Who's spreading falsehoods?

[AV1611VET]

I'd have to have an acceptable form of proof. The Bible, being of unverifiable authorship, is not acceptable.

If God embedded age into the world, and gave you an acceptable form of proof, would that render your conclusion false?

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into, can you?

 

[RealityCheck]

If God embedded age into the world, and gave you an acceptable form of proof, would that render your conclusion false?

Yes. Now, do you have such an acceptable form of proof?

 

[RealityCheck]

I guess you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into, can you?

No, and that's the reason no one can reason with you - you have taken a position without reason.

 

[tocis]

*sees that the usual suspects have dropped in to make their standard oft-debunked claims*

*drops out of thread - it's no longer worth the effort*

 

[Nathan Poe]

If God embedded age into the world, and gave you an acceptable form of proof, would that render your conclusion false?

Perhaps, but if God "embedded" age into the world, what acceptable proof would He be able to provide? By showing himself to be a deceiver, His credibility is more or less shot.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I brought up Haeckel's drawings because that's what I guessed he was talking about. I find it sad that you will still find his drawings in some textbooks today.

Then I encourage you to read a post I wrote to this forum on Ernst Haeckel & Embryology. After that, perhaps you could answer my challenge to you in the OP?

 

[LittleNipper]

Which Bible?

The Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Bible. All others are translations. The King James is the best English translation of the Old Testament. The NIV is considered the best for the New Testament.

 

[RealityCheck]

Except that the Bible does not actually exist in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. The source texts for the Bible are in these languages - but the first actual Bibles were Latin translations of these languages.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If God embedded age into the world, and gave you an acceptable form of proof, would that render your conclusion false?

That is a really interesting question! No joke!

If God embedded age in the earth, in other words if God made the earth to LOOK like it was older than it actually is, the only proof he could provide would be absolute proof of his own existence (and then he'd have to make an embedded age-containing object for me).

At this point I'd say "Aha! A trickster god! This is not a god who should be worshipped because he is inherently a liar. I will not worship this god as he is deceitful."

If you do worship this trickster god after knowing full-well that he is a trickster, then how do you differentiate yourself from a satanist?

You have collapsed all the paradox of god, the euthyphro dilemma is solved immediately (whatever god does is good, so tomorrow he could decree mass murder "good" and you would have no choice but to do it). The Ontological argument would be rendered pointless (for instance, now I could conceive of a being who apart from being than which none greater can be conceived, one which values TRUTH, and that would make the trickster god either null and void --thus eliminating the proof you just got-- or would render the Ontological Argument invalid since the god of the OA is nothing like this god.

Interesting where that would lead....

 

[RealityCheck]

That is a really interesting question! No joke!

If God embedded age in the earth, in other words if God made the earth to LOOK like it was older than it actually is, the only proof he could provide would be absolute proof of his own existence (and then he'd have to make an embedded age-containing object for me).

At this point I'd say "Aha! A trickster god! This is not a god who should be worshipped because he is inherently a liar. I will not worship this god as he is deceitful."

If you do worship this trickster god after knowing full-well that he is a trickster, then how do you differentiate yourself from a satanist?

You have collapsed all the paradox of god, the euthyphro dilemma is solved immediately (whatever god does is good, so tomorrow he could decree mass murder "good" and you would have no choice but to do it). The Ontological argument would be rendered pointless (for instance, now I could conceive of a being who apart from being than which none greater can be conceived, one which values TRUTH, and that would make the trickster god either null and void --thus eliminating the proof you just got-- or would render the Ontological Argument invalid since the god of the OA is nothing like this god.

Interesting where that would lead....

Interestingly, many religions and mythologies from around the world include the concept of a trickster God, and frequently, it is the trickster god that sparks the act of creation. Creation is usually portrayed as disorderly and chaotic, and in this chaos law is imposed by other beings (sometimes an enemy of the trickster, a partner, or sometimes even the trickster himself).

But few of these religions actually worship the trickster god or pay this god tribute - they don't feel they need to for two reasons - first, the trickster often plays his jokes on humans, who resent the tricks (Coyote, for example, from Native American myths) because they are anywhere from very annoying to very deadly; and second, the trickster frequently is the ally of humans against other supernatural beings (Prometheus in Greek mythology). The gods that humans do pay honor and tribute to are those they are trying to appease so that the gods don't smite them - but these gods are not loved for this trait. Rather, humans see these gods as powerful but petty tyrants prone to acting on capricious whim - and the best way to keep them from directing those whims at them is to bribe them and pay them off.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Bible. All others are translations. The King James is the best English translation of the Old Testament. The NIV is considered the best for the New Testament.

Considered by whom?

 

[ReverendDG]

The Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Bible. All others are translations. The King James is the best English translation of the Old Testament. The NIV is considered the best for the New Testament.

No way is the KJV this best translation of the bible, its a horrible limited translation of a limited group of texts, the only reason i find people like the KJV is because it perpetulates beliefs that are later found to be false from better texts, but they want to believe those beliefs dispite them being wrong in later tranlations

The NIV is better but the translaters bowed to pressure from pro-lifers and corrupted the text they translated

there is no bible, its a collection of many texts written over a long course of time, only people who want to believe its one text when its obvious its not, believe this.

 

[RealityCheck]

No way is the KJV this best translation of the bible, its a horrible limited translation of a limited group of texts, the only reason i find people like the KJV is because it perpetulates beliefs that are later found to be false from better texts, but they want to believe those beliefs dispite them being wrong in later tranlations

The NIV is better but the translaters bowed to pressure from pro-lifers and corrupted the text they translated

there is no bible, its a collection of many texts written over a long course of time, only people who want to believe its one text when its obvious its not, believe this.

