The Demise of Evolution

roman2819 said:

In this thread, people who claim to be familiar with evolution say it does not say how life begin, evolution only describes how species evolve. Assuming evolution is silent about the creator, do you think there is a god the way bible says?

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

The Bible does not provide specific points, it provides vague descriptions that you interpret as matching with science so you can claim that the Bible was right all along.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

Using today's languages and perspective to interpret words written 2000-3500 years ago -- this is a very common and major mistake among people today. The right way to read ancient writings, whether it is Bible or Shakespeare, is to see things from the writers' perspective. This is what literacy scholars, researchers, historians, scholars do.

In our age of science and knowledge, people apply scientific standard as they read Scriptures. We judge whether verses are accurate or not according to our standard of science and logic. We are also affected by onevof today's common languages, English.

However, the Bible was not written with today's standard and perspective. The scribes might not use the words that we expect them to, but that does not mean the Bible is not accurate. And the Bible is clear enough, it is some readers who insist on splitting hair or playing devils advocate.

For example, you claim that circle of the earth' could imply a flat circular earth. Do you really think this way when you read a secular book that says, for example, "a few hundred years ago, people discovered that the earth was round". No, you would know they meant the earth is a sphere even though they use the word round. And you wouldn't say they are vague and try to throw up different ways of interpretation.

I have heard that some verses in the bible are poetic, so not intended to be seen as literal, factual or 'scientific statement'. The answer is this : the Bible has made MANY such correct statements, that are, NOT wrong. That is the remarkable Word of God.

The Bible does not provide the details you demand in order to meet your standard of truth in an age of science or knowledge. We cannot demand how they should have written clearer( in order to meet our standard now) , they wrote according to their times, perspectives and way of life. They did not know their words would be read 3000 years later -- and yet what they said still hold its own. It is people today who have to see from the perspective back then in order to appreciate what they were saying.

Think about it.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

For example, you claim that circle of the earth' could imply a flat circular earth.

Click to expand...

Speedwell said:

It could. "Circle" is one possible meaning for the underlying Hebrew. But I would only point that out to people like you who insist that it unequivocally means "sphere."

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

A word can have a few different variations in meaning, this is common in many languages Japanese, English, mandarin, hebrew etc

When you read that 'satellite photos show that the earth is round,' do you think it means a flat circle or a sphere?

What is the spirit or context of the word? That's what sound interpretation is about. Legal clauses are always interpretated according to spirit of the law or context, the judge can consider what it could possibly mean, but in the end, decides what it is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

A word can have a few different variations in meaning, this is common in many languages Japanese, English, mandarin, hebrew etc

When you read that 'satellite photos show that the earth is round,' do you think it means a flat circle or a sphere?

What is the spirit or context of the word? That's what sound interpretation is about. Legal clauses are always interpretated according to spirit of the law or context, the judge can consider what it could possibly mean, but in the end, decides what it is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

History wise, for example, the existence of Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caesar, King Nebuchadnezzar etc is true.

Click to expand...

Astrophile said:

Verona is a real city in Italy, but that does not mean that The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Romeo and Juliet are based on real events. Julius Caesar was a real man who was assassinated by a band of conspirators, but I very much doubt whether his ghost appeared to Brutus.

Macbeth was a real king of Scotland (1040-1057, since you ask), and Birnam and Dunsinane Hill are real places in Scotland, but it is unlikely that Macbeth was told by witches that he could not be harmed by anyone born of woman and that he could not be vanquished until great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill should come against him.

More seriously, although Nebuchadrezzar was a real king of Babylon who conquered and destroyed Jerusalem, as the Bible says, it does not follow that the Bible is correct in asserting that the Babylonian conquest was a punishment sent by God.

It is also true that Herod the Great was a real person. However, Josephus's detailed account of his life and reign (Jewish War, Book I; Antiquities, XIV, ix to XVII, viii) says nothing about the appearance of a strange star, a visit to Jerusalem by Magi, or the killing of all the male babies of Bethlehem. Perhaps you should ask yourself why Josephus omitted these details.

Click to expand...

Astrophile said:

Verona is a real city in Italy, but that does not mean that The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Romeo and Juliet are based on real events. Julius Caesar was a real man who was assassinated by a band of conspirators, but I very much doubt whether his ghost appeared to Brutus.

Macbeth was a real king of Scotland (1040-1057, since you ask), and Birnam and Dunsinane Hill are real places in Scotland, but it is unlikely that Macbeth was told by witches that he could not be harmed by anyone born of woman and that he could not be vanquished until great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill should come against him.

