God poll

[prometheus]

People that propose the story of Noah believe in Noahian evolution, something much more amazing and powerful than Darwinian evolution, that gave rise to new species from those few Noah brought with him in a time span far too short for Darwinian evolution to be able to explain it.

How Noahian evolution works is not explained. It is kind of curious since Darwinian evolution is too amazing to have happened according to the same people. And this while Darwinian evolution offers clear and unrefutable reasons and explenations about how it occurs.

Many many double standards. That's hypocrisy and Jesus hates hypocrites more than anything.

[pianolearner]

People that propose the story of Noah believe in Noahian evolution, something much more amazing and powerful than Darwinian evolution, that gave rise to new species from those few Noah brought with him in a time span far too short for Darwinian evolution to be able to explain it.

How Noahian evolution works is not explained. It is kind of curious since Darwinian evolution is too amazing to have happened according to the same people. And this while Darwinian evolution offers clear and unrefutable reasons and explenations about how it occurs.

Many many double standards. That's hypocrisy and Jesus hates hypocrites more than anything.

The small species right down to micro-organisms can be explained by rapid evolution.

https://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/July03/rapid.evolution.hrs.html

The ark carried bacteria didn't it?

[prometheus]

I think the Noah story happened 4000 years ago according to bible literalists. Noah took with him two 'types' of each animal.


Let's take a simple example; dog. Or wolf.

Of course there a wide variaty of different races in domesticated dog sub-species. But that's not all. We have eight species and many many subspecies in the canid genus. Thew we also have many doglike creatures in the canidae family.

The canis, already described included wolves, jackal, our domesticated dogs and the dingo. It included the extinct dire wolf.

Then we have 14 other genusses. The dhole, or asian wild dog, the african wild dog is another genus. Then the Short-eared Dog or Short-eared Fox of South America. Then a genus with many species called the Pseudalopex or 'false fox'. All South American fox-like canidea. It includes Darwin's Fox. There are six different species in this genus. Then we have the crab-eating fox that is similar to the psuedofoxes but different enough to be in a seperate genus. Then we have two genusses that contain the Bush Dog and the Maned Wolf. Two other big doglike creatures from South America.

Then we have the foxes genus, containing 11 different species from the red fox to the swift fox and asian species like the bengal fox and tibetan fox. The artic fox is in a genus of it's own. Then there is also the raccoon dog and the bat-eared fox. And there are three other extinct species that were once alive together with humans.

Then each of the genus described also has several extinct species we found in the fossil record. Many from the Pleistocene or older.


According to darwinian evolution and the fossil record the dire wolf and the gray wolf, ancestor of the dog, lived together in North America 100,000 years ago.

So when did the common ancestor of all these species live according to evolution and the fossil record? The canidea diverged from the other canivore families about 50 to 60 million years ago. The divergence of the species that are still alive today probably occurred 7 to 10 million years ago.


So according to bible literalists Noahian evolution did in 4000 years what the same people think is impossible for Darwinian evolution to done in 10 million years.

But then bible literalists do claim Noah took with him all species. Usually when you confront him with the fact that would have been absurdly absurd they claim Noah only needed to take two of each 'type'.

And that is just an easy and basic examples of the 'dog type'.

[wishful thinker]

People that propose the story of Noah believe in Noahian evolution,

I think that you'll find that bible literalists do not believe in any form of evolution.  We must wait for St Susan of the Bleeding Ridiculous to arise from her slumbers to find out for sure, though 

[wishful thinker]

I know that you have good intentions, but this is just an open invite to the "usual suspects" to argue from here to eternity again 

As this is the 204th reply in this thread, I seem to have been proven right 

Does that make me a prophet? 

[prometheus]

Either you fit all the species of the planet on a ark. Or you put only a few on them and use 'micro-evolution' to generate the variation afterwards. Both have huge problems. Both problems cannot be solved by bible literalists.\


I am sure Noah had quite a few glass jars with ebola, e.coli, TBS, botulism, anthrax on his overpopulated ark. All file is sacred, aren't they. These are some amazing little creations by god.

Ooh, wait. The biblical bronze age sheep herding nomads didn't have the technology to create the high temperatures needed to create glass. Well, I am sure they figured out some way.

Bacteria are more evolved than us humans. We need them. They offer us a genetic toolkid that we need to cure all those diseases in the world.

[pianistimo]

the ark was huge.  it had to be.  there were cages for like kind to be with each other.  if noah took seven of each of the clean animals and two of the unclean.  i suppose that the way God defined 'kind' is crucial.  he says in genesis 7:14 'they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing (including insects?) that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.'  now, if kind means also subspecies - then we are inaccurate in calling them 'subspecies' because God called them 'kind.'  that they didn't evolve from each other.  only over many many generations do we have inbreeding of species to produce 'non-kind.'  something that was not created to be one 'kind' or other.

dna research has helped define 'genus' more precisely.

[pianolearner]

Either you fit all the species of the planet on a ark. Or you put only a few on them and use 'micro-evolution' to generate the variation afterwards. Both have huge problems. Both problems cannot be solved by bible literalists.\


I am sure Noah had quite a few glass jars with ebola, e.coli, TBS, botulism, anthrax on his overpopulated ark. All file is sacred, aren't they. These are some amazing little creations by god.

Ooh, wait. The biblical bronze age sheep herding nomads didn't have the technology to create the high temperatures needed to create glass. Well, I am sure they figured out some way.

Bacteria are more evolved than us humans. We need them. They offer us a genetic toolkid that we need to cure all those diseases in the world.

