Thread: Creationism rant

I noticed this edition of New Scientist included in its "lone voices" section an "Earth Scientist" who was promoting the idea that the bible was scientific fact and the Earth formed 10,000 years ago. The bits that didnt make sense or were just plain nonsense (such as carbon dating anomolies and the fact the earth couldnt have cooled that quick) he just explained away as "divine intervention".
What was astounding is that even though his ideas were not scientific he was given recognition and respect in that the new Scientist adressed him respectfully and did not point him out as the obvious charlatan and liar that he is. Now I am believe in a Creator of sorts (though not in the same way most Christians do) but that religion should be increasingly interfering with and distorting Science and a sincere quest for truth is extremely annoying. I am wondering how much of this has to do with funding and the fact that some the wealthiest and most influential families in the states are also Evangelists ?
Surely this was all setteld when they finally admitted that the Earth was not flat ? Did not Jesus himself say "do not lie" ? Why cant these people obey their own religion instead of constantly twisting the truth to fit their own beliefs ?
I have no problem with peoples beliefs - but to teach creationism in Schools AS SCIENCE now that really pisses me off. As does people with ideas which have no basis in fact being presented as serious science in the new scientist.

I have no problem with people's belief in creationism, but to insist that the Earth and all of creation is just a mere 7,000-10,000 years old is just asinine.

I have no problem with peoples beliefs either - but to teach creationism in Schools AS SCIENCE now that really pisses me off. As does people with ideas which have no basis in fact being presented as serious science in the new scientist.

That's what religion usually is. no basis on fact. being defined as such, many people are religious in many different ways. each holding the same dogma. The fact some schools actually do teach it means this country is in serious trouble.

Cool - see - I anticipated your next comment ......

Next time ask a moderator. We're here to serve. :P

Originally Posted by Gus

I noticed this edition of New Scientist included in its "lone voices" section an "Earth Scientist" who was promoting the idea that the bible was scientific fact and the Earth formed 10,000 years ago. ........What was astounding is that even though his ideas were not scientific he was given recognition and respect in that the new Scientist adressed him respectfully and did not point him out as the obvious charlatan and liar that he is.

I should be interested toknow which issue this appeared in. I missed it.

Given that most readers of New Scientist are scientifically literate they might well be expected to form their own judgements of the position adopted by this "Earth Scientist". New Scientist has made its position on creationists and Intelligent Design abundantly clear in editorials and articles over many years. Nothing would be gained by not addressing the individual respectfully.

Finally, I am at a loss to see the connection you make between rich, evangelical families in the US and journalistic politeness by a British science magazine.

Here yo go :

HERE

Its more the way that they seem to take him seriously - to a non scientist peering into the magazine out of curiosity they might be led to take the mans view seriously. However the main gist of my rant is that Creationism (intelligent design) has recently been approved for teaching in British schools.

The link between evangelicals and scientists appearing to take Creationism seriously ?
Well I have an equation :

Scientists
----------------------
need for funding + insane wealthy evangelicals =

Some scientists pretending to take creationism seriously

Come off it - you cant believe that the recent intrusion of Religion into the Science classroom has nothing to do with the fact that Bush administration consist of numerous religous fanatics ?

Gus, thank you for the link.

Originally Posted by Gus

Its more the way that they seem to take him seriously - to a non scientist peering into the magazine out of curiosity they might be led to take the mans view seriously.

They are according him the respect due any scientist who has published peer reviewed work in journals of the standing of Nature. This is respect for the individual and not for the views of that individual. It is the same respect that I should accord Richard Dawkins, but generally don't, because he is an arrogant prat who abuses his science by using it inappropriately to support his atheistic worldview. Fortunately New Scientist is much more measured in these matters than I.

Originally Posted by Gus

However the main gist of my rant is that Creationism (intelligent design) has recently been approved for teaching in British schools.

It is the matter of how it taught and in what context, that is relevant. It would be wholly unacceptable for it to be taught in science classes. It would be perfectly proper for it to be part of religious education classes.

Originally Posted by Gus

The link between evangelicals and scientists appearing to take Creationism seriously ?
.........Come off it - you cant believe that the recent intrusion of Religion into the Science classroom has nothing to do with the fact that Bush administration consist of numerous religous fanatics ?

Gus, please respond to what I wrote, not to what you think I wrote, or would have liked me to write.
I repeat, I see no connection between the desires of a bunch of rich American evangelicals and the editorial stance of a British popular science magazine.

Why is it so hard to believe in divine intervention if you believe in creationism? Of course it's based on no fact, but how can you accept only that all a greater power can do is start something but not that he could cool the earth down in a few thousand years?

Now personally, I don't believe the universe was made in a few thousand years. I just don't like how people that are scientifically literate find it okay to believe in a greater power yet it's not okay to believe that It cooled the earth down in a few years?

Kaboom wrote:

how can you accept only that all a greater power can do is start something but not that he could cool the earth down in a few thousand years?

Because there is plenty of scientific evidence that it took much longer time to cool the earth down. For divine intervention, it is usually a one-time event, hard to prove or disprove.
God is like a ghost hiding in the dark. Science is the light. A well-lit space does not have ghost, but some people think they see ghost where it is dark.

