Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[AV1611VET]

The article loses credibility with this statement.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, are we?

I forgot that was in there and will edit it out so as to make it credible then, okay?

 

[nvxplorer]

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, are we?

Nope. More like noticing the pig behind the lipstick.

I forgot that was in there and will edit it out so as to make it credible then, okay?

Okie dokie.

 

[Chalnoth]

From www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
   Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
   2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.​
   Salvation by works:
   Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.​
   Magic:
   Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.​
   Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
   Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.​
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

1. Then why not reject the New Testament, also written in Greek?
2. I don't recall any Biblical writers laying claim to inspiration.
3. Neither was the New Testament.
4. The "real" Christian church? No true Scottsman fallacy, anybody?
5. Not unlike the rest of the Bible, then.
6. There exist similar discrepancies in the rest of the Bible. For example, the claim in the New Testament that followers of Jesus need not follow the Old Testament ritual law.
7. And the rest of the Bible teaches immoral practices like murder, war, and rape.
8. One reasonably valid point!
9. A conclusion, not a point.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Definitely not. It can't be unless your knowledge about life et cetera is absolutely complete, which it probably will never be.

I agree. None of us are omniscient.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Repeatable observations, verified by multiple, independent groups of people.

I'm not aware that evolution or creation are repeatedly observable.

 

[Chalnoth]

However, I would like to state that just because none of us can be absolutely certain that what we think is correct is indeed correct doesn't mean that any viewpoint is as good as any other.

A viewpoint that is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence is vastly superior to one that has little or no repeatable observations as evidence, when the viewpoints conflict.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I'm not aware that evolution or creation are repeatedly observable.

Evolution is.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Well, that's the subject of abiogenesis, which is a different theory than evolution. Abiogenesis is a very new field (compared to evolution) and scientists are still working on the many different theories in the feel.

Hhmm, I've not heard of abiogenesis. How does it differ from evolution?

 

[VinceBlaze]

1. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

How are these Catholic doctrines in variance with the Bible?

 

[VinceBlaze]

1. I'm not infallable, so I might misunderstand things.
2. I'm not omnipotent, so I don't know all the evidence.
3. Humans are not infallabe, so we might collectively make mistakes.
4. Humans are not omnipotent, so we might come across evidence in the future that negates current ideas.
5. Last thursdayism might just be true, in case science will never uncover this because it was created by iggy, the trickster magic elf.

I can definitely go with the first four, lolol.

 

[VinceBlaze]

However, I would like to state that just because none of us can be absolutely certain that what we think is correct is indeed correct doesn't mean that any viewpoint is as good as any other.

Okay. Obviously.

A viewpoint that is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence is vastly superior to one that has little or no repeatable observations as evidence, when the viewpoints conflict.

Okay. Such as?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Evolution is.

Perhaps micro-evolution is. But I have to question how macro-evolution would be repeatedly observable.

 

[birdan]

1. Then why not reject the New Testament, also written in Greek?
2. I don't recall any Biblical writers laying claim to inspiration.
3. Neither was the New Testament.
4. The "real" Christian church? No true Scottsman fallacy, anybody?
5. Not unlike the rest of the Bible, then.
6. There exist similar discrepancies in the rest of the Bible. For example, the claim in the New Testament that followers of Jesus need not follow the Old Testament ritual law.
7. And the rest of the Bible teaches immoral practices like murder, war, and rape.
8. One reasonably valid point!
9. A conclusion, not a point.

Point 8 (No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times) is not a valid argument either. The OT is not a single book. It is a collection of books. I don't believe all the books of the OT are mentioned in the NT, are they? And wasn't the Book of Enoch quoted in the NT?

 

[Grummpy]

VinceBlaze

Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

Infallible, no. Correct, yes.

The fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is established by so much evidence that denying that fact is equivalent to denying the Earth goes around the sun.

But we do not understand the details of the processes that caused that evolution to occur, so we must always be willing to accept new evidence and change our views and theories to fit that evidence.

Grumpy

 

[Tomk80]

Perhaps micro-evolution is. But I have to question how macro-evolution would be repeatedly observable.

This is a misunderstanding. The process itself does not have to be repeatedly observable. As long as the evidence that leads to it concluding it is.

Genetic sequences, morphology, embryology, fossils etc etc can all be checked and double-checked if their is a point of contention. These lead to the conclusion of evolution, which is an indirect conclusion based on the evidence.

There are lots of processes that cannot be directly observed. However, the evidence can be.

 

[Soul Searcher]

How rigid are you in your creation or evolution perspective? Is your stance infallible? Why or why not?

Please understand that I'm not asking for the basis of your creation/evolution stance. Rather, I'm asking if you think that your stance is infallibly correct. Why or why not? I have encountered protagonists on both sides who are each absolutely convinced that they are correct. Is your stance infallible?

No my stance is not infallible, none of us are perfect and all are prone to mistake. This includes text books, the bible [all versions of it] and those who wrote them.

Bottom line is that none of us really know, we just go with what seems true to us.

 

[Soul Searcher]

AV1611 King James Version --- the final version.

Are you referring to the 1885 version where they removed the 14 books from the original 1611 version?

 

[Chalnoth]

Okay. Such as?

Creation vs. evolution.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I've been under the impression that this audit trail began with more than 66 books.

Yes the 1611 KJV had 80 books.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hhmm, I've not heard of abiogenesis. How does it differ from evolution?

Evolution talks about how life changes. Abiogenesis talks about how life started. Evolution can be observed as happening today, and the evidence of past evolution can be observed in many different places. Abiogenesis is still a young science, but the initial indication seems to be that abiogenesis is positively easy given the right conditions and enough time. This is still tentative, however, as there are many unknowns. I don't think the question of abiogenesis will be solved unless we find life on other solar systems. Finding an extrasolar planet with a significant amount of oxygen and some water vapor in its atmosphere would be a strong indication of life on that planet: atmospheric composition can be detected through spectroscopy, but it is very difficult to view the planet without viewing the parent star. If we ever get to the point where we can make a survey of planets similar to Earth, and can discover the probability that they have life at late times, we may be able to produce much stronger evidence for a high probability of abiogenesis given the right conditions.

Still, there will be questions that can only be answered by sending people to these solar systems.