Contradictions in the Bible?

[ahinton]

I feel that there is a point being missed - it is not the internal contradictions in the bible that are important; nor is it terribly important that it blatantly contradicts reality and testable scientific hypotheses; what is important is that it is not meant to be taken literally. If one reads it as literal truth, then one does so out of baseness, lack of imagination; lack of sensitivity for symbolism and the sublime - one does so, and, in so doing, one merely misinterprets.

Try telling pianistimo not to take it literally! To be serious, however, I think that some of the more factual historical documentation in the Bible is to be taken literally and other areas of it are not - so the resources that one needs to approach its various aspects are likewise various - intellectual, spiritual, historical, emotional, etc.

Why not look beyond the petty contradictions within the text and focus instead on the much more powerful philosophical objections to the fundamental assumptions of Christianity and its accompanying moralism?

I wasn't looking at them personally in any case, but it would surely be unwise to ignore those things that appear anomalous if the result of so doing is to accept every one of it words as some kind of ultimate arbiter of universal truth - and still less wise to do this the other way around - i.e. force a predetermined attitude on one's responses to the texts that one reads...

If Christianity and Christian morality are no longer beneficial for the highest (and most secure, most self-affirmative) men of today, then it is simply because they have outgrown it. What life-affirming values can take their place?

It seems that you are a Christian, but plenty of people who read the Bible are of other faiths and none are not. Whilst I may be able to apprecaite the terminology that you choose here, I think that some who are not Christians might find your assertion that "Christianity and Christian morality" are, by implication, somehow superior to any other faith and the morality enshrined within it to be disappointing, if not actually offensive, insofar as it appears to suggest that Christian faith and morality are "better" than any other kind. Are there no gret life-affirming values in Buddhism? - or in music?...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

A lot of the material in the bible has to be READ IN CONTEXT.

Bla bla bla...

I am sure you read most of the stuff in the bible 'out of context'. It is just so lame to say that when people attack the bible you can just claim to say it is 'out of context'.

Then just tell me. How should Numbers 31 be read in context? And How should Genesis1 and 2 ?

[timothy42b]

A lot of the material in the bible has to be READ IN CONTEXT.

I agree with this, though with little else that you wrote.

But there is a conclusion that follows from your statement you may not have thought of.

The bible must be read in context, with intelligence, with the benefit of knowledge of the times and culture within which it was written, with the benefit of research and textual analysis, with the benefit of some insight into language differences and translation procedures.  (sad to say, there are many who think the Bible was dictated by God word for word, in English.) 

And if the Bible must be read this way - then - we can't all do it.

Certainly we cannot do it equally. 

Yet that is your claim, and pianistimo's:  that we need no stinking education to understand the Bible, it's all right there for the ordinary guy. 

When I see how far off the less mainstream denominations seem to get, I tend more and more to think the Catholics had it right when they left most of the interpretation to their more scholarly clergy. 

[pianistimo]

and yet, Christ picked fishermen to be His disciples.  why?  because they wouldn't doubt Him at every turn.

[chopiabin]

I think you misunderstood my entire last post - I am definitely NOT a Christian. I was suggesting that both Christianity and the morality of pity which it espouses are no longer beneficial to the further development and evolution of man.

My point about the Bible, or any other "religious" texts is merely that they are blends of fact, fiction, myth, rumor, bias, and error; factual history blended with superstition.

I was further suggesting that not only is it intellectually dishonest to treat religious texts as factual histories, but that when one does read them literally, one actually does such texts a great disservice - one misses the "spiritual content" (essentially the principles and values of the text's proposed morality). One overlooks the philosophy and spirituality, and one will misunderstand the "believer" and what values and roles they take from and impose upon Christianity.

I am actually quite opposed  to Christianity - I see in it something weak, vulgar, and spiteful obscuring itself with a cloak of false piety; something born out of resentment and weakness claiming to be the religion of love, when it is nothing more than a religion of pity, suffering, and a deep hatred for all that is strong and healthy - what were the  "Last Judgment" and the "Rapture" for the early Christians if they were not hollow threats (albeit quite fantastic ones!) of revenge against everything Roman, Pagan, Classical, Sensual, etc. etc.

[ahinton]

and yet, Christ picked fishermen to be His disciples.  why?  because they wouldn't doubt Him at every turn.

So are you suggesting that Christ considered fisherfolk to be especially quiescent, unquestioning and unintelligent? I had not realised that Christ held the fishing community in such disrespectful contempt...

Best,

Alistair

[chopiabin]

How convenient for such a sly religion to have moral taboos against doubting and scepticism. Doubt too much, and you go to hell!!

[prometheus]

So are you suggesting that Christ considered fisherfolk to be especially quiescent, unquestioning and unintelligent? I had not realised that Christ held the fishing community in such disrespectful contempt...

No, you are twisting her words. What she means is religious virtue.

That is comes close to present day stupidity should be well... ignored.

[ahinton]

I think you misunderstood my entire last post

Far from it (although see also below)...

I am definitely NOT a Christian.

Well, I certainly misunderstood that bit, for which I duly apologise!

I was suggesting that both Christianity and the morality of pity which it espouses are no longer beneficial to the further development and evolution of man.

What you wrote here could have been taken either way. Personally, I don't believe that "pity" as such - on occasions a weak emotion, as you describe it - is a vital cornerstone of Christian practice as much as human compassion, which is - or can be - a rather more potent and energetic force.

My point about the Bible, or any other "religious" texts is merely that they are blends of fact, fiction, myth, rumor, bias, and error; factual history blended with superstition.

Agreed.

I was further suggesting that not only is it intellectually dishonest to treat religious texts as factual histories, but that when one does read them literally, one actually does such texts a great disservice - one misses the "spiritual content" (essentially the principles and values of the text's proposed morality). One overlooks the philosophy and spirituality, and one will misunderstand the "believer" and what values and roles they take from and impose upon Christianity.

Generally speaking, I agree with you in principle, although, in reality, the Bible as we have it today incorporates both religious texts and factual histories and is a multi-author text written over quite a few years.

I fully share your concerns as to the "values and roles" that certain types of "believer" "take from and impose upon Christianity" - especially the "impose upon" bit. Christians are not supposed to "impose" anything upon Christianity; when they do so, they are no longer actiong as "followers" of anything but users - sometimes even usurpers - thereof.

I am actually quite opposed  to Christianity - I see in it something weak, vulgar, and spiteful obscuring itself with a cloak of false piety; something born out of resentment and weakness claiming to be the religion of love, when it is nothing more than a religion of pity, suffering, and a deep hatred for all that is strong and healthy - what were the  "Last Judgment" and the "Rapture" for the early Christians if they were not hollow threats (albeit quite fantastic ones!) of revenge against everything Roman, Pagan, Classical, Sensual, etc. etc.

I do rather think that this is in reality a view biased more against certain types of so-called "Christian" than of anything directly relating to Christ himself - but then you did write of "Christianity" rather than "Christ" when identifying your opposition.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

No, you are twisting her words. What she means is religious virtue.