ALL life is sacred? Do you mean all those people praying for their loved ones to be cured of a disease are actually asking GOD to kill millions of innocent micro-organisms  

How many colds have I murdered...I'm going to hell 

[pianolearner]

the ark was huge.  it had to be.  there were cages for like kind to be with each other.  if noah took seven of each of the clean animals and two of the unclean - that would mean that there would be a few more species of each type.  now, perhaps BOTH wolves and dogs were taken on the ark - as well - considering that God can differentiate things better than we can by our categorizations.  wolves, by nature, are not domesticatable exactly as dogs.  i mean - you can raise them - but, you're not going to have them greeting guests at the door.

The ark didn't carry ALL species, I am 100% certain of that.

[pianistimo]

no - but the word 'kind' has to be delineated on God's terms and not evolutionary terms.  the original - what we call 'species' - could have been brought. (not just genus) meaning MANY more than we realize of each 'kind.'  perhaps some died out after the flood - but in genesis 7:15 'by two's of all flesh in which was the breath of life.'  gen. 7:2 mentions taking the clean animals by sevens, a male and his female.  i always thought it meant seven animals.  and, i was a bit confused why God would leave the last male or female without a companion.  come to find out - reading this - it probably means one male and six females or seven pairs!  the two's would be, a male and one female.  that is how i read it. 

under the word seven - there is a note seven seven.  i'm not sure if this means the possibility of having a seven 'pair.'  male - female - seven times =14 animals.  seems that might be a lot more animals - though - than one male and six females.  this is probably more likely - by a literal reading of genesis 7:9 'there went into the ark to noah, by twos, male and female, as God had commanded noah.'  so we have seven pairs (two's) of clean animals and two (one male and one female) of unclean animals. 

now, if the clean animals had seven pairs of each KIND - then that would mean that there would still today be far more variety (at least in my uncritical mind- at times) within clean animals as to species and subspecies - excepting ocean dwellers which didn't need to be carried into the ark.  even if the 'unclean' animals were two by two - in KIND - it would still mean that there was more ability for genetic procreation by the clean animals.    unless we're only talking about increasing numbers - so that meat could be used for food after the flood - and that the numbers would allow for more edible food.

genetically this should be traceable.  which species are inbred and which are from a fairly long pure line of  'kind.'

ps also the flood story is very near the beginning of world history.  i mean - it was approximately 1356 years since the creation (year zero) - if you count the geneologies of each man to the birth of his first son (age at that time) - and add each figure to the next man and the birth of his first son.  (as with genesis 5).  noah's age is given in genesis 8:13 - as in his 'six hundred and first year.'  he was 500 when told to build the ark.  people had 100 years to see or hear about what he was up to.

the reason 'species' don't take so long in biblical terms - is that they DIDN't evolve.  they were called 'kind' by God and were made a certain way.  you can prove this by tracing lineage to see which 'kinds' are still today - pretty much as God made them.  why is this information lied about by science and biologists.  well, they are trying to eliminate God.

[pianistimo]

ps it is interesting even today that people say that meat has an inherent quality to make our lives shorter.  before the flood - men did not eat meat.  only after the flood did God say 'every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; i give all to you, as i gave the green plant.  only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.'  so, in effect God is giving his ok for the beginning of eating 'flesh.'  it is interesting that at this same time - mankinds lifespan was becoming more limited.

another interesting thing i've found is that the 'table of nations' in genesis 10 records where all the ancestral nations of the people were located and what names they used.  if you just take out a world map and look only at names - you'll see great similarities to names even today of these very ancient names and places.

[teresa_b]

  why is this information lied about by science and biologists.  well, they are trying to eliminate God.

Why would they want to do that?

Teresa

[pianistimo]

not ALL scientists (biologists) - but it makes them appear correct when they give out 'billions of years' as the age of all the evolutionary steps to create what we have today.  it wouldn't make much sense for evolution - for everything to have been created only about 6000 years ago.  that would mean God did what He said.  'made everything after it's kind...'

[prometheus]

Because they try to disprove god...



"Reality is a lie! It is trying to disprove god."


DNA research has provided information that is some of the most solid evidence, amoung the enourmous heaps of other evidence, for evolution.

Christian and leading cellular biologist Ken Miller on the Dover Trail providing very strong evidence for evolution:

Darwinistic evolution makes such amazing particular and precise predictions that all turn out to be accurate.

[pianistimo]

the greatest proof for evolution is still not here.  the links to MACRO evolution.  creation of newer models.  what we have today can be traced genetically to an 'eve.'  why?  because God is right.  all life came from one (one male/one female) unless we're talking bugs.  that's just the way He works. unless God created them in swarms.  i guess swarms are mentioned in gen. 1:20-22.
now inbreeding is different than the creation (instead of dying out) of new species that are not simply genetic combinations of existing models.  mitochodrial dna does not indicate evolution is substantiated.  it simply shows that the genetic mutation process is slowed way down - to minute changes in the mothers dna over many years.  and, even then - is so SLOW that we will not be seeing anything evolutionary at all.

darwin couldn't understand the complexity of life and tried to simplify it.  having 'kind' traced back to many different ancestors (different 'genus') instead of possibly 'species' ancestors.  ie humans back to chimps.  the thing is - it was back breaking work to connect them.  we don't want to let all that work be wasted - so we promulgate it.

[prometheus]

Mitochondrial Eve is a name given by Allan C. Wilson to a hypothosized female human that lived about 150,000 years ago in the Ethiopia-Kenya-Tanzania region.

It was named after the Eve from the bible but it has nothing to do with it.


You seem to claim you will only accept evolution when a chimp gives birth to a human. And when that happens you will probably call it a miracle from god.



But with the evidence presented in the video I gave there are two possibilities. Either we evolved or god created us looking like we evolved.
The guy presenting this evidence in the video is not lying to disprove god; He believes in god himself.

So either evolution is true, or your god is a trickster god.

