Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 12:48:31 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
Then you'll have to explain this in the context of the beliefs of the
Ancient Hebrews, who so far as I understand it, had adopted the Mesopotomian
cosmology of a flat, circular (not spherical) Earth with a crystal dome in
which were set the stars and planets. It was the Greeks who figured out
that the Earth was, in fact, a sphere, and so far as I am aware this was
their discovery, and not imported knowledge.
I'm saying that the Bible does NOT assert that the earth is flat.
Maybe the Hebrew society as a whole believed this; but, the Bible does
not state as much. Jewish society, like any other, is filled with
people who look to more than the Bible (or some other religious book)
in their quest for knowledge. If they believed that the earth was flat
and got that belief from the Pentateuch or any other part of the Old
Testament, I do not know how or why they interpreted such.
This is what bothers me the most about literal interpretations of Genesis,
not only do they require either huge contortions to fit with modern
knowledge, but they are set in opposition of the culture in which the
cosmological myth was first created. From a historical and cultural (as
well as scientific) point of view trying to assert that somehow the ancient
Hebrews were heliocentrists or even believers in a spherical Earth is to
defy what they did believe. It isn't there problem, because lots of people
back then did not know anything about heliocentrism or the shape of the
Earth, but it's a problem if one wishes to assert the cosmological myth in
Genesis is an actual, literal account of Creation and the shape and location
of the Earth.
I'm not trying to tie my faith or those of other Christians to that
which the Hebrews themselves believed. It is quite possible that many
Hebrew scholars looked at the "four corners of the earth" verse and
thought that it literally meant four physical corners. I really don't
know what the various segments of their society were thinking.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Then Genesis 1 is false. If one asserts that it is a literal account, then
it is indeed incorrect. Plants could not have existed before the sun,
humans did not come before the rest of the animals, the Earth was never
covered completely in water.
This is where our thinking completely divides and has no common ground.
In Genesis 1, you can see only the interactions of matter and energy
in a natural sense. However, I can see the existence of a supernatural
Supreme Being who made it all happen.
Without a leap of faith by one of us in one direction or the other,
we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
<snip>
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 03:05:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 20 Jul 2005 10:48:31 -0700, "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
AC wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
Then you'll have to explain this in the context of the beliefs of the
Ancient Hebrews, who so far as I understand it, had adopted the Mesopotomian
cosmology of a flat, circular (not spherical) Earth with a crystal dome in
which were set the stars and planets. It was the Greeks who figured out
that the Earth was, in fact, a sphere, and so far as I am aware this was
their discovery, and not imported knowledge.
I'm saying that the Bible does NOT assert that the earth is flat.
But it does, therefore you are wrong.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
21 Jul 2005 01:28:53 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 10:48:31 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
Then you'll have to explain this in the context of the beliefs of the
Ancient Hebrews, who so far as I understand it, had adopted the Mesopotomian
cosmology of a flat, circular (not spherical) Earth with a crystal dome in
which were set the stars and planets. It was the Greeks who figured out
that the Earth was, in fact, a sphere, and so far as I am aware this was
their discovery, and not imported knowledge.
I'm saying that the Bible does NOT assert that the earth is flat.
And I'm saying that the cosmological myth found in Genesis contains the
Mesopotomian cosmology.
Maybe the Hebrew society as a whole believed this; but, the Bible does
not state as much. Jewish society, like any other, is filled with
people who look to more than the Bible (or some other religious book)
in their quest for knowledge. If they believed that the earth was flat
and got that belief from the Pentateuch or any other part of the Old
Testament, I do not know how or why they interpreted such.
Because that was what the people of that time and place believed. The words
are consistent, the borrowings from Mesopotomia obvious enough.
This is what bothers me the most about literal interpretations of Genesis,
not only do they require either huge contortions to fit with modern
knowledge, but they are set in opposition of the culture in which the
cosmological myth was first created. From a historical and cultural (as
well as scientific) point of view trying to assert that somehow the ancient
Hebrews were heliocentrists or even believers in a spherical Earth is to
defy what they did believe. It isn't there problem, because lots of people
back then did not know anything about heliocentrism or the shape of the
Earth, but it's a problem if one wishes to assert the cosmological myth in
Genesis is an actual, literal account of Creation and the shape and location
of the Earth.
