Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 07-23-2001, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Metacrock: You do realize of course, that one doesn't need to be a creationist to be a Christian don't you? In fact over 50% of Chrsitains accept evolution.

MOJO-JOJO: Metacrock....I can't believe this is coming from you. So then what you are saying is that God really DID create the universe some 12-15 billion years ago, the Earth some 5 billion years ago, then very slowly began life from primordial soup, evolving it as he pleased over the past billion years or so until he got to us today??

Sounds like it. It's what I say too. And Bede too. I don't know about other Christians that post here, but unless they are fundamentalists I'll assume they accept evolution unitil I hear differently.

Quote:

Is this supported anywhere in the infallible, God-inspired manual we know as the Bible?? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world and the formation of life. As for how God acheived this end the Bible's account is poetical and I believe metaphorical.

Quote:

If so, where do you, as a Christian, "sign on" to the Bible?? Noah? Abraham? The birth of Christ maybe??

It is entirely up to every person how much they believe. Personally I believe nearly everything after the flood until Revelation to be real historical events. Creation and the Fall I regard as metaphorical and I do not believe the flood to be world-wide. Revelation is simply wierd.
No doubt other Christians draw the line in different places. That is fine as long as they at least accept the basic Christian doctrines.

Quote:

And if THAT is the case...who are YOU to stand in judgement of that which you claim to be the infallible word of God?? Your position now makes that Word fallible, n'est ce pas??

I don't claim the Bible to be the infallible word of God. And I seriously doubt that Metacrock does.
I would say that over 50% of Christians do not believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. Except it would probably get me into trouble and by the time you count all the silly Bible-belt fundamentalists it might almost be wrong.
Anyway, Jesus is the word of God, so unless the Bible = Jesus then the Bible isn't.

Quote:

This is the problem I see with the position asserted by many fence-straddler Catholics who get on this board and ask what's so wrong with the Christian acceptance of evolution? They say that even the Pope accepts evolution (which goes to show where the Vatican's true interest is $$$). If the Pope truly believed the Bible, he would believe what it says about the origins of man, that God created man out of dust, not that man arose by evolutionary processes over a billion or so years.

Creation out of dust sounds remarkably close to a metaphor for the evolutionary process to me. I'm a protestant and wouldn't touch some of the Catholic doctrines with a ten foot pole (same with the fundies' inerrancy and literalism) yet I'm perfectly happen with evolution as are other protestants. It is not limited to Catholics.

Quote:

Any of the truly knowledgeable theologians like John MacArthur, Hank Hannegraff, RC Sproul would have a real problem with your theistic evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin of mankind. You better re-think your position if you want to hold yourself out as a Christian.

That is their problem. The way I see it the faster I can dispell the misguided fundamentalist-reaction atheist notion that Christianity = belief in 7 24hr day creation and inerrancy the better.
I don't blame you atheists for reacting the way you do - if the only version of Christianity I had ever seen was the fundamentalist variety then I would be a non-Christian too. (Though not a strong atheist, as I believe things like Conciousness and Design need answers outside of Atheism)
But please get over it. Fundamentalism is stupid, agreed. But it is not the only form of Christianity out there. I hesiste even to regard it as Christianity and usually use the word fundamentalism to describe it where possible.
Complain about it, sure: disagree with it, I know I do. But don't be tricked into thinking that the Word of God Bible Bashers are anything like the real Christianity. If you do, you are not only allowing yourselves to be fooled by ignorant, but you are missing out an understanding of what I believe is the single greatest concept ever considered in the history of human thought. And many other undeniably great and intelligent western minds have agreed with me over the past 2000 years. If you think for some reason that Christianity is stupid and no one of any intelligence would believe it, then my response is: What you are thinking of is not Christianity. You are almost certainly wrong somewhere in your understanding of Christianity, and if you have had much contact with fundamentalists (or any other wierd or wacky "Christian" group) then I really do not blame you.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of atheists I have met in my life who after talking to I could come away thinking "That person has a complete understanding of exactly what Christianity is all about". In my experience, of those who make the effort to fully understand it, only a tiny minority are not Christians.
Just to reiterate: Don't be fooled into thinking fundamentalism is all there is to Christianity. It is not. It is hardly even Christianity.

