Vorkosigan

Petri has several pages:

Petri, there are several reasons that serious scholars don't think these things happened. First, they appear to be created out of Old Testament models. Consider the call of the disciples in Mark 1:16-20. Here is the passage:

16: And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17: And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."
18: And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19: And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb'edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20: And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb'edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

This call is an invention from 1 Kings 19:19-21:

19 So Elijah went from there and found Elisha son of Shaphat. He was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen, and he himself was driving the twelfth pair. Elijah went up to him and threw his cloak around him. 20 Elisha then left his oxen and ran after Elijah. "Let me kiss my father and mother good-by," he said, "and then I will come with you." "Go back," Elijah replied. "What have I done to you?"
21 So Elisha left him and went back. He took his yoke of oxen and slaughtered them. He burned the plowing equipment to cook the meat and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out to follow Elijah and became his attendant.


The parallels are listed in Brodie (2000, p91):

*the action begins with a caller...and with motion toward those to be called;
*those called are working (plowing/fishing);
*the call, whether by gesture (Elijah) or word (Jesus) is brief;
*later, the means of livelihood are variously destroyed or mended, the plow
is destroyed, but the nets are mended -- a typical inversion of images...;
*after further movement, there is a leave-taking of home;
*there is also a leave-taking of other workers;
*finally, those who called follow the caller.

There are many similar examples. For example, the Gethsemane scenes (Garden/Arrest) follow 2 Sam 15-16. The Trial and Execution and Resurrection are based on Daniel 6, but the individual details are taken from the Psalms, especially Psalm 22. Again, the ministry of Jesus follows the story of the Elijah and Elisha. The gospels are clearly fictions created out of the Old Testament.


Look at the two things you citied. Modern text critical work has shown that John 21 was added to the Gospel later -- in fact Streeter and Powell thought it was originally the ending of Mark. It is also well known that 2 Peter is a very late book which copies Jude almost totally, and is not from Peter's hand.

Serious scholars don't believe that the disciples of Jesus wrote the Gospels. The names were not attached to them until late in the second century, and all indications are that they were written between 40 and 100 years after the alleged execution of Jesus.

This is plain nonsense. Petri, do you know how our modern bible is made? There are thousands of manuscripts, almost all coming from after the 4th century. Just 34 papyri date from prior to 300 AD, and perhaps only 3 from the second century. No manuscript contains the modern bible. Rather, scholars reconstruct the Bible by comparing the many different manuscripts to see how they have changed. The critical text is a reconstruction that in many places no one really knows what it says, because there are too many possibilities. About 8,000 words are used in the Old Testament, and about 1,500 of these are uncertain. Similarly, there are numerous places in the New Testament where scholars cannot be sure what is being said.

Let's talk about some "simple" textual problems.

In John 1:34 the majority of manscripts read

"I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

but some read "...Chosen one of God" (some western texts) and a couple even "...chosen Son of God." The Committee opted for "...Son of God" based on the majority reading and the fact that it accords with John's theology, but as Meier points on in Vol2 of A Marginal Jew, these criteria are contradicted by another criteria, which says that the more difficult reading (grammatically, theologically, etc) is to be preferred, since scribes tend to make a text easier to read, and to conform it to what they perceive it should be saying (see Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). How should one choose in this case?

Another simple example is the problem of 1 Tim 4:10. As Carrier notes in an article right here in our own library:

• "As it happens, when it comes to 4:10, all the useful manuscripts are pretty evenly divided between both "struggle" and "reproach," in no discernible way, offering no solution. Several manuscripts that are older than Aleph exist in other languages, including the famous Vulgate, as well as Syriac and Coptic editions, and they all have words which translate as "reproach" rather than "struggle," but is this evidence of a better reading, or itself an error which became the source for the correction? We cannot know. Thus, no one today knows what 1 Timothy says here. It says one thing or the other, but that still means we cannot reconstruct Paul's original choice. This is a common problem throughout the New Testament.

So what does 1 Tim 4:10 actually say?