I'm not trying to tie my faith or those of other Christians to that
which the Hebrews themselves believed.
And yet you wish to dispose of the culture of the Old Testament and place
pieces of modern science on to it.
It is quite possible that many
Hebrew scholars looked at the "four corners of the earth" verse and
thought that it literally meant four physical corners. I really don't
know what the various segments of their society were thinking.
It was the Hebrews who wrote it.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Then Genesis 1 is false. If one asserts that it is a literal account, then
it is indeed incorrect. Plants could not have existed before the sun,
humans did not come before the rest of the animals, the Earth was never
covered completely in water.
This is where our thinking completely divides and has no common ground.
In Genesis 1, you can see only the interactions of matter and energy
in a natural sense. However, I can see the existence of a supernatural
Supreme Being who made it all happen.
This still doesn't help you as far as the ordering of creation.
Without a leap of faith by one of us in one direction or the other,
we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.
That's fair enough, I suppose. I certainly don't want to impinge upon your
right to believe as you shall, but if you're going to come here and assert
the ltieral truth of Genesis, then I'm afraid it's going to take more than
statements of faith, no matter how sincerely held, to get some of us to come
around.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 12:11:42 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
Then you're an idiot.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 01:50:05 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
And what of attempts to take a few verses to prove
- a global flood?
- a young earth?
- fixity of kinds?
- falsehood of common descent?
- evilness of witches?
- desirability of corporal punishment for children?
- virtue of slavery?
- marriage = one man + one woman?
- evilness of homosexuality?
What puts any of the above in a different class from geocentrism?
Have you even noticed that the Bible has been frequently cited to
prove things even when it says the opposite, too? And that it is
still used that way?
There is only one thing certain about the Bible: It cannot be trusted
in human hands.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
How do you explain how he failed so completely, then? There are
thousands of groups calling themselves Christian who disagree
thoroughly about what the Bible really means.
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Genesis 7:19 ("and the waters covered all the tall mountains") has
been proven false.
Leviticus 11:22-23 about four-legged locusts has problems, too.
Then there all the unfulfilled prophecies, such as the one about Tyre
being destroyed by Nebudcadnezzer (sorry, don't remember the verse,
much less how to spell Nebudcadnezzer).
I already suggested you try to reconcile the four gospels. Others
have tried and found it impossible.
I don't see a problem with the four Gospels. If there is a specific
instance which seems to be contradictory, please post it.
Of course you don't see a problem; you have not looked yet. Go
through the Gospels, combining them into one chronological account
containing all the events.
For one of the dozens of other contradictions, how did Saul die? 1
Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 have incompatible accounts.
Actually, the accounts go hand-in-hand.
This article could have been better written, but should suffice.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/567
Ah, you can reconcile the two as long as you recognize one cannot
necessarily accept second-hand accounts. Which means one cannot
necessarily accept almost all of the Bible, including all of the New
Testament. I'll accept that.
Next: 1 Kings 9 says Solomon gets 420 talents of gold. 2 Chronicles 8
says he got 450. Which is wrong?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 09:10:12 AM |
|
|
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
And what of attempts to take a few verses to prove
- a global flood?
Any attempt to show a truly global flood would center around the
meaning of the Hebrew language just to make sure that the Bible
translators got everything exactly correct.
- a young earth?
The only evidence that I see for Biblical proof of a young Earth is the
use of the Hebrew word "yom" for day. Young earth proponents see "yom"
as an actual 24-hour period. Others see it differently, especially due
to the fact that the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to
God.
- fixity of kinds?
This is one reason why I believe in genetic "islands" between which
evolution is impossible.
- falsehood of common descent?
Well, for everything to jive, there would have to be multiple common
ancestors, except for modern humans.
- evilness of witches?
The Bible warns against seeking power or knowledge from any
supernatural source (and there are some out there) other than God.
Thus, any practitioner of such is doing evil in God's eyes.
- desirability of corporal punishment for children?
Nothing wrong with spanking a child, when the situation warrants, to
correct his actions.
- virtue of slavery?
God only allowed slaves to be taken from evil, conquered nations for
temporary periods of time. All other use of slaves was forbidden.