[teresa_b]

Pianistimo,

With all due respect to your religious beliefs, you do not have a correct understanding of evolutionary theory.  And you didn't answer my question, "Why would scientists want to do that?"  (i.e., eliminate God)

You claim that scientists want to propagate their pet theories that stem from Darwin (who understood a great deal, by the way).  But Darwin himself, who originally planned to become a member of the clergy, was not out to "eliminate God"--in fact, he was so fearful of the public outcry he delayed publishing "Origin of Species" for some 20-odd years! 

There are plenty of scientists who are also religious, and they manage to reconcile evolution as well as other scientific facts that conflict with the Bible, with their beliefs.  It's just that they obviously don't interpret scripture literally. 

Have you read any of Karen Armstrong's books?  She is Catholic, and a former nun.  She explains quite well in "The Battle for God" how fundamentalism has arisen in various religions, and how it is not actually "fundamental" in any way, but more of a response to fears of annihilation, sometimes by other broken-off sects within the religion itself.  According to her, even the ancients did not read their own scriptures literally, and stories were not even expected to be accurate historically.  The stories were meant as lessons and the Truth was a spiritual and moral truth, not necessarily a literal one. 

By all means, read the Bible, but read Armstrong, read Origin of Species.  Read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker"--you don't have to buy into atheism.  The more open-minded you are, the more you can accept scientific knowledge and still not feel threatened in your moral belief system.

All the best,
Teresa

[prometheus]

Darwin really did not know much compared to what we know today. But amazingly, he got almost everything he said basically right. And that with so little knowledge, amazing man.

[soliloquy]

Christians don't believe in evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.  Some of the more avant-garde Christians believe in intelligent design, but we haven't had enough time between the Ark and now for that to hold water (no pun intended) o.o


Anyways obviously the story of the Ark is a fable, not meant to be taken literally, but there is just so MUCH symbolism and so MANY fables, and I don't know how it is that people have the ego to tell us which ones are true.  In fact, it's pretty funny that the ones they DO say are true are usually the least feasible or realistic: talking snakes, seas parting through telepathy, tornadoes of fire, talking bushes, never blinking, rising from the dead, walking on water etc.  I just don't understand why people would believe such things that if anyone in the present day said happened we would all say "nonsense!"  So why isn't it nonsense just because it happened 2000 years ago?  How do we know the bible isn't just a 3000 year old version of Hans Christian Anderson?  I just can't think of any reason why someone would believe in something that so completely contradicts logic and science, except for the fact that that's how they were brought up, or that going to "heaven" sounds a lot nicer than just not existing.  But then again, maybe I just choose to not believe cause I'm a sinner and nothing sounds a lot better than Hell

[prometheus]

Most Christians accept evolution.

Some Christians deny reality, that what they believe to be their god's creation, allowing them not to accept evolution.

[thalbergmad]

hmm.  very  interesting what you say.  but,  if the israelites were building a city called ramses - he would have been very much alive at the time. 

I am sorry, but that is simply not true. However, it is easy to see how 19th century scholars made that link.

When Champollion deciphered the hieroglyphics and started to read the the inscriptions on the great momuments, the deeds of Ramesses 11 were everywhere, bigger and more frequent than the other kings. Exodus tells us that the israelites were forced to build the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. Putting 1 and 2 together the assumption was made that Ramesses was the Biblical Pharoah. Scholars then moved forard to identify Merenptah as the Pharoah of the exodus and later on adjusted backwards again to make Seti 1 he pharoah of the occupation so that Ramesses 11 could be Pharoah of the exodus. Victorian tambourine bangers wanted Ramesses to be the Pharoah of the Exodus and they would do anything to make it so.

Evidence that this is not true is actually in the Bible itself. according to 1 Kings, the Exodus took place 480 years before the construction of the first Temple of Jerusalem. Most Biblical Scholars today accept that this happened near to 971 BC. Therefore, this would place the Exodus at around 1450 BC which is a couple of Centuries too early for Ramesses. There is more evidence than this, but i don't do long posts.

To conclude, there is no evidence that Ramesses 11 was either the Pharoah of the occupation or the exodus. However, there is some evidence from Egyptian reliefs to identify Ramesses 11 as the Biblical Shishak, the conqueror of Jerusalem. Again, scholars tried to identify Shoshenk as the conqueror for no other reason that his name sounded like Shishak.

I do believe that the Exodus happened, but again the Bible and its translators and fanatical interpreters have warped things somewhat. There was no need for plagues and parting waves, which are mis interpretations.

Thal

[ahinton]

Christians don't believe in evolution, Darwinian or otherwise.  Some of the more avant-garde Christians believe in intelligent design, but we haven't had enough time between the Ark and now for that to hold water (no pun intended) o.o

Anyways obviously the story of the Ark is a fable, not meant to be taken literally, but there is just so MUCH symbolism and so MANY fables, and I don't know how it is that people have the ego to tell us which ones are true.  In fact, it's pretty funny that the ones they DO say are true are usually the least feasible or realistic: talking snakes, seas parting through telepathy, tornadoes of fire, talking bushes, never blinking, rising from the dead, walking on water etc.  I just don't understand why people would believe such things that if anyone in the present day said happened we would all say "nonsense!"  So why isn't it nonsense just because it happened 2000 years ago?  How do we know the bible isn't just a 3000 year old version of Hans Christian Anderson?  I just can't think of any reason why someone would believe in something that so completely contradicts logic and science, except for the fact that that's how they were brought up, or that going to "heaven" sounds a lot nicer than just not existing.  But then again, maybe I just choose to not believe cause I'm a sinner and nothing sounds a lot better than Hell

Well said! - and in a much appreciated non-combative manner but at the same time without pulling any punches.