For divine intervention, it is usually a one-time event

that's right, all divine interventions I have witnessed so far have all been one-shot deals.

(just kidding) :wink:

Originally Posted by icewendigo

For divine intervention, it is usually a one-time event

that's right, all divine interventions I have witnessed so far have all been one-shot deals.

(just kidding) :wink:

I almost shat myself reading that message. It's usually a one time deal? How often have you witnessed divine intervention? Personally I think most of it is bull, but if you believe in divine intervention at all why not believe it's possible for the creator to cool down a planet and fake the evidence? Sure that's a lot of covering up for absolutely no reason, but hey, why the hell not?

I think this fantasy of " the earth has been here only 10000 years." Needs to be put to bed once and for all.

1. The bible gives no time scale for the creation of the earth. The earth and heavens were created BEFORE the 6 days of creation.

2. The 6 days of creation are referred to as steps . A day in hebrew is a period of time where occurencies happened. As the bible describes the 6 days of creation as the day of creation. Thus again no time limit on each day.

So the first day [which took place after the heavens and earth was created] could have been 10 million years. The second could have been 3 billion years.

To help people understand the meaning of the word day in hebrew. Imagine describingworld war two as the day of the second world war. The whole war which lasted many days and years, would be simply described as the day of world war two.

3. Finally, i feel that the constant attempts by evolutionists to claim that the bible states a time period for the creation of life, is simply evolutionists creating a strawman arguement. Evolutionists are afraid of scientific disscusion as there is no evidence what so ever for evolution.

I have been banned from one science forum for daring to tackle this lack of evidence for evolution. A group of evolutionists resorted to name calling as they simply failed to back up their absurd theory.

Phew big post, for a two finger typer. 8)

Originally Posted by Truth1010

3. Finally, i feel that the constant attempts by evolutionists to claim that the bible states a time period for the creation of life, is simply evolutionists creating a strawman arguement. Evolutionists are afraid of scientific disscusion as there is no evidence what so ever for evolution.

I have been banned from one science forum for daring to tackle this lack of evidence for evolution. A group of evolutionists resorted to name calling as they simply failed to back up their absurd theory.

Phew big post, for a two finger typer. 8)

Hi Truth1010, and welcome to the forum.

I am what you might call an 'evolutionist,' but I don't want to argue about evolution and creation. I only want to say two things;

1. I don't think it is the evolutionists that are claiming that the Bible says the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. I think it is the Christian fundamentalists. Surely you have met fellow Christians who believe in a young earth. I have.

2. Don't let your past experience in a science forum affect your attitude toward this one. I may be wrong, but I sense a bit of pent up frustration... perhaps from your previous experience. But I have to warn you, with your above post, I think you are going to find yourself in another heated debate....

Cheers,
william

A heated debate i can handle. Insults and refusal to show evidence for opinions i handle less well.

Yes you are right it isnt just evolutionists that claim the bible gives a time scale for the creation for the earth and all the inhabitants. There are many apostate religions that claim this.

However as its not true, it then it can no longer be a reason for dismissing the bible.

It seems to me that if the bible mentions days then days it is, 24 hours, you cant tweak what the bible says to fit science, you lose your case when you do that, if you believe in god then say he did it in a week, he created all the fossils, all the dna and everything else as it is - damn it religious people tell us he is 'all powerful' etc etc so stick by your beliefs, as those of us who believe that there is and never was a God do, we do not change science [in modern times] to fit the bible, what ever we unearth we present as is, and if found a fossil that said "Made by God" we would not erase the words or hide it's existence, and if it proved to be genuine we'd say it was genuine. IF a day is 3 billion years or whatever just how long was the flood? 120 Billion years? and the next day Jesus tomb was found open? get the idea, you are twisting things just like the muslims do.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

A heated debate i can handle. Insults and refusal to show evidence for opinions i handle less well.

You may find this interesting....

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Noah%...d...-4388t.php

Cheers,
william

When god created the earth and heavens , this was before the first day. So therefore before the first day happened. I hope you understand this.

This isnt changing the bible for science, just clarifying things. The bible relates to the 6 days of creation as the "day of creation". Again showing these were not 6 human days.

As there were no humans on earth while god had these days of creation then human 24 hour days didnt exist.

However during the flood there were humans on earth.

If you had read my first post properly, then youd only have needs me to clarify my last point.

As for the point about evolutionists accepting science. If only they would, then we could all accept the overwhelming evidence for creation.

I accept that evolution is controversial, I am not an expert in that field yet I see that animals DO evolve, this can be done by nature over many hundreds of thousands of years or by man over a much shorter time, there are numerous examples of these, from crops to the fact that all species of dog are descendant from wolves, indeed in the ears of corn parable even the bible suggests selective breeding works.

Now where is your evidence that God exists? is it some book written by a bunch of primitives 1500-2000 years ago?

You mentioned that God created the heavens and the earth, well take a look through a telescope, and you will see that the universe is still being created. The bible is sheer crap, in Genesis it si said that god created two lights one for the day and one for the night, - well the moonm is definately NOT a light is is a cold lump of rock battered to a rugged surface of dust and craters. Is he still building it?

