The accuracy of the Bible - Page 14

glyn · 09-27-2007, 16:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

You are correct that only the Roman administration could approve a sentence of death, but I don't agree that the NT is unclear about how Pilate was manoevred into it by the ever-clever Caiphus, the chief priest at the time, or what happened at the judgement. Pilate's wife was uneasy about sentencing Jesus to death and told him so.

As always, JAD_333 it is a pleasure debating with you

Where can I read about Pilates wife? I haven't come across references to her forebodings

Rather than stand firm and deny the chief priest's petition, Pilate tried to finesse his way out of it by offering the crowd a choice between a notorius criminal and Jesus. To ensure things went his way, Caiphus seeded the crowd with toughs who intimidated people into yelling out Jesus' name, much to Pilate's surprise.

Ciaphus detested the Essenes. John the Baptist had only been disposed of recently. There seem to have been many claimants to the Messiahship. After all, traditional wisdom told them they were at the 'End time'.

As for Pilate washing his hands afterwards, he wanted no trouble from Jesus' followers so absolved himself of all blame. It's doubtful the washing of the hands was ritual cleansing. The Sanhedin agents would have gone to Pilate's HQ as protocol demanded, not Pilate to the temple as you theorize.

We shall have to agree to disagree there. I maintain that Pilate washed his hands before the event, even though 'washing of ones hands' is used today in another context.

If one accepts, as I do, that Jesus was prepared to die to ensure the longevity of his message,

Agreeing so far.

he had the burden of proving he was a messiah.

Here we part company. The Gospels made sure that what they reported conformed to the prophesies in the OT.

This could only be done by systematically fulfilling all the prophecies contained in the Bible regarding what would befall a messiah. The major prophesy was death at the hands of the people.

Jesus understood that his death must be officially recorded. To ensure this, it had to be carried out by a third party that kept records. This is was where the Romans came in. Had the Sanhedrin been allowed to execute him, they would likely have covered it up and not played along with Judas.

Interesting viewpoint, but I don't buy it. Can you show me the record of this crucifixion?

Judas, of course, knew exactly what he had to do and played his part perfectly.

I think more and more agree that there was some agreement between them, even if we do not understand it perfectly.

And when he went to turn Jesus in, the chief priest knew full well that unless he played his part in the prophecies, Judas would not lead him to Jesus. So he paid the 30 pieces of silver and later, when Judas recanted refused to take back the silver and instead bought a potter's field with them. So sure was Caiphus that Jesus was a false messiah that he felt it was safe to go this far.

The significance of '30 pieces of silver' is also not fully understood - except to say it can't have been as the gospels portrayed it.

Caiphus' real fear was the resurrection prophesy and he believed Jesus' followers would steal his body from the tomb. So, after Jesus' burial he sent guards to watch the tomb day and night.

No Sir. The 'tomb' was the weekday latrine into which all 3 crucified persons were thrown. 'Simon' and 'Judas' had their legs broken after being removed from the cross. Jesus did not undergo this as he appeared to be dead. A large stone was rolled over the top of the latrine pit. The guard that was there was to ensure that the latrine was not used during the sabbath. As you know they had extremely strict laws that governed everything down to the last detail.

Thereafter, events become harder to understand. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Was he even dead to start with? The only evidence we have that he did rise from the dead is circumstantial, and it relies on the subsequent actions of the apostles for years afterwards. The question is, would these men who were taught that Jesus would rise after 3 days have gone out and laid the foundation for a great religion had Jesus NOT risen? Judging only for myself, if I followed a man like Jesus and something he predicted did not happen, I would go back to the farm and that would be that. Something powerful happened to the remaining 11 apostles 3 days after Jesus' death. What was it?

Simon restored Jesus to life. That conformed to prophesies.

Perhaps, but if true what does that change?

The bilical texts were written during Jesus's lifetime. The codification came with Constantine at Nicea in 325.

It seems everytime you state this proposition that there is a negative connotation to it. Perhaps I am assuming what you mean. IMO, the people who worked in later years to consolidate the various texts had in mind preventing their adulteration and ensuring their endurance. Afterall, they knew perfectly well that the story of Jesus was the church's most compelling reason for being, and they weren't about to mess with it. What they probably feared were the many contradictory texts beginning to circulate. Every religious movement attracts independent contractors, so to speak, who aim to "cash" in on the original. Unless an authoritative body assembles all the authentic material and puts it seal of approval on it, people will not know which is which.[/quote]

JAD_333 · 09-27-2007, 19:42 PM

glyn:

And it is likewise a pleasure debating you. Just a few comments for now.