I am either not twisting them or misunderstanding them as she expresses them. She wrote that
"Christ picked fishermen to be His disciples.  why?  because they wouldn't doubt Him at every turn",
which suggests clearly to me that, as she sees it, Christ made a deliberate ploy to select certain people of a particular kind of persuasion (or rather persuasiveness) to act as His followers for the specific reason that they would never feel disposed to countermand or even question anythying that He might say or do; that they happened in this context to be described as fisherfolk is not really the point, so my reference to them merely sought to reflect hers. Do you believe - and/or do you consider that she believes - that it is a "religious virtue" compatible with pursuit of Christianity to doubt and/or question nothing and, as a consequence, abnegate the human intelligence that Christians believe is God-given?

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Yes, it's called 'religious virtue'.

Not doubting your own views is what religion is all about.

First you accept views and dogma's handed down to you by a higher authority.
And then, the more unlikely those views are, the more they conflict with reality the more oppertunity you have to show your faith. I mean, that's what having faith is about.
The more unlikely your views are the more virtuous you can become.

[thalbergmad]

and yet, Christ picked fishermen to be His disciples.  why? 

Coz he liked a bit of cod for his supper.

Thal

[pianistimo]

cute.  but, thal - you might be on to something!  in fact, now that i think about it - maybe it was partly dinner!  although - He was also using a pun on words.  i will now make you 'fishers of men.' 

also, i think God identifies with His own creation.  not cities.  He did not first take them into the city - but out fishing.  Christ knew how to create a following of men who were 'savvy' and not predisposed to any particular 'religion.'  fishermen aren't known for especially religious behavior.  this negated having to argue doctrine all the time.

[thalbergmad]

cute.  but, thal - you might be on to something!  in fact, now that i think about it - maybe it was partly dinner!  although - He was also using a pun on words.  i will now make you 'fishers of men.' 

also, i think God identifies with His own creation.  not cities.  He did not first take them into the city - but out fishing.  Christ knew how to create a following of men who were 'savvy' and not predisposed to any particular 'religion.'  fishermen aren't known for especially religious behavior.  this negated having to argue doctrine all the time.

God bless you Sister.

I of course agree with everything in your post, apart from fisherman not being known for especially religious behaviour.

When i visited the little village of Ullapool in Scotland, the church was full of them. Perhaps due to the danger of fishing in the Hebrides, the fisherman give thanks upon safe return to land. Definately a community that was close to God.

I have seen the light.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yes, it's called 'religious virtue'.

Not doubting your own views is what religion is all about.

First you accept views and dogma's handed down to you by a higher authority.
And then, the more unlikely those views are, the more they conflict with reality the more oppertunity you have to show your faith. I mean, that's what having faith is about.
The more unlikely your views are the more virtuous you can become.

An interesting - and not even untenable - but surely deeply suspect negative route-map on which to try to find anything that one might reasonably try to persuade anyone else is "faith"?...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Coz he liked a bit of cod for his supper.

Thal

He'll have a big problem on His second coming then, given the serious depletion of international cod stocks - unless, of course, he's a repetitious old so-and-so like dear old Schubert and isn't above being prepared to do a televised re-run of the five-loaves-and-two-fishes trick...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

cute.  but, thal - you might be on to something!  in fact, now that i think about it - maybe it was partly dinner!  although - He was also using a pun on words.

What?! "Jesus takes me for a pun-beam?...

i will now make you 'fishers of men.'

But when He returns, He's going to have his work cut out in distinguishing genuine environmentally friendly "fishing" from cyber"phishing", yes?...

Christ knew how to create a following of men who were 'savvy' and not predisposed to any particular 'religion.'  fishermen aren't known for especially religious behavior.  this negated having to argue doctrine all the time.

Dearest Susan; do please therefore listen to wisdom of the Lord Jesus Christ - no fool was/is He (as you have hereby indentified)...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

An interesting - and not even untenable - but surely deeply suspect negative route-map on which to try to find anything that one might reasonably try to persuade anyone else is "faith"?...

That's why religion have other 'ways'. For example, one of them is hell and eternal punishment inside it. And another is just brainwashing your children. You don't need to persuade your children.

You can't persuade anyone into religion unless they are already conditioned.

[lostinidlewonder]

*sigh* I will submit myself to one more response to this stupid thread,

That is merely a bald statement; it does not explain of justify itself with details as to how everything that seems anomalous is down to the interpretative license of the reader two millennia later rather than the lack of consistent commonality of expression of the various authors. If you expect to be believed in your statement here, you would have to cite ample irrefutable evidence for this interpretative error in each and every case.

I think at school your teacher would have been annoyed with your long sentences. That whole paragraph is only 2 sentences!

I did not have to justify myself when I say that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the bible because the justification that there are contradictions are weak, short sighted and confused. Should I justify that their opinions are weak etc etc ? No I do not because I KNOW for myself that it is. That is not to say that for others it might not be, I know what to ignore as intellectual tangents and what hits the targets spot on. Should I justify that statement? No because I know myself I do not have to explain why I think a way I do. Should I justify that statement? No... now you see how stupid it gets if I have to justify everything I say.

.......but then who defines that context, who interprets it and how can you guarantee that its interpretation will not metamorphose over time?

It is true that our understanding of the bible changes as we learn more from it, to think that we find TRUTHS and stick to them unchangingly is wrong.

The bible is accessible in many forms, for the intellectual and the simple minded. For the simple minded faith gives them all they need but they constantly study and search for their answers (by standing on the shoulders of giants; that is learning from those who know more than yourself, piecing together your own understanding and confirming your beliefs, a life long never ending process).

For the intellectual they have a lot more burden on their shoulders because they must research everything, look into history, study the laws of the bible, with more wisdom comes more suffering. With an intellectual mind we are more consciously aware of the knowledge passing through us, this can lead us to become overly confident in our human capability. To read the bible in the spirit will be as great if not greater than someone studying the bible with the intellectual mind. But the spirit is a gift, just as faith is given to us, we cannot produce it. So for the unbelievers this is your trail. The believers have nothing to boast about learning from the bible in spirit since it is given to us not from us.

The concept that our understanding of the bible changes in time is true, but the main laws will keep us grounded to the fundamentals of Christianity. That is, Love, Sin and forgiveness of our sin. How we deal with Love and Sin is what changes over time as our knowledge of the bible increases, but the main way which we deal with it, that is through Christ is unchanging. But who is Christ? As Christians we have to be careful of false Christ, not so much different religions. What is sin? How do we deal with it? How do we please God? Understanding these questions are a life long spiritual journey, the bible constantly pushes us into the right direction but unfortunately the bible doesn't come with "persistent study included".

This is to say, if we study the fundamentals of Christianity we cannot complain and say stupid things like CONTRADICTIONS. Thus I say to those who say there are contradictions in the bible to explain how much they actually do study the bible, and what is their interest to determine why there are these contradictions? If it is for the cause of Christ then we should study, if it is for the cause of refutation of Christianity then there is no point for discussion because it wastes both of our time.

.....but then the remainder of your statements here seem almost to suggests that this is precisely what you yourself are doing in any case!...

Selective reading is what I am doing? Hardly the case. I haven't quoted anyone, I am talking in a general sense of the stupidity of saying there are contradictions in the bible. That is hardly selective reading but striking out at the core of the argument and stating my disagreement. Nope, not selective reading but an unmoving opinion.

...What IS that "big picture" and who decides what it is? One of the problems is that not every one of the Bible's authors expresses things identically, nor are they each of equal literary prowess. The Bible is an historic document incorporating documents from a whole series of chroniclers; one may as well expect every contemporary journalist today to cover a series of events in identical fashion.