Originally Posted by Truth1010

When god created the earth and heavens , this was before the first day. So therefore before the first day happened. I hope you understand this.

This isnt changing the bible for science, just clarifying things. The bible relates to the 6 days of creation as the "day of creation". Again showing these were not 6 human days.

As there were no humans on earth while god had these days of creation then human 24 hour days didnt exist.

However during the flood there were humans on earth.

If you had read my first post properly, then youd only have needs me to clarify my last point.

As for the point about evolutionists accepting science. If only they would, then we could all accept the overwhelming evidence for creation.

Hi again Truth,
May I suggest you start a thread about creation vs. evolution in the appropriate section (probably Earth sciences or biology), briefly state your views, and invite a healthy discussion?

Cheers,
william

Nah, leave it all here in one place......

William, read the first post here and youll see ive only replied to it.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

This isnt changing the bible for science, just clarifying things. The bible relates to the 6 days of creation as the "day of creation". Again showing these were not 6 human days.

Why aren't they 6 human days? The very first instance of the word "day" in the Bible comes after God created the day and the night, and declared the passing of these two to be the first "day". Surely you aren't now going to say that the Earth was spinning extremely slowly for the first 6 "days"?

They don't call them creationists for nothing.

If a creationist is stumped by conventional logic then it is quite easy for them to create new meanings for the words and phrases of whatever bible they're reading into something that fits their argument. They do this by keeping with the times. Not too often will creationists refer to past interpretations of biblical passage. By doing this they protect their beliefs and their god.

This is excellent strategy by the way because it is nearly impossible to corner them while at the same time by staying current they encourage people to follow them.

I can look forever in any bible and not find a single reference to anything we have today but any student of the bible can find even the most obscure line that when taken out of context sounds as if it is pointing to the very thing you are using to contradict it. There is nothing that you can say to refute the bible because somewhere in there is a passage that negates any hypothesis.

I have plenty of questions for creationists but until we have a way of viewing the past it is almost futile to ask. If you say evolution takes millions of years then creationists say God sped it up to meet modern day....how can you argue against that no matter how stupid it sounds? Creationists don't need to prove anything. I think that's the lever non-believers can't wedge out. Creationists have put the onus on non-believers to prove them wrong, but you'll have to find something in their bible that backs up your claim and even then they can change the meaning to suit their cause.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

They don't call them creationists for nothing.

If a creationist is stumped by conventional logic then it is quite easy for them to create new meanings for the words and phrases of whatever bible they're reading into something that fits their argument. They do this by keeping with the times. Not too often will creationists refer to past interpretations of biblical passage. By doing this they protect their beliefs and their god.

This is excellent strategy by the way because it is nearly impossible to corner them while at the same time by staying current they encourage people to follow them.

I can look forever in any bible and not find a single reference to anything we have today but any student of the bible can find even the most obscure line that when taken out of context sounds as if it is pointing to the very thing you are using to contradict it. There is nothing that you can say to refute the bible because somewhere in there is a passage that negates any hypothesis.

I have plenty of questions for creationists but until we have a way of viewing the past it is almost futile to ask. If you say evolution takes millions of years then creationists say God sped it up to meet modern day....how can you argue against that no matter how stupid it sounds? Creationists don't need to prove anything. I think that's the lever non-believers can't wedge out. Creationists have put the onus on non-believers to prove them wrong, but you'll have to find something in their bible that backs up your claim and even then they can change the meaning to suit their cause.

I mostly agree, (I only sped read it though) But if they say there's a god it's up to them to prove it, and hopefully with more than the scribblings of some ancient drunken 'high as a kite on drugs' priest. I think religious people refuse to believe they are descendant from monkey's yet they only have to look at human behaviour to see the similarities, it hurts their pride yet it's a fantastic compliment when you think about it, - we climbed out of the animal world and now rule it.

Sorry my bad. Creationists do not have to prove anything they say. However they do have to prove God's existence. But that probably means non believers have to prove He is non-existant. It's best to leave God out of it when arguing as neither side can prove their case.

Gods people have always accepted that the days in creation or day of creation is not a 24 hour day.

Constantly not reading my points then asking questions my points answer is not the best way to debate.

Creation is the most sensible answer to life. Im guessing most of the people on here have never read the bible. Many hear what a big mouthed friend has told them then repeat this with vengence. This only makes fools of themselves.

Why not actually read the bible and learn for yourselves. Be youre own person for once.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Gods people have always accepted that the days in creation or day of creation is not a 24 hour day.

Constantly not reading my points then asking questions my points answer is not the best way to debate.

Creation is the most sensible answer to life. Im guessing most of the people on here have never read the bible. Many hear what a big mouthed friend has told them then repeat this with vengence. This only makes fools of themselves.

Why not actually read the bible and learn for yourselves. Be youre own person for once.

I've read the bible, the Qu'ran, and the book of Nephi, (the latter [sorry no pun intended] at least made no pretence it was scribbled out by drunkards.