- marriage = one man + one woman?
Anyone who ignores parts of the Bible and "interprets" the other parts
to show that God allows homosexual marriage is quite a literary
contortionist.
- evilness of homosexuality?
Having homosexual feelings is not evil. Acting on them is.
What puts any of the above in a different class from geocentrism?
Geocentrism is loosely based on one passage in the Bible. The above
mentioned issues are dealt with many, many times in various fashions
throughout the Bible.
Have you even noticed that the Bible has been frequently cited to
prove things even when it says the opposite, too? And that it is
still used that way?
Please cite some examples.
There is only one thing certain about the Bible: It cannot be trusted
in human hands.
Some human hands, agreed. Then again, all it takes to refute most
misinterpretations of the Bible is to read it for yourself so that you
can't be deceived. For those who watch televangelists and prosperity
preachers on TV ("send money and God will heal you"), they need to read
the Bible for themselves. It describes how to spot a phony prophet or
teacher.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
How do you explain how he failed so completely, then? There are
thousands of groups calling themselves Christian who disagree
thoroughly about what the Bible really means.
Do they disagree throroughly or just on some points?
Much of the disagreement is between the leaders of such groups who urge
their followers to NOT read the Bible for themselves but to put their
trust in the leaders for the proper interpretation and teaching.
Also, mixing personal desire and human-designed church traditions with
the Bible and declaring the whole conglomerated result to be God's will
tends to not be a good or accurate thing.
The various Christian sects that rely on God's Bible alone rarely have
any problems with Biblical interpretation. The sects that see the
Bible as just one of many sources for divine wisdom are the ones that
have rampant disagreements and dissentions.
In your opinion, what is the most prominent disagreement that Christian
groups seem to have concerning the Bible?
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Genesis 7:19 ("and the waters covered all the tall mountains") has
been proven false.
This is part of the global/local/non-existent flood discussion.
Leviticus 11:22-23 about four-legged locusts has problems, too.
The Hebrew word in use here is "sherets", which has been translated as
but means more than just "insect". The word refers to "teeming or
swarming things, creepers, swarmers, and of insects, animals, small
reptiles, quadrupeds". The term "sherets" was not used as a biological
classification system, which had not been devised at that time.
The common characteristics of these creatures referred to by "sherets"
are short legs and traveling together in groups. Furthermore,
crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles all crawl on "all four"
legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However,
the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low
to the ground on at least four legs. Some skeptics have made the claim
that the writers of the Bible were unaware that insects have six legs.
Yet, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged"
insects have six legs:
"Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects ("sherets") which
walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with
which to jump on the earth." - Leviticus 11:21
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed
legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet"
(regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects
walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an
additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six
appendages are described.
You see, it easy to misinterpret the Bible when someone takes a one or
two verses out of context and doesn't even try to do a word study.
Many Christians do this too. That's why you get these "thousand" (more
like a few dozen or so) Christian sects with different ideas.
Then there all the unfulfilled prophecies, such as the one about Tyre
being destroyed by Nebudcadnezzer (sorry, don't remember the verse,
much less how to spell Nebudcadnezzer).
The prophet Ezekiel said that Tyre would be attacked by one and utterly
destroyed by another...and Tyre would never be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar
laid seige to Tyre in 586 B.C. and completed the destruction in 573
B.C. Later in 333 B.C., Alexander the Great built a 60-foot wide jetty
made up of the ruins of the old city. Alexander's army carted the wall
and all other rubble into the sea, leaving no trace of the city. Scuba
divers today can dive along the jetty to see many of the granite
columns Alexander's army dumped into the sea. In all of history, Tyre
seems to be the only city to have all of its rubble cast into the sea.
Now, if you think that the small fishing village that is presently on
the site of the ruins of Tyre makes void this whole prophecy, you
probably don't have a future in urban planning. Politics maybe, but
not urban planning.
Interestingly, for hundreds of years, fishermen have spread out their
nets to dry on jetty rocks.
"It shall be [a place for] the spreading of nets in the midst of the
sea: for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a
spoil to the nations." - Ezekiel 26:5
I already suggested you try to reconcile the four gospels. Others
have tried and found it impossible.