There is not a problem because what is expressed is expressed differently, they all point to the same direction. Give me examples of something in the bible which is a fundamental principle of Christianity expressed in totally contrasting fashions, you can read it from back to front you will not find any.

What is the big picture? It is understanding love, sin and the sacrifice of Christ. That is all that is to it, but from that spreads tentacles of knowledge into countless spiritual/philosophical understandings of life.

It seems to me that what you are seeking to advocate is that people read the Bible WITHOUT "interpreting", ...

There is a danger in too much interpreting. If we base our way of life on particular phrases of the bible and change our way of life just from that, we take a great chance that we could be wrong. It says in the bible (along these lines) if you sin with your hand, chop your hand off because it is better to lose your hand that to lose your entire body to sin. Does that mean we chop off our hands? Hardly. Our body should be treated as a temple of God, but we spiritually chop the hand off, deal with the sin and let it hit the sacrifice of Chist. This sounds crazy to the nonbelievers but through study you learn to understand and feel this action how we deal with sin through you.

We must interpret, I sit in church with a discussion group and we discuss particular issues, look into it, give our ideas, study opinions. We are confident to say IT IS ONLY THIS when we read the bible when it comes to the fundamentals of Christianity. On finer issues like death, we can get into a whole range of interpretations. God says he is the God of Life not death, so we don't need to study death, but life which will reveal answers to death.

......the events covered in the Bible are obviously from a pre-Islamic era, yet they all occurred in certain parts of the Middle East and south east Europe; when anyone reads the Bible today, he/she will almost certainly have to do so with the foreknowledge of at least some aspects of subsequent Middle Eastern and European history and this foreknowledge will inevitably colour its effect.

This is wrong. It is to say that anyone who studies the bible must be an intellectual giant and be able to study the entire history and structure of the bible. This is not true, the bible is accessible to all, even those who have not the capability to research deeply. But the bible is definitely there for those who want to dig deep, but the deeper you dig the more evidence you will have to prove Christ and all he stands for. Read a book from Lee Strobel, "The case for Christ" an interesting investigation.

No - I'm sorry to have to disappoint you......

That is quite presumptuous that statment, that I would feel dissapointed in your dissaproval? Afterall one cannot undertsand and disagree, you simply do not understand me yet so it is only a product of your own misunderstanding (and the fact that I haven't bothered to explain myself completely because the issue (contradictions in the bible) to me is simplistic).

But I do not seek approval from you or anyone else really, I express my opinions, which cannot be disproved by saying you have not supported it. If I say fire is hot, i say it is hot because I've touched it and felt how hot it is. I do not need to get out a thermometer and test it on 100 different materials to show that it is hot. So too I do not have to explain why it is stupid for people to say that there are contradictions of major doctrines in the bible, because it is not so, it is anti-Christ knowledge and I will say this very boldy, quite intellectually dense. Prove me wrong, you cannot.


The fact that God called for War and death does not mean he is unloving. He has the right to command war. If you have this opinion then you should think that the US is evil and who they fight against is evil and everyone who fights and kills is evil full stop. This is obviously not the case. God lets us know there is a vicious battle between good and evil. Numbers is weak evidence that there is a contradiction. God even curses oue generations for those who curse the holy spirit and practice evil rituals, I don't see the problem in that. God lets the boxing day Tsunami happen, if you realise that life now is nothing compared to our second life, you wouldnt think that these are evil things to happen. Still it is a matter of philosophy and spirituality.

[timothy42b]

*sigh* I will submit myself to one more response to this stupid thread,

You could have kept it shorter.  "There are no contradictions because I say so."  You have consistently ducked the issue.  Nobody with integrity can actually read the Bible and claim there are no contradictions, yet this does not erode the faith of the majority of Christians.

It is only that subset that worships a book that has to defend it so stridently. 

Your example is a good one.  The Bible says clearly to cut off your hand and pluck out your eye.  You have decided this is merely symbolic, because, frankly, it would be inconvenient for you to do what the Bible says.  Same with honor the Sabbath - it is more convenient to go to church on Sunday so you've decided that is good enough.  Fine, I agree with you, though that is NOT what the Bible says.

But then when the bible says "lying with a man as with a woman," there is no way that can be symbolic or interpreted within the context it was intended.  No, that you have to take literally.  Same with six day creation as in Genesis - no way that is symbolic, get those evil scientists out of the classroom and get mandatory prayer back in, and the world will go back to the good old days. 

Again, you make the distinctions based on what is convenient for you, but without the benefit, in fact with total disdain for, any kind of learning. 

If you do not know what the letter J, E, P, D, and Q mean in relation to the Bible, you are not equipped to do the kind of Bible study you are trying to do. 

[ahinton]

I did not have to justify myself when I say that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the bible because the justification that there are contradictions are weak, short sighted and confused. Should I justify that their opinions are weak etc etc ? No I do not because I KNOW for myself that it is. That is not to say that for others it might not be, I know what to ignore as intellectual tangents and what hits the targets spot on. Should I justify that statement? No because I know myself I do not have to explain why I think a way I do. Should I justify that statement? No... now you see how stupid it gets if I have to justify everything I say.

That tells us all that we need to know (and already suspected) about your stance: "I know I am right, therefore there is no need to explain or justify anythying"...

It is true that our understanding of the bible changes as we learn more from it, to think that we find TRUTHS and stick to them unchangingly is wrong.

YOU might not do this; others do, however.

The bible is accessible in many forms, for the intellectual and the simple minded. For the simple minded faith gives them all they need but they constantly study and search for their answers (by standing on the shoulders of giants; that is learning from those who know more than yourself, piecing together your own understanding and confirming your beliefs, a life long never ending process).

I agree with this.

For the intellectual they have a lot more burden on their shoulders because they must research everything, look into history, study the laws of the bible, with more wisdom comes more suffering. With an intellectual mind we are more consciously aware of the knowledge passing through us, this can lead us to become overly confident in our human capability. To read the bible in the spirit will be as great if not greater than someone studying the bible with the intellectual mind. But the spirit is a gift, just as faith is given to us, we cannot produce it. So for the unbelievers this is your trail. The believers have nothing to boast about learning from the bible in spirit since it is given to us not from us.

I agree with much of this, too, except the manner in which it seeks to elevate the Bible above other texts on similar subjects; it was, after all, written by humans just like those other texts.

The concept that our understanding of the bible changes in time is true, but the main laws will keep us grounded to the fundamentals of Christianity. That is, Love, Sin and forgiveness of our sin. How we deal with Love and Sin is what changes over time as our knowledge of the bible increases, but the main way which we deal with it, that is through Christ is unchanging. But who is Christ? As Christians we have to be careful of false Christ, not so much different religions. What is sin? How do we deal with it? How do we please God? Understanding these questions are a life long spiritual journey, the bible constantly pushes us into the right direction but unfortunately the bible doesn't come with "persistent study included".

Again, this is largely sound, but it is also sefl-confining - and arguably also self-serving - in that it refers to and is directed towards only Christians, thereby once again ignoring and/or undermining any non-Christians who study the Bible.

This is to say, if we study the fundamentals of Christianity we cannot complain and say stupid things like CONTRADICTIONS. Thus I say to those who say there are contradictions in the bible to explain how much they actually do study the bible, and what is their interest to determine why there are these contradictions? If it is for the cause of Christ then we should study, if it is for the cause of refutation of Christianity then there is no point for discussion because it wastes both of our time.