All three of them bear no resemblance to reality, Take for example the parable of the good Samaritan, mugged and left to die, almost nobody stopped to help, he gets half a page for this deed and would do doubt have won the peace prize if it were around then. In point of fact he did no more than any ordinary person today would do, In 1972 whilst driving in Scotland I came across a fatal accident, the driver of a car was killed, a motorcyclist severely wounded and 3 passengers in the car also injured, confused and dazed, did I or any of the next three or four cars drive past? no between us we were able to save the motorcyclist's life until an ambulance arrived, no prizes, no mention in a book, it seemed the right thing to do. my point being that 2000 years ago people needed religion as they were nothing more than barbaric individuals - today a higher percentage of the population are not. I'll grant you though there are some who still need religion.

Megabrain, you do make me laugh.

Ok the parable of the good samaritan is not about simply helping someone. Its about helping out a supposed enemy.

For example...


If a palastinian man was lieing on the side of the road after being attacked by some jewish youths. Many people may walk past. However one jewish man who had his family killed by a palastinian bomber found the beaten palastinan. That jewish man then helped the palastinian man, took him home and cared for him.

Now the act takes on more significance. Now the act of helping someone from a different tribe to yourself is special. Most people would sadly not do it.

Would you help a gay man whod been attacked?

Thats the parable of the good samaritan. As a jehovahs witness we should help out those with different opinions than ourselves.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Gods people have always accepted that the days in creation or day of creation is not a 24 hour day.

Constantly not reading my points then asking questions my points answer is not the best way to debate.

Creation is the most sensible answer to life. Im guessing most of the people on here have never read the bible. Many hear what a big mouthed friend has told them then repeat this with vengence. This only makes fools of themselves.

Why not actually read the bible and learn for yourselves. Be youre own person for once.

I was raised Catholic but now consider myself agnostic, I've read the Bible. Want me to paste text from it?

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:3-5

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what we call a day these days seem to be the same as what a day is defined as in Genesis. So where in the Bible does it mention anything about the Earth spinning slower during the process of creation (or indeed where does it mention the Earth was round, as you claim)?

If creationism is the sensible answer then why do you insist on scraping excuses from the bottom of the barrel? I reckon that the vast majority of Christians have never thoroughly read the Bible.

By the way, you underestimate the charity of most people. I think the vast majority of individuals would stop and help someone who had been attacked, even if they are gay (as if that should have any bearing on it). Why you find Megabrain's story so humorous I don't know, do enlighten us.

The bible states that a day to god is a minimum period of 1000 years. Most of us on this forum accept that.

Job ands isaiah both pointed out that the earth was round.

With you being a catholic not knowing the bible is normal. Youd be shocked how many catholics become jehovahs witnesses and find out what the bible actually says. Many of the ex catholics are shocked at what theyve been taught by the catholic priests.

Maybe you could show me where the bible mentions... the trinity, or people going to hell to be tortured, or that 25 dec is when jesus was born, or that we should fight and kill in the name of political or military leaders.

No catholic or ex catholic will find any scriptures that support the non biblical teachings of both catholic and protestant leaders.

The idea that the Bible says 1 day is 1000 years is twisted interpretation at best, probably down to bad translation. It still also doesn't answer my question, merely throws into doubt your claim that a day can be variable, up to the order of billions of years.

Isaiah mentioned the "circle of the earth" - this doesn't imply spherical, merely circular - the circular flat earth idea was around in neighbouring cultures at the time also.

As I said, I'm not Catholic, I'm agnostic - and I'll wager I know the Bible better than most Christians I tend to get into debates with.

You ask me to tell you where in the Bible it mentions various things - why, I have no idea - you're changing the subject. But just for your own enjoyment, in Genesis God says "let us make man in our image" - the first hint that there's more than one element to just God. The Bible never mentions the word trinity as far as I'm aware, but the fact that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are constantly described as separate entities in the NT even though there's no obvious difference between God and the Holy Spirit, at least.

Also, just read Matthew's gospel. It's full of references to burning in hell, e.g., "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Back in that day, politics was religion and vice versa, you only need to look early on in the OT for accounts of all the battles waged in the name of Israel.

Perhaps you should start citing passages from the Bible if you're constantly going to invoke it.

-EDIT-

I forgot, Dec 25 was most likely a pagan festival (Yule) that Christians adopted for Christmas, hence all the noticeable non-Christian associations. Why is any of this relevant?

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Megabrain, you do make me laugh.

Ok the parable of the good samaritan is not about simply helping someone. Its about helping out a supposed enemy.

For example...


If a palastinian man was lieing on the side of the road after being attacked by some jewish youths. Many people may walk past. However one jewish man who had his family killed by a palastinian bomber found the beaten palastinan. That jewish man then helped the palastinian man, took him home and cared for him.

Now the act takes on more significance. Now the act of helping someone from a different tribe to yourself is special. Most people would sadly not do it.

Would you help a gay man whod been attacked?

Thats the parable of the good samaritan. As a jehovahs witness we should help out those with different opinions than ourselves.

Hmmm Interesting Psychology there, it tells me you think that I think that gays are somehow worth less than I, this is a clear indication of your way of thinking, ie you believe that gays are somewhat 'less' than your worth.
It may lead some to believe you are prejudiced and paranoid.