The first has to do with the official records of the Roman government you asked about. They did exist, but to what extent they survive I don't know. However, Roman historians were writing accounts of Jesus and his execution early on. They could have had archival information to work from. Here is an early account by Flavius Josephus a Roman historian (AD 37-97)

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of surprising feats - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day . . ." Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

Pilate is said to have also kept a record, but it is disputed despite its early appearance. I am not clear on who wrote this, but the author refers to an account written by Pilate.

"...in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And...they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' (First Apology 35)

I am looking for the reference to Pilate's wife. I believe she piped up between the time Pilate send Jesus to Herod and Herod returned him.

Coming back to the prophecies--I've made this point before--the general misconception is that they were predictions a la crystal ball. They were nothing of the sort. They were milestones and they could have been anything the prophets wished them to be, such was the belief that a true messiah would have it in his power to fulfill them by controlling events. To use a common analogy, a soldier who wishes to make the grade in an elite force must overcome a set of prescribed hurdles. These hurdles are set in advance by men who know what it takes to be a member of an elite force. In a sense they are predicting what steps a successful candidate will fulfill to become a member of the elite force.

Dinner is ready..later.

chankya · 09-27-2007, 21:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

glyn:
The first has to do with the official records of the Roman government you asked about. They did exist, but to what extent they survive I don't know. However, Roman historians were writing accounts of Jesus and his execution early on. They could have had archival information to work from. Here is an early account by Flavius Josephus a Roman historian (AD 37-97)

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of surprising feats - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day . . ." Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

JAD,
I'm not trying to dispute your point or take away from it, but as a student of Roman history I wanted to point out the reference to a disputed source.

Josephus was a jew captured by Vespasian's legionaries. He was later freed by Titus as attested by his taking 'Titus' as a his Prenomen.(And his work therefore has a very favorable view of the Romans and the Flavians in particular). More importantly for this discussion, surviving copies of his books are all from Christian sources and the part on Christ is often disputed as a later addition by a Christian author. I'm not sure what the contention was but I can dig it up if you like.

Hope that helps!

brokensickle · 09-28-2007, 03:28 AM

David,

Try this in earnest...Pray to God before you read the bible, that he will give you understanding to the text. If you earnestly want to understand it God will be faithful to give you understanding.

I happened along a Jewish New Testament Publication (Complete Jewish Bible), and I like the way it reads. I've read through the King James Version and after reading through it I got used to the Old English Style of writing.

Quote:

HistoricalDavid. Yes, I admit that was a rant about the bad language of the KJV Bible and not about its accuracy. I have been corrupted by real literature. It was written at the same time as Shakespeare and well after Chaucer so it doesn't have an excuse for being so bad due to chronology.

Remember, Shakespeare was an entertainer not a theologian.

Have a good day.
Ivan

Triple C · 09-28-2007, 04:01 AM

Glyn, respectfully:

My assertion that the Bible as we know it was compiled at 125AD came from lecture notes of a Renaissance specialist on the history of the text of the New Testment that I took last week. As she put it, the New Testment of the Word of God was an oral tradition until those who were Jesus's disciples began to die; and Christians decided to collect what they remembered of Jesus and his teachings and put them down in paper. Wiki says that

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140.

While no organized church existed prior to Emperor Constantine to exclude or include gospels into an orthodox canon, some of St. Paul's 1st episitle to Timonthy was thought to be a rejection of Gnosticism. Those who are known to be Jesus's disciples insisted that Christ had died on the cross, and to challenge the veracity of eye witnesses without conclusive proof by evidence of equal weight does not seem prudent to me.

Triple C · 09-28-2007, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

lol...

In the usual telling of the story a key part is omitted. Noah received not one but two commands: One was from God and another from an authority called the "Lord". The Lord told him "to take clean beasts and fowls by SEVENS, unclean by two, male and female; with the expectation of sacrificing the clean beasts and fowls afterward." (Gen 8). But God tells him something different: "to collect two of every sort, male and female", but does not distinguish between clean and unclean nor mention any sacrifice.

This contradiction is the basis of the allegory. As it was explained to me, the story was designed to convey a couple of ideas to people. The first was that there are two levels of commands or laws affecting man: God's commands and the Lord's commands. In God's commands we see an impersonal god without favorites (man or beast, male or female) and one not commanding sacrificial offerings.

Another idea, which I don't see in the allegory, but others apparently do, is that God's commands come in the form of "grace", and it's a mystery how that works, while the Lord's commands are in written form. It gets a little clearer if we see Noah as representing the man who follows the commands of both God and Lord. That could mean it's wisest to follow the commands of both for the sake of "survival". Perhaps this is an earlier version of the "render unto Caesar..." advice Jesus gave to people conflicted about whether to serve God or the government.