In other words, if we precondition ourselves in a certain way, we'll avoid, overlook or otherwise deny any contradictions; again, your remarks here are entirely Christian-oriented and make no allowances for non-Chrsitan Bible students. Furthermore, not everyone who perceives contradictions in the Bible "refutes" Christianity, nor are such perceptions necessarily for the purpose of "refuting" Christianity. There are even plenty of non-Christians who do not actually "refute" Christianity as such in any case; they just don't happen to subscribe to it personally.

Selective reading is what I am doing? Hardly the case. I haven't quoted anyone, I am talking in a general sense of the stupidity of saying there are contradictions in the bible. That is hardly selective reading but striking out at the core of the argument and stating my disagreement. Nope, not selective reading but an unmoving opinion.

You make your position very clear here, too. You have an immovable opinion - and that's that.

you can read it from back to front you will not find any.

I've never tried it that way...

What is the big picture? It is understanding love, sin and the sacrifice of Christ. That is all that is to it, but from that spreads tentacles of knowledge into countless spiritual/philosophical understandings of life.

And this is "for Christians only", is it?...

There is a danger in too much interpreting.

For you, evidently...

you simply do not understand me yet so it is only a product of your own misunderstanding (and the fact that I haven't bothered to explain myself completely because the issue (contradictions in the bible) to me is simplistic).

I wasn't trying to understand "you" personally; I was trying to make sense of what you wrote and, whilst some of it does indeed make sense, some of it is far too restrictive and self-satisfied to do so.

But I do not seek approval from you or anyone else really, I express my opinions, which cannot be disproved by saying you have not supported it. If I say fire is hot, i say it is hot because I've touched it and felt how hot it is. I do not need to get out a thermometer and test it on 100 different materials to show that it is hot. So too I do not have to explain why it is stupid for people to say that there are contradictions of major doctrines in the bible, because it is not so, it is anti-Christ knowledge and I will say this very boldy, quite intellectually dense. Prove me wrong, you cannot.

You are the one making these bald assertions in the first place. Whilst that fact places you under no obligation to explain or justify them, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that you owe it to anyone who reads what you write to make some effort to do so, otherwise you will reach out only to those who already share your view wholly and unquestioningly. If that's all you seek to do, then please go ahead.

The fact that God called for War and death does not mean he is unloving. He has the right to command war. If you have this opinion then you should think that the US is evil and who they fight against is evil and everyone who fights and kills is evil full stop. This is obviously not the case. God lets us know there is a vicious battle between good and evil. Numbers is weak evidence that there is a contradiction. God even curses oue generations for those who curse the holy spirit and practice evil rituals, I don't see the problem in that. God lets the boxing day Tsunami happen, if you realise that life now is nothing compared to our second life, you wouldnt think that these are evil things to happen. Still it is a matter of philosophy and spirituality.

At least you have the grace to imply that claiming that God "calls for war" is an "opinion", even though you begin by claiming it to be a fact. I have not described anyone as "evil". I have also not even mentioned that tsunami. "Second life" is, again, your opinion; I'm not even suggesting that it is wrong - just that it is uncertain and cannot be proved...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A few more relatively brief thoughts in the form of a postscript...

There is a danger in too much interpreting.

We must interpret,

"We" - that's to say your readers here - must therefore be prepared to espouse danger - or at least that would appear to be the only conclusion to draw from a literal "interpretation" of what you wrote.

I note that you carefully ignore all my remarks about and illustrations of the sheer inevitability of our "interpretative" response two millennia down the line. I'll therefore offer you another. I think that it was Busoni who observed that every performance is a transcription; it is certainly true that no two performances are ever quite the same. The comparison is not odious; it is obvious.

I haven't bothered to explain myself completely because the issue (contradictions in the bible) to me is simplistic).

You should bear in mind that I have never actually instigated any contention that the Bible as we understand it today contains contradictions; on the contrary, what I have done is more passive, in that I have responded to others' observations on this subject. What you may also have failed to grasp (and this is perhaps because I have been insufficiently clear on it) is that I do not even seek to criticise the Bible for any of its inconsistencies, errors, omissions, differences of emphases, nuances and literary merit or other anomalies or unevenness; I accept that it is - as I have already observed - as follows:
1. a multi-author work
2. a work whose authors did not all know and collude with one another on it
3. a work put together over a considerable period of time
4. a work created without the overseeing of a commissioning or supervising editor
5. a work whose contemporaneous editing and revising history is far from clearly documented
6. a work which is reckoned by some distinguished biblical scholars to be incomplete
7. a work written around two thousand years ago which has been translated many times since
8. a work of uneven literary merit
9. a work chronicling certain events in part of the Middle East and southern Europe which present-day readers must inveitably read from a perspective of subsequent histories.
I therefore do not expect any more or less from the Bible than this multiplicity of caveats can lead its readers to do.

I express my opinions, which cannot be disproved by saying you have not supported it.

Of course they can't - but then I am not seeking to do so. As I have already observed, however, the statements were made by you, therefore the onus of provision of proof - or of refusal to provide proof - is yours alone, rather than being on the reader to "disprove". I have indeed not cited specifics here; my reason for that omission is that quite a number of other contributors have already illustrated certain of these anomalies and inconsistencies, so I have no desire to be repetitive, especially as those other observers are doubtless far more knowledgeable Bible scholars than I.

If I say fire is hot, i say it is hot because I've touched it and felt how hot it is.

That would be no more than a comparative value judgement based upon your personal experience; you might in any case have been able to conclude that it is "hot" merely by standing close to it.

I do not need to get out a thermometer and test it on 100 different materials to show that it is hot.

No - the purpose of using an instrument to measure its temperature would be to demonstrate how hot it actually is, not merely to prove that your experience might have persuaded you that it is "hot".

So too I do not have to explain why it is stupid for people to say that there are contradictions of major doctrines in the bible, because it is not so, it is anti-Christ knowledge and I will say this very boldy, quite intellectually dense. Prove me wrong, you cannot.

Your illustration of the fire has no possible bearing on your statement here. Your statement is inflexibly dogmatic. Howeer, I am not even seeking to "prove" you "wrong" in your "opinion"; one cannot by definition "prove" that an "opinion" is "wrong" - one can only ever demonstrate that it is inappropriately held if it can be shown to be based other than upon provable fact. In other words, "opinions" cannot of themselves be "right" or "wrong"; they can only be "rightly" or "wrongly" held, depending upon the demonstrable correctness or otherwise of their bases. You claim to believe that certain people are "stupid" to hold certain views; you are as entitled to that opinion as are those "stupid" people to disagree with you.