-Tercel

sighhswolf · 07-23-2001, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by E_muse:


Thank you Tercel. Just the sort of link which I was hoping for.

There is another theory about the Exodus.
I will not comment on the validity of the
conclusions only relate them.

Two French (Jewish) academics, Brothers Messod and Roger Sabbah, answer the question of why there is a lack of archeological evidence of the Jews exodus from Egypt.

They contend that evidence is available and has been found, that would put Moses and his people in the right place and the right time period, but the archeologists are looking for evidence of Jewish/Hebrew existance.
And because they search for evidence of Jewish people they have overlooked the "real"
evidence.

These scholars say the was no exodus of the Jews. Why? Because the exodus was not a Hebrew exodus, but an "Egyptian" exodus.
That those who fled were in fact Egyptians and not Jews.

They say that Hieroglyphs they have been studing for years indicate no Hebrew presence
in Egypt at the time period of the exodus.

But what they do say is that at the very same time period of the exodus, there was a group of Egyptians who had decided to buck the national religion of Egypt in favor of a monotheistic concept.

These reseachers say that there is an indisputable record of mass deportations
of Egyptians who were punished for the disavowal of the state religion.

So they say that Moses and his followers were not Jewish, but Egyptians that were thrown out because they decided to worship only one God.

Archeologists have been searching for evidence of a Hebrew presence and they have not found that evidence because it does not exist.

Interesting theory, it has increasingly become a fashionable trend to lean toward the theory that Moses was in fact an Egyptian
"prince" and not Jewish at all.

I havent looked into this in any real way,
but just by the logic it would seem to be a valid theory. The artifacts of the Hebrews would never be found if they werent Hebrews at all.

Just a bit of trivial information.
Wolf

E_muse · 07-23-2001, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Just a bit of trivial information.

Oh, I think that your post is far from trivial, for a number of reasons:

Exodus 12:40 reports that the children of Israel had been in Egypt for some 430 years. That's a long time! How many of their own belongings would the people have had? What would have been the influence on their culture?

Further to this, Exodus 12:36 reports the following:

Quote:

"And the Lord had given the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians."

It would appear that the children of Israel took Egyptian articles with them. However (and importantly), the next verse claims that they were walking. If they were walking across a hostile wilderness and already had vast amounts of their own equipment to carry, why would they also want Egyptian property too? What would this indicate about any articles which would be left behind the in the wilderness?

On top of this, the Bible states that the Children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth (vs 37) and that a 'mixed multitude went with them' (vs 38). Who were the mixed multitude? Egyptians?

Comments!

Ion · 07-23-2001, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
I'm rather late to this discussion. But you will find that the historicity of the Exodus has been already discussed on this board here.
I would recommend everyone who is interested to read it. And I would also re-recommend the same book:
Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition by James K. Hoffmeier, published New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
It gives a comprehensive, up to date and easy to read summary for the beginner. The author presents the various currently held views for the Exodus and examines the modern evidence for and against those views.

No, Tercel. The up-to-date summary on Exodus is listed in April 13, 2001, Los Angeles Times article. How the excavation sites mentioned by the article, are overriden by the book? When re-reading the previously thread on this same topic, opened by Bill, I find myslef again focused on hard data of archaeology (sites excavated, dates of excavations) while you ducked the hard data behind social politics (maverick rabbi, who the rabbi is, what the rabbi wants, when the rabbi sneezes, why the rabbi sneezes, etc.).

Ion · 07-23-2001, 06:17 PM

To Tercel's "It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world...":
How?
Make sure you don't just claim lunacies, Tercel, but hard data with tangible results contributing to every minute's life of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.
Any proof of this 'support' outside the Bible, in science (i.e. in archaeology, engineering, geology, mathematics, astronomy, biology, paleontology)?