To take just one item of which you write here - "How do we know the bible isn't just a 3000 year old version of Hans Christian Anderson? ("Andersen", actually - but so what?!); well, the answer is that we simply don't - even though it might not be so (a possibility that, in what you write, you have the balanced good sense not actually to discount). I will not repeat what I've written on this elsewhere in this forum about the multiple translation problem, the fact that the Bible had no supervising editor to co-ordinate it as a publication, the quite lengthy period over which its authors various penned what were eventually to be collected as their contributions thereto and the possibly "missing" chapters if it is to be regarded seriosuly as a kind of multi-author symposium, because I do not like undue repetition and don't wish to bore, let alone re-irritate, anyone. That said, Biblical symbolism and fable is by no means without merit or importance in itself and on its own terms; it's just a shame when people consider that symbolism and fable and cannot seem somehow to use their innate intelligence to distinguish between it (however fine it might be in an of itself) and the more prosaic (though sometimes still interesting) realities of historical chronicling, of which there is also, of course, no shortage in what we have today in the form of what we call the Bible. Sorry for that rather convoluted sentence!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

the third part of the train wreck is trying to figure out why i am trying to convince thal and prometheus of my views. 

I believe you are trying to convince yourself.

If you are so certain that the Bible is 100% fact, why do you search for evidence to support it?

I believe it is a combination of fact, fantasy and fiction and that the original message has been lost due to fanatical editing and bad translations. I am enjoying my books on Biblical archeology, some of which supports the Bible.

Thal

[dazed]

i've prayed over problems in my life and have gotten direct answers. 

Hi Pianistimo.  I have no big beliefs - as in beliefs in the absence of evidence - Faith if you like - what's the point, apart from psychological comfort...   When really working hard on a problem in work (academia) I often wake up in the middle of the night with a decent solution; I would say we're both using the same/similar mental processes - just attributing them differently...   

[meisel]

For me, God does NOT exist. But If he did, he would be a real ***.

[ramseytheii]

Most Christians accept evolution.

Some Christians deny reality, that what they believe to be their god's creation, allowing them not to accept evolution.

Even St. Augustine said Bible literalists were "embarassing" to the religion, and that the so-called science of the Old Testament was only the information that was revealed by God to the people at that time.  Since then, he believed, more knowledge was given.

But American Christian Evangelicals today would find that meaningless, because they don't believe Catholics to be true Christians.  They think they are the only ones, because they are the ones that take the Bible literally.  What they don't realize is that so many spieces have existed and gone extinct, that God would have been a lot more intelligent to create evolution than some bogus theory called "intelligent design."  Actually, by continuing to deny the scientific evidence, and promoting mumbo jumbo, they make God out to look much stupider than He probably is.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

i don't understand why species going extinct proves evolution.  in my mind -the fact they go extinct means that more likely the animals that don't thrive just die.  there's no way of modifying themselves quickly if the environment becomes hostile.

i'm sorry if i 'embarrass' other christians - but - i'm not sorry for saying what i believe.  this is a 'poll' after all - and not a 'debate.'  i don't think anyone can convince me not to take the bible literally.

and, yes - i have read some of darwins writings (i find them very atrocious) and stephen hawkins gawkins.  it's just like for some of you -reading the bible literally.  i mean i don't believe a word of darwin or hawkins.  to me, they are liars.  they simply don't know.  why don't they admit what they don't know.

our only REAL record IS the bible.  it is what went before us.  what we do not know - but what has been historically transmitted by the chosen people of God to keep for all time.  the history of where we were, were we are, and where we are going.  past history makes present more understandable - especially in the light of Jesus Christ's dying for us.  he did not die so that we could continue evolving into something better and better on our own.  we are slowly dying from the moment we are born.  only Christ can make us new.

i appreciate what thal says about ramses and would tend to agree, after reading some stuff on the internet that perhaps the hyksos dynasty is the most reliably accurate to the actual time of the israelites.  but it would surely be interesting to find out more about joseph - as well -because his life would pre-date and date the pharoah before moses by about 40+ years. 

'the king's (pharoah's) last wish was that he (joseph) might be a father to his son and successor Magron.  and, administer the affairs of state for him.  some of the egyptians desired to make joseph king after the death of pharoah, but this plan met with opposition on the part of others.  they objected to an alien on the throne, and so the royal title was left to Magron, called pharoah, after the established custom (the names given to all the kings of egypt).  but, joseph was made the actual ruler of the land, and though he was only viceroy in egypt, he reigned as king over the lands outside egypt as far as the euphrates.  parts of which joseph had aquired by conquest for egypt.  the inhabitants of these countries brought their yearly tribute to him and other presents besides -- he reigned for 40 years - beloved of all and respected by the egyptians and the other nations.'  from 'the acts of st. stephen'  (describing the 'sojourn')

now, Wente and Van Siclen believe that when the israelites were in egypt and fled egypt was between the times of 1750-1625 BC when the hyksos were in power (right before ramses I and II).  they explained that pithom and ramses were called by other names at first.  this makes some sense.  and, also, that dating these cities would be done by evidence found of israelite dwellings similar to the ones in the west bank - multigenerational dwellings - and some room in a quarter for animals.  the tel that you mentioned was mentioned in their article.  the difference between these scholars and rohl (sp?) is that they believe that the israelites were ensconced in egypt for 430 years (as the bible says) and not 230. 

some scholars date the pharoah of the exodus according to his death in the red sea.  and, by mention of several names associated with joseph.  for one - joseph married an egyptian princess (the daughter of a high priest).  her name was aseneth.  her father was an important official (high priest) and regarded by the pharoah as his own son wanted to marry aseneth, too.  there is an apocryphal writing that is titled 'joseph and aseneth.'  if you simply want to read a 'story' - it's a good read.  i have no idea if it is all real - only part o fit - or if it is fiction.  but, it seems entirely plausible.  however, it is not part of our current bible - so it probably doesn't have a lot to say about 'the gospel.' 