Where matters get out of proportion and perspective, I believe, is when undue reliance is placed upon the Bible, warts and all - and when those who do so seek to elevate it above almost every other work of literature in any era from anywhere in the world. It is undeniably an important literary document; it is not, however, the only one. Nor is it the only route to spiritual salvation. What about the works of J S Bach? And, for the record, even he wrote wrong notes occasionally, too! We composers and authors are not perfect, you know...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

but, alistair, it follows logic that IF God is perfect in all His ways - then ALL His Words would be true.  and, that He would not allow scribes to mishandle His words in the original texts from which they were gleaned (written in Hebrew or aramaic and Latin and greek).   'every word is inspired for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness.'  the basic Word of God is not divided into false/true - but everything is interconnected and found true throughout.  there is nothing false about the bible.  it is the history of mankind.  some do not wish to believe that we could possibly know the source of our long long history.  what if it IS adam and eve?  what if Abraham truly did live in Ur (a place still a location in iraq?) - what if we did not originate in africa as hominoids?  what if modern dna will place us squarely at the center of the biblical history - just as it is written - in the area that the garden of eden is said to be (between the rivers). 

i've read national geographics from the 1940's 50's and on - from my grandma's attic to today.  i can tell you that science has changed it's story a lot.  the numbers are slowly coming down -as to the ages of this and that.  and, modern day genetics has disproved macroevolution as taught by darwin.  that species developed from other species.  that includes mankind developing from apes. 

if you want tested truth - imo, it's the bible.  it's inspiration came direct from the Source of the creation itself.

[thalbergmad]

but, alistair, it follows logic that IF God is perfect in all His ways - then ALL His Words would be true.  and, that He would not allow scribes to mishandle His words in the original texts from which they were gleaned (written in Hebrew or aramaic and Latin and greek). 

I am so glad you highlighted the word IF, as that is important.

You no longer have the original texts. All you have is a highly edited and selective group of stories.

 

[mephisto]

God is not all mighty. The Bible sais he is. The Bible is wrong.

If God is all mighty, he would know everything that is going too happen right? Of course he will. But that means that God has no power at all. He can't do anything. If he chooses to do something different, he can't. Because that proofed that he at some time didn't know what was going to happen.

So in reality God can' t do anything. He is a prisioner. I am so sorry pianistimo

[lostinidlewonder]

For those who believe god has to show material worth to prove himself, they will never see god.

[wishful thinker]

God is not all mighty. The Bible sais he is. The Bible is wrong.

If God is all mighty, he would know everything that is going too happen right? Of course he will. But that means that God has no power at all. He can't do anything. If he chooses to do something different, he can't. Because that proofed that he at some time didn't know what was going to happen.

So in reality God can' t do anything. He is a prisioner. I am so sorry pianistimo

Perhaps you should study your subject before saying things like this. This is just nonsense.

[asyncopated]

but, alistair, it follows logic that IF God is perfect in all His ways - then ALL His Words would be true. 

Ah, but you assume god speaks.  What if god does not speak -- well not in the way that we know it.  Why do you assume that god will intervene?  I know it says so in the bible, but I think that's just man hoping that god will intervene.

My god, if i did believe in one, would not speak and certainly would not intervene in the affairs of man.  My god is concered with the larger picture, the function of the universe as a whole, and certainly has no wish to concern himself with the silly whims of man.

As for the quesiton whether he is almightly, it really does not matter  -- it is the wrong question to ask.

Somehow when the bible was written, god was imbued with egotistical characteristics of man.  This strikes me as odd to say the least.  Will god really feel jealousy the way we humans do?  To me, it seem completely silly and trivial, and it is because we have such thoughts that we automatically assume that god thinks in the same way.  Surely, god must be beyond such emotional pettiness. Does god really care if you do worship him? 

[mad_max2024]

modern day genetics has disproved macroevolution as taught by darwin.  that species developed from other species.  that includes mankind developing from apes.

What? Where? When?
I'm in science and noone notified me about it... 
And by the way, of course science changes, it is a process, not a pool of knowledge. A scientist is not a man who knows answers, he's a man who asks questions, what is proven today may be disproven tomorrow, all we can do is accept that which is most likely to be right...

[ahinton]

For those who believe god has to show material worth to prove himself, they will never see god.

You may not be especially pleased to hear this, but I am not one that believes this. Just thought that I'd mention it.

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

What? Where? When?
I'm in science and noone notified me about it... 
And by the way, of course science changes, it is a process, not a pool of knowledge. A scientist is not a man who knows answers, he's a man who asks questions, what is proven today may be disproven tomorrow, all we can do is accept that which is most likely to be right...

The only thing that can really happen with the theory of evolution is a refinement.  The evidence for it is overwhelming .  Even if it were wrong some of the time (i.e. if there are exceptions where a species just appears out of thin air, or if fish gives birth to a bird), any scientist who notices it,would pounce on an opportunity like that and probably win the nobel prize for it.

[prometheus]

Perhaps you should study your subject before saying things like this. This is just nonsense.

Of course it is not. If you had actually read something about the subject you will realise that philosophers have discovered the impossibilities of these properties long ago. Even before Christianity.

I already handled this subject. If you want to challenge what I said use the search.

[prometheus]

lostinidlewonder you have made a fool out of yourself many times before concerning this topic. Please don't do it again.

As for those discussing lostinidlewonder, I am afraid I have to warn you tha this person is not a honest debater.

[pianistimo]

prometheus,  don't bring honesty into it over and over until you prove that species can develop from other species and that evolution occurs on anything but a superficial gene mutation (as species tend to mate with species of their own kind unless caged together with another type for an extended period of time).  scientist do all sorts of experiments - but the best ones are observed in natural environments.  you cannot take a group of wild horses and say they developed from some other species.  they were wild horses at creation and will remain wild horses until God deems the end of the age.  speaking of end of the age - the bible says it will be just as the days of noah.  everyone ignoring Him and thinking that catastrophe cannot befall us as it did in the days of noah.  do you realize that in australia there are millions of acres of land caught in wildfire.  these are minor disasters that are quickly leading to a major disaster.  famine.  pestilence.  exactly the things the bible describes as curses for living wrongly.  living against God's laws.  i don't think these devastations would occur in the magnitude they are right now if everyone decided to pray and fast and repent.  asking God for mercy and to set His will for good to us.  a few righteous people did not cause sodom to be saved. the righteous people were led OUT of sodom and it was destroyed by fire.  so, our works - now and later will be 'tested by fire.'  anything that remains will have a reward.  the fire is not always literal fire - but the testing of our Lord.  that might mean some hard times.  but, He says that everyone who calls on His name WILL be saved.  so that means that even if you do not believe now - if you turn to Him during times of devastation - there is still mercy in His heart toward all His creation and especially for mankind (made in His image and likeness).

[prometheus]

prometheus,  don't bring honesty into it over and over until you prove that species can develop from other species and that evolution occurs

It has already happened. How should I try to give arguments that it is possible?


Anyway, genetics clearly implies it is possible. Why can't mutations add up over time? You already admitted micro-evolution happened. Explain to me why macro-evolution can't happen when it is only a cumulation of micro-evolution?

I asked this question many many times. How do you dare to ask me the question you now ask while you refuse to answer my questions?

on anything but a superficial gene mutation

Doesn't happen. One gene mutation isn't evolution. About 2000 specifically selected one is.

scientist do all sorts of experiments - but the best ones are observed in natural environments.

You can't do an experiment in the natural enviroment because the experiment isn't controlled.

... you cannot take a group of wild horses and say they developed from some other species.

According to evolution you can. But according to evolution you will need a few thousand years.

So you cannot do it because it takes too much time. Now, the earth is 4.6 billion years old. So time enough. But of course you think the earth is 6000 years old so for you evolution is impossible because there is too little time in your deluded world view. Your deluded world view is not the view of scientists and not worn out by the facts and thus not actual reality.