Similarly, in Luke 10:1 the actual number of disciples sent is impossible to know, as both the internal and external evidence are divided between 70 and 72 (Metzger, Commentary, p126-7). Since a committee of scholars cannot decide what the true word of God is, how is it that you know?

Conversely, Mark 14 offers this problem.

47: But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

48: And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?

EA Abbot noticed back in 1914 that there seems to be a verse missing here, in which the violent act gets resolved. He argues the verse must have been something like "put it back" referring to the sword, which John and Matt both preserve, but Luke confuses and thought it referred to the ear, so he has Jesus miraculously heal the severed ear.

Such problems recur throughout the New Testament; I could multiply these problems across hundreds of verses.

...and those are just individual verses. We could also discuss the situation with regard to whole pericopes (Mark 4:26-29 is not paralleled in Matt and Luke; hence may be later insertion) or entire sections of the gospels (the faulty chapter order and long insertions in John, the Bethsaida section in Mark). At every level, the texts show that they have been edited and reworked, both by new writers who inserted and deleted material. We could spend years on the textual tradition of John alone. There is a text with at least three authors, which came into being over about a century of editing and redacting. It is not even possible to speak of "the original text" of John; there isn't one. Our current text is a marriage of two different works, one a miracle/narrative gospel, the other a discourse gospel, and deeply informed by the Gospel of Mark.

I suggest that you sit down with a copy of two of Metzger's works, The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration and his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Metzger is a conservative Christian scholar and perhaps the world's leading authority on the Greek text of the New Testament. Then read one of the standard introductions to the New Testament.

The Gospels are generally dated between 70 and 150. You point out that Luke got his titles right, but Luke copied Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and thus cannot be before 95. Mark, Matt, Luke and John all know that Jerusalem was destroyed, so clearly they were all written after 70. Mainsream scholarship knows this. Perhaps you should invest in a good mainstream introductory text.

Perhaps. But many scholars (Crossan, Davies, for example) believe that Thomas is earlier than the gospels and Mark depends on him. The issue is complex.

This isn't even worth discussing. The current 4 gospels were chosen for theological and political reasons. The Apocrypha was kept out because it didn't suit the emerging orthodox view. Simple.

Didn't happen. Sorry.

You sources are almost laughably out of date. McDowell is a Christian apologist whose work is inept. Ramsay and Kenyon date from a bygone age. Read something up to date like Dever or Finkelstein. Additionally, your sources are very conservative. it is important to have access to all kinds of scholarship.

Vorkosigan

sourdough

this might interest you
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
also
if you need more info on geology etc,evo/creo forum has more knowledgable people

Atheos

Damn, Vorkosigan! Here's a :notworthy for your post. Having studied greek for 6 semesters on my way to a Bachelor's degree in Bible I was familiar with many of the names (Metzger, etc) you mentioned. It's been a long time since I've given any attention to textual criticism such as you presented in your post. It's obvious that you are quite educated about this subject beyond the scope of most people. I believe the technical description is, "You really know your shit."

-Atheos

Weltall

Out of a sense of morbid curiosity, I clicked on the first link and skimmed through it. One thing instantly caught my eye. Now then, if this is the case, would someone care to tell me why the Chinese completely failed to make any mention of a worldwide flood that would have completely wiped out their civilization? They just kept on existing even though they were all supposed to be killed by the flood. Oh wait, maybe Satan planted all sorts of evidence that makes it look like their civilization was spared from the flood and then once people moved back into China after the flood waters receeded, Satan tampered with everyone's memories a la some bad episode of Star Trek to make them think that there had never been a flood... and wiped out all the evidence of that flood ever taking place. He must have also planted all the evidence that points against the flood ever occurring.

PetriFB

According to the Bible when Noah went to the ark, was there in addition to him only seven others person in other words altogether there was eight person in the ark. (Gen 7:7 and 1 Peter 3:20).



