Jump to content

Why Trust the Bible?


betsy

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, TTM said:

Fair enough. Why did God create a "fake" fossil record that when looked at objectively would inevitably lead to the conclusion that we were created by evolution rather than creation? And a "fake" geology that would lead us to believe the world was billions of years old rather than thousands. And a "fake" cosmology that would lead us to believe the universe is billions of years older than the earth, and that the earth are an infinitessimally tiny random mote floating within it, rather than the center of creation?

Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age.  Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils.  I guess it could have been created with no fossils.  But what would that prove? You would have to ask God why he created it the way he did.  Maybe to test people.  Why didn't he create earth with a giant sign that says "I God created it"?  I don't know the reason it was created the way it was.  But Genesis says it was created in six days.  It had to have been created with an age.  All living creatures had to have been created with an age.  Man and woman were created with an age.  Again we come back to the fact it was a supernatural event which cannot be dissected in scientific terms.  Science oriented creationists do have articles which give their point of view on such things as how the fossils may have formed and refuting the old earth claims.  The links I gave have lots of articles on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier. 

Nonsense. I would love to participate in science-based discussion threads here, if there were any. But, there's not...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier. 

And he's not the only one!

 

1  The New York Timesus

2  The Guardiangb

3  The Daily Mailgb

4  China Dailycn

5  The Washington Postus

6  The Daily Telegraphgb

7  The Wall Street Journalus

8  USA Todayus

9  The Times of Indiain

10  The Independentgb

11  Los Angeles Timesus

12  El Países

13  Financial Timesgb

14  The People's Dailycn

15  United Daily Newstw

16  The Economic Dailycn

17  Le Mondefr

18  Daily Mirrorgb

19  El Mundoes

20  Daily Newsus

21  La Repubblicait

22  Bildde

23  Le Figarofr

24  The Sydney Morning Heraldau

25  Houston Chronicleus

26  Hürriyettr

27  Chicago Tribuneus

28  The Examinerus

29  New York Postus

30  Asahi Shimbunjp

31  Corriere della Serait

32  The Economic Timesin

33  Milliyet Gazetesitr

34  Marcaes

35  Liberty Timestw

36  Die Weltde

37  The Globe and Mailca

38  Nihon Keizai Shimbunjp

39  The Hollywood Reporterus

40  Sabahtr

41  The Christian Science Monitorus

42  Daily Expressgb

43  Kompasid

44  The Indian Expressin

45  Yomiuri Shimbunjp

46  Gazeta Wyborczapl

47  The Hinduin

48  The Toronto Starca

49  The Sungb

50  The Ageau

51  The Boston Globeus

52  Philippine Daily Inquirerph

53  Süddeutsche Zeitungde

54  The Washington Timesus

55  Clarínar

56  Chosun Ilbokr

57  Die Zeitde

58  The Onionus

59  Metrogb

60  ABCes

61  The Seattle Timesus

62  The Timesgb

63  La Gazzetta dello Sportit

64  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitungde

65  The Hillus

66  Dainik Bhaskarin

67  The Philadelphia Inquirerus

68  The Oregonianus

69  The Dong-a Ilbokr

70  La Naciónar

71  The Hindustan Timesin

72  San Jose Mercury Newsus

73  The Dallas Morning Newsus

74  ASes

75  The Australianau

76  Star Tribuneus

77  Qingdao Newscn

78  The Jerusalem Postil

79  The Plain Dealerus

80  L'Equipefr

81  Komsomolskaya Pravdaru

82  The Denver Postus

83  Mladá fronta Dnescz

84  Libérationfr

85  O Globobr

86  Aftonbladetse

87  The Japan Timesjp

88  Business Standardin

89  Le Nouvel Observateurfr

90  Kommersantru

91  Le Parisienfr

92  The New Zealand Heraldnz

93  Detroit Free Pressus

94  Newsdayus

95  The Baltimore Sunus

96  National Postca

97  Il Sole 24 Oreit

98  The Miami Heraldus

99  The Atlanta Journal-Constitutionus

100  Pittsburgh Post-Gazetteus

101  The Irish Independentie

102  South China Morning Posthk

103  The Irish Timesie

104  The Star Onlinemy

105  De Telegraafnl

106  Dawnpk

107  Der Standardat

108  The Sacramento Beeus

109  20 Minutoses

110  Mainichi Shimbunjp

111  Rossiyskaya Gazetaru

112  Apple Dailytw

113  DNA - Daily News & Analysisin

114  La Stampait

115  Milwaukee Journal Sentinelus

116  20 Minutesfr

117  La Vanguardiaes

118  Evening Standardgb

119  China Timestw

120  The Straits Timessg

121  Orlando Sentinelus

122  Der Tagesspiegelde

123  South Florida Sun-Sentinelus

124  Verdens Gangno

125  Argumenti i Faktiru

126  Boston Heraldus

127  Infobaear

128  Dagbladetno

129  Independent Onlineza

130  The New York Observerus

131  Yeni Safaktr

132  Seattle Post-Intelligencerus

133  The Kansas City Starus

134  Al-Ahrameg

135  The Scotsmangb

136  Nikkan Sportsjp

137  Deseret Newsus

138  Herald Sunau

139  The Vancouver Sunca

140  Yang Cheng Wan Baocn

141  Les Échosfr

142  Gulf Newsae

143  Yedioth Aharonotil

144  Sports Nipponjp

145  The Orange County Registerus

146  Expressense

147  St. Louis Post-Dispatchus

148  Pravda.ruru

149  Handelsblattde

150  The Daily Telegraphau

151  Vedomostiru

152  El Tiempoco

153  Al Wafdeg

154  Bangkok Postth

155  Moskovskiy Komsomoletsru

156  Radikaltr

157  Izvestiaru

158  The Nationalae

159  Yangtse Evening Postcn

160  El Economistaes

161  The Moscow Timesru

162  El Comerciope

163  The Columbus Dispatchus

164  O Estado de São Paulobr

165  20 Minutench

166  The News & Observerus

167  Neue Zürcher Zeitungch

168  Salt Lake Tribuneus

169  De Volkskrantnl

170  Belfast Telegraphgb

171  Hartford Courantus

172  Dainik Jagranin

173  Nanyang Dailycn

174  Toronto Sunca

175  Rheinische Postde

176  El Universalmx

177  Wen Wei Pohk

178  Las Vegas Review-Journalus

179  Daily Stargb

180  Dagens Nyheterse

181  The Detroit Newsus

182  Express-Newsus

183  The Indianapolis Starus

