Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
without referencing the Bible ( that is, don't use the Bible to prove the Bible), list for me 5 things that indicate to you that the Bible is true?
and after that show me any real evidence that:

A) A global flood of the approximate proportions of that in the Bible has occurred in the last 6000 years

B) All the various forms of radiometric dating are flawed, not only flawed, but flawed in such a way that they give similar results

C) Other than evolution there is a reasonable explanation for the fossil record.

D) The world is less than 10,000 years old.

A) How are fossils of sea creatures found at high altitudes?

B) I'd have to look it up. I will but I don't have the time at this instant.

C) The fossil record? It proves nothing. If anything the fossil record suggests the opposite. Fossils are only created when something is buried quickly so how unless there was some great flood would there even be as much of a fossil record, because naturally fossils don't occur very often.

D) Relates to B.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
What do you find unique and compelling about its authorship?

(from earlier in this forum posted by Beach_MU)
the fact that the entire Bible was written over a span of 1500 years in 3 different languages on 5 different continents by people of every walk of life and yet still have a central theme and message suggests to me that it HAD to be directed and inspired by God.

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-30-2002, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


You've said investigated this thoroughly, but I'm surprised that you miss the fact that Jesus talked to many women, which would have been quite unexceptable during that time period.

I'm aware Jesus talked to women, and to non-Jews, and associated with tax collectors and sinners. Those are some of the incidents that put him out of favor with the Jewish leaders.
However, the religion based on him treated women as 2nd class citizens without many rights until the end of the 19th century. In fact, it's widely believed now that early Christian attempts to bring equality to women were squelched by the Church.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians "Women are to remain silent in church". Doesn't sound like Jesus to me, yet Paul founded Christianity as we know it.
Paul also said "do not concern yourself with non-Christians, God will judge them."
Yet the churches over the centuries murdered people who refused to accept church doctrine about what to believe, then missionaries and later US armys slaughtered "heathen Indians" by the thousands to take their land largely in the name of Jesus, because it was "God's will" that the white man take over all the land.
This same religion fought to keep blacks enslaved in the years preceding the Civil War, arguing they weren't fully human.
Old Testament laws state if a woman is raped and she is alone, it is her fault. That is the inspired word of God?

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-30-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
That is basically the idea of there being no absolute truth, so by that same definition Hitler was ok, because he believed it was alright to kill millions of people.

I know several humanists, NONE of them think Hitler was ok, or that was alright.

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-30-2002, 10:09 AM

And from a religious god-believing standpoint.

Jews say they never accepted Jesus as Messiah because the NT concepts about him are not of Jewish origin.
They say the OT Messiah expectations are of a human, not a god-man, and that when their Messiah comes, he will bring world peace the FIRST TIME he comes.

How can Jesus be the Jewish Messiah when it's not even a myth of Jewish origin?

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

nogods4me · 07-30-2002, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


A) How are fossils of sea creatures found at high altitudes? Upthrust and faults among other things, I suggest you take a quick look around the internet the answers to these "problems" are common knowledge among geologists

B) I'd have to look it up. I will but I don't have the time at this instant.

C) The fossil record? It proves nothing. If anything the fossil record suggests the opposite. Fossils are only created when something is buried quickly so how unless there was some great flood would there even be as much of a fossil record, because naturally fossils don't occur very often.
there are very few fossils relative to the number of organisms that have existed, exactly as we would expect. these fossils have always, ALWAYS, been found in a particular order in the ground. Had there actually been a flood all the fossils would have been either mixed into a jumble, or sorted out by size, neither of those is what we find
D) Relates to B.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]

Jayhawker Soule · 07-30-2002, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
Yes I do stand by my claim that evolution is an absurd because there is no general consensus of any of those fields.

Perhaps this is because Judeo-Christian fundamentalism pollutes the consensus. Don't you find it interesting that YEC seems inaccessible except by way of such fundamentalism? If it were at all compelling, I would expect to find plenty of atheist, agnostic, Sikh, Buddhist, and Hindu YECs publishing in peer-review journals. Where are they?

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
One brief example... evolution would suggest that animals "adapted" to their environment to better survive, right? Well take the woodpecker as an example. The method in which it gets its food, by beating it's head against a tree, is probably the most difficult way to get food for any bird, so why would a bird have "evolved" to this method?