I don't see a problem with the four Gospels. If there is a specific
instance which seems to be contradictory, please post it.
Of course you don't see a problem; you have not looked yet. Go
through the Gospels, combining them into one chronological account
containing all the events.
This has been done over and over by people far more intelligent than we
are. There are no problems. Again, please present a specific issue or
instance if you believe it to be contradictory.
For one of the dozens of other contradictions, how did Saul die? 1
Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 have incompatible accounts.
Actually, the accounts go hand-in-hand.
This article could have been better written, but should suffice.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/567
Ah, you can reconcile the two as long as you recognize one cannot
necessarily accept second-hand accounts. Which means one cannot
necessarily accept almost all of the Bible, including all of the New
Testament. I'll accept that.
What is wrong with second-hand accounts? When an airline stewardess
says that a plane is safe to fly, are you going to say:
"Now, wait just a minute. I want to hear it from the pilots, or better
yet the mechanics and engineers themselves, before I set one foot in
that cabin."
The Origin of Species by Darwin is more than even second-hand
information today. We can't talk with the author nor any of his
research assistants. All we have is his book which has been copied and
printed and reprinted thousands of times.
What's the problem here?
Next: 1 Kings 9 says Solomon gets 420 talents of gold. 2 Chronicles 8
says he got 450. Which is wrong?
Neither because each details a separate shipment of gold. There were
many trips to Ophir to get gold. 1 Chronicles 29:4 indicates that
3,000 talents of gold from Ophir were stored up just to prepare for the
temple construction. If you read carefully, you'll see that one trip
was made with Solomon's ships while the other was made with Huram's
ships.
You have to read more than one verse in each book. Some creationists
have been rightfully criticized for taking evolutionists' statements
out of context in an attempt to debunk evolution. Yet, we see these
same types of contextual errors in some skeptics' analyses of the
Bible. In my opinion, it wasn't fair then, and shouldn't be done now.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 02:27:21 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 07:10:12 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
And what of attempts to take a few verses to prove
- a global flood?
Any attempt to show a truly global flood would center around the
meaning of the Hebrew language just to make sure that the Bible
translators got everything exactly correct.
- a young earth?
The only evidence that I see for Biblical proof of a young Earth is the
use of the Hebrew word "yom" for day. Young earth proponents see "yom"
as an actual 24-hour period. Others see it differently, especially due
to the fact that the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to
God.
- fixity of kinds?
This is one reason why I believe in genetic "islands" between which
evolution is impossible.
- falsehood of common descent?
Well, for everything to jive, there would have to be multiple common
ancestors, except for modern humans.
- evilness of witches?
The Bible warns against seeking power or knowledge from any
supernatural source (and there are some out there) other than God.
Thus, any practitioner of such is doing evil in God's eyes.
- desirability of corporal punishment for children?
Nothing wrong with spanking a child, when the situation warrants, to
correct his actions.
- virtue of slavery?
God only allowed slaves to be taken from evil, conquered nations for
temporary periods of time. All other use of slaves was forbidden.
- marriage = one man + one woman?
Anyone who ignores parts of the Bible and "interprets" the other parts
to show that God allows homosexual marriage is quite a literary
contortionist.
- evilness of homosexuality?
Having homosexual feelings is not evil. Acting on them is.
What puts any of the above in a different class from geocentrism?
Geocentrism is loosely based on one passage in the Bible. The above
mentioned issues are dealt with many, many times in various fashions
throughout the Bible.
In all of the above examples, people have read the Bible to say things
that are just plain false (global flood, young earth, fixed kinds) or
which are now morally repugnant (burn witches, beat children, keep
slavery legal, abuse homosexuals and don't allow them to marry). The
fact that the Bible refers to them a few times (not "many, many") only
makes your problem worse. The Bible, as a guide to science and as a
guide to morals, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be utter crap.
Have you even noticed that the Bible has been frequently cited to
prove things even when it says the opposite, too? And that it is
still used that way?
Please cite some examples.
Several of them are above. Contrary to what the right-wing ideologues
are saying today, marriage is not one man + one woman; the Bible says
polygamy is also a valid form of marriage.
