Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Writers at the time often exaggerated events or whatever (the contraidcition between how many horses a king had for instance, I forget the numbers) to make their country seem more important than it actually is.
Well, writers in the Bible didn't exaggerate.... What appears to be differences in numerics is relative to "how" horses are counted, not an exaggeration. Some counts are of individual possessions (horses)... and others are of the "whole" chariot team. That type of "counting" is substantiated in other historical references.
My friend, you don't have to "think" the Exodus actually happened, you may know it. There is evidence for the Israelites in Goshen (that's Egypt), then any evidence of the Hebrew children ceases, and suddenly "poof"... there they are in the land God gave them
There's only one way to leave a country without a trace... and that is to E-X-O-D-U-S.
Cool, I'm down with that.
How untrue.
( I think these will soon be my trademark words....)
Archaeological evidence does not mean that you may have the actual bones of this or that person, but that you have the environment in which they lived and worked. There is evidence for all of the cities of the Old Testament, references to some of the people.... Abraham lived.... and the name Abraham is found in records (the mari tablets) that are concurrent to Abraham's time, as well as other names that are found in Abraham's family. Is it the exact same Abraham? I don't know that it is... but I don't know that it isn't either. The point is... don't discredit Abraham's existence without merit.Furthermore, if you believe the existence of Christ and His words, He spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Adam and Noah
Alright, so there is paper refering to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Can I ask for a link to information on this? I'm most interested.
No... but are you publishing on the internet within the text of the copyrighted material what the author intended to say??????
Whoops, I thought we were talking about the Bible. I won't get into your little squable about the OP.
Well, writers in the Bible didn't exaggerate
I'm sure they did; and they had a very long time with which to do it.
PS: is all that text red for everyone else? That's what it's showing up as on my computer and I didn't mean for it
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 31st August 2003 at 04:49 PM.
Alright, so there is paper refering to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Can I ask for a link to information on this? I'm most interested. Whoops, I thought we were talking about the Bible. I won't get into your little squable about the OP.
Well, I had to go look for a source....
If you put Abraham+mari tablets in the address line... you get several links....
I get most of my archaeological information from textbooks or training and not off the internet ... sorry... that particular text is in "Archaeology and Bible History" Joseph Free. You quoted "isaac"... I didn't... because "Isaac" isn't one of the names identified in the mari tablets.
~malaka~
Last edited by Malaka; 31st August 2003 at 05:28 PM.
"He interprets one level as contemporary with the third dynasty of Ur; the temples at that period were to Dagan and Ninharsug around 2250-2100 B.C.E"
Interesting how there was already a well developed pagan religion, temples built to that religion, and a 3 dynasty old empire a mere 50-150 years after that big flood, eh?
Also, it seemed as if the entire basis for the historicity of Abraham is really just, "Well, all the evidence allows it so we have to believe it because it's in the Bible." Maybe your book(s) have more specific evidence regarding this subject... Regardless, I do not dispute the existance of Moses or Abraham.
Lastly, is it just a coincidence that one of the moon gods was named Sin? That was interesting.
You quoted "isaac"... I didn't... because "Isaac" isn't one of the names identified in the mari tablets.
Yeah that was my bad. You said Jesus mentioned Isaac and I misread it to mean the documents did. Then again, Christ also said some of his disciples would live to see the second coming (Matthew 16:28). To the best of my knowledge, we're still waiting for it
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 1st September 2003 at 03:21 PM.
Yeah that was my bad. You said Jesus mentioned Isaac and I misread it to mean the documents did. Then again, Christ also said some of his disciples would live to see the second coming (Matthew 16:28). To the best of my knowledge, we're still waiting for it
Mt 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
That was fulfilled six days later at the transfiguration of Christ.
Mt 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
That was fulfilled six days later at the transfiguration of Christ.
~malaka~
Christ's resurrection was the "coming in his kingdom"? So the reign of Christ as per Revelations ain't happening?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Christ's transformation in front of Peter, James and John allowed them to see the kingdom of God was at hand.
Gah, excellent point! I find the wording of Christ's original statement (prophesy even) to be sort of awkward if this is the case. The original statement sounds much more like he's refering to the second coming; but then again I admit to being able to interpret scripture outside what a literal reading gives me
Also, when I read Matthew 16:28 it seems to me as if he's talking about the disciples seeing the kingdom of Christ. But this doesn't happen in the transifuration. Jesus gets really bright and his clothes start shining. Should I not apply a plain reading to Mt 16:28?
Regardless I am now pretty convinced he was talking about the transfiguration. Thank you.
The transformation is not the same as the resurrection.
I realize this. I get confused far too easily.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Vance posted: You paint the YEC's as bad guys. Community dividers, hostile attackers.
Perhaps you have some evidence to support your accusitions.
YECs are the bad guys.
When Arkansas passed Act 590 mandating the teaching of YEC in public school science classes, 26 plaintiffs sued to prevent it. All were Christians/Jews. 23 were ministers or rabbis. The plaintiffs included the Catholic, Methodist, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas, a Southern Baptist minister, and the MacLean in the MacLean vs Arkansas was REV. MacLean of the Presbyterian Church. It the Finding of Facts in that trial, the YECs stated flatly that the Creator in YEC did NOT have to be God! That is rank heresy. See the Nicean Creed that is part of this Forum and which is the touchstone for defining "Christian" for the forum. YEC just contradicted that.
Of course, Francis Bacon 400 years ago knew how dangerous YEC was. In 1620 he wrote: "For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy[ science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm
Need any more evidence?
Of couse it is the bible that says six days....in 4 places.
It also says one day in Genesis 2:4b.
It is the bible that says Adam was formed from the dust in both the Old and New Testament.
It is the bible that says Eve was formed second from Adams side.
It is Genesis 1:26-27 that has men and women spoken into existence at the same time. So which is right?
Generally speaking...the bible is YOUNG EARTH. Now you have the right to disagree Vance...but to label the YEC's in the manner you did above is shamefull...especially considering the fact tht it is the YEC's who are reading the bible and believing what is written. It is the Theo-Evos that have to RE-WRITE Genesis to fit their interpretation of mans fallible science.
I submit that it is the YECs that have made a false idol out of their interpretation of the Bible. Genesis is neither young nor old earth. The age of the earth was calculated by Bishop Ussher.
Tell me, how do you interpret Luke 2:1? Was all the world taxed? Were Japanese, Sioux, and Russians taxed? Why not? Don't you believe what is written?
Or do you take extrabiblical evidence and re-interpret "all the world" to mean only the Roman world?
Now, if you can take extrabiblical evidence there, why not extrabiblical evidence to reinterpret Genesis? It shouldn't be a problem unless you now worship that interpretation and can't bear to part with your god.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
I realize this. I get confused far too easily. 
Linear Mode