... they were wild horses at creation

There was no creation. If you claim there was give me evidence.

...and will remain wild horses

Why? Clearly if their DNA is copied often enough it will either degenerate until all of them are extinct or mutations are selected and they will evolve.

How does DNA stay the way it is? We already know DNA copies with errors. So how can it remain the same? How can horse DNA remain similar enough to them to still belong to the same species? How? How?

[pianistimo]

the dna strands do not allow for anything but the most minute changes to occur over many years ( you say so yourself) - so why fight what is reality.  that too much change would cause the species to just die.  to not function as it was created to.  to be what animal it IS.  not what a scientist wants it to be in a fast changing mutating way.  these animals that are experimental dna projects do not have long lasting qualities and die out quickly.  too much fiddling with God's work.  God makes things good.  if they have changed slightly over a few thousand years - ok.  but, the species all REMAIn because we have fossils of practically everything.  why don't some scientists talk about that?  because they don't want to.  it doesn't fit the evolutionary mold.  take anything you want today that hasn't been genetically mixed in a laboratory - and tell me there isn't a fossil for it.   the differences would be minute.

[prometheus]

the dna strands do not allow for anything but the most minute changes to occur over many years ( you say so yourself)

No. There is a rate of error for copying DNA. So each time you copy their can be a minute change.

Just take a huge book, say the bible if you want. Change one letter a day at random. Very small chance.

But if you do it long enough your book will not only make no sense, it will also be incomprehensible.

So yes, one mutation is a minute change. But that doesn't matter as long as there is nothing that limits the number of mutations to occur in a single gene pool over time.

so why fight what is reality.

The whole point of me talking to you is reality. I don't care how reality is. I just want to know what is real and what is not. I don't force my personal ideas on reality. You do.

I am just defending evolution because reality supports it.

...that too much change would cause the species to just die.

So now you admit there is no limit on change? Too much change will cause it to die? But the changes are minute and rare. Never has a species died out because of mutations.

There are enough mutations and enough time for favorable mutations to cummulate and create a new species once two gene pools seperate.

... to not function as it was created to.

There is no evidence for creation. Stop pulling creation into this discussion.

...to be what animal it IS.  not what a scientist wants it to be in a fast changing mutating way.

By definition a scientist doesn't want anything. She or he just observes and experiments. The moment a scientist wants something there is a large change that she or he will influence the outcome. When that happens there will be other scientists refuting this person and your career is over.

...these animals that are experimental dna projects do not have long lasting qualities and die out quickly.

Huh? Which ones? You mean Dolly the cloned sheep? I think you do.

Hahahahaha....

... too much fiddling with God's work.

There is a clear reason that cloned animals die often. It has nothing to do with god.

God makes things good.

God never did anything. If you disagree show me evidence.

...if they have changed slightly over a few thousand years - ok.

So if they change slightly over a few thousands years then what happens in 120 million years? That's like 50 thousand times as long. Could two species that were seperated and have been changing sligtly in a time of a few thousands years still be compatible so that they can reproduce fertile offspring(definition of a species)? Probably not?

If you come so far as you have come now how can you still deny that evolution produces new species? All the things that you say should mean that you accept this.

...but, the species all REMAIn because we have fossils of practically everything.

Fossilization is extremely rare. We have almost no fossils at all. This is just tottally false.

And species don't remain. The totally snap-shot incomplete fossil record that we have clearly shows that species die out and that new ones appear.

why don't scientists talk about that?  because they don't want to.  it doesn't fit the evolutionary mold.

Because they know what the fossil record is like. Because they dig up bones. Fossils are rare. Practically every animal that dies does not leave a fossil. Otherwise we would be up miles and miles living in castles of bones.

take anything you want today that hasn't been genetically mixed in a laboratory - and tell me there isn't a fossil for it. 

What?

Do you mean if we have bones of creatures that are still in existence today? Well, obviously there are many forms of life that don't leave a fossil at all.

But if we talk about animals that live now. We find their bones because they haven't decayed yet. Fossilization is about preserving something so that it will not decay over long periods of time.

We can only find fossils of creatures that lived very long ago. If we want to find a fossil of a creature that still exists today we have to talk about a creature that is very old and evolved only a little. There are a few species that were very succesful in their niche and have survived with relatively little change over long periods of time.

[asyncopated]

Dedicated to pianistimo

https://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/


Is it at all possible to stop argueing about science and religion, pitting one against the other?  I used to have some respect for religion and religious people, if nothing else, for their unwavering faith is god (nothing what so ever to do with science).  They have something that I don't.  They believe.  That in itself is powerful.

But I think I'm beginning to loose my patients with this.  I'm afriad if this continues I'll just start thinking that religious people are obstinate fools, on insisting that every ounce of the bible be taken completely literally, so blinded that they can't see the forest for the trees.  Please help me leave some of my respect in tact.

Please have a look here.  The wikipage on the theory of evolution is very well done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

In the scientific community, there is really no contest to the theory of evolution.  No alternate theory that is credible (waving a magic wand and making everthing appear does not count) comes close to explaining the diversity, complexity and beauty we observe.  If you did understand the theory of evolution, you will see that it is quite a simple concept, but an immensely powerful one that tells why the natural world is as we see it today.

[ahinton]

cute.  but, thal - you might be on to something!  in fact, now that i think about it - maybe it was partly dinner!  although - He was also using a pun on words.  i will now make you 'fishers of men.'

You (or perhaps HE) might have gone one stage farther with this and come up with the old chestnut "give a man a fish and you feed him for one night; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life"...

also, i think God identifies with His own creation.  not cities.  He did not first take them into the city - but out fishing.  Christ knew how to create a following of men who were 'savvy' and not predisposed to any particular 'religion.'  fishermen aren't known for especially religious behavior.  this negated having to argue doctrine all the time.

The latter part of this might seem plausible, but the first bit is surely flawed; Christ's wisdom in this context need not be doubted, but whilst you believe that God created the cod, Man created not only the cities but the fishing rods and tackle (for small-scale fishing) and the trawlers and vast nets (for large-scale fishing). This part of your "logic" therefore strikes me as being abit "fishy", not to say un-fin-ished...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

you cannot take a group of wild horses and say they developed from some other species.  they were wild horses at creation and will remain wild horses until God deems the end of the age.  speaking of end of the age - the bible says it will be just as the days of noah.

Because you - and certain bits in the Bible if taken literally - say so. What end of what age are you talking about, anyway? Are you referring to total annihilation of life upon earth as we know it, or just a dying out of the various species of wild horses just like the dinosaurs, etc. died out many moons ago? No good looking to literal interpretation of the Bible here, Susan - so we'll have to look to you for an answer to that...

everyone ignoring Him and thinking that catastrophe cannot befall us as it did in the days of noah.  do you realize that in australia there are millions of acres of land caught in wildfire.  these are minor disasters that are quickly leading to a major disaster.  famine.  pestilence.  exactly the things the bible describes as curses for living wrongly.  living against God's laws.