Gay marriage is another good example. Christ said, "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you." If you would have others allow you
to marry for love, then either you allow the same to homosexuals, or
you reject Christ's command. And since Christ said that that
particular command was one of the two most important parts of his
teaching, to reject homosexual marriage is tantamount to rejecting
Christianity entirely.
And it is especially so because the rejection of gay marriage has
nothing to do with the Bible. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality
practiced outside a committed relationship, but so what? It doesn't
say anything about homosexuality in marriage. And Christians reject
lots and lots of what's in the Old Testament already. What's another
couple of verses to them? No, the rejection of homosexuality comes
from tradition, pure and simple. If you can call hatred "pure."
There is only one thing certain about the Bible: It cannot be trusted
in human hands.
Some human hands, agreed. Then again, all it takes to refute most
misinterpretations of the Bible is to read it for yourself so that you
can't be deceived.
You may also want to see what the real world is like. Apparently it
has escaped your notice that the universe occupies more than fourteen
cubic inches.
And yes, I have read the Bible. That is why I can say so confidently
that a great deal of crap comes from it.
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
How do you explain how he failed so completely, then? There are
thousands of groups calling themselves Christian who disagree
thoroughly about what the Bible really means.
Do they disagree throroughly or just on some points?
They have disagreed thoroughly enough to kill each other over it.
[snip]
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Genesis 7:19 ("and the waters covered all the tall mountains") has
been proven false.
This is part of the global/local/non-existent flood discussion.
That discussion was effectively over more than 100 years ago, when
Agassiz explained "flood" features as arising from glaciers. And the
evidence against a global flood as only grown several orders of
magnitude stronger since then. Genesis 7:19 has been proven false.
Leviticus 11:22-23 about four-legged locusts has problems, too.
The Hebrew word in use here is "sherets", which has been translated as
but means more than just "insect". The word refers to "teeming or
swarming things, creepers, swarmers, and of insects, animals, small
reptiles, quadrupeds". The term "sherets" was not used as a biological
classification system, which had not been devised at that time.
The common characteristics of these creatures referred to by "sherets"
are short legs and traveling together in groups. Furthermore,
crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles all crawl on "all four"
legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However,
the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low
to the ground on at least four legs. Some skeptics have made the claim
that the writers of the Bible were unaware that insects have six legs.
Yet, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged"
insects have six legs:
"Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects ("sherets") which
walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with
which to jump on the earth." - Leviticus 11:21
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed
legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet"
(regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects
walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an
additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six
appendages are described.
Do you really expect us to accept (1) that small reptiles and
quadrupeds qualify as "winged swarming things" with "legs for
jumping"; and (2) that everyone who has translated the Bible gets it
wrong when they say those are orthopterous insects? Orthoptera walk
on six legs; I have seen that with my own eyes. The Bible says they
walk on four. Which is wrong: the Bible, or reality?
You see, it easy to misinterpret the Bible when someone takes a one or
two verses out of context and doesn't even try to do a word study.
Yes, I see you do that a lot.
Then there all the unfulfilled prophecies, such as the one about Tyre
being destroyed by Nebudcadnezzer (sorry, don't remember the verse,
much less how to spell Nebudcadnezzer).
The prophet Ezekiel said that Tyre would be attacked by one and utterly
destroyed by another...and Tyre would never be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar
laid seige to Tyre in 586 B.C. and completed the destruction in 573
B.C. Later in 333 B.C., Alexander the Great built a 60-foot wide jetty
made up of the ruins of the old city. Alexander's army carted the wall
and all other rubble into the sea, leaving no trace of the city. Scuba
divers today can dive along the jetty to see many of the granite
columns Alexander's army dumped into the sea. In all of history, Tyre
seems to be the only city to have all of its rubble cast into the sea.
Now, if you think that the small fishing village that is presently on
the site of the ruins of Tyre makes void this whole prophecy, you
probably don't have a future in urban planning. Politics maybe, but
not urban planning.
Interestingly, for hundreds of years, fishermen have spread out their
nets to dry on jetty rocks.
"It shall be [a place for] the spreading of nets in the midst of the
sea: for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a
spoil to the nations." - Ezekiel 26:5
Ezekiel said Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre (Ez 26:7ff).