As for different tribes, I belong to the human tribe. I repeat, an injured person lying by the roadside, of whatever race age sex condition, religion, color, mental intellect, wealth or any other factor you might classify people by, would receive help from me.

As for your modified palestinian jewish example, I personally do not regard the whole of a particular 'race' as responsible for the actions of a few, Like many in the UK I lost relatives in WWII yet almost as soon as the war was over prejudice against Germans was non-existent, many POW's settled in the UK, we are probably one of the most tolerant societies in the world, along with the US, Canada and a few others.

However you are talking about prejudice, from your reference to gay people,so on this occasion I'll give way to someone who is clearly an authority on the matter.

the circular flat earth idea

Im surely not the only person who finds this funny.

When isaiah claimed the circle of the earth he was referring to the earth being round. Thats the only sensible conclusion.

Job claimed the earth was round and "hung upon nothing." He was very clear that the earth is round.

When matthew talks of hell it means death. Eternal death. NOT being tortured. Where does it say people are tortured ascatholics claim?

However the other points you made agreed with me. Maybe thats why you left the catholic faith because they do lie about the bible. Thats one step in the right direction.

You clearly have read the bible, this makes me wonder why you dont accept the existence of god and follow gods laws.

Job also mentioned the ends of the earth, yet another interpretation. He too used the word "circle". I'm sure you know the difference between a circle and a sphere, though.

By the way, hell is portrayed to be a place where the "fire never goes out" - fire is hot, close proximity to it is painful, is that not torture? Seems a bit elaborate if it was just there for show. Why else would you get sent to hell if it wasn't unpleasant?

I didn't abandon religion because I was lied to, I abandoned it because the Bible is full of contradictions and some of it pure rubbish, I found that out for myself, I don't need a group of brainwashing individuals to try and convince me they're right, everyone is as wrong as everyone else on these matters. I also despise the idea you have to be religious to be moral.

If you were to be in a fire that never went out, youd die eventually.

So the fire that never goes out means a death with no ressurection. If we die now as jehovahs witnesses we will be ressurected, if we die at armageddon we have no ressurection.

Again, interpretation. Why is it some passages you feel like taking at face value and not others?

Originally Posted by Matt Lacey

The idea that the Bible says 1 day is 1000 years is twisted interpretation at best, probably down to bad translation. It still also doesn't answer my question, merely throws into doubt your claim that a day can be variable, up to the order of billions of years.

Actually
http://www.bibletime.com/theory/mils/explain/index.html

It's a rather straightforward deal, and the genesis days are generally interpreted as "long day" but put in as "day" in English.

The problem with truth is that he seems to throw in "minimum" so geologists can't disagree. He doesn't seem to want to provide a scripture that says "minimum" or anything, either, so he's most likely wrong.

Ok, fair enough, I was not aware of that. I've seen other passages which say similar things at a stretch. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Genesis pretty clearly implies creation of the earth within 6 rotations of said planet, God days notwithstanding - not that that should change anything. Even if 1000 years felt like a day to God, and as such 1 day would feel like about 1/4 of a second to him, I'm sure that wouldn't make any difference to how quickly he created everything. For that matter, why should God have any perspective on time at all?

Paraphrasing .....The sun also rises, the sun goes down and hurries to the place where it rises. Ecclesistes(not sure of spelling) I believe but I do know Hemingway liked it. Anyway, is this to be taken literally like one of God's days being a thousand years for instance? or has God recently stopped the sun from going around the Earth and simply started a slow 24 hr spin for our planet?

2 peter 3:8 "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

This points out how time to god is different. It doesnt mean that each day has a certain time scale of say 1000 years.

Genesis 2:4 "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

As we can see the 6 days of creation are now being spoken of as the "day" of creation.

When the bible says the waters of life, it doesnt mean that if you drink a certain water youll live forever. It means that if you take in the truth of the bible then youll attain life on the paradis earth after armageddon.


The bible needs to be read with jehovahs holy spirit to fully understand it.

I hope youll accept this, and accept that the bible is always true.

If anyone wants to read the bible for themselves, this is a good website where the whole bible can be read...

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

The bible needs to be read with jehovahs holy spirit to fully understand it.

I hope youll accept this, and accept that the bible is always true.

As delicate a tiptoe as one can make. Then I shall accept that the sun goes around the Earth because the Bible says so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the absolute truth or it isn't. There can be no compromises, no gray areas, nothing proven to be false and especially none of this 'if you read it in the spirit' crap as if it applies to everybody. What a load.

It is difficult to absolutely know what zin means by “absolute truth.” If he means that every word of the Bible must be taken only in its literal sense, he is limiting our ability to understand it.

Few of us read the Bible in its original language, but must rely on translations and paraphrases from copies of the original texts written in at least three languages – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Anyone who is bilingual realizes that sometimes a language contains a word which defies exact translation into whatever the transcribed version is to be.

For example, in Greek there are three words used in the Bible to describe different aspects of love while English has only that one word for the concept. (It is a good thing it was not about winter written in Aleut which has 17 different words to describe snow.)