184  El Fagreg

185  The Tennesseanus

186  Sözcütr

187  Arab Newssa

188  Blickch

189  Ilta Sanomatfi

190  Expansiónes

191  Investor's Business Dailyus

192  The Montréal Gazetteca

193  Aftenpostenno

194  Zhengzhou Wan Baocn

195  Las Últimas Notíciascl

196  El Nacionalve

197  Die Tageszeitungde

198  The Buffalo Newsus

199  Chongqing Wan Baocn

200  Zamantr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

And bcsapper. You're even too afraid to quote all your myriad "sources" and discuss their ideas. 

They're not my sources.  They're my lack of sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age.

I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age.  

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils.

Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 I guess it could have been created with no fossils.  But what would that prove? You would have to ask God why he created it the way he did.  Maybe to test people.  Why didn't he create earth with a giant sign that says "I God created it"?  I don't know the reason it was created the way it was.  But Genesis says it was created in six days.  It had to have been created with an age.  All living creatures had to have been created with an age.  Man and woman were created with an age. 

Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not?  Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will?

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 Again we come back to the fact it was a supernatural event which cannot be dissected in scientific terms.  Science oriented creationists do have articles which give their point of view on such things as how the fossils may have formed and refuting the old earth claims.  The links I gave have lots of articles on that.

You first sentence contradicts the rest.  If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing.  Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age.  Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence.  Please pick a side.

Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science.  They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative.  Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions.

Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence.  And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.

Edited by TTM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TTM said:

I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age.  

Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible

Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not?  Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will?

You first sentence contradicts the rest.  If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing.  Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age.  Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence.  Please pick a side.

Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science.  They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative.  Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions.

Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence.  And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.

When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct.  Your claim rests on the assumption that everything you have been told about the age of the earth by old earth scientists is true.  The articles on creation science website give evidence to show old earth science is false.  I have not studied much information on creation websites, but I did hear a series of presentations on some of it ten or fifteen years ago.  I can't remember much of it. 

For me to summarize the information which is already on the creation websites I would have to go and spend hours or days studying it.  I don't believe I am required to do that.  I may read some of these articles as I have time, and may comment at that time.  But you should not depend on me to answer all of your questions.  If you are interested in knowing the answers to some of yours questions, you need to make an effort to read some of these articles yourself.  I have provided one or two links.  One of them is at creation.com

I accept the biblical account that everything was created in six literal days.  When I say it was created with an apparent age, I am not saying God was trying to deceive anyone.  That was just a personal opinion I had come to, but it may not be correct.  I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do.

You did make a good point in saying why consider what the creation websites are saying if I believe everything was created with an apparent age.  It is something I will have to give some thought to and study.  However, it doesn't change the fact that God still created the earth in six days.  Perhaps it was NOT created exactly the way we see it today with the fossils.  It is conceivable that the fossils were deposited after Noah's flood.  Prof. Stott also gave information is his slide show presentation to demonstrate that the geological time chart is flawed, which makes it doubtful.  Creationists reject the uniformitarian principle.  As I recall the fossil record is incomplete and I seem to remember hearing professor Stott saying there were some contradictions that give weight to a fairly quick deposition of fossils, which would fit the the catastrophic event such as the flood.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I accept the biblical account that everything was created in six literal days.  When I say it was created with an apparent age, I am not saying God was trying to deceive anyone.  I cannot explain why. 

Why would a dog leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being?

Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog dictating too fast?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct.

No. I use "false" age interchangeably with "apparent" age.  As in God falsified his creation to make it look older than its true age.  That was your assertion and not mine.  