However, it is interesting, that same number eight and clear reference to the flood comes into view even in the characters, especially in Chinese literature system. In Chinese literature system ship symbol describes a boat, where there is eight persons in other words just same number as in the ark of Noah! In the same way character flood has figure eight! It can't be certainly accident, that same number eight is connected both to ship symbol and flood. This connection is because of also the Chinese have been preserved traditional knowledge from same global flood as other nations. They have also believed already in ancient times only one God of the Heaven .



On the other hand in Chinese literature system is also another peculiarity, word righteous. Character of this righteous word comprises from the two different parts: upper part means a lamb and lower side is personal pronoun I. There has been comprehension, that person can't by himself become to be righteous, but when he is below the lamb, he is only then righteous.



And getting of the righteousness in nowadays in not deviate about it, how Chinese are understood this matter already in ancient times. Also nowadays we must to be in the same way below that Lamb, which God has given us, in other words we must be below Jesus Christ, that we would have righteousness. To this thing refer next places of the Bible :



- (John 1:29) On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!



- (1 Cor 1:30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:

TightSight

Petri i think your missing the point, if there indeed had been a global flood as mentioned in the bible the chinese would have all been killed. There would be no other civilazations dating back from so and so many years.

mirage

[QUOTE=PetriFB However, it is interesting, that same number eight and clear reference to the flood comes into view even in the characters, especially in Chinese literature system. In Chinese literature system ship symbol describes a boat, where there is eight persons in other words just same number as in the ark of Noah! In the same way character flood has figure eight! It can't be certainly accident, that same number eight is connected both to ship symbol and flood. This connection is because of also the Chinese have been preserved traditional knowledge from same global flood as other nations. They have also believed already in ancient times only one God of the Heaven .</quote>

These are Christian apologist claims I am suspicious of. [URL=http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-38885]This thread[/URL] discusses some of these errors.

Weltall

I notice that you completely missed the point of my post, but I'll respond anyways.
You've already been given the link, I'll just restate that this claim is bullshit. You probably saw someone else make it and simply parroted it, because if you actually knew any Chinese you wouldn't make that claim with a straight face.
Evidence? We don't need no steeenking evidence!
Di and Tian are very different from the western tradition of 'God', do some research into it sometime.
More BS.
All your base are belong to us.
Don't bother, Argumentum ad Bible Quote is worth less than the paper it's printed on unless you can bring in some outside evidence.

PetriFB

After the flood people have spread all over the world and knowlegde of the flood has also spread along the people. That why chinese have those signs.

PetriFB

f we are looking proofs to many billions years aged macrocosm, is it difficult find from the space. In the following we examine this matter on the basis of the space dust, comets, magnetic field of the earth and sun and moon.


Space dust


Small amount of aerolite dust, which comes from the space to both on the surfaces of the moon and the earth is one indication from that, that these orbs can't be very old. If this nickel ferrous dust would have come to the moon and to the earth 5 billion years period, should it be on the both surfaces about 50-200 meter ( 54-218 yards). However, any such has not observed. Also on the surface of the moon the thickness of this floor is average only about 3 millimeters (0.1 inch) not at all tens of meters (yards).

Actually small amount of this dust was one of the biggest surprises in the journey to the moon. Next description tells from this:



Middle of 1960's scientists of NASA put into to their all vigour to anticipate conditions on the surface of the moon. The moon is dead from its surface. Water and wind don't move there accumulated space dust. Theory of evolution believers assumed researchers calculated, that in the moon is waiting that thick 50-200 metres ( 54-218 yards) space dust floor, whereby spacecraft sinks. That is the reason why to moon vessel were planned very big foots. The astronaut Neil Armstrong informed publicly, that the amount of the space dust is one of the difficulties problems of journey to the moon, and what he mostly feared.

TV pictures which transmitted around to world told to everybody, what took place when spacecraft landed to the moon.

20. July 1969 Neil set his foot to the surface of moon. The foot hit hard fixed surface and on surface was space dust only few centimetre (0.1 inch).