Nebuchadnezzar tried, but did not conquer Tyre (Ez 29:18). Alexander
the Great conquered it centuries later, but Ezekiel was not talking
about Alexander. Ezekiel said Tyre would never be rebuilt. It was
rebuilt, became the capital of Phonecia, and is even mentioned in the
New Testament (e.g. Matt 15:21); it is still one of the largest cities
of Lebanon.
Ezekiel's prophecy about Tyre can only be considered a failure as a
prediction.
I already suggested you try to reconcile the four gospels. Others
have tried and found it impossible.
I don't see a problem with the four Gospels. If there is a specific
instance which seems to be contradictory, please post it.
Of course you don't see a problem; you have not looked yet. Go
through the Gospels, combining them into one chronological account
containing all the events.
This has been done over and over by people far more intelligent than we
are.
Name one.
Besides, you are not going to believe what I say until you see it for
yourself. If you have too little faith to be willing to see for
yourself, just say so. I will believe you.
There are no problems. Again, please present a specific issue or
instance if you believe it to be contradictory.
Okay, more specifically anyway, the entire Easter narrative.
Next: 1 Kings 9 says Solomon gets 420 talents of gold. 2 Chronicles 8
says he got 450. Which is wrong?
Neither because each details a separate shipment of gold. There were
many trips to Ophir to get gold. 1 Chronicles 29:4 indicates that
3,000 talents of gold from Ophir were stored up just to prepare for the
temple construction. If you read carefully, you'll see that one trip
was made with Solomon's ships while the other was made with Huram's
ships.
You have to read more than one verse in each book.
You will note I cited the entire chapters. I did so for just the
reason you mention: you have to read more than one verse. The entire
chapters make it extremely clear that the two numbers were referring
to the same shipment of gold. Good grief! How much effort will you
put into denying what the Bible plainly says?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Aug 2005 12:53:53 PM |
|
|
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 20 Jul 2005 07:10:12 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 09:50:00 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
And what of attempts to take a few verses to prove
- a global flood?
Any attempt to show a truly global flood would center around the
meaning of the Hebrew language just to make sure that the Bible
translators got everything exactly correct.
- a young earth?
The only evidence that I see for Biblical proof of a young Earth is the
use of the Hebrew word "yom" for day. Young earth proponents see "yom"
as an actual 24-hour period. Others see it differently, especially due
to the fact that the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to
God.
- fixity of kinds?
This is one reason why I believe in genetic "islands" between which
evolution is impossible.
- falsehood of common descent?
Well, for everything to jive, there would have to be multiple common
ancestors, except for modern humans.
- evilness of witches?
The Bible warns against seeking power or knowledge from any
supernatural source (and there are some out there) other than God.
Thus, any practitioner of such is doing evil in God's eyes.
- desirability of corporal punishment for children?
Nothing wrong with spanking a child, when the situation warrants, to
correct his actions.
- virtue of slavery?
God only allowed slaves to be taken from evil, conquered nations for
temporary periods of time. All other use of slaves was forbidden.
- marriage = one man + one woman?
Anyone who ignores parts of the Bible and "interprets" the other parts
to show that God allows homosexual marriage is quite a literary
contortionist.
- evilness of homosexuality?
Having homosexual feelings is not evil. Acting on them is.
What puts any of the above in a different class from geocentrism?
Geocentrism is loosely based on one passage in the Bible. The above
mentioned issues are dealt with many, many times in various fashions
throughout the Bible.
In all of the above examples, people have read the Bible to say things
that are just plain false (global flood, young earth, fixed kinds) or
which are now morally repugnant (burn witches, beat children, keep
slavery legal, abuse homosexuals and don't allow them to marry). The
fact that the Bible refers to them a few times (not "many, many") only
makes your problem worse. The Bible, as a guide to science and as a
guide to morals, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be utter crap.
You'll understand if I humbly disagree.
Have you even noticed that the Bible has been frequently cited to
prove things even when it says the opposite, too? And that it is
still used that way?
Please cite some examples.
Several of them are above. Contrary to what the right-wing ideologues
are saying today, marriage is not one man + one woman; the Bible says
polygamy is also a valid form of marriage.