In spite of the fact that English, overall, has the largest vocabulary of all languages (mostly because it has stolen so much from so many other languages). However, it is still sometimes imprecise in its ability to fully describe the complexities of a thought. Languages are also in a constant state of change as new words are added while older words fade due to lack of use.

Think of how much more difficult it is in languages with fewer words such as the languages in which the Bible was written. The smaller the language the greater the need for idiomatic expressions and for multiple meaning for words, the meaning depending on the context.

This is further complicated by the fact that we are not all that familiar with the versions of the languages in which the original documents were written. The languages in which the Bible were written have changed considerably since then.

As a result, there are times when words may have had a meanings or nuances that we are unable to discern and have no other literary examples to draw from. There also may be phrases which had idiomatic significance that we have not captured.

Further complicate this by the fact that several different styles of writing are employed by the writers from narrative, to historical, to poetry and others. You cannot interpret Bible poetry the same as Bible narrative any more than you can interpret English poetry the same as English narrative.

So even if we could agree that the Bible is “absolute truth,” that would be no guarantee that we could be absolutely certain that our understanding of what is there is accurate.

The complications described above make it very easy to find different meanings within specific passages and (as I describe on the authenticity of the Bible thread) very easy to find apparently conflicting verses merely be mixing contexts and insisting on literal meanings where they are not appropriate.

It is difficult to absolutely know what zin means by “absolute truth.” If he means that every word of the Bible must be taken only in its literal sense, he is limiting our ability to understand it.

Huh? Excuse me....I, little ol' me is limiting your ability to understand the Bible. I think the Bible does a good job befuddling people without my help.

So even if we could agree that the Bible is “absolute truth,” that would be no guarantee that we could be absolutely certain that our understanding of what is there is accurate.

I find it truly amazing that God couldn't have done a better job of communicating His word to us but builds a universe from scratch. Makes you wonder who the original texts were actually written for.

original texts written in at least three languages – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Then the Bible isn't totally without comprehension by everybody. My money's on the Greeks.

dayton turner wrote:

So even if we could agree that the Bible is “absolute truth,” that would be no guarantee that we could be absolutely certain that our understanding of what is there is accurate.

That make it very flexible to adapt to any new findings at any period. When the words in the bible are in conflict with the current finds, the words can then be re-interpreted to fit the fact. And say the cause of incorrectness to prior interpretation.
Now, how can you be sure that your current interpretation is true?

I am sure that in 20 years' time the interpretation will be different from time. Bible also evolves.

Prasit posits:

That make it very flexible to adapt to any new findings at any period. When the words in the bible are in conflict with the current finds, the words can then be re-interpreted to fit the fact. And say the cause of incorrectness to prior interpretation.
Now, how can you be sure that your current interpretation is true?

I am sure that in 20 years' time the interpretation will be different from time. Bible also evolves.

To begin with, it is not the Bible which evolves, but rather, our understanding of it. The Bible has said pretty much the same thing for about 1900 to 2000 years now.

The current “interpretations” are not what usually evolve. It is our understanding of certain words or phrases. It is highly improbable that the basic message of the Bible will ever be re-interpreted.

What happens is that we learn something about their culture or language that we did not know before and it brings a clearer meaning to a word or phrase.

For example: John 15:2 (KJV) starts with, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.” Taketh away, in other versions is translated cut off or lopped off. The Greek word used for “taketh away” is airo. One meaning of that word is to carry away and in the context of the verse that seems to make sense.

However, another meaning of the Greek word airo is to lift.

We have learned that in grape fields it sometimes occurs that a vine will come off the trellis and fall to the ground. If left in that condition, it cannot bear fruit. However, you cannot just pick it up and place it back on the trellis. In falling, one side of the tender vine is broken. Lifting it back up is quite likely to break the vine off completely.

At some point we have recently learned that farmers back then would lift the vine a little and place a rock or something under it. Each day they would come by and move the rock a little closer to the main stalk in such a way that it lifted the vine little by little until the broken area healed and they could reattach the vine to the trellis. The word they used to describe the process was a form of the word airo.

So now we are left with the dilemma of whether we cling to the picture of the fruitless vine being cut off or of it being lifted back up into a fruit bearing position.

Personally, I prefer the picture of the vine being brought back into production rather than the picture of it being lopped off and tossed aside. But I do not consider this a new "interpretation." It is only a new insight.

The point here is not that the "interpretation of" the Bible changed but that our understanding of their culture and the use of their language has improved and given us a new potential understanding of that particular verse.

I would agree that as we learn more and more about the culture and practices of that day and their use of words, we may find other potential different understandings of things which are written in the Bible.

I do not think this is a matter of finding new interpretations to make the Bible fit our culture or our own purposes, but a matter of gaining more meaningful insight to what is written there.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I find it truly amazing that God couldn't have done a better job of communicating His word to us but builds a universe from scratch. Makes you wonder who the original texts were actually written for.