Of course it's not evolution - YHWH jlikes headbangers. (And this from Christian fundamentalism with a long history of banging its collective head against the wall! Oh, well.) Please read <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0I8KEZ75XV&isbn=067973337X" target="_blank">The Beak of the Finch</a>

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
As far as when and how the Bible is compiled it was discussed earlier, but even giving it a dating of the 4th or even the 5th century still doesn't change anything.

Don't be silly. Of course it does.

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
The Bible has preceeded several scientific discoveries in it's explaination of the natural world. One quick example would be the statement in Isaiah 40:22 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", which clearly seems to suggest an idea of a round earth long before science discovered this fact for itself (and this was written in the OT so it would then date well before Jesus)

And then there's Anaximander (circa 500 BCE), who wouldn't know a YHWH from a driveway, who suggested a spherical earth far beyond this Isaiah silliness. See, for example, <a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anaximan.htm" target="_blank">Anaximander</a>

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

CX · 07-30-2002, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
(from earlier in this forum posted by Beach_MU)
the fact that the entire Bible was written over a span of 1500 years in 3 different languages on 5 different continents by people of every walk of life and yet still have a central theme and message suggests to me that it HAD to be directed and inspired by God.

As I've mentioned before on this forum my knowledge of the OT is somewhat limited so let's just take the New Testament as a case in point.

The the books of the NT represent the work of 10 to 12 authors over a period of time etc. and yet it is not remotely surprising that they should largely agree in theology and theme since after all it is precisely this requirement that is what produced the canon. There are numerous extracanonical works which do not, in fact, agree, but conveniently they are ignored. The same could be said for the Talmud thereby demonstrating the inspiration of the Judaic Corpus. It's a really silly argument proposed by apologists like Josh McDowell and accepted uncritically and parroted by rank and file believers.

CX · 07-30-2002, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
And then there's Anaximander (circa 500 BCE), who wouldn't know a YHWH from a driveway, who suggested a spherical earth far beyond this Isaiah silliness. See, for example, <a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anaximan.htm" target="_blank">Anaximander</a>

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Actually Anaximander thought the earth was a cylinder and we lived on top of it. Even so, I fail to see how one can go from "circle of the earth" to a spherical earth. It is still prefectly reasonable for a circular earth to be flat. If YHWH really wanted to put something in there that would impress modern civilizations he could have said globe or sphere or ball or pretty much any roughly spherical 3 dimensional object but it says "circle". A circle is 2 dimensional. I fear the depth of the discussions here at BC&A are going downhill with absurdities like this being raised as sensible arguments.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

PTET · 07-30-2002, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


I appreciate you sending me the URL though I still haven't had the time to read the article so forgive me if my question is answered in it, but what available evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is false? Wouldn't that make the front page of the newspaper? Every non-Christian organization in the world would be trumpeting the exact details of the evidence as opposed to simply saying there is evidence that disproves it and then not providing it.

I see from other posts that you seem to be a Young Earth Creationist, so I rather fear that all of this will be rather lost on you, but here goes anyway...

The idea that the Bible does not contain a reliable history of Israel has long been accepted by archaeologists and non-Fundamentalist theologians.

Quote:

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document...

The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel � not one shard of pottery."

<a href="http://www.m-net.co.il/english/news/rabbis.html" target="_blank">As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting</a>, Michael Massing, New York Times, 26.01.02

Quote:

Dever writes that the central proposition of his book is very simple. "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'" He writes of archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that he believes that the biblical Moses never existed. He is talking about what can be gathered from archaeological evidence. About the historical Moses he writes:
�the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.
About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."

...Among today's scholar archaeologists we can say that Dever is a moderate.

<a href="http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html" target="_blank">Review</a> of What Did the Biblical Writers Know And When Did They Know It? by William G. Dever, 2001.

The question is, Beach_MU, whether you are prepared to accept the opinion of the majority of achaeologists, or whether you consider (like AiG) that any evidence which contradicts Scripture is by definition invalid...

<a href="http://dreamwater.net/ptet" target="_blank">PTET</a>

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: PTET ]

07-30-2002, 10:09 AM	#135
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	And from a religious god-believing standpoint. Jews say they never accepted Jesus as Messiah because the NT concepts about him are not of Jewish origin. They say the OT Messiah expectations are of a human, not a god-man, and that when their Messiah comes, he will bring world peace the FIRST TIME he comes. How can Jesus be the Jewish Messiah when it's not even a myth of Jewish origin? [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.