This verse says otherwise: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh." - Genesis 2:24
Polygamy is never a valid form of marriage and is forbidden in the
Bible. Just because many people (including kings of Israel) disobeyed
God is not a rationale for saying the Bible allows it. Maybe I am
wrong. Please cite some Biblical accounts where God condoned polygamy.
Gay marriage is another good example. Christ said, "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you." If you would have others allow you
to marry for love, then either you allow the same to homosexuals, or
you reject Christ's command. And since Christ said that that
particular command was one of the two most important parts of his
teaching, to reject homosexual marriage is tantamount to rejecting
Christianity entirely.
Wow! Talk about a buffet-style of Biblical adherence. Let's all take
what we want from the Bible and leave the rest. God will be angry;
but, we'll have our self-serving morality AND our deviant desires at
the same time.
God has dictated that marriage is between a man and a woman. All else
is evil. And I would not want someone else to allow me (or cause me)
to do something against God's will simply because they, themselves,
want to be left alone to pursue their own desires, free from morality.
We really ought not to take one of Jesus' commands out of its context
and apply it without studying everything else that he said. When
creationists do this to Charles Darwin's quotes, they are quickly and
rightfully castigated. Let's not make the same mistake here in the
quest to interpret the Bible to fit our own personal wants and desires.
And it is especially so because the rejection of gay marriage has
nothing to do with the Bible. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality
practiced outside a committed relationship, but so what? It doesn't
say anything about homosexuality in marriage. And Christians reject
lots and lots of what's in the Old Testament already. What's another
couple of verses to them? No, the rejection of homosexuality comes
from tradition, pure and simple. If you can call hatred "pure."
It sounds like you are really ticked off about this subject. Is there
anything that can be said which MIGHT make you change your mind about
homosexuality?
There is only one thing certain about the Bible: It cannot be trusted
in human hands.
Some human hands, agreed. Then again, all it takes to refute most
misinterpretations of the Bible is to read it for yourself so that you
can't be deceived.
You may also want to see what the real world is like. Apparently it
has escaped your notice that the universe occupies more than fourteen
cubic inches.
Ha ha! Yet, it is within those 14 cubic inches where all
comprehension, analysis, and decision-making takes place.
And yes, I have read the Bible. That is why I can say so confidently
that a great deal of crap comes from it.
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
How do you explain how he failed so completely, then? There are
thousands of groups calling themselves Christian who disagree
thoroughly about what the Bible really means.
Do they disagree throroughly or just on some points?
They have disagreed thoroughly enough to kill each other over it.
Come on now! We at the First Baptist Church haven't had a fewd with
the 1st Presbyterian Church in years now.
Seriously, I believe that a complete analysis of the reasons why
Christians kill each other is rarely over a Biblical interpretation.
It's almost always about their own personal power, money, land,
control, influence, and politics. It is because such Christians act on
their own worldly desires and ignore the Bible completely, not
wrongfully interpret it, that evil is done by them.
It's not like the Muslims who act on the Koran's instructions to make
war with those who will not submit themselves to Allah.
[snip]
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Genesis 7:19 ("and the waters covered all the tall mountains") has
been proven false.
This is part of the global/local/non-existent flood discussion.
That discussion was effectively over more than 100 years ago, when
Agassiz explained "flood" features as arising from glaciers. And the
evidence against a global flood as only grown several orders of
magnitude stronger since then. Genesis 7:19 has been proven false.
Until someone witnessed the events for themself, then all conclusions
that Genesis didn't occur are speculative...based on science, but still
a best guess.
Leviticus 11:22-23 about four-legged locusts has problems, too.
The Hebrew word in use here is "sherets", which has been translated as
but means more than just "insect". The word refers to "teeming or
swarming things, creepers, swarmers, and of insects, animals, small
reptiles, quadrupeds". The term "sherets" was not used as a biological
classification system, which had not been devised at that time.
The common characteristics of these creatures referred to by "sherets"
are short legs and traveling together in groups. Furthermore,
crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles all crawl on "all four"
legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However,
the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low
to the ground on at least four legs. Some skeptics have made the claim
that the writers of the Bible were unaware that insects have six legs.
Yet, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged"
insects have six legs:
"Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects ("sherets") which
walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with
which to jump on the earth." - Leviticus 11:21
< | | | | |