But the problem is not in God's ability to express Himself but in man's inability (and lack of will) to understand. We miss the point getting sidetracked by superficialities and trivial issues. We love to oversimplify things not just to avoid the effort of thinking things through but also as a rhetorical tactic for twisting the truth in our efforts to manipulate others. Spelling everything out clearly at the wrong time could be dangerous as well, if the Bible was too scientifically accurate and informative, then God would be responsible for making our technology race ahead of our social and psychological maturity even more than it already has. And underneath it all, the issue of free will remains. We like to believe that we are rational and make our decisions based on evidence but I am afraid that is mostly just us flattering ourselves. More often than not we make up our mind and cover ourselves with a multitude of rationalizations. Just look at our debates in this forum. Have you seen any evidence in the way people respond in these discussions, that God could change people's mind by saying the right thing?

In conclusion, the situation is simply more complex than you are making it out to be. You have simply made a choice not to regard religion and God as worth the trouble and effort involved, and this keeps your way of thinking simple. Good luck with that.

daytonturner wrote:

What happens is that we learn something about their culture or language that we did not know before and it brings a clearer meaning to a word or phrase.

For example: John 15:2 (KJV) starts with, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.” Taketh away, in other versions is translated cut off or lopped off. The Greek word used for “taketh away” is airo. One meaning of that word is to carry away and in the context of the verse that seems to make sense.

However, another meaning of the Greek word airo is to lift.

It is surprising that you gave an example that seems trivial, instead of ones that are thought to be in conflict with scientifc findings. For example, the days of creation, the virginity of Mother Mary, the earth as the center of the universe etc.

Personally, I would not find the issues that concern prasit as being particularly germaine to the basic issue of the Bible which is God's redemptive work of salvation.

Whether God created the earth in six 24-hour days or in six million years would not make any difference to the question of whether God actually created the world. Whether Mary was a virgin by our meaning of the word or by the ancient Hebrew meaning of a young girl of marrying age does not sway my belief one direction or the other. I have no idea what the center of the universe has to do with it. If I were to suggest that my children are the center of my universe, would you take that literally and attempt to discredit me? I am merly pointing out how important they are to me just as God consistently points out how important our world and humanity is to him.

The Bible says that it is so important to him, and that he was so saddened by the state of humanity, that he sent a very part of Himself to earth to reestablish His relationship with mankind. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -- John 3:16.

This very day is a day which we celebrate and honor that event. Probably it did not happen on a December 25th, but that is the day that has been set aside to commemorate that event. Merry Christmas, all.

If prasit does not believe in God because he does not believe the earth was created in six days, that is merely a foolish excuse. Many people do not believe the world was created in six 24-hour days and still believe in God.

Nor do any of the other sample issues prasit raises have anything to do with whether one believes in God or rejects the salvation he has provided. They merely provide convenient excuses.

The main reason most people who have heard the Gospel do not believe in God is because they want to be their own God.

But the problem is not in God's ability to express Himself but in man's inability (and lack of will) to understand.

MM....I think you may have just rendered the Bible a worthless text. What good is a book of instructions when no one can understand them? I don't think you can be selective re understanding this and misunderstanding that. How do you know what is understandable in the Bible and what isn't? You might as well throw the Bible away since there will always be that nagging doubt.

Any mistakes concerning the bible have been made by people translating the bible, NOT by the bible.

When religious leaders and scienctists claimed the earth was flat theyw ere wrong, the bible was right. The bible needs the holy spirit to translate it fully.

John 16:12-13.“I have many things yet to say to YOU, but YOU are not able to bear them at present. 13 However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming."

So as only jehovahs people accept the need for this holy spirit then we have to pray to god for this help. Only then can we see all the truths of the bible.

However anyone reading the bible will accept these simple facts...

1. There is only one religion acceptable to god.

2. Gods people would be no part of this world, spiritually, politicly or ideaolgically.

3.Gods people would believe in the coming of gods kingdom with jesus as king.

4. Gods people would refuse to kill. Unlike catholics and protestants, muslims jews, etc etc.

5. Gods people would preach about this coming kingdom, and preaching would be the main practice of these people.

The above points are clear in the bible. So we have to ask ourselves which religion is the right one? Which faith does what the bible asks us to do?

The answer, and answers to all our questions can be found here...

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Any mistakes concerning the bible have been made by people translating the bible, NOT by the bible.

I was waiting for that approach. You have also rendered the Bible as worthless for the same reasons I gave Mitchell. You continue to throw scripture in there as if it was undeniable truth yet by your own admssion the Bible was not translated correctly. How do you know what texts are or aren't translated correctly? Shouldn't God have known that using the Bible to communicate his terms to us wouldn't work? All the more reason to assume the Bible is nothing more than a book written by storytellers. Ergo, it is useless. I have no problem with you saying it is the word of God as presented by man but I think it should come with a disclaimer stating that God does not take responsibility for any confusion resulting from misunderstanding any or all mistransalations that have occurred.

God gives us free choice. If we decide to do wrong or refuse to learn then thats our choice. People need the holy spirit to understand the bible truly. But if we just listsened to our concience then mankind would be alot better off.

Id rather have a god that allows freedom than a god that doesnt.

Jehovahs witnesses have shown the truth of the bible, its there for all to read. I fear that many refuse to read our articles and thats a shame.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

But if we just listened to our conscience then mankind would be alot better off.