You'll risk inviting the wrath and vengeance of "ada" for the Antipodean reference, that's for sure! But, with respect, this is rubbish. Most of Australia is unpopulated, so how come the fires arise as a direct consequence of Australians "living wrongly"? That makes no sense. In any case, fires of this kind (though not often on the same scale) rage from time to time in many other countries - I have seen it in north-eastern Catalunya (near the border with the Languedoc in south-west France) and those in California have been widely reported. The only act of "living wrongly" that could have any conceivable connection here is that some of these fires are started deliberately - and others carelessly - by humans. What  on earth do you mean by "living wrongly", anyway? Some of these fires may possibly be caused in part by climate change. There is not a shred of reliable evidence that climate change is caused by human activity alone, although there is obviously some evidence that human actions may be exacerbating it in some areas. In cases where humans are partially responsible for this, it is up to intelligent humans not to back off from this but to repond intelligently to the challenges it poses and find solutions to them as, for example, I have posited in the thread on going nuclear.

i don't think these devastations would occur in the magnitude they are right now if everyone decided to pray and fast and repent.

Rubbish! Goodly folk like you surely DO already pray in this way - and perhaps repent as well (although your Thanksgiving feast did not seem especially reminiscent of any "fasting" of which I have heard), yet these problems still occur; do you think that this is because the prayers, penitence and repenting of you and you kind are of insufficient potency? - or that they are not done by sufficient people? - or what?

asking God for mercy and to set His will for good to us.  a few righteous people did not cause sodom to be saved. the righteous people were led OUT of sodom and it was destroyed by fire.  so, our works - now and later will be 'tested by fire.'  anything that remains will have a reward.  the fire is not always literal fire - but the testing of our Lord.

Oh, well at least I am glad that you're not on the literality train today! What, however, do you mean by "the testing of our Lord"? - do you mean the way you expect Him to "test" us or vice versa? - you seem unclear on that point in the way that you express yourself here.

that might mean some hard times.  but, He says that everyone who calls on His name WILL be saved.  so that means that even if you do not believe now - if you turn to Him during times of devastation - there is still mercy in His heart toward all His creation and especially for mankind (made in His image and likeness).

OK, so exactly how many of the world's current 6bn+ population will need to do this in order to guarantee wholesale avoidance of the kinds of devastation that you suggest?

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

God too has a sense of humour.

https://www.churchhopping.com/ten-verses-never-preached-on/

“They asked, “What is the indemnity that we should pay to Him?” They answered, “Five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice, corresponding to the number of lords of the Philistines; for the same plague struck all of you and your lords. You shall make figures of your hemorrhoids and of the mice that are ravaging your land; thus you shall honor the God of Israel, and perhaps He will lighten the weight of His hand upon you and your gods and your land.” [1 Samuel 6:4-5]

This really puzzles me.  How does one make, or get a golden hemorrhoid? 

We did handel's saul last year.  It was great fun!

[pianistimo]

not only evolution - but human migration can be contradicted by language similarities of the tartar chinese and the apache according to some recent linguistic findings.  to say that all of the subsets we have today are 'evolution' and not traits that are dominant and recessive - is the same as saying all races of humans are completely different from one another and do not go back to the original three races of shem ham and japheth - and noah and his wife. 

just a difference in outlook. evolutionary process vs. ongoing continual process of dna traits and different genes that are altered or eliminated occasioanlly - but all go back to one source.

something else interesting is that asian type wild horses were apparrently roaming in california redmond area in the 30's and 40's.  this indicates that the chinese may have migrated to the americas very very early - say after the flood some time and brought with them some interesting plant forms such as the juniper and also the wild horses and discovered bits of pottery etc that have recently been found.  i don't know the dating on the pottery but it is interesting that world migration shows exactly what the bible says.  that we all originated from three general races.  dark, light, middle or black, white, yellow and all colors inbetween as we know we have today.  ham supposedly was black, japheth and his wife from a more yellow complextion, and shem from a whiter race.  races are really not my point - the point that i make is that i feel from what we are learning from dna and migration PROVES the bible right.

[prometheus]

All human languages are basically the same thing expressed in different ways because all humans have the same 'language organ' using the same grammar.

There is this Dutch guy and he wrote a book where he tries to prove that Dutch is the master language from which all other languages evolved. He tries to explain the linguistic roots of many English words using Dutch phrases.

Some make a lot of sense. But almost all of them are just made up. And they accidentally make sense. It is not so strange.

evolutionary process vs. ongoing continual process of dna traits and different genes that are altered or eliminated occasioanlly - but all go back to one source.

How!? How?! How?!

You don't go into any of the points I made. If you accept that micro-evolution happens and that the DNA can change a lot in a thousand years then how can you still claim you don't believe in evolution. You do. You must. Why do you make this objection? Why does the DNA have to go back the the original template that is supposed to be created by god? How does that work? Which genetic progress prevents the genes from drifting too far from god's template?

How How?

[timothy42b]

I have had a new insight of sorts. 

We have been proceeding on the basis that pianistimo lives in the same world we do, but has a few misconceptions that we could probably explain to her.

In fact her worldview is so far from reality that this is not possible.  We only appear to speak the same language, I fear.  Were it any subject but religion she would be considered insane, yet she shares this worldview with a large cohort of her peers.

When we look at the Earth, we see a world in constant change, with mountains being formed and eroding away, with continents drifting blissfully along on their tectonic plates, rivers changing their courses, deltas dumping enough sediment to make the continental shelves sink, with the forces of nature working away such the face of the Earth is never the same twice.  We aren't guessing or theorizing - we can see all this happening and measure the speed of it. 

Pianistimo sees an Earth that was created by God in EXACTLY its present form roughly 6,000 years ago.  Every mountain and valley was intact and shaped precisely as today;  forests were forests, deserts were deserts, swamps were swamps.  Every plant and animal was created exactly so, and remain unchanged now and forever.  Nothing ever went extinct, and fossils of supposedly extinct species are - well don't bother her with small details, she'll get around to them eventually. 

She cannot see any evidence to the contrary.  Don't mistake this for wilful deceit.  She can no more see change occuring than she can hear x-rays.  It does not matter if we take her to a river bed, and walk 100 meters away and show her the old stream channel .  The river didn't move - God just made two stream beds originally. 

I have no theoretical problem with this delusional system.  It can't be cured, and perhaps keeps her and many like her happy.  She is certainly a nice person at heart, and I don't want to be seen as picking on her. 

But I sure don't want this taught in school to my kids!!!!!!  Or used as an excuse to go to war. 

[asyncopated]

I have no theoretical problem with this delusional system.  It can't be cured, and perhaps keeps her and many like her happy.  She is certainly a nice person at heart, and I don't want to be seen as picking on her. 

But I sure don't want this taught in school to my kids!!!!!!  Or used as an excuse to go to war. 

I agree with you mostly.  I think this is what I am challenged with currently.  How much of this bull I can accept without throwing my hands up, shaking my head and stomping off.  It's a test.  I'm in the business of trying getting things right (finding out what is true) and thus have to be critical.

Will it be possible to summerise the theory of evolution in a few simple points? Basically if one were to try and explain evolution to a 3rd grader how would you do it accurately?  Do we have a biologist in the house?  Will it be helpful?   I get the feeling that pianistimo's version of the theory is also vastly different -- for example she says

evolutionary process vs. ongoing continual process of dna traits and different genes that are altered or eliminated occasioanlly - but all go back to one source.

One source?  That's a bit simplistic, and wasn't really the point of evolution.  Another common misunderstanding is that "men are apes" (which is wrong), or "men come from apes" (which is only very broadly right, but not a very helpful idea.)

