thought. So after god created man, he rested one of his 'days', which lasted at least until the first century (I assume you meant A.D.). Until I have better information it's looking like god's day is at least 150,000 - 200,000 years long. And I say at least because for the last 2,000 years he still seems to be resting.

The theme of the Bible isn't the age of the earth. The theme of the Bible is mankind's fall into sin and death and God's plan to restore mankind to its former condition via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

Of course such subjects can be addressed and there are plenty of creationist sites which provide satisfactory explanations for the seeming discrepancies between what science asserts and what the Bible indicates in relation to the length of time which humans have been on this earth. Here is an interesting article.

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html

'Some' people suggest all kinds of things. 'Some' other people also suggest there is no god. If time flows faster and faster as we age, and god's age is infinite, then time would flow infinitely fast for him. No, I think god is able to tell time.

I agree about mere unfounded suggestions. Good points about time!


.

Well who's screw up shortened life spans from 930 years to 20-30 years? That's how long humans used to live. And which awesome person was so great that god extended our lifespans to the 80 or so years it is now?

I consider the reduction from eternity to a mere nine-hundred some years much more impressive than the reduction from that to 80 or so. Man had been given a flawless body. But as he distanced himself from his original perfection a further reduction of life-span could be expected. Actually, No one after Adam lived a full 1000 years. Each died within that 1000 year day period as Adam had been warned. However, there is a very curious thing, if you read the Genesis account you will readily notice the difference between the pre-flood and post-flood life-spans. Pre-flood life-spans regularly hit the nine hundred mark. But immediately after the flood Noah's dipped to 600. From that point onward each generation's life-span potential dipped further until we hit the level you mention.

The Scientific Evidence for Biblical Longevity By: Arnold Mendez Fact ...
File typeDF - Download PDF Reader
www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark Articles/NAS The Scienti...0Biblical Longevity.pdf

Because of this some have speculated that a cause effect relationship between post-flood conditions and the reduction of life-span is involved since there seems to be a positive correlation. In any case, by the time of Abraham the age you mention was already considered old.

LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?

The beginning of the first day commences with that statement.

From your quote:
If water is said to cover the sea, then it is implied that the sea is something else other than water.

The reference to the water covering the seas a comparison of the extent that the earth will be filled with God's knowledge. It has nothing to do with chemistry.

 

[Radrook]

This might come as a surprise, but I don't think you're dense Insecure in your woo, yes But not dense Oh, and please don't 'bless' me again - I find that genuinely offensive.

I wasn't blessing you.

 

[Radrook]

Ok...are you going to give examples, or just tell me they exist? This is a very unhelpful and evasive response.

Obviously people aren't living forever as they would had and the world is definitely a mess as it wouldn't be if the rebellion had not taken place. Since that's so obvious I felt it needed no further explanation.

I could have sworn that somewhere in the bible it talks about how God's word is meant for everyone.

How much of the Bible have you read?

Oh, you mean words like "day"?

The Bible's theme isn't about chemistry, geology, astronomy, or any other science. It is about mankind's fall into sin and death and God's a provision of a ransom sacrifice through Jesus in order to bring about a restoration. As for the day difficulties you claim you are experiencing there is nothing further I can say to help you in that area. That being so then it's really pointless to continue along that line.

Exactly. Which is why one of the reasons you accept it is due to an accident of birth. If you were born in a different time, or a different place, to different people, you'd think differently. Therefore, the bible isn't absolute and utter Truth with a capital T. It has meaning only to those born into a particular culture at a particular time.

So you are arguing against what? Not against anything I said since I did say that culture does have an influence. It can't be that you are saying that culture makes acceptance of Christianity inevitable since that would be silly since atheists and agnostics abound in cultures where Christianity is taught. It can't be that you are saying that choices made under cultural influences prove the Bible isn't inspired since that is irrelevant. It can't be that you are saying that that if the Bible were true it would be accepted by everyone in every culture.
So indeed, since it can't one any of these ridiculous ideas. What is it that you are saying which warrants further discussion?


snip = irrelevant

Wait...so we're in trouble because we invented things....using the creativity, forethought, and intellect that God gave us? Talk about setting us up for failure. "Here, kid, here's some paper, and paint, and a paintbrush. Go have fun. I'll come back in a bit to yell at you for getting some paint on the brush and paper."

False analogy.

How shall we talk to you? In the third person? It would sound a lot more insulting if we did. "Radrook is pontificating again....what did Radrook say this time?....Let's put him on ignore...." etc.

I'm not really sure where this little rant came from or what it was in reference to.

The rant came from snide remarks being made to other about me. That strikes you as inexplicable? That's like stepping on someone's toe ands showing consternation because he says Ouch!

I'm not intending to insult anyone, honestly. I'm just trying to gain some insight as to why people believe what they do, including why you believe what you do. I find it ironic that in doing so, I'm accused of being close-minded, unaccepting, and plain old not wanting to listen and learn.

Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.

So my apologies if I did not end this discussion sooner and let it drag on to its inevitable and predicatable conclusion.

Thanx to all those who communicated in a decent manner.

Bye!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

How much of the Bible have you read?

I'd say about 2/3. My eyes tend to glaze over at a whole list of "begats" and dietary laws, but other thatn that I've read quite a bit. Actually, it's been awhile. I should go back and read it again.

So you are arguing against what? Not against anything I said since I did say that culture does have an influence. It can't be that you are saying that culture makes acceptance of Christianity inevitable since that would be silly since atheists and agnostics abound in cultures where Christianity is taught. It can't be that you are saying that choices made under cultural influences prove the Bible isn't inspired since that is irrelevant. It can't be that you are saying that that if the Bible were true it would be accepted by everyone in every culture.
So indeed, since it can't one any of these ridiculous ideas. What is it that you are saying which warrants further discussion?

What I was trying to say, and doing a rather poor job of it, I agree, is as follows: If culture has such a huge impact on what a person is predisposed to belief, how can you claim such beliefs as "Ultimate Truth"? Just because a person was raised in an environment where such beliefs are predominant does not make such beliefs true. That's all I'm saying.

Which means, if you accept the fact that local culture has a large impact on your belief system, then logically you must accept the possibility that your belief system doesn't have it right.

The rant came from snide remarks being made to other about me. That strikes you as inexplicable? That's like stepping on someone's toe ands showing consternation because he says Ouch!

Then please use the quote feature, because otherwise we don't really know what you're referring to. I'm still not sure I do.

Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.

I'm not against religion so much as I'm for rational thought. I'm often surprised at otherwise intelligent people who disregard otherwise acceptable facts simply because such facts run counter to what an ancient, much mistranslated book says.

 

[articulett]

Well, considering that you are asking questions merely to immediately shoot down the answers what other conclusion do you expect? Acctually, 99.99 percent of the persons frequenting this forum are against religion. So as I previously said, I merely posted to clarify the Christian position-nothing more. I also clearly explained that I am, not willing to engage in fruitless debates. Especially in a forum where such debates particularly useless.

What irony-- the only questions he asked were not ones he was interested in having answered... just ones designed to infer his "truth"... and he ignored all the intelligent well written responses tailored directly to him and insulted those who answered his question.

Skeptics are not against religion as much as you would want to believe that. We just feel the same way about your religion that you feel about Muslims or Moonies or Scientologists or Astrologists.

We do not think faith is a way to reach the truth.... lots of people do... and they are all convinced of very different nebulous truths... some will even do things they would not normally do to prove their faith to their invisible deity. We think evidence is a much better way of finding objective truths... truths that are the same for everybody. And most of us would rather not know something than believe a lie. Most of us aim to understand the foibles that make human thinking go awry. To us, all the woo profferers sound the same--so do the conspiracy theorists. We look for a reason why we should take one more seriously than the other, but they all spin a delusion that is impenetrable to fact and feel superior or chosen for being able to have that "truth". You are no different.

 

[Radrook]

I'd say about 2/3. My eyes tend to glaze over at a whole list of "begats" and dietary laws, but other than that I've read quite a bit. Actually, it's been awhile. I should go back and read it again.

So would mine. Actually, there is very little need for us to delve into the fine points of such dietary laws since they were written for a nation that had entered into a Covenant relationship with him-Israel. Furthermore, Christians are not under the Mosaic Covenant. We are under a New Covenant. So spare your eyes the read.

Geneologies? They were provided as a means to accurately trace the promised seed mentioned in Genesis 3 in order to identify it when it did appear. They weren't provided for casual reading. So you can spare your eyes the irritation there as well.

Actually, your question about whether the Bible message was written for everyone is a very good one. The answer of course is yes. It was written to give hope of a restoration to Adam's descendants. 1 John 2:2

However, among Adam's offspring there would be certain persons who would not be disposed toward God in a favorabe way. Acts 28:27

These would strive to gain knowledge of scripture with the purpose of misrepresenting it. Since God promised to help us understand biblical things via his active force or holy spirit, and such holy spirit is given only to those who sincerely seek God, then those individualswould be opoerating under a severe handicap.

Here is an article that might shed more light on the subject:

Jesus Parables
http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/speakinparables.htm

What I was trying to say, and doing a rather poor job of it, I agree, is as follows: If culture has such a huge impact on what a person is predisposed to belief, how can you claim such beliefs as "Ultimate Truth"? Just because a person was raised in an environment where such beliefs are predominant does not make such beliefs true.

I agree 100%. However, please take note that I never used that premise.

That's all I'm saying. Which means, if you accept the fact that local culture has a large impact on your belief system, then logically you must accept the possibility that your belief system doesn't have it right.

