The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[whowhere]

Because they believed it. The stories, like the Greek and Indo-Iranian myths and legends, clearly date back to a period of oral history. But just because somebody believed these accounts at one time doesn't make them true in whole or in part. I mean, you don't seriously think Yggdrasil is real just because the ancient Germanic peoples believed it, right?

Why not beleive it? Add another god to the pile. Attention is garnered to the famed and fortune. Everyone knows who Bill Gates and warren buffet are because of what they have done. So goes it, of the bible. Everyone knows the persona of that God, and it is well documented. As for the other Gods and their stories they are resurfacing and people are learning more and more about that. If anything monotheism is dead and the world will move towards paganism and people will beleive whatever. Whether it helps them trascend life and death will always be a wonder.

As the world waits for first contact with Aliens so is modern man waiting for first contact of a "God". In the mean time while humans are waiting and other humans and societies decide to pursue the road of tyranny, corruption, vanity, abuse, pride, whatever, the Bible will be dusted off used a tool rain down the contempt on those who exalt themselves.

[whowhere]

Which is not evolution. 25,000 we were morphologically and behaviorally modern.

This is pure epistemological nihilism. To invoke it is to deny that any knowledge can be reliably gained. Were you there to watch your great-great-great-great-grandfather born? HOw do you know you have a great-great-grat-great-grandfather? Were you there to watch Latin evolve from proto-Italic or the Germanic languages split from Indo-European?

If this is your only critique of the age of the Earth, then surely you see it destroys whatever claims you like to make.

What claim am I making other then laying down the human problem of man trascending death. As for evolution do you think humans look like the cavemen? Not at all because the generations are adapting and adjusting to the ever changing human environment. That is evolution.

[ToadBrother]

What claim am I making other then laying down the human problem of man trascending death.

Death is simply a chemical process. There's no "transcending" it. Maybe some day we'll be able to avoid it, though entropy alone dictates that you can't have your cake and eat it too, sooner or later all systems wind down.

As for evolution do you think humans look like the cavemen? Not at all because the generations are adapting and adjusting to the ever changing human environment. That is evolution.

That is cultural evolution. That is not biological evolution. Biologically, there is precious little difference between Cro Magnons and you or I. The culture has evolved over the ensuing millennia, but the animal has not evolved nearly so quickly.

[ToadBrother]

Why not beleive it? Add another god to the pile. Attention is garnered to the famed and fortune. Everyone knows who Bill Gates and warren buffet are because of what they have done. So goes it, of the bible. Everyone knows the persona of that God, and it is well documented. As for the other Gods and their stories they are resurfacing and people are learning more and more about that. If anything monotheism is dead and the world will move towards paganism and people will beleive whatever. Whether it helps them trascend life and death will always be a wonder.

Fine. I add Blahg-blahg, the God of Flatulence and Conservative Party members. I mean, that's just about the kind of sense it makes to just declare everything real.

As the world waits for first contact with Aliens so is modern man waiting for first contact of a "God". In the mean time while humans are waiting and other humans and societies decide to pursue the road of tyranny, corruption, vanity, abuse, pride, whatever, the Bible will be dusted off used a tool rain down the contempt on those who exalt themselves.

I applaud you for your grammar, it's a pity that what you use it for is such a pile of poorly constructed gibberish.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not about advancing? 25000 years ago humans lived out of caves, now we are propelled into space via technological discovery. How do you know how old the earth really is? Were around back then? Did you keep a record or is it some fancy estimation done by science. As for the rest of what I said, Samuel Jackson said in pulp fiction,

25000 humans were exactly the same as they are now no evolution involved. And we know how old the earth is because of radiometric dating.

What claim am I making other then laying down the human problem of man trascending death. As for evolution do you think humans look like the cavemen? Not at all because the generations are adapting and adjusting to the ever changing human environment. That is evolution.

We look exactly like cavemen only difference is no caves.

[jbg]

Because they believed it. The stories, like the Greek and Indo-Iranian myths and legends, clearly date back to a period of oral history. But just because somebody believed these accounts at one time doesn't make them true in whole or in part. I mean, you don't seriously think Yggdrasil is real just because the ancient Germanic peoples believed it, right?

Honestly, I believe that the oral histories are largely, and partially true. I do not take them literally. Here are my relatively moderate views on religion (link).

Edited January 12, 2010 by jbg

[Shwa]

Honestly, I believe that the oral histories are largely, and partially true. I do not take them literally. Here are my relatively moderate views on religion (link).

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

In some cases you could probably take some oral texts literally, but there always needs to be a good measure of cultural context taken into consideration when trying to interpret the text.

The problem with examination of the Bible or any other current holy book is trying to determine a standard of measure that can provide a reasonable and accurate interpretation. There are almost insurmountable biases on the value of such texts including a bias that states that a defintive interpretation can never be determined.