More seriously, although Nebuchadrezzar was a real king of Babylon who conquered and destroyed Jerusalem, as the Bible says, it does not follow that the Bible is correct in asserting that the Babylonian conquest was a punishment sent by God.

It is also true that Herod the Great was a real person. However, Josephus's detailed account of his life and reign (Jewish War, Book I; Antiquities, XIV, ix to XVII, viii) says nothing about the appearance of a strange star, a visit to Jerusalem by Magi, or the killing of all the male babies of Bethlehem. Perhaps you should ask yourself why Josephus omitted these details.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

You certainly read avidly, i am impressed.

Regarding the bible, I would ask: Has anything there been proven clearly false? Some things there are unclear, yes, and people argued or disagree with, but no proof of wrong - - otherwise knowledgeable researchers have or avid readers would point out.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

You certainly read avidly, i am impressed.

Regarding the bible, I would ask: Has anything there been proven clearly false? Some things there are unclear, yes, and people argued or disagree with, but no proof of wrong - - otherwise knowledgeable researchers have or avid readers would point out.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

Using today's languages and perspective to interpret words written 2000-3500 years ago -- this is a very common and major mistake among people today. The right way to read ancient writings, whether it is Bible or Shakespeare, is to see things from the writers' perspective. This is what literacy scholars, researchers, historians, scholars do.

In our age of science and knowledge, people apply scientific standard as they read Scriptures. We judge verses accuracy according to our standard of science and logic. We are also affected by linguistic element such as grammar and syntax of English, for eg.

However, the Bible was not written with today's standard and perspective. The scribes might not use words in the way we expect, but that does not mean the Bible is not accurate. And the Scripture is clear enough, it is some readers who insist on splitting hair.

For example, you claim that circle of the earth' could imply a flat circular earth. Do you really think this way when you read a secular book that says, for example, "a few hundred years ago, people discovered that the earth was round". No, you would know they meant the earth is a sphere - not flat circle - even though they use the word round. And you wouldn't say secular texts are vague or try to throw up different ways of interpretation. But when it come to the Bible, you change your approach.

I have heard that some verses in the bible are poetic, so not intended to be seen as literal, factual or 'scientific statement'. The truth is that the Bible has made MANY such correct statements that are NOT wrong. That is the remarkable Word of God.

The Bible does not provide the details you demand according to our frame of reference today. We cannot demand how they should have written clearer ( to meet our standard) , they wrote according to their times, perspectives and way of life. They did not know their words would be read 3000 years later -- and yet what they said still hold its own. It is people today who have to understand their words from their perspective back then in order to appreciate what they were saying.

Think about it.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

Regarding the bible, I would ask: Has anything there been proven clearly false? Some things there are not as clear as we want yes, and people today argue or disagree with, but no clear proof of wrong - - otherwise knowledgeable researchers have or avid readers would point out.

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

I gave you this answer in post 813 when you asked for an example of a part of the Bible that has been demonstrated to be wrong. You completely ignored it. Perhaps this time you will address it.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

I can only answer one or two posts at one go due to time constraint. As well, I am relying your post in sequel because my explanations are related, one lead to the next. I answered your post #811 with my #822, where I explained that it isn't always correct to use today's frame of reference to judge ancient manuscripts. This is related to my reply now to your post #813, where you doubt -- from a scientific view --about how the bible describes creation.

The Bible gives us a very macro view of how God created the earth and lifeforms. It did not intend to provide much factual or scientific details. We cannot get a clear view because Scriptures was not trying to explain more.

There are 56 verses in Genesis 1,2. I clearly do not believe that God created in 6x24 hours. So can 56 verses describe a time span of 50 to 50,000 years? (a very personal estimation of creation time). Can 50 sentences describe 10 years of a person 's life well in detail? No, only a summary at best.

Genesis 1,2 sums up the creation event very very briefly -- that's about it. It is meant to be believed in faith, or looked at from a broad point of view. Moses and a few scribed were writing a religious document, not a science text.

There can be gaps in Genesis 1,2 when you insist on applying today's science to validate it, but the Scripture was not trying to say much at all -- hence when your factual questions not answered, you think the Bible is vague or contradictory. But following from my post #822, should we use science vigorously to judge a 3000 year old religious manuscript that did not intend to provide science details? An analogy: Do you use science to judge an art painting? When you read an autobiography, or watch a movie, do u use science to evaluate them?