Ion · 07-23-2001, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:
To Tercel's "It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world...":
How?
Make sure you don't just claim lunacies, Tercel, but hard data with tangible results contributing to every minute's life of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.
Any proof of this 'support' outside the Bible, in science (i.e. in archaeology, engineering, geology, mathematics, astronomy, biology, paleontology)?

The thread was: "A New Consensus: Exodus is Myth" by Bill.
Tercel didn't graduate from that thread: Tercel didn't produce in it, any scientific data supporting the Exodus.
Now Tercel parachutes into the thread "Lack of Biblical fossils" with the church dogma, and same no scientific data, "It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world...".

Tercel · 07-23-2001, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:
No, Tercel. The up-to-date summary on Exodus is listed in April 13, 2001, Los Angeles Times article. How the excavation sites mentioned by the article, are overriden by the book? When re-reading the previously thread on this same topic, opened by Bill, I find myslef again focused on hard data of archaeology (sites excavated, dates of excavations) while you ducked the hard data behind social politics (maverick rabbi, who the rabbi is, what the rabbi wants, when the rabbi sneezes, why the rabbi sneezes, etc.).

What is that newspaper article? It is where an unqualified reporter has found out that a Rabbi has proclaimed the exodus a myth. The reporter has then randomly picked a couple of university professers and asked them their opinions. And then the reporter has stuck the whole thing together in one or two days in such a way as to attract the most attention possible to the article.
What is the book I recommended? It is where a qualified and practising scholar in the field has over the course of several years analysised scholarly opinions on the subject, weighed their pros and cons and then written a comprehensive overview and introduction to the subject outlining the different points of view and the evidences for or against them.

You are free to believe a newspaper report above real scholarly information if you wish.

Tercel · 07-23-2001, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:
To Tercel's "It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world...":
How?
Make sure you don't just claim lunacies, Tercel, but hard data with tangible results contributing to every minute's life of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.
Any proof of this 'support' outside the Bible, in science (i.e. in archaeology, engineering, geology, mathematics, astronomy, biology, paleontology)?

You seem to be confused, either that or your post is just unclear.
The orginal post went:

Quote:

So then what you are saying is that God really DID create the universe some 12-15 billion years ago, the Earth some 5 billion years ago, then very slowly began life from primordial soup, evolving it as he pleased over the past billion years or so until he got to us today?? Is this supported anywhere in the infallible, God-inspired manual we know as the Bible?? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

The question being asked was (to paraphrase) "Does the Bible support the idea that God created the world over 15 Billion years ago?"

My response was:
"It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world and the formation of life."
ie The first part of the question is indeed supported by the Bible when it places God in the role of Creator. The 15 Billions years part is not specified.

This has nothing to do with Science. -I was being asked for Biblical support not scientific support.
Unlike some Christians I place a high value on what science can tell us. (Hence I believe Evolution to be true) I am a Mathematician/ Computer Scientist but I also have a large interest in most of the Sciences especially Physics.

Ion · 07-23-2001, 08:35 PM

Tercel, any scientific back-up to your Biblical claims?
I still don't see any from you, since April until now, July.

E_muse · 07-24-2001, 06:45 PM

Ion,

It would be impossible to satisfy your desire for scientific proof without writing out the contents of a book. However, here goes.

Traveller, scientist, author and agnostic, Charles Pellegrino, has written a book entitled 'Return to Sodom and Gomorrah' in which he relates his visits to archeological sites around the world, especially Biblical ones. He has gathered together the views of many experts across many disciplines.

Certainly his words carry more weight than those of a journalist because they represent something to which he has devoted many years of his life. His book was published around 1994.