I hope you realize that your premise if it were true would be universally applicable to all things learned regardless of source. Which would include scientific theories as well. Actually, the premise is flawed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you reach.

A belief system impacts a belief system it cannot be 100% right.
That belief system was impacted by culture.
That belief system can never be said to be 100% right.

Now, let's apply that rule and see what happens.

The concept of gravity was impacted by culture.
Therefore the concept of gravity can never be said to be 100% right?

Since all concepts have been influenced by culture, then, all concepts are questionable.
Yet, I don't see anyone questioning other such concepts based on cultural influences.

There is also an assumed conclusion that person's who attain a certain belief which predominates in a culture are unable to be objective. Yet, there are Christians in China,
who have become Christians because they have weighed the matter objectively. In fact, there are Christians in all those nations in which Christianity doesn't predominate who have become Christians long after having reached adulthood. So accusing a person of being Christian simply because of culture is an accusation of mindlessness which doesn't necessarily apply. Even many who have grown up in Christian households have eventually decided to go their own way for various personal reasons. Some into Islam, others into Agnosticism, into Atheism, etcetera. So that inevitability based on your idea of cultural destiny just isn't as efficient as you make it out to be.

Then please use the quote feature, because otherwise we don't really know
what you're referring to. I'm still not sure I do.

Best to simply forget about the whole thing. Thanx for your calm decent reply.

I'm not against religion so much as I'm for rational thought. I'm often surprised at otherwise intelligent people who disregard otherwise acceptable facts simply because such facts run counter to what an ancient, much mistranslated book says.

I agree that one should not sacrifice rationality at the alter of religion. About the book being mistranslated, that hasn't managed to dilute its original purpose or message which comes across loud and clear-the restoration of mankind to its former perfection via the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. Neither does its antiquity make it somehow flawed. Antiquity simply means that its message of hope for redemption was immediately being transmited after mankind got itself into trouble. Titus 1:2

In short, if it had not been transmitted imediately then the objection would be that it is of very recent origin and the question as to why God kept silent for so long would become an issue-right?

clarification:

To those who might get the wrong impression, I am not trying to evangelize. I am merely responding to questions in order to promote
better understanding of the issues involved.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I agree 100%. However, please take note that I never used that premise.


I hope you realize that your premise if it were true would be universally applicable to all things learned regardless of source. Which would include scientific theories as well. Actually, the premise is flawed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you reach.

First, I'm a bit confused, because you agree 100%, then you say if the premise were true, then you flat out say it is flawed.

A belief system impacts a belief system it cannot be 100% right.
That belief system was impacted by culture.
That belief system can never be said to be 100% right.

Now, let's apply that rule and see what happens.

The concept of gravity was impacted by culture.
Therefore the concept of gravity can never be said to be 100% right?

Correct. Science never says "This is the way the world works, and we are 100% sure of it." Science says, "Every single time we've dropped the ball, it has fallen to the ground. Experience tells us it is highly, highly likely that the next time it is dropped, it will again fall to the ground. There is every reason to expect this, at an astonishingly high probability that almost, but not quite, equals 100%." That's what science says.

 

[articulett]

What former perfection of mankind? And how does ransoming Jesus do that again? Whose plan was this and why exactly did he need to do what he did?

I know it makes sense to you, but it really doesn't make any more sense than Scientology or Greek Mythology to me. And why didn't this god mention DNA (getting back to the OP?)

 

[Radrook]

First, I'm a bit confused, because you agree 100%, then you say if the premise were true, then you flat out say it is flawed.

I agree 100% that culture can have a huge influence on hoe a person views the world. What I disagree on is the conclusion that culture always determines what a person believes and that a person's belief is somehow of less worth or has to be taken less seriously simply because it predominates in that person's culture. That I might have believed differently if I had been born in India doesn't in any way prove anything about a belief's inherent truth
or lack of it.

Is my belief in democracy as the best type of government somehow devalued because I just happen to have been born in the USA? Of course not. I could have been born in Communist China. Or in Hitler's Germany. Quite possibly I might have supported those types of governments. But that in no way devalues my present belief that democracy is the best type of government as opposed to a dictatorship, or communism.


Or let's apply it to scientific beliefs. If I had been born during another historical period I might have considered the earth to be flat. Or that the sun was burning like a piece of coal-a fairly recent belief. Or that the stars were really campfires of distant tribes [a former Australian aboriginal belief] or any of the other unscientific concepts of such cultures and times. It can be said then, that the only reason I believe as I do is because I just happened to be born during this time in human history-which is of course totally irrelevant to the belief's validity itself.


The same applies to a person's present religious beliefs. They have to be evaluated based on factors that are relevant. The possibilities of what could have believed otherwise had I been the product of another culture is irrelevant.