many names are mentioned along with aseneth.  the egyptian name of joseph.  the name of aseneth's father.  and so on.  also, moses was given an egyptian name in the bible.  it is interesting that this is probably recorded in several places - as well as these 'dwellings' that we uncovered in tels around the area that the israelites were in 'goshen.' 

ps i believe the plagues were as real as the ones throughout history to today.  there have been plagues of windstorms, hail, insects destroying crops, snap freezes, unusual weather (as we are currently having), volcanoes (covering up light), oil ruining vast amounts of sea life and water (could this be the oceans 'blood' - that john saw in revelations?) - and now war.  war is the final thing, people!  we don't have that many 'plagues' left.  there are said to be some that leave sores on people.  cancer, aids, and many things leave this type of thing - but i also believe that God will cause those that do not believe to experience more and more plagues similar to the kind he brought on egypt but according to revelations.  the sun becoming twice as hot, people fearing what will come next.  this is leading up to armageddon.  the armies that will battle at the return of Christ.  not to mention the 'one world' system that is already here.

as i see it - Christ told us to be ready (as He would come as a thief in the night).  evolution and it's theories do not propose how we can solve this world's problems.  God does!  according to evolution - we are all going to die out very soon.  according to God - 'unless he cuts the time short - no flesh will be saved alive.'  that means - He will have mercy and cut the time short - because he loves us despite our hateful ways.

[pianistimo]

ps i'm not saying that people who have cancer are cursed.  i'm saying that God is a great healer - and our mental sickness is worse than any physical sickness.  if he is our healer - he can do it whether we live or die - because the greatest healing is the one in our minds.  and, yet - he came to give us life abundantly.  i do think he heals for some -and allows others to die - for a larger purpose. for His own purpose.  the people who die are protected from further pain and sufferring.  the people left alive have to 'finish the race.'

[henrah]

Hi Pianistimo.  I have no big beliefs - as in beliefs in the absence of evidence - Faith if you like - what's the point, apart from psychological comfort...   When really working hard on a problem in work (academia) I often wake up in the middle of the night with a decent solution; I would say we're both using the same/similar mental processes - just attributing them differently... 

That's exactly in line with what I believe.

[ahinton]

I believe you are trying to convince yourself.

If you are so certain that the Bible is 100% fact, why do you search for evidence to support it?

I suppose that I shouldn't seek to speak for Susan (since she can well speak for herself), but I think, to be fair to her here, that she probably does this for the purpose of trying to convince others rather than herself.

I believe it is a combination of fact, fantasy and fiction and that the original message has been lost due to fanatical editing and bad translations. I am enjoying my books on Biblical archeology, some of which supports the Bible.

I think that your balanced assessment of it is pretty much spot on, for all the reasons that have already been cited here and in other places in this forum and which therefore do not call for repetition...

Best,

Alistair

[teresa_b]

i don't understand why species going extinct proves evolution.  in my mind -the fact they go extinct means that more likely the animals that don't thrive just die.  there's no way of modifying themselves quickly if the environment becomes hostile.

and, yes - i have read some of darwins writings (i find them very atrocious) and stephen hawkins gawkins.  it's just like for some of you -reading the bible literally.  i mean i don't believe a word of darwin or hawkins.  to me, they are liars.  they simply don't know.  why don't they admit what they don't know.

My point was that you don't have to disbelieve in evolution even if you are a devout Christian.  There is no "moral corruption" in this branch of well-proven science.  You never did (and cannot) answer my question about why scientists would want to lie in order to eliminate God.  The answer is, they don't. 

Exctintion does not prove evolution, and no scientist has ever claimed it does. 

No, we do not read Darwin and Richard Dawkins (not "Stephen Hawkins"--evidently you didn't read him too carefully, because you don't know his name.  Perhaps you were confusing him with Stephen Hawking, the physicist who is confined to the wheelchair) "literally".  One reads science with an open mind, knowing that explanations for natural phenomena change based on new knowledge. 

Darwin's theory has withstood testing, and although there are many scientific discussions and debates about modifications to his theory, scientists agree that at its base it is accurate. 

When you accuse the best scientists of their day of "lying" and "atrocious" writing maybe you ought to really read and try to understand what they said. 

Best wishes,
Teresa

[prometheus]

Neither Hawking, Dawkins or Darwin wrote about slaying little boys and taking their little sisters as sex slaves.


You can call them liars all you want, they are not liars.


Why does your religion make you such a vile person when it comes to talking about scientists? I don't think that if your god exists he would endorse it.


Also, if you need the help of these 'liars of science' you will gladly accept their 'lies' and have your leg fixed or use their tools to communicate with pianosts all over the world. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? The thing Jesus disliked most?

[ihatepop]

Stupid thread...

ihatepop

[pianistimo]

sorry to misspell stephen hawkings.  as i see it, my previous personal message about energy needing to exist to pass the energy on  - which cannot happen with a colder body to a hotter body - would mean that something preexisted us that was extremely hot. 

now, according to the big bang theory and stephen hawkings - something can come from nothing.  i quote in his writings about black holes:  'for very brief periods of time, matter or energy can be created from empty space.'  as i see it - that is a lie.  he even goes on to say 'because no such thing as a truly empty space exists.'

i believe dark matter is God holding the universe together.  we cannot see it.  it is invisible - but scientists can prove that it exists because there is something 'to it' that holds the universe together.  they know that black holes radiate energy - but they use the quantum 'uncertainty principle' to explain it away.

as a Christian - i don't need an 'uncertainty principle.'  to me, i know it is God.  God exists through His creation and also apart from it.  but, we would not exist without him.  everything that Has come into being was created first BY HIS OWN ENERGY.

how can something come from nothing?  as with the Big Bang?  it's impossible according to quantum's own uncertainty principle.  there are huge amounts of hydrogen and helium throughout the universe.  where did it all come from.  just one big explosion suddenly filled the entire universe at THE SAME TIME.  it would have had to - in ONE INSTANT  filled the entire universe.  how could this be?  But, God is in and through everything - so it is entirely possible for God.