The experts made their calculations. Amount of the dust required age of the moon to be below 10,000 years . .. (1)


Age of the comets


One of the mark from the short age of solar system are comets which goes around to sun. In that whenever these comets go arounds to sun along their track, part from their bulk evaporates away because vicinity of the sun. They lose then large part from their material.

So has been calculated, that most from the comets, which before are known being much more, evaporates to be dust about 10,000 years. In other words this would mean, that comets shouldn't be even exist, if they would be hundreds of thousands or of million years old - not to mention even from the billion years, which would be many times longer. Current existence of these comets is indeed enigma, which is not properly solved.

Birth of the new comets is not any sure proofs, even though their is explained born someplace outside the solar system some icy stock, were they then start to move.

Firstly from this kind of store is not any information - only theories of year millions or- of billion years aged macrocosm demanded such explanation than icy stocks. And secondly, even though this kind of store would be existing, so how these pieces could move? Of course they could not move themselves anywhere, but on the contrary they would remain in one place all the time and eternally. Only someone visiting star could move those, but because the tracks of the comets don't reach very afar outside the solar system, so is also this impossible.

Only conclusion thus is, that not current moving of the comets would be in any way possible, if solar system really would be 5 billion years old.


Weakening of the magnetic field of the earth


One of the mark from that, that earth can't be very old, is decisive weakening of its magnetic field. In that magnetic field of the earth, which reaches always outside of the moon track, has been observed, that it lost half from its strength always between 1400 years; in other words 1400 years ago magnetic field of the earth must be 2 times more powerful than current. These observations from the change of the magnetic field are based very accurate measurements, which have been made almost 170 year time. (Example. in the article of Uusi Suomi magazine, which name is " magnetic field of the earth reduces continually, 26.2.1990, and that article is also told, that: " The strength of magnetic field in the year 1200 strength was 1,4 and two hundred year later 0,8. The observations indicate also to us, that decrement has continued during the last hundred year. .. The decrement has been under 1 permillage per year, it has changed between 0,7 - 0,5 . ..").

So if the magnetic field of the earth has weakened all the time with same speed and equal quickly, it would mean following strength of the fields in past. These numbers indicate, that earth can't be at least not hundreds of thousands of years old, not to mention from the million or from the billion years. The numbers also indicate, that if globe might have been exist for example only 50,000 years ago, would strength of the field then been as white dwarf star. This set also certainly own borders to the age of the globe.


1400 years then - 2-times comparitively to current

2800 years then - 4-times comparitively to current

4200 years then - 8-times comparitively to current

5600 years then - 16-times comparitively to current

7000 years then - 32-times comparitively to current

14,000 years then - 1024-times comparitively to current

28,000 years then - 1 048 576-times comparitively to current

50400 years then - 68 719 400 000-times comparitively to current


Shrinkage of the sun


When there is estimated ages of the globe and the sun, is their often thought to be about 5 billion year old. However, if we examine sun's shrinkage, it would not support these kinds of periods; its indicate next examples:

- If the sun would be shrunken 1 centimetre (0.3 inch) every day 5 billion year period, would it be initially 18,25 million kilometres ( 19,958.4426947 yard) closer to earth (distance between the sun and the globe is 150 (164,041.9947507 yard) million kilometres. ).

- If shrinkage speed would be 10 centimetres (3.9 inch) in day, the globe would been already part of the sun.

However sun not shrunk so slowly, just even several metres in day. In that when there is used as the material for example [observatory of Greenwich meridian observations (for example. Lubkin, G.B. , " Analysis of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking", Physics Today, September 1979, pp. 17...19) , would the shrinkage speed according to those about 0,1 % in century in other words almost 38 metre (41,5 yard) in day - this would made the life of the globe to be impossible already under million years ago.

Same, if we use as assistance FrenchmanJean Picardi in 1600's made astronomical observations, which are held very accurate, so would be diameter of the sun been at that time 4000 kilometres (2,485.4847689 mile) bigger than current. And yet also the other research indicate shrinkagen of the sun speed being several metres in day.