[ToadBrother]

Honestly, I believe that the oral histories are largely, and partially true. I do not take them literally. Here are my relatively moderate views on religion (link).

The problem with the Bible is that we have little knowledge of what the oral sources may have said. The Bible underwent some fairly major changes between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE, which has heavily muddied the waters. The evidence of both monotheistic (Jahwist) and henotheistic/polytheistic elements (Elohist) can be seen in the two Creation myths encountered in the first few chapters of Genesis. Unless some earlier texts come to light (highly unlikely) the oral sources will never be known.

[chuck schmidt]

Why must science and religion be mutually exclusive? Maybe God is just showing us how He did it? Or She, if that is what you prefer.

[whowhere]

Why must science and religion be mutually exclusive? Maybe God is just showing us how He did it? Or She, if that is what you prefer.

As they say about time, it's nothing more than the space to get things done. Science is about explaining or developing an understanding of the world. It is in the bible to pursue knowledge. In that knowledge you would realize men are speaking as if they represent this God when they really are about using this God to promote themselves or their agenda. Science is about proof. The Bible/story outlines what this God has done, but science has yet to affirm any validity to those stories and assertions. If anything the bible conveys an understanding and could be allegoric. However, once you know what's in the book, you begin to question where people are coming from.

The modern Jews only focus is on the torah, the five books of moses, yet the Jews on Two Occasions introduced all of the old testament to the world. The first Introduction was the Septagint (old testament) transcribed to the Greeks in 300 BC by the tribes of Isreal. The Second occurance happened in the sixteenth century when the masoretic jews using the alepo codex transcribing the old testament with English Scholars to create the King James old testament. Why do modern jews ignore the rest of the book?

The State of Isreal is based on the alepo codex. The Book is quite large and complicated to absorb, however after all is said and done its about Brainwashing you. Perhaps this God does exist? If he does he is no longer interested in the jews or man. For that reason, man is left to pursue what he believes is right. The world and history as we know it, covers the last 3000 years. If you look at the bible, that is about the time this God left to never be seen or heard from again. 700 Years later the jewish tribes were bored and introduced the Old testament to the greeks. 300 years later, Jesus and his deciples used this God's absence as opportunity to twist the minds of man. 2000 years later the world is breaking free of the christianity twist and waking up to the fact men are using the bible as a tool for their own ends.

Christian missionaries have done everything they could to repress and burn alternate knowledge in the world. Today science is there to cast water on the exuberant. It is fair to wait for the proof of science or a real world event to adjust ones belief or acceptance. However, the OT does provide some inspiring tales to fight back against tyranny of man. That could be the reason why this book is a main stay in this world.

[chuck schmidt]

.... men are speaking as if they represent this God when they really are about using this God to promote themselves or their agenda. ...

Depends on how you define your terms, I guess. Is answering this post to give my opinion an example of promoting my agenda? If so, maybe you're right. But not by my terms of reference. I wouldn't personally define it that way.

The Bible/story outlines what this God has done, but science has yet to affirm any validity to those stories and assertions.

I understand you to be incorrect, but examples and sources do not jump immediately to mind or are not at hand. It might even be that you have the cart before the horse? Maybe what you should do is wait for God to validate science, not visa versa? That is certainly the order it should occur in if science is God's way of showing us how He did it.

.... in the sixteenth century ... the masoretic jews using the alepo codex transcrib[ed] the old testament with English Scholars to create the King James old testament. Why do modern jews ignore the rest of the book?

You are assuming that there is only one truth and all accept it. My understanding is that the whole of God is intended to remain a mystery to mankind, so nobody gets to see or learn it all.

The State of Isreal is based on the alepo codex. The Book is quite large and complicated to absorb, however after all is said and done its about Brainwashing you. Perhaps this God does exist? If he does he is no longer interested in the jews or man. For that reason, man is left to pursue what he believes is right. The world and history as we know it, covers the last 3000 years. If you look at the bible, that is about the time this God left to never be seen or heard from again. 700 Years later the jewish tribes were bored and introduced the Old testament to the greeks. 300 years later, Jesus and his deciples used this God's absence as opportunity to twist the minds of man. 2000 years later the world is breaking free of the christianity twist and waking up to the fact men are using the bible as a tool for their own ends.

In my opinion you are giving the aspirations and plans of men too much credit. I think there is a wholly spiritual side of the world that works to its own agendas. Whether we effect it, it effects us or we both effect each other I do not know, but I believe there is interaction. Perhaps in a way we cannot comprehend but God does, unless you think He is limited in His abilities to only doing things that we can comprehend?

Christian missionaries have done everything they could to repress and burn alternate knowledge in the world. Today science is there to cast water on the exuberant.

Some have, some haven't. Some had God-like agendas', some don't/didn't. I don't think one should limit God to the agendas of people.