[pianistimo]

i'm not sure i understand prometheus question.  i need a specific reference to a scripture in the bible about the israelites in their treatment of their enemies.  i believe that God allowed them to wipe out certian of their enemies - but for many years the israelites had been and continued occasionally to become re-enslaved by their enemies.  i think the burden of oppression was not with israel - but with the nations that did not want to know God.  God gives laws regarding sexual purity - and even though christians make mistakes - it is not their goal in life to be impure sexually or mentally.

joseph was a good example.  potiphar's wife tried to seduce him and he let her take his coat.  i think that the sexual immorality that israel occasionally succumbed to was taken from rituals that existed in egypt and babylon.  the law of God doesn't say to take any young girl - especially under a mature age at least of 13 or 14 in those days.  that was because they had a different system throughout the entire world at that time.  today - we would consider 13-14 very immature.  but, back then - a menstrual cycle was indication of a woman's fertility and beginning of sexual maturity.

i certainly do not see any indication in scripture that men of OT times (in israel) that typically would take a wife from any extremely young age.  God did tell the israelites to wipe out the men and boys of the enemies camp because he knew that they would soon be enemies again and there would not ever be peace with an enemy that existed.  that is why the enemies also wiped out israel many times.  it goes both ways.  they both tried to attain justice for themselves and their families.  but, israel usually wasn't the one starting the offensive.  they would ask to dwell in peace - but require that the nations would understand that they were being directed by God to 'pass through' a land - and reach the land that God gave them.  the nations were stubborn against God.  God allowed victory in war during the times that israel was obedient to him.

prometheus--war is actually manmade idea.  it is not God's first idea - as you can see with how He dealt with cain - who murdered.  we are all brothers.  why should we hate our brother?

[ahinton]

sorry to misspell stephen hawkings. 

You still are doing so; there is no "s" at the end of his surname - it is "Hawking".

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

oops.  simple oversight.  i bet he occasionally forgets to comb his hair.

[thalbergmad]

oops.  simple oversight.  i bet he occasionally forgets to comb his hair.

Regretfully, the poor man could not comb his own hair even if he did remember.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

i appreciate what thal says about ramses and would tend to agree,

 

[pianistimo]

after doing a bit of research (albeit not as much as an archeological scholar) i've found that it is still possible that ramses was the pharoah that built much of the area around the nile delta where remains of israelite housing was found.  and, he was a pharoah that moved his capital to that area (memphis?) and probably was the pharoah that enslaved the israelites to build his huge constructions.  but, another king took his place.  possilbly
tuthmosis III - who was the pharaoh that replaced ramses when he died.  he was a 'warrior' and his personality fits.  also, he reigned a fairly short time.  his body was not found in his tomb - but found later with a group of mummies in another tomb.  was his body found in the red sea?  i don't know. 

anyways - what is interesting is that after tutmosis III - there was no sucessor of the 'line' because (ie i think all the firstborn in egypt died - as the bible says)- and the next pharoah amenmesses was not a 'legitimate heir' according to egyptian histories.  now, right before he ruled there was also a ruler 'merneptah' who, btw, put a writing on the opposite side of amenhotep's stele - which is now called 'merneptah victory stele' which mentions the famine (and needing seed!) of the sons of israel.  it is one of the egyptian findings of flandings petrie that proved that israel or 'isrir' existed as a nomadic type of people and were conquored (thus slaves) by egypt.   

an interesting side note - is that this pharoah amenmesses tomb was found recently
https://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/middle_east/4700032.stm   buried somewhat away from the other tombs that were found - and also buried in haste somewhat.  could it be that this successor recorded the plagues of egypt - as he would have inherited some devastation.  and, possibly wrote of the history of the exodus (of the preceding pharoah). 

[thalbergmad]

1. Thutmose 111 reigned a couple of hundred years before Ramesses. He was followed by the Queen Hatshepsut.
2. Ramesses had nothing to do with the Exodus or occupation. Areas were named after Pharoahs, but not before they were born. You have a problem with going into a debate claiming to already know the answer. Therefore you have a closed mind and will only look at evidence (however tenuous) to support what you claim to already know.
3. A lot of Pharoahs were warriors.
4. Thutmose 111 reigned for over 50 years which is hardly short.
5. Pharoahs were not always suceeded by whoever was next in line. Throughout the intermediate periods and when upper and lower Epypt was ruled by different Kings, war, power and politics could decide.
6. Amenmesse did have a short reign of 3 years. Some did. This proves nothing.
7. There is evidence of some sort of plague/catastrophe. But if you accept that it happened to the Epyptians, it also happened to the Israelites. There are burial pits full of them. Your God killed his own people as well as his enemies.
8. Killing of all the "first born" is of course fantasy and did not happen. Simply mistranslation which should mean "flower of".
9. If something like this did happen, the Epyptians would have recorded it as so.
10. The Pharoah Sobekhotep 111 left a record of slave transfers of ownership. Study has shown that well over 50 per cent of the names mentioned were semitic in origin. It is thought that he was the king that reigned before the birth of Moses. Nothing to do with Ramesees.

I am more than prepared to accept that the Exodus happened in some form or another.

I know that you believe every single word of the Bible, but this is not doing you any good in serious debate. The Bible was written, translated and editied by man and man can make mistakes. Man is also capable of making false claims to spice up stories a bit.