Thus if we do conclusion from such fast shrinkage of the sun, it would not and not the globe can be in any way million or billion years old. And not also the life could have been appear on the globe this kind of periods time, because heat would have prevented its.


Drawing away of the moon


Drawing away of the moon from the earth is one of the thing, which proves against billions of years. Because has noticed, that it escaped away from the earth continually about 4,5 centimetres (1.7 inch) every year. Drawing away should arise mainly from the tide phenomenon of the earth.

In addition is also calculated, that moon escaping speed from the earth would be larger, what closer earth it would be gone around. Moon would be according to these calculation closed in the earth about 1,4 billion years ago!

So if the moon might have been closed in the earth or at least closer it, would it mean, that we should set thought from 5 billion year at least to the questionable light. Also from the point of view of the life, could have appeared problems; there have calculated, that if the moon only might have been enough near to the earth, it might melt whole earth's crust surface casing! (Like this has been presented for instance. in the book "Maapallo ja avaruus", p. 47) How the life could succeed such conditions?


The marks on globe


When it is a question the age and the life of globe, in this area talked often the age of hundreds of millions years or even older periods.

However, there is several proofs, which are against such long periods. In the following this matter is inspected for instance on the basis of the oil pressure, accumulating and erosion and earth layer.


Pressure of the oil


One of the proof against of it, that earth layers would be ancient are oil wells with their current pressures. Because current high pressure wouldn't have in any way be possible, if these springs would be for example age of million years, because otherwise this pressure would be already long time ago disappered. Any pressure then could no longer be.

So when there is made calculations on the basis of these pressures, they don't indicate to the oil wells as at the most age of 10,000 years (Chapters 12-13 of prehistory and earth models by Melvin A. Cook, Max Parrish and company, 1966) this is many thousands of millions times less than what generally has been presented and questionable ordinary speeches about millions of the years.


The agglomeration of the sediment, the flow of the mineral to the sea and erosion speed

The agglomeration of the sediment, the flow of the mineral to the sea and erosion speed are some ways measure the time. All these methods are based to this, that with the observed areas are used as the basis current accumulating and wear speed. Same all these methods give also comparitively small ages, thus that it has got the following results:

- The agglomeration of the sediments to the river deltas is one habit to measure periods. It is based to this, that when is known entire amount of the delta and it then shared with the current accumulating speed in year, we can have about that the age of the delta.

On this method has got for the age of the deltas only from some centuries about 13- 14 million year, and for example the river Mississippi delta, whereby Mississippi river brings sediment annually about 230 million cubic meter, and its age have obtained only about 4000 year. (Wysong, R. L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 163) On the other hand if transport speed before has been larger, shorten it these periods of course far more.

- Flow of the mineral to the sea has given for the age of the oceans only 100 - 260,000 000 year. (Dudley J. Whitney: The face of the Deep / Salman Bloch Ks. Reini s. 216-217 nrot: 7,8,20)

In other words when there is measured moving of these material with current speed and when is known current mineral content in the sea, is about it got this time, which is many more times less than generally has been presented the age of the seas. In this doesn't notice, that flow sometimes could have been many more times powerful - for example because of the mentioned the flood in the Bible - and that part from minerals could have been already to the beginnings in the sea.

- Erosion speed. If we use as base current erosion and weathering speed, it would mean, that all mainlands would be washed away to the sea in about 14 millions year. For the example also on the Alps of Europe the face of the earth is thought to be passing and descending in the year about one metre in 1500 - 4000 year (Charles Schuchert: "Geochronology, or the Age of the Earth on the Basis of Sediments and Life" ).

On the other hand the question arises, that when alps have much rock types classified with Jurassic period and cretaceous period (these periods are thought about being 205 - 65 millions years ago), from which besides older in other words Jurassic period rock types are in the highest mountain (! ) and latter are in the valley, so how these figures fir together to that thought, that mountains would wear away already under 20 million year?

One of must therefore be incorrect; wear speed, every can be experimentally observed or comprehension from the ten and hundred million years. Both can't be true simultaneously.