[prometheus]

It is very hard to explain evolution.

Because of two reasons. The first is the propaganda of creationists. Really, the image of evolution is not only not very good. It is also very deceptive.

The second is the time frame. It is beyond human understanding.

Evolution itself is very simple. It only seems to be counter-intuitive.

[pianowelsh]

If you dont want it to look like your picking on pianistimo then DONT! - simple. I dont think she or I would suggest that the world we see today is the world that was created 6000+ years ago. For a start the bible teaches the whole earth was flooded to the degree that the highest mountains were covered - Total. Now the pressure of all that water is going to do a huge amount of shaping. When water freezes as it does ineveitably then it cracks rock - it traps things in its path - it displaces things etc. SO i have no problems with an iceage. Water left over from a flood that got trapped - logical to me. The bible also talks of earthquakes and other suck cataclysmic events these shape landscapes dramatically and cause part of the land to rise up where previously there was no see.  The bible aslo teaches that the whole earth graosn for the day when Christ will come again.  I take that literally with Tsunami's and volcanoes and earthshifts. The old girl is cracking up ready for the day when it will pass away at the second coming of Jesus.  Call me a nut of you like but thats what the text says and circumstancially it seems to be being borne out.  All God's pormises do eventually.

[prometheus]

Where did the water come from?


Also, I don't see how erosion creates mountains. Because we know erosion destroys them.  Tectonic plates smashing together create mountains because thet push up.

Erosion just erodes. It doesn't push land up. It breaks it down and then the earth flows with the water to the lowest points.

I mean, rivers don't run up a river. They go down towards the ocean. Saying that the flood created mountains is saying a river runs up a mountain.

[ahinton]

If you dont want it to look like your picking on pianistimo then DONT! - simple.

I cannot and will not speak for anyone else here, but I am not personally "picking on" pianistimo or any other forum member; that does not, of course, mean that I will - or should be expected to - accept without question anything that she or anyone else says here just because they say it or just because they consider that the Bible appears to say it.

I dont think she or I would suggest that the world we see today is the world that was created 6000+ years ago.

No, indeed not, but it does rather seem (unless I have gravely misunderstood both of you) that you nevertheless each believe that the world that we now inhabit was created only 6,000 or so years ago (but please correct me if I am misinterpreting either or both of you here), which is in itself patently absurd, according to every reliable piece of scientific evidence.

For a start the bible teaches the whole earth was flooded to the degree that the highest mountains were covered - Total.

If it does indeed do so, it is presenting utterly unsupportable nonsense. The entire Bible as we know it was composed over a period of a mere few decades around two thousand years ago by a series of authors of Middle Eastern origin, none of whom would even have travelled to or otherwise been able to find out about all the other regions of the world - land or sea - as it was then; still less would they have been qualified to pronounce upon the state of the world 4,000 years or so earlier, for there were no written or even verbal hand-me-down histories to which to refer. In any case, for the entire world to be flooded around 6,000 years ago, a colossal volume of water would have had to be present compared to the amount of water on earth in Biblical times. I cannot say for certain how far above what we now know as sea level the highest point of land on earth would have been c.6,000 years ago, but assuming that it was as it is now, there would have had to be sufficient water to cover the highest Himalayan mountains - which means that sea level would have been almost 9,800 metres higher than it is today - just imagine how many millions of cubic kilometres of additional water that would have required! Even if that amount of water did inded exist on earth 6,000 years ago, an event more cataclysmic than any other that our earth has witnessed since its creation would have had subsequently to occur in order for that vast quantity of water to recede to the volume that we have today. How do you suppose that this could have happened? Not only that, why do you suppose God would have created a planet with all that water on it and then somehow contrived to remove so vast a quantity of it in such a comparatively short space of time?

Now the pressure of all that water is going to do a huge amount of shaping. When water freezes as it does ineveitably then it cracks rock - it traps things in its path - it displaces things etc. SO i have no problems with an iceage. Water left over from a flood that got trapped - logical to me.

The pressure of all that much water would have done rather more than that, had it existed!

The bible also talks of earthquakes and other suck cataclysmic events these shape landscapes dramatically and cause part of the land to rise up where previously there was no see.

Again, the Bible's authors had no scientific authority to teach anything of the sort - nor could they have been expected to do so - because there was no written evidence or even verbal evidence to support any of this - and, as I have already observed, the writers of biblical times would have had very scant geological knowledge of the earth and even a geographical knowledge of only a very small part of it. Of course such events as you describe have occurred, but for the most part far longer ago than you appear to suggest.

The bible aslo teaches that the whole earth graosn for the day when Christ will come again.

I take you to mean "groans"; if so, the Bible can purport to "teach" what it likes about that, but it is in any case of little conceivable relevance to the subject that you are writing about here, which, as I understand it, is the changes in the physical state of the earth from about 4,000 BC to biblical times.

I take that literally with Tsunami's and volcanoes and earthshifts. The old girl is cracking up ready for the day when it will pass away at the second coming of Jesus.

The scientific reasons for the December 2004 tsunami are pretty well known; admittedly, humankind was unprepared for and insufficiently protected against its consequences, but this is something from which the immense loss of life should be - and, I believe, is - encouraging inportant lessons to be learnt. There have, however, been earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and other major tectonic plate and other shifts on an in the earth since it first came into existence - i.e. many millennia before the arrival of humankind - yet you seem to be trying to persuade us that the Bible - a series of books written by Middle Eastern humans just two thousand years ago - teaches us that all these events are due to the sins of humanity. What arrant nonsense! Even more nonsensical is the notion the the earth would "pass away" at the second coming of Jesus! Don't you think that, even if Jesus could - and did - visit planet earth again, He's be pretty peeved to find it "passing away" as He arrived? - it would surely screw up His entrace right royally, would it not?!

Call me a nut of you like

No, thank you - I'll call you "pianowelsh", because that's the only name by which I know of you.

but thats what the text says and circumstancially it seems to be being borne out.

Where? How? And, for that matter, why? You then write that

All God's pormises do eventually.

...but, even if all this were to be believed, why should God promise to ensure that events that have happened on earth over millions of years continue to do so after the dawn of humankind despite their being likely to cause damage and suffering to the very humanity which you believe to be God's own creation? I am not an atheist, but I would not want to believe in a God that did this; I'd be asking for my money back...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Where did the water come from?

Also, I don't see how erosion creates mountains. Because we know erosion destroys them.  Tectonic plates smashing together create mountains because thet push up.

Erosion just erodes. It doesn't push land up. It breaks it down and then the earth flows with the water to the lowest points.

I mean, rivers don't run up a river. They go down towards the ocean. Saying that the flood created mountains is saying a river runs up a mountain.

All true - and all plain common sense rather than esoteric science, too - in other words something that we can all recognise and accept; this alone puts "pianowelsh"'s litany of ever-increasingly fatuous and unsupportable assertions in their place.

It is very sad that some people can study that important historical document that we call the Bible using their intelligence, powers of reasoning and intellect, whereas others seem bent on trying to "interpret" its every word in vain and increasingly incredible attempts to promote their own agendas.

I really cannot understand this and I do rather wonder whether some of the more intellectually bright of the Bible's authors would have been puzzled, if not outrightly incredulous, at some of the "interpretations" being put upon it today...

Best,

Alistair