It is fair to wait for the proof of science or a real world event to adjust ones belief or acceptance.

It is fair in a semantic sense in that there is nothing wrong with holding that as a belief. It is equally fair to believe that science is God's tool and the real test is that in Hebrews 11:1. You should come to God with faith. If you need evidence to substantiate faith, you lack faith.

Hebrews 11

By Faith We Understand

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (NIV)

[jbg]

The Bible underwent some fairly major changes between the 10th and 5th centuries BCE, which has heavily muddied the waters.

One of my Rabbis is of the view that most of the Bible was in fact written from the Babylonian exile, long after the supposed Exodus from Egypt. I happen to agree with him, though I think much of the source for the text was oral history.

TB, I know you're surprised by my admitting this.

[chuck schmidt]

Depends on how you define your terms, I guess. Is answering this post to give my opinion an example of promoting my agenda? If so, maybe you're right. But not by my terms of reference. I wouldn't personally define it that way.

I understand you to be incorrect, but examples and sources do not jump immediately to mind or are not at hand. It might even be that you have the cart before the horse? Maybe what you should do is wait for God to validate science, not visa versa? That is certainly the order it should occur in if science is God's way of showing us how He did it.

You are assuming that there is only one truth and all accept it. My understanding is that the whole of God is intended to remain a mystery to mankind, so nobody gets to see or learn it all.

In my opinion you are giving the aspirations and plans of men too much credit. I think there is a wholly spiritual side of the world that works to its own agendas. Whether we effect it, it effects us or we both effect each other I do not know, but I believe there is interaction. Perhaps in a way we cannot comprehend but God does, unless you think He is limited in His abilities to only doing things that we can comprehend?

Some have, some haven't. Some had God-like agendas', some don't/didn't. I don't think one should limit God to the agendas of people.

It is fair in a semantic sense in that there is nothing wrong with holding that as a belief. It is equally fair to believe that science is God's tool and the real test is that in Hebrews 11:1. You should come to God with faith. If you need evidence to substantiate faith, you lack faith.

Hebrews 11

By Faith We Understand

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (NIV)

Oops, that quote of Hebrews 11:1 is from the KJV.

[whowhere]

Oops, that quote of Hebrews 11:1 is from the KJV.

Why would anyone trust the revisionists NIV. Stick to the KJV and not only that when the septuagint (from real jews) and the KJV from the masoretic jews it was origined from source of these stories. As for the NIV its the modern world revisionist agenda. It goes to affirm my point that religion is a tool used by men to further an agenda.

[chuck schmidt]

Why would anyone trust the revisionists NIV. Stick to the KJV and not only that when the septuagint (from real jews) and the KJV from the masoretic jews it was origined from source of these stories. As for the NIV its the modern world revisionist agenda. It goes to affirm my point that religion is a tool used by men to further an agenda.

I use the KJV sparingly. I use it to quote He 11:1 because it is so poetic. I love the way that verse sings in my ears. But that's not all.

Because the KJV was created on the order of the reigning British monarch to assist in his war to wrest power from the pope, it is partially a political manifesto. What do you think would have happened (or maybe even did happen) if the king's translators came up with a version of the scriptures that offended their king and risked his power? Would the king have said, 'Oh heck, let the pope have it?' Or would he have required that the scripture be reinterpreted?

Why do you think the NIV is "revisionist"? "Revisionist" suggests that it was intended to change something, and in the context suggests that it was intended to change the KJV. I don't think it was. My NIV has a preface of four pages of tiny print discussing the process used in creating it. The preface describes going back to the basics and having teams of scholars examining ancient documents to compare and determine meanings. The NIV is not anti-KJV.

By my observation many people know very little about religious history, so they assume that the KJV is the ancient standard against which all others should he measured. It is not. It is important because it is the first example of the distributing of the Bible amongst all people, and taking it away from the exclusive property of the Churches who held secular power. That importance makes it historical, but not necessarily infallible or even always accurate.

As to your point that "religion is a tool used by men to further an agenda," of course it is. Any source of power will be used by people that way. But that is not all religion is, and all religion isn't reflective of God and spirituality.

Edited January 17, 2010 by chuck schmidt

[whowhere]

I use the KJV sparingly. I use it to quote He 11:1 because it is so poetic. I love the way that verse sings in my ears. But that's not all.

Because the KJV was created on the order of the reigning British monarch to assist in his war to wrest power from the pope, it is partially a political manifesto. What do you think would have happened (or maybe even did happen) if the king's translators came up with a version of the scriptures that offended their king and risked his power? Would the king have said, 'Oh heck, let the pope have it?' Or would he have required that the scripture be reinterpreted?