I'm partial to the older RSV, which doesn't seem to be much in favor any more.

 

[Schroeder]

...a lack of understanding science? A lack of appreciation for logic? A lack of insight? A lack of appreciation for the countless philosophers who have come before? A surplus of hubris and pride in their own flawed misunderstanding?



Yeah, sure if it doesn't actually say what it says.



Are you a protestant? Or do you cleave to Catholic church as it was originally founded. Are you justified by faith or works? Are you a trinitarian or a adoptionist? Are you a Docetist?

Are you an albigensian?

In case you aren't following these are all competing interpretations that hit at the fundamentals of your faith. Let's look at how the reasoned "faith" dealt with Albigensians. Since clearly a heresy, the faith need only point out the obvious error. Guess that's why it took a 20 year military campaign and a lot of people being killed and burned.

Yes the faith is ever constant. Unchanging and never altered. That's why everyone today is a Catholic.




(I wish along with science classes, creationists would also take some history classes)

this from one who abveiously knows nothing of scripture. We who you say speak of science or the theory as such are ridiculd but for some reason you all seem to KNOW everything and understand it all just fine. We who are not evolutionst dont understand it and are ignorant liers YET YET those who are not christians DO KNOW all thee is about the bible and what it states. TYPICAL bla bla bla.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm partial to the older RSV, which doesn't seem to be much in favor any more.

When I sat down to read the bible I specifically chose the NRSV so that I could actually understand the language. I wanted to get the meaning rather than try to constantly remember the grammatical roles of thee and thy and direct and indirect objects.

THAT the Bible has "preferred" translations and there are fierce defenders of one over another is a great indication that no real value can come from trying to understand God via the Bible or any holy book.

If God had a single thing to do with such a book, I should think this, the most important book of all time in all creation would be:

1. Better written
2. Make some sort of consistent theological sense (hello, Marcion).
3. NOT be at the whims of human translation to the point that no one really knows what is the "right" translation. Just a bunch of people "favoring" one over another. And condemning others to damnation for not favoring their favorite translation.

Religion is something that CANNOT be learned ab initio. It has to be taught because it is nothing but interpretations of vaguely worded texts of unknown and unknowable origin.

 

[vossler]

Quite an interesting discussion.

What if God embedded age into His creation? Would that be an accurate conclusion, then?

and then two Christians responded with:

I don't believe in this and I would never believe this.

No, because it requires us to believe that God embedded deception into the earth.

No, because you'd still come to the conclusion that God purposely is deceiving us.

You'd still have to prove that God actuall said such a thing, as opposed to you or some other person.

Why is it difficult to believe that God did something He said?

According to His Word He created everything ex nilo, out of nothing. I can understand why non-Christians wouldn't be open to believing that, but for Christians to not even entertain the idea is quite fascinating.

If God were to create something from nothing, like Adam for example, it would be complete when it was made. Adam wasn't a baby that was born but a fully grown man and therefore would appear to be older than he was. The same would hold true for everything else.

Why, as a Christian, do you believe that God could ever deceive us? Are you saying that His Word is wrong and that He was purposely deceiving us to believe He created everything in six days? What would be the purpose in that?

According to your beliefs then He decieved us so that we could find out the truth for ourselves, that everything on this planet, including the rocks, dirt, etc, was formed through some evolutionary process?

 

[thaumaturgy]

this from one who abveiously knows nothing of scripture.

We who you say speak of science or the theory as such are ridiculd. but for some reason you all seem to KNOW everything and understand it all just fine.

Interesting complaint. You are bordering on almost completely wrong about me. I've obsessed over religion for now about 35 years. I decoverted to atheism at about age 40, so I spent a lot of time learning the faith. I've read the bible straight through (sans apocrypha) as well as countless other books on christianity and biblical historiography and archaeology. So, apart from getting a ThD I don't know what else I could have done to get more acquainted with what the Bible says. I obsessed on religion at an almost "Martin Luther Scrupulosity" level.

But then I started to look at it critically.

I know I'm not 100% accurate. I just yearn for some brilliant defensor fides to step up to the plate on this board to soundly correct my statements. If I've said something in error, convince me. Don't whine that the evil atheist says harsh things about our holy book. That moves the faith forward not an inch.

The more I read and learn and the more I post some of that stuff here and the less I see of defense of the faith the more I am convinced that it can't be defended!

If the best people can do is blubber about how arrogant the "evolutionists" are and how the scientists simply won't take YOUR word for the fact that some given random bible quote says something of intrinsic value and is inerrant in all ways, then I have to think that Celsus was right when he proclaimed:

"the following are the rules laid down by them [the Christians]. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. "

And you know...when I was a believer I never would have sat still for being told that was the nature of my faith. I think that's why I obsessed over it so much and worried that I needed to learn more. Not less.

 

[FishFace]

If the world has embedded age and God exists, why are we to believe anything at all? Could God not be deceiving us about anything? You've already rejected the normal empirical assumptions that underly all sorts of things - you no longer think that evidence points to what it appears to point to. In the same way as God can embed age, God could quite easily be making us see the world as it isn't. God could have planted the Bible with the intent of making everyone wrong.
Once you start rejecting principles like this, you're left with an unworkable mess of doubt.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

If God embedded age into the world, and gave you an acceptable form of proof, would that render your conclusion false?

Yes. Now for the proof part, if you don't mind.