This to my ears sound like Catholic doctrine of justification by good works (as defined by following 'the Law' decreed by God) and faith (trust in God's mercy/grace). Am I correct here?

This issue becomes terribly important, since Paul in his Letter to the Galatians claimed that Faith along justifies, and that Luther, following up on Paul's idea, claims that good works is of no merit because man in his corrupt state is incapable of doing any good works because his evil will does not allow him to do good works with the right intentions (i.e. for the love of God) but rather to escape divine wrath. He claims that faith granted by God's grace alone saves, and only those who are in a state of grace is capable of doing good works with pure intentions, even though the saved does not need to perform them in order to be saved. Roman Catholic theology, on the other hand, believes (I think) that God gave mankind free will so that we can choose for good and evil out of our own volition, which obliges man to do good works, since it is perfectly within his power to will for, and perform, the good. In Catholic doctrine then both good works and faith are required for salvation.

Since the intepretation you mentioned emphasizes both trust in God's mercy and the free agency of following the law, I presume who ever told you this interpretation is a Catholic.

That, or I am wildly off the mark.

Tarek Morgen · 09-28-2007, 13:02 PM

mh..I would also like to ask a bible literaist where Cain got his wife. I mean according to the bible right then the only Humans were Adam & eve and their offsprings. But Cain was banished he wen to the land of Nod and found his wife there. Uhm....were did that wife come from? (I simply assume that he married a Human being, even though it is not directly mentioned that she is human, simply by the fact that he hat a son with her)

glyn · 09-28-2007, 15:09 PM

[quote=Triple C;410977]Glyn, respectfully:

My assertion that the Bible as we know it was compiled at 125AD came from lecture notes of a Renaissance specialist on the history of the text of the New Testment that I took last week. As she put it, the New Testment of the Word of God was an oral tradition until those who were Jesus's disciples began to die; and Christians decided to collect what they remembered of Jesus and his teachings and put them down in paper. Wiki says that

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140.

While no organized church existed prior to Emperor Constantine to exclude or include gospels into an orthodox canon, some of St. Paul's 1st episitle to Timonthy was thought to be a rejection of Gnosticism. Those who are known to be Jesus's disciples insisted that Christ had died on the cross, and to challenge the veracity of eye witnesses without conclusive proof by evidence of equal weight does not seem prudent to me.

Triple C, no less respectfully

I ceased my intensive studies of the NT period about 10 years ago, and I am probably not up to speed on the latest developments. I think it likely that more knowledge of that era is still unfolding, and I do not claim to have a definitive answer. The biggest surprise was that the truth in the NT was hidden (in full view!) in the original texts. What a pity some gospels have disappeared without trace with only (in some cases) the name of the writer being known. It was a tragedy that the Roman Catholic church was responsible for the interpretation of the Dead Sea scrolls. They put Jesuits in charge and they did not permit scholars of other faiths (or atheists) to assist in their work. Admittedly it was demanding and the fragments had to be assembled like an incomplete giant jigsaw. Understanding of these texts did not come about until Jewish scholars took control. They should have been involved from the outset. The original authors were Hellenistic jews. It is known that certain scrolls ended up in private hands and these have not (so far as I know) been released for scholarly scrutiny. It is almost certain that there are no more scrolls to be found in the Qumran area, as the place has been endlessly searched. Barbera Thierings books impressed me the most, and I would strongly recommend them to anyone who has more than a passing interest in the subject.

Kansas Bear · 09-29-2007, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Yes. Which is why the Bible was not compiled by Catholics. The Protestant Bible used today was canonized by 100 A.D.: 200-500 years (depending on which way you look at it) before the advent of the Roman Catholic Church. Which means that the Bible was not revised by Catholics, but by Catholics.

The Muratorian 'canon', which I believe you are referencing, could NOT have been used by the Protestants to compile their bible.

Muratori wasn't born until 1672!!!

Also, the Muratorian 'canon' consists of ONLY new testament books.

Which doesn't explain why Protestant bibles don't have Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees and parts of books Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42! These are all old testament books, which are NOT mentioned by Muratori in his "canon".

**Parihaka** · 09-29-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

The Muratorian 'canon', which I believe you are referencing, could NOT have been used by the Protestants to compile their bible.

Muratori wasn't born until 1672!!!

Also, the Muratorian 'canon' consists of ONLY new testament books.

Which doesn't explain why Protestant bibles don't have Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees and parts of books Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42! These are all old testament books, which are NOT mentioned by Muratori in his "canon".

Hey Kansas, got that post count up I see

Cromwell · 09-29-2007, 10:42 AM

Genesis 1
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to the fossil record- something that can be seen and touched -Whales evolved from a group of terrestrial mammals.