The Exodus sounds so much better when Seti and Ramesses are involved. The fact that they were not does in no way disprove the rest of the Biblical account.

If you were to give just a little ground it would make you seem more reasonable and less fanatical.

Thal

[pianistimo]

have to read some more about this tuthmosis - but the various egyptian histories call him a sort of 'napoleon.'  his body was not buried with his tomb.

i think the burial pits of the israelites were due to their enslavement.

this is how one site explains it:  www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html

genesis 47:11 mentions 'so joseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of ramses, as pharoah had ordered.'

now, as this site says - 'ramses' was a word that was added to the scripture by scribes to describe what (at that time) had been 'rowaty.'  but, the israelites later helped to build the cities of ramses as the exodus here is dated at 1450 BC and under tuthmosis III.

now, joseph's sojourn was clearly 430 years before this 'exodus' and also he was considered 'royalty' (much as moses was - being brought up in egyptian court) and even had his own burial chambers at the end of his 'villa' in/near goshen.  at that time - it was just he and his brothers.  but, they quickly grew in numbers and became a 'threat' several hundreds of years later.  anyways - historical evidence can be found for a possible burial site in egypt dedicated to joseph. 

pre-hyksos period was around 1880 BC and around the time that joseph and family were in egypt.  adding 430 years of slavery brings you to 1450 BC - and so the bible actually helps to date WHEN the israelites fit into the egyptian 'scheme' of pharoahs. 

exodus 1:11 mentions 'so they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor.  and they built for pharoah storage cities, pithom and raamses.

then there was a new king that didn't know joseph ex. 1:8 - so, in effect, the last chapter of genesis mentions an egyptian ROYAL burial for joseph - and then another king who doesn't want anything to do with joseph (and built a city over his dwellings or villa).  Tell el-Daba is the most likely place they think joseph was buried - but then moses was able to take the body of joseph with him when they fled egypt.

regarding the plagues - i don't think the israelites were afflicted with them?  why?  because the bible specifically states that the plagues did not descend upon goshen as they did other places in egypt.  they were divine plagues and not 'pretend' as the egyptian magicians were likely to say at the first.  the 'passover' was the literal passing over of God (to the israelites) - and the literal death of all the egyptian firstborn.  that meant kings on down. 

whomever was the pharoah - it would also follow the bible that if moses was 83! when he led the israelites out of egypt - it would be 83 years since the finding of a son for the previous pharoah.  i believe there is mention that the pharoah that raised moses had died and a new one had taken his place.  ex. 2:23 'now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of egypt died.  and the sons of israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God....'

[thalbergmad]

have to read some more about this tuthmosis - but the various egyptian histories call him a sort of 'napoleon.'  his body was not buried with his tomb.

i think the burial pits of the israelites were due to their enslavement.

this is how one site explains it:  www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html

genesis 47:11 mentions 'so joseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of ramses, as pharoah had ordered.'

now, as this site says - 'ramses' was a word that was added to the scripture by scribes to describe what (at that time) had been 'rowaty.'  but, the israelites later helped to build the cities of ramses as the exodus here is dated at 1450 BC and under tuthmosis III.

now, joseph's sojourn was clearly 430 years before this 'exodus' and also he was considered 'royalty' (much as moses was - being brought up in egyptian court) and even had his own burial chambers at the end of his 'villa' in/near goshen.  at that time - it was just he and his brothers.  but, they quickly grew in numbers and became a 'threat' several hundreds of years later.  anyways - historical evidence can be found for a possible burial site in egypt dedicated to joseph. 

pre-hyksos period was around 1880 BC and around the time that joseph and family were in egypt.  adding 430 years of slavery brings you to 1450 BC - and so the bible actually helps to date WHEN the israelites fit into the egyptian 'scheme' of pharoahs. 

exodus 1:11 mentions 'so they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor.  and they built for pharoah storage cities, pithom and raamses.

then there was a new king that didn't know joseph ex. 1:8 - so, in effect, the last chapter of genesis mentions an egyptian ROYAL burial for joseph - and then another king who doesn't want anything to do with joseph (and built a city over his dwellings or villa).  Tell el-Daba is the most likely place they think joseph was buried - but then moses was able to take the body of joseph with him when they fled egypt.

regarding the plagues - i don't think the israelites were afflicted with them?  why?  because the bible specifically states that the plagues did not descend upon goshen as they did other places in egypt.  they were divine plagues and not 'pretend' as the egyptian magicians were likely to say at the first.  the 'passover' was the literal passing over of God (to the israelites) - and the literal death of all the egyptian firstborn.  that meant kings on down. 

whomever was the pharoah - it would also follow the bible that if moses was 83! when he led the israelites out of egypt - it would be 83 years since the finding of a son for the previous pharoah.  i believe there is mention that the pharoah that raised moses had died and a new one had taken his place.  ex. 2:23 'now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of egypt died.  and the sons of israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God....'

1. Thutmosis 111 was indeed a "Napolean", but nothing to do with Ramesses.
2. The burial pits show that something happened that was rather nasty and rather quick. Many people were buried together, with no grave goods and in no particular fashion and by all accounts in some haste. There is no such thing as a "divine" plague. If it happened to the Egpytians, it happened to the Israelites as well. If all you look at are Christian Websites, all you are going to see is supposed evidence that supports the Bible.
3. The land or anything to do with Ramesses could only have existed after he was born and not before. Ramesses the great reigned some 200 years AFTER Thutmose 111.
4. There is a large amount of evidence that the Egyptian Chronology used for years is wrong. Even if the Pharoah of the Exodus was Thutmoses 111 or Dudimose it WAS NOT Ramesses.
5. The ruler at the time of Moses birth was probably Khaneferre Sobekhotep 1V.
6. According to Manetho, in the raign of Dudimose "a blast of God smote us" which is confirmed by the archeology at Avaris.