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do.

If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well? 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You did make a good point in saying why consider what the creation websites are saying if I believe everything was created with an apparent age.  It is something I will have to give some thought to and study.  However, it doesn't change the fact that God still created the earth in six days.  Perhaps it was NOT created exactly the way we see it today with the fossils.  It is conceivable that the fossils were deposited after Noah's flood.  Prof. Stott also gave information is his slide show presentation to demonstrate that the geological time chart is flawed, which makes it doubtful.  Creationists reject the uniformitarian principle.  As I recall the fossil record is incomplete and I seem to remember hearing professor Stott saying there were some contradictions that give weight to a fairly quick deposition of fossils, which would fit the the catastrophic event such as the flood.

I am happy to see you are willing to question some of your beliefs, but why do you feel the need to cling to a literal interpretation of Creation, rather than joining the vast majority of Christians that do not?

You also keep bringing up the "fossils deposited in Noah's flood" argument, whereas I have pointed out at least three times that this argument fails without supernatural interference, as fossils are found in distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.

For an analogy: if a farm was flooded, all thing being equal you would expect a layer of mud laid down by the flood to be equally likely to contain a random mix of the bodies of chickens, pigs, cows, etc.  You would not expect that one layer would contain only chickens, and another only cows, and another only pigs.  Yet this is what happens in the fossil record.  And it is true that the same geological layer contains the same fossils regardless of where the geological layer is located, even when separated by continents.  Not only that, but the order of the fossils in the layers is also always consistent: older (deeper) layers always have fossils we associate with older life, and newer (shallower) layers always have fossils associated with more recent life.

Edited by TTM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TTM said:

No. I use "false" age interchangeably with "apparent" age.  As in God falsified his creation to make it look older than its true age.  That was your assertion and not mine.  

If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well? 

I am happy to see you are willing to question some of your beliefs, but why do you feel the need to cling to a literal interpretation of Creation, rather than joining the vast majority of Christians that do not?

You also keep bringing up the "fossils deposited in Noah's flood" argument, whereas I have pointed out at least three times that this argument fails without supernatural interference, as fossils are found in distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.

For an analogy: if a farm was flooded, all thing being equal you would expect a layer of mud laid down by the flood to be equally likely to contain a random mix of the bodies of chickens, pigs, cows, etc.  You would not expect that one layer would contain only chickens, and another only cows, and another only pigs.  Yet this is what happens in the fossil record.  And it is true that the same geological layer contains the same fossils regardless of where the geological layer is located, even when separated by continents.  Not only that, but the order of the fossils in the layers is also always consistent: older (deeper) layers always have fossils we associate with older life, and newer (shallower) layers always have fossils associated with more recent life.

I believe in a literal interpretation of creation and am not governed by what a large number of christians believe simply because that part of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally.  I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking.  There is no indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor or legend of some kind although there are probably some people who would disagree.  There are parts of the Old Testament which are primarily historical accounts of what happened which some people do not realize as well.

The vast majority of christians use modern corrupt versions of the Bible also.  That doesn't mean someone who understand that should follow along and do the same.  The KJV (1611) is the only version which is based on the received text and is 100% accurate.

I would disagree with your account of the fossil record.  This has been explained in various articles on creation websites.  I will see what I can find.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Why would a dog/a god leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being?

Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog/god dictating too fast?

The Bible gives just a brief account of creation in Genesis.  That is sufficient for most people who read the Bible.  I guess that is all God wanted to say about it.  Other subjects are given more attention in the Bible probably because they were considered more important.  Still the Bible is a fairly big book.  Not sure why you are using the term "dog".  God is not a dog and nobody ever associated him with a dog.  Sounds a bit derogatory.  Why not use the term God when speaking to people who believe in God?  Perhaps you could consider doing that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking. There is not indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor although there are probably some people who would disagree.  There are parts of the Old Testament which are primarily historical accounts of what happened which some people do not realize as well.

So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TTM said:

So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught?

I was taught, but I can't recall if someone told me that God created everything or if I first read it in Genesis.  In any case, because it is clear in the Bible, I accept.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."   Matthew 24:35  

I am satisfied the account in Genesis is God's word to be taken literally.  The very first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1  KJV (1611)

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I believe in a literal interpretation of creation and am not governed by what a large number of christians believe simply because that part of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally.  I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking.

Fine. If the world was created in 6 days as you believe, you should also be aware that the bible says that a day for god is like 1000 years for a man. So you have a conflict in taking it literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Fine. If the world was created in 6 days as you believe, you should also be aware that the bible says that a day for god is like 1000 years for a man. So you have a conflict in taking it literally.

Check this article.  Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

http://creation.com/keith-h-wanser-physics-in-six-days

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

the bible says

A work of fiction written by a bunch of Neanderthal thinkers in order to dupe people. Why no new Sodom and Gomorrahs? All these fables only happened in the far distant past when there are men and countries more evil than long ago. 

It's all pure bullshit, unadulterated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...