In other words you're saying our consciences should be able to make sense of the Bible's mistranslations. How about people whose conscience differ from you and your fellow Russelites?

All consciences are the same. The whole point of a consicience is that they are rules we all have. The rules are god given and the same to all humans on earth.

Add our conscience to the god given holy spirit and we have discernment and wisdom and the truth.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

All consciences are the same. The whole point of a consicience is that they are rules we all have. The rules are god given and the same to all humans on earth.

Add our conscience to the god given holy spirit and we have discernment and wisdom and the truth.

But these god given rules change depending on what religion you follow :-D

Truth1010 wrote:

Any mistakes concerning the bible have been made by people translating the bible, NOT by the bible.

As quoted from the TowerWatch site (an intentionally ironical play on words):

The New World Translation of the Bible is Jehovah's Witnesses own translation, no other religious group uses this Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses make very little use of other Bibles.

The translators of The New World Translation were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel

"Fred Franz was the only one with any knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]

Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all, and only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.

What we have is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.

Bibles used by main stream protestants are translations and paraphrases of the earliest extant manuscripts and, depending on the actual Bible, done by rather large contengents of learned scholars with special expertise in the specific languages of the texts.

We do not consider that they have "mistakes" in them. Rather, we recognize that our knowledge of their customs and their uses of their language are not always clear. As a result, there are a few words or phrases for which there is not unanimous agreement as to the exact appropriate translation. However, it is agreed among most scholars that these areas of disagreement in no way affect the message of the Bible.

If Truth's Bible has mistakes (and it does) it is because it was compiled by a bunch of doofusses who had no idea what they were doing.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

But the problem is not in God's ability to express Himself but in man's inability (and lack of will) to understand.

MM....I think you may have just rendered the Bible a worthless text. What good is a book of instructions when no one can understand them? I don't think you can be selective re understanding this and misunderstanding that. How do you know what is understandable in the Bible and what isn't? You might as well throw the Bible away since there will always be that nagging doubt.

Don't be ridiculous. Why do you exagerate? Because you are indulging in shameless rhetoric. I did not say that men could understand nothing of the Bible. I was responding to a claim that God could do better explaining things. "The problem" refered to does not derive from God's inability to express Himself, but in man's inability or lack of will to understand. Why should this render the Bible worthless.

I teach physics and I hear the complaint every single time, "this book is worthless, it does not explain anything". But the problem is not the book. Physics simply cannot be taught any other way. They expect fixed procedures like they get in a math class, but that would be useless in physics, because the whole point is learning how to adapt the mathematics to the real world. There are those who make the effort to understand and there are those who do not. Likewise the Bible may only seem useless to you because it cannot explain things in the way you stubbornly insist it must be explained, but that does not mean that it is written poorly, because the objectives restrict how it can be explained, and it does not mean that it is useless, for there are those who do make the effort to understand.

TRUTH1010's explanation of "creation" taking more than days typlifies how the rabid-religious deal with their own scriptures. They go to lenghts to make it clear that it is "the exact world of God" and then when "His world" makes no scientific sense, they go to other sources or other parts of the scripture to justy CHANGING the meaning of "God's word." Sometimes they will even fall back on the many various other than King James translation or even go back to Greek or Aramaic translations!

Especially humorous is the way the deal with REVELATIONS! They speak of "God's word" as being "the literal world of God," but can you imagine anyone taking REVELATIONS literally? What are we to think of a bull with five heads and lead feet, for a type of sample? When "the stars fall down from the Heavens" are we to take that literally?

Keep it up, TRUTH 1010, you liven up the forum with your humor!


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Don't be ridiculous. Why do you exagerate? Because you are indulging in shameless rhetoric.

Calling the bible worthless isn't rhetoric, it's a reasonable conclusion.

There are those who make the effort to understand and there are those who do not.

How would you know I haven't? Eventually even the most stubborn must succumb to logic and reason. Faith is neither.

I can't remember when but you did call me an atheist in another thread...I chuckled at that but I accepted it without a retort because it was a logical conclusion for you to make. The fact is I am neither theist or atheist as I cannot prove things either way. Obviously I lean towards the naysayers viewpoint.

God, if He exists is nothing like what's written in that voluminous but empty tome called the Bible. That God created a universe for a bunch of little fragile inquisitive apes for Him to scare the bejabbers out of is just too mind numbing to conceive. I like the new term apatheism, I really don't care if God exists or not. It's just not that important. I refuse to reduce God to the position of a creator who judges his creations' actions. Is the whole purpose of creation for God to pick His favorites to live with Him forever in another realm? He can do what He wants but this??? Religion is infantile, like playing in a tree fort where youthful minds and their childish dreams bear a semblance of truth but are light years from reality.

Would God trade a planet full of non-believers that achieve world peace for the current batch inhabiting the globe?

Would God trade a planet full of non-believers that achieve world peace for the current batch inhabiting the globe?

very true.

Also would god(if there ever was one)more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear of faith

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Would God trade a planet full of non-believers that achieve world peace for the current batch inhabiting the globe?

very true.

Also would god(if there ever was one)more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear of faith

Apparently His followers don't think so.