This is the last time l will bother to engage you on this subject because again you believe 100% in the word of the Bible and are completely rigid. The only people who believe that Ramesses was something to do with the Exodus are blind tambourine banging fundamentalist morons.

You carry on looking at Christian Websites to try to prove what you believe is true. 

[thalbergmad]

I wish i had stuck to my new years resolution, but i did not.

I should have remembered that it is pointless entering into a debate with people that already know the answer.

Therefore i am making a new resolution:

I hereby declare that i will not enter into any form of religious debate with brain dead, blinkered, single celled, happy clappy, bead juggling, sandal wearing, hand waving, candle lighting, tambo banging, god bothering, fundamentalist, Christians.

Signed by

Thalbergmad

[mad_max2024]

I wish i had stuck to my new years resolution, but i did not.

I don't think anyone does...

I find 99% of debates about any subject are not about arguing and exposing ideas trying to find the truth
They are about winning and feeling that your ideas are superior than others
People don't really want someone that will argue with them, they want someone to agree with them and put their mind to rest by making them feel their ideas are right and true
I usually try not to waste time with those, I just nod a lot and let people rant

[gyzzzmo]

To my opinion, a 'god' is just something humans created to feel themselves better.
Better, because we dont want to accept we are basicly not much different than other organisms(animals). (The only difference is that we got certain parts of our brains more developped so we became great in using tools).
Especially the 'heaven'-part; we dont want to accept that all we worked for, learned and developped is pretty useless because at the end we just die and rot away.

gyzzzmo

[pianistimo]

agreed, sorry about the ramses part being before.  anyways, tuthmosis III was more my point.  he is supposedly the one that married hapsutshet who was supposedly the daughter of the pharaoh that pulled mosis (egyptian name for house of thothmes or thoth- mesu =moses = son or child) out of the bullrushes.  now, this tuthmosis III supposedly married hapsutshet after the first pharoah died.

something else i find interesting is this article about joseph and when he was dated to be.  the bible records his egyptian name as zaphenath-panea; and he married asenath (the daughter of the high priest of on whose name was potiphera.  now in looking through historical records - this particular scholar found the name imhotep very similar to the idea of the rulership of joseph.  joseph came into the land worshipping the God who called himself (I AM that I AM) or 'im'.  joseph became a ruler - second only to pharoah and actually ruled (although not as a pharoah) viceroy.

here's the article:  www.logon.org/_domain/abrahams-legacy.org/sojourn-egypt.html

now, as i see it - either the bible is a pretty good historic account (including for dating purposes - as it records things fairly accurately in terms of geneologies) and we can correlate egyptian, hebrew, syrian writings together and confirm accounts rather than have them in disagreement.

430 years accounts probably for the 30 years of joseph's coming to egypt and finally becoming a ruler (at age 30) and 400 years of sojourn in egypt (including the period of slavery - which some say happened at the end of the hyksos period with a 'king that did not know joseph').

interesting side note:  did you know that the obelisk of this tuthmosis III is in central park, nyc.  twould be interesting to have someone interpret the writings on this particular obelisk.  could be that it relates some of the story of the israelites in egypt.  or 'isrir.' 

now, moses was also raised in the pharoah's household and was treated as royalty until he left around age 40?  there's probably egyptian documentation for moses as being of royal household of whomever was hapsetshut's father.

as i said - i'm not arguing scholarship.  just trying to make sense of it and date things accurately from both a literal reading of the hebrew bible and egyptian records (translated to english).  quite interesting is the rendition of the story of joseph and aseneth - which , btw, no one doubts as being true in the base form of joseph marrying this egyptian princess.  the egyptian names for him and aseneth should be recorded somewhere's in egyptian history.  the names being egyptian and not hebrew.

[mad_max2024]

as i said - i'm not arguing scholarship.  just trying to make sense of it and date things accurately from both a literal reading of the hebrew bible and egyptian records (translated to english). 

There's your problem...
Let go of the literal reading of the bible and everything will probably fall into place

[pianistimo]

sidenote:  joseph was 'embalmed' in egypt (gen. 1:26) so finding his tomb should be no surprise.  but, his body was not found - according to scholars who believe that they found his possible tomb in an area where his villa may have been.

[pianistimo]

dear mad_max,   i believe the problem that has plagued scholars to this very day - about the dating of the exodus is because they DO NOT take the reading of the bible literally.  i mean - you have places where the dating of saul's reign as king is absolute in both biblical and historical chronology.  i think people wanted it to fit ramses reign because ramses is mentioned as places in the bible.

as i read the accounts - it was named ramses LATER - and the scribes wrote of the location with hindsight.  if it was named 'rowaty' before - it is like calling england britain.  there is no place that i find 'mistakes' in the entire story flow.  you take the entire account and put it all together as with some kind of mathematical formula (taking all the dates - all the egyptian history - all the hebrew history ) 

famines occured in exact time frames.  true there were several famines throughoiut history - but also we take into account the gods that were worshipped in egypt at the times these various people were in power.  it gives us some indications by hebrew customs and egyptian customs what the true datings would accurately be.

of course, i am a fledgling dater and very unorganized in my scholarly attempts to put things into some kind of order.  but, what matters most to me - is seeing how perfect God is in recording his own data.

the children of israel KEPT going into egypt.  why?  because God wanted records kept of actual occurances.  for instance, sarah first met a pharoah (and abraham - being a very wise man - is thought to have brought egypt higher mathematics and astronomical information!) joseph was made a ruler in egypt.  moses was raised in royal household.  jesus own family fled into egypt.  the accounts of historical facts were ALWAYS recorded in egypt.

God is great!  He makes no mistakes.