Correct. Science never says "This is the way the world works, and we are 100% sure of it." Science says, "Every single time we've dropped the ball, it has fallen to the ground. Experience tells us it is highly, highly likely that the next time it is dropped, it will again fall to the ground. There is every reason to expect this, at an astonishingly high probability that almost, but not quite, equals 100%." That's what science says.

True, probabilities is all we can expect from induction.

 

[DrBaltar]

I am simply saying that the flood they describe doesn't fit the description of the flood described in Genesis, and since I consider Genesis an accurate historical account, I prefer to reject this interpretation which essentially is saying that all the Bible prophets, Jesus and his apostles, including Peter who was the first Catholic Pope according to them were liars.

I don't think anyone is calling these people a liar. It's just that they haven't witnessed the event, and I doubt they have done any real investigation into the flood.

The theme of the Bible isn't the age of the earth. The theme of the Bible is mankind's fall into sin and death and God's plan to restore mankind to its former condition via the Ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

Of course such subjects can be addressed and there are plenty of creationist sites which provide satisfactory explanations for the seeming discrepancies between what science asserts and what the Bible indicates in relation to the length of time which humans have been on this earth. Here is an interesting article.

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html

These sites assume improper investigation techniques and then criticize them based on methods that are not used. I understand the point of the bible isn't about the age or formation of the earth. But it is an area of the bible that is testable and it demonstrates fallacies and inconsistencies in the bible. Once we know the bible is far from perfect then the rest of it is taken with a grain of salt. (Especially the part about Lot's wife LOL).

I consider the reduction from eternity to a mere nine-hundred some years much more impressive than the reduction from that to 80 or so. Man had been given a flawless body. But as he distanced himself from his original perfection a further reduction of life-span could be expected. Actually, No one after Adam lived a full 1000 years. Each died within that 1000 year day period as Adam had been warned. However, there is a very curious thing, if you read the Genesis account you will readily notice the difference between the pre-flood and post-flood life-spans. Pre-flood life-spans regularly hit the nine hundred mark. But immediately after the flood Noah's dipped to 600. From that point onward each generation's life-span potential dipped further until we hit the level you mention.

The Scientific Evidence for Biblical Longevity By: Arnold Mendez Fact ...
File typeDF - Download PDF Reader
http://www.amendez.com/Noahs Ark%2...0Longevity.pdf

The link you referenced didn't work. But fossil evidence does not support this.Humans before the time of the flood had lifespans of about 20-30 years.

Because of this some have speculated that a cause effect relationship between post-flood conditions and the reduction of life-span is involved since there seems to be a positive correlation. In any case, by the time of Abraham the age you mention was already considered old.

LOL even when acknowledging your evasion you continue to evade. What event does 'let there be light' refer to?

The beginning of the first day commences with that statement.

Let's try again. What event does 'let there be light' refer to. i.e. what event are we familiar does this line refer to? Does it refer to the creation of the sun? Something else?

 

[Radrook]

I don't think anyone is calling these people a liar. It's just that they haven't witnessed the event, and I doubt they have done any real investigation into the flood. These sites assume improper investigation techniques and then criticize them based on methods that are not used. I understand the point of the bible isn't about the age or formation of the earth. But it is an area of the bible that is testable and it demonstrates fallacies and inconsistencies in the bible. Once we know the bible is far from perfect then the rest of it is taken with a grain of salt. (Especially the part about Lot's wife LOL). The link you referenced didn't work. But fossil evidence does not support this.Humans before the time of the flood had lifespans of about 20-30 years. Let's try again. What event does 'let there be light' refer to. i.e. what event are we familiar does this line refer to? Does it refer to the creation of the sun? Something else?

I guess we simplly differ in our opinions and there is really nothing further to say. I have no difficulty living with that. That's why I don't engage in heated debates which invariavbly lead nowhere. I simply acknowledge your right to your views and expect the same of others. As I previously said, my original effort was to straighten out certain misconceptions. Beyond that, I guess if you do wish to debate these matters then it will have to be with someone else. But thanks for the invitation in any case. No hard feeings either. : )

BTW
Perhaps the authors pof the articles you find fault in will be willing to debate those points you mentioned. If I were the author of such an article which comes under criticism I probably would offer a counterargument or two before calling it quits and engaging in a more pleasant or more fruitful activity.

 

[articulett]

Yes, but reality and how people came to be remains the same no matter what opinions people have about it. There are tons of stories... but only one truth... and the best way to find it is through measurable evidence not purported holy books.

When a person is murdered, there can be only one truth about what actually happened but an infinite amount of theories or hypothesis or guesses or stories. Your vision of history is based on one of the latter. Following the evidence is the best and really only method we have of finding the former-- the real truth... the one that is true regardless of peoples' faith opinions and so forth. The earth was never flat... even though for many years humans naturally assumed it was... it wasn't a holy text that helped us get it right.