I understand that a book that claims to be Word of God will be judged more strictly, by a higher standard. We expect more. For this, I said before, that are many different kinds of evidences: Real historical background of empires and people + Some accurate science statements + Archaelogy evidence of cities + DSS. +. Roman calendar + Prophecies ... ALL ADD UP collectively to show that the Bible is true Word of God.

You replied that other calendars are based on real people and other religious scrolls exist too, but does not mean they are divine.. Well, the difference is the Bible has many many proofs that add up collectively to surpass any other books or singular piece of evidence. Being familiar with many religions, i can say none has so much evidence under one roof. They can't be god when they are not divine.

@Bungle_Bear says some events in bible are not proven to have happened, but does No proof = Wrong or lie? Think again.

About some people saying that some things in the bible is not literal and not accurate. Well, isnt it too 'narrow' to be limited by concepts of being literal or not? It should be about understanding. Example: if we know the spirit of the word Day in genesis 1, 2 , we will see that understanding is more than being literal or figurative. If we appreciate that the Bible does not intend to be a detailed factual book, then we won't keep pounding it with science --- hopefully.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

I can only answer one or two posts at one go due to time constraint. As well, I am answering in sequel because the explanations are related, one lead to the next. I answered your post #811 with #822, where I explained that it isn't always correct to use today's frame of reference to judge ancient manuscripts. This is related to my reply now to your post #813, where you doubt -- from a scientific view --about how the bible describes creation.

The Bible gives us a very macro view of how God created the earth and lifeforms. It did not intend to provide much factual or scientific details. We cannot get a clear view because Scriptures was not trying to explain more.

There are 56 verses in Genesis 1,2. I clearly do not believe that God created in 6x24 hours. So can 56 verses describe a time span of 50 to 50,000 years? (a personal estimation of creation time). Can 50 sentences describe 10 years of a person 's life well in detail? No, only a summary at best.

Genesis 1,2 sums up the creation event very very briefly -- that's about it. It is meant to be read in faith, or looked at from a broad point of view. Moses and a few scribes were writing a religious document, not a science text.

There can be gaps in Genesis 1,2 when you insist on applying today's science to validate it, but the Scripture was not trying to say much at all -- hence when you think the Bible is vague or contradictory. But following from my post #822, should we use science vigorously to judge a 3000 year old religious manuscript that did not intend to provide details? An analogy: Do you use science to judge an art painting? When you read an autobiography, or watch a movie, do u use science to evaluate them?

I understand that a book that claims to be Word of God will be judged more strictly, by a higher standard. We expect more. For this, I said before, there is a broad base of different
evidence : Real historical background of empires and people + Some accurate science statements + Archaelogy evidence of cities + DSS. +. Roman calendar + Prophecies ... ALL ADD UP collectively to show that the Bible is true Word of God.

You replied that other calendars are based on real people and other religious scrolls exist too, but does not mean they are divine.. Well, the difference is the Bible has many many proofs that add up collectively to surpass any other books or singular piece of evidence. Being familiar with many religions, i can say none has so much evidence under one roof: mostly they contain teachings and anecdotes only. They can't be god when they are not divine.

@Bungle_Bear says some events in bible are not proven to have happened, but does No proof = Wrong or lie? Think again.

About some people saying that some things in the bible is not literal and not accurate. Well, isnt it too 'narrow' to be limited by concepts of being literal or figurative? It should be about understanding. Example: if we know the spirit of the word Day in genesis 1, 2 , we will see that understanding is more than 2 poles. If we appreciate that the Bible does not intend to be a detailed factual book, then we won't keep pounding it with science --- hopefully.

Click to expand...

roman2819 said:

@Bungle_Bear says some events in bible are not proven to have happened, but does No proof = Wrong or lie? Think again.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

How does order come from disorder?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

The problem is that the Bible is no more accurate than any other religious text when it comes to the standards that you stated. Take the prophecies, they tend to be overly vague (which by any reasonable standard makes them failed prophecies) or they fail outright if read as written, the Tyre prophesy and Jesus's claim that he would return while some of his apostles were still alive are examples of literally read prophecies failing. The Tyre prophecy fails so badly that to call it "fulfilled" one would have to grant that almost all prophecies of all religions are "fulfilled". Also modern scholars have concluded that there was no "Moses". That his books were written by several authors shortly after the Babylonian exile. As a Christian the New Testament has a lot more relevance than the Old. The Old can only sink the New if one tries to rely on it excessively.

Click to expand...