He comments on Jericho:

Quote:

"The latest archeological evidence suggest that sappers (those who tunnel into a city to undermine it) , though commonly used by invading forces, might never have been needed at Jericho's City Four. More than just the defensive wall fell on that last day. The buildings behind the wall were destroyed by a massive conflagration, but the collapse of the rooms (in which large quantities of unburned wood were buried under tons of fallen mud brick, and charred sticks were deposited on top of the fallen bricks) seems to have taken place before they were effected by fire, suggesting that an earthquake preceded the fire......
The parapet wall, which surrounded the city, also suffered damage. Archaeologists have cut three trial trenches, much as one cuts slices through a layer cake, all the way down to the base of the city's perimeter. In one of these trenches, on Jericho's west side, the guard towers and other upper structures are seen to have tumbled in an unusual way: out from the city and down flat. A huge volume of mud-brick came to rest in a heap, forming an inclined plane reaching to the very lip of a ruined rampart. The wall was not merely breached but had actually collapsed in a manner that invited any army arriving on the scene up a ready made ramp and into the city.

He also comments from sources with an explanation on why scholars believe that Jericho would have been abandoned at the time of Joshua's campaign and offers alternative suggestions as to why the event could have occured.

I think he sums up well when commenting later:

Quote:

"The march of Jericho is recorded in very explicit language, and Bryant Wood has correctly pointed out that historians and biblical scholars have focused on (and often dismissed as total mythology) the
"miraculous" nature of the event, with little regard for the seismology of the continental seam that has created the Jordan Valley.
The Joshua account describes what appears to be a blockage of the Jordan River's flow, extending from somewhere far upstream and to the north of the city Adam (known since the first century A.D. as Damiya, which is some eighteen miles upstream of Jericho and from which the word [b]dam[/d] is derived) all the way down to the Dead Sea. The Jordan River flows down the center of a crack in the earth, a rift valley where frequent earthquakes mark the inch-by-inch parting of two continental plates. Throughout recorded history, tremors have been known to bring down the valley walls, throwing natural dams across the river, typically near the village of Damiya.
Citing the work of Stamford University geophysicist Amos Nur, Wood notes that in A.D 1927 Damiya was the site of an earthquake that brought a 150-foot high cliff tumbling into the river, damming the waters for twenty-one hours. Other quake-triggered blockages of the Jordan were recorded in A.D 1906, 1834, 1546, 1267, and 1160. During the 1267 earthquake, according to the Arab historian Nowairi, a hill on the west bank, near Damiya, suddenly quivered and leaped like a living thing. It stumbled into the river, cutting it off. For sixteen hours no water flowed south from Damiya to the Dead Sea.
The combination of destruction at Jericho and natural dams flung across the Jordan is so much a geologic reality of the rift valley that when we read of such events in the time of Joshua and Judges, there can remain but the faintest doubts as to their historical reality."

In fairness to the author - he wouldn't claim that God was responsible for any of this.

In his introduction he states:

Quote:

"The stories of Exodus and Joshua, some will argue, are strictly 'fairy tales.' But geology and archeology have begun to teach us that several majory Old Testament events that seem utterly fantastical to us today - among them the parting of Egyptian waters, the blotting out of the Sun, and pillars of fire in the sky - are based upon some very real kernels of truth. The rocks and the ruins tell us so."

He says:

Quote:

"As one who remains to this day an agnostic (no good scientist can be an atheist, for in science we must question everything, even our own questions), all of this has come as a great surprise. According to the late Alex Haley (who demonstrated most dramatically the fidelity of oral history), I was a blind fool to have been so surprised, for reasons that will become clear...."

One thing that being on this boards is teaching me is that skepticism kills.

[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2001, 06:17 PM	#55
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	To Tercel's "It's supported by the Bible when the Bible says that God was responsible for the creation of the world...": How? Make sure you don't just claim lunacies, Tercel, but hard data with tangible results contributing to every minute's life of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. Any proof of this 'support' outside the Bible, in science (i.e. in archaeology, engineering, geology, mathematics, astronomy, biology, paleontology)?

07-23-2001, 08:35 PM	#59
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	Tercel, any scientific back-up to your Biblical claims? I still don't see any from you, since April until now, July.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.