Why do you think the NIV is "revisionist"? "Revisionist" suggests that it was intended to change something, and in the context suggests that it was intended to change the KJV. I don't think it was. My NIV has a preface of four pages of tiny print discussing the process used in creating it. The preface describes going back to the basics and having teams of scholars examining ancient documents to compare and determine meanings. The NIV is not anti-KJV.

By my observation many people know very little about religious history, so they assume that the KJV is the ancient standard against which all others should he measured. It is not. It is important because it is the first example of the distributing of the Bible amongst all people, and taking it away from the exclusive property of the Churches who held secular power. That importance makes it historical, but not necessarily infallible or even always accurate.

As to your point that "religion is a tool used by men to further an agenda," of course it is. Any source of power will be used by people that way. But that is not all religion is, and all religion isn't reflective of God and spirituality.

The KJV was commissioned by King James to be transcibed by 50 English Scholars working with the Masoretic Jews and the allepo codex. That's a powerful cocktail that institutes confidence to its accuracy, intention, and validity. This all happened before modern media and the internet. Anything the modern world does is not to be trusted.

In anycase, this God is portrayed and described in length. There is no evidence of this God being interested in the modern world as we know it. Because of that bored people are using religion as a tool to their ends.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Anything the modern world does is not to be trusted.

Than get of your computer and stay off it. Get rid of everthing you own and live in the woods.

[chuck schmidt]

The KJV was commissioned by King James to be transcibed by 50 English Scholars working with the Masoretic Jews and the allepo codex. That's a powerful cocktail that institutes confidence to its accuracy, intention, and validity. This all happened before modern media and the internet. Anything the modern world does is not to be trusted.

My understanding is that it was not King James who started the process. He just came into the story in time to get the credit. That's what a pastor of mine taught, anyway. As for the sources, the Dead Sea scrolls were not discovered by the middle ages and they have been declared authentic. Knowledge from them is included in the NIV. I just can't agree with your point that the KJV is superior, if that is what you are arguing. Especially your unsupported view that the "modern" world is somehow more trustworthy than the middle ages.

In anycase, this God is portrayed and described in length. There is no evidence of this God being interested in the modern world as we know it. Because of that bored people are using religion as a tool to their ends.

You sound really angry towards religion. Let 'er rip. Its ok with God.

As for the modern world stuff, the world of the medieval kings was as modern to them as our world is to us today. Nowhere have I read anything suggesting that God was there but not here. Glad to see you acknowledge God's existence.

There is a final point, perhaps more important than any other. God tells us not to get bogged down arguing doctrine. Doing so separates people instead of bringing them together. I suspect that anybody who thoroughly gets to know and understand any version is blessed. Besides, some people are comfortable in some versions and not others. Who are we to rain on their parade?

Edited January 18, 2010 by chuck schmidt

[whowhere]

Than get of your computer and stay off it. Get rid of everthing you own and live in the woods.

With inflation being the way it is, the money I have and the money I will have won't be worth much. When I retire I will probably have to live in the woods. You can be sure with Solar Power technology and wifi, I will still be connected via the internet.

[chuck schmidt]

With inflation being the way it is, the money I have and the money I will have won't be worth much. When I retire I will probably have to live in the woods. You can be sure with Solar Power technology and wifi, I will still be connected via the internet.

Will you be able to afford it?

[whowhere]

Will you be able to afford it?

Of course, even if you never worked a day in your life, you get old age security. That's good for six thousand at this point. If you lived in the woods in a tent, that's 600 dollars a month to subscribe to Satellite/Wifi Internet and 500 hundred for supplies. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....Problem.

[chuck schmidt]

[Y]ou get old age security.... good for six thousand at this point.... 600 dollars a month to subscribe to Satellite/Wifi Internet and 500 hundred for supplies. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....Problem.

Might be a problem for you. Most people who farm or live in the bush see the wonders of the world around them and become quite attached to the notion of God. How're you gonna handle it when you start believing?

[ToadBrother]

Might be a problem for you. Most people who farm or live in the bush see the wonders of the world around them and become quite attached to the notion of God. How're you gonna handle it when you start believing?

A couple of points:

1. Reality is not a democracy. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

2. One can appreciate wondrous things without slipping into "Goddidit". I know I can. Maybe it's you who has the limited imagination. Your argument that aesthetics somehow represent an logical argument is fairly questionable to my mind, because it invokes the inverse, do ugly things suggest no God?

Edited January 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[chuck schmidt]

A couple of points:

1. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

Agreed.

2. One can appreciate wondrous things without slipping into "Goddidit".

You can.

Your argument that aesthetics somehow represent an logical argument is fairly questionable to my mind,

Mine too. You just don't gettit.

do ugly things suggest no God?

Does God recognize "ugly"?

[ToadBrother]

Does God recognize "ugly"?

So you basically admit arguments from aesthetics are pretty worthless? I can't draw any other conclusion from this.