Just one of thousands of scientifically irreconcilable offerings to be found in the bible. So, as I have said earlier; you can either identify yourself as a man of reasoning -a scientist- or a man of faith - an irrational, brainwashed delusional.

One cannot be both unless suffering from clinical schizophrenia.

My intellect renders me incapable of believing in something wholly intangible simply because someone tells me it exists but offers not even marginal evidence.

I feel the same way about string theory.

-C

entropy · 09-29-2007, 10:44 AM

One can believe, but taking the Bible literally is medieval.

JAD_333 · 09-29-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chankya

JAD,
I'm not trying to dispute your point or take away from it, but as a student of Roman history I wanted to point out the reference to a disputed source.

Josephus was a jew captured by Vespasian's legionaries. He was later freed by Titus as attested by his taking 'Titus' as a his Prenomen.(And his work therefore has a very favorable view of the Romans and the Flavians in particular). More importantly for this discussion, surviving copies of his books are all from Christian sources and the part on Christ is often disputed as a later addition by a Christian author. I'm not sure what the contention was but I can dig it up if you like.

Hope that helps!

Yes, I saw the Christian-thinking bias in the piece and hesitated using it, but the point was to show an early reference to the execution of Jesus. Perhaps you know of better references.

JAD_333 · 09-29-2007, 13:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple C

This to my ears sound like Catholic doctrine of justification by good works (as defined by following 'the Law' decreed by God) and faith (trust in God's mercy/grace). Am I correct here?

Since the intepretation you mentioned emphasizes both trust in God's mercy and the free agency of following the law, I presume who ever told you this interpretation is a Catholic.

That, or I am wildly off the mark.

Gee.. I don't know that you are WILDLY off the mark. I was raised a Catholic and taught by Catholic nuns and priests in my youth. Today, I view what I was taught as just a foundation--a phase, if you will, in a progression to my present understanding.

I broke with the church in my college years. For a long time I drifted, relying more on non-sectarian metaphysical teachings for the meaning of life and Aristotle's ethics as a behavioral quide in daily life. In my 30s I had an emotionally crushing experience that re-attunded me to look for "answers". But returning to Catholic practice seemed to me a backward step. That is not to say there was no truth in it, but that the church's current interpretations of the teachings fell short of eliciting it.

Then, by pure chance, I came into contact with a teaching that clarified the basic message. Since then I have come to realize that truth is not a possession that is owned by any one or two religions, but is found in all of them and, indeed, in many non-religious bodies of knowledge. I have also come to appreciate the difference between knowledge and understanding and how, the former without the latter, creates most of the confusion we see in religious matters. It should be possible to pick up a book on any system of thought, say the Tibetan Book of the Dead or Plato's Republic and see christian concepts in them and vice versa.

Well, all this is by way of answering your question as to where the Noah interpretation comes from. Nowhere and everywhere. The thing to remember always is that understanding is entirely a personal experience, while knowledge is externally available everywhere. It is relatively easy to find the knowledge, but it takes inner work on your part to understand it. That is the meaning of God's "grace". And that explains why it is so hard for people who do understand, like Jesus and other great messengers, to get their message across to people like us. It is simply impossible for one person to transfer their understanding to another. But there are ways to prepare people to understand and that is what Jesus and others like him worked to do. "Mercy" is God's infinate patience. As for what God is..well, that will surprise you when you see it.

Hope that answers your question.

JAD_333 · 09-29-2007, 13:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cromwell

Genesis 1
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

According to the fossil record- something that can be seen and touched -Wales evolved from a group of terrestrial mammals.

Just one of thousands of scientifically irreconcilable offerings to be found in the bible. So, as I have said earlier; you can either identify yourself as a man of reasoning -a scientist- or a man of faith - an irrational, brainwashed delusional.

One cannot be both unless suffering from clinical schizophrenia.

My intellect renders me incapable of believing in something wholly intangible simply because someone tells me it exists but offers not even marginal evidence.

I feel the same way about string theory.

-C

The basic mistake many people make is assuming the authors of the Bible attempted to be historically accurate. They used contemporary lore as a vehicle to get across ephemoral ideas because that was a good way to get people's attention. Evidence of the truth of those ideas is not available externally, and if you look for it externally, one can prophecise the outcome.

09-27-2007, 19:42 PM	#197 (permalink)
JAD_333 *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-15-07 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,691 Country:	glyn: And it is likewise a pleasure debating you. Just a few comments for now. The first has to do with the official records of the Roman government you asked about. They did exist, but to what extent they survive I don't know. However, Roman historians were writing accounts of Jesus and his execution early on. They could have had archival information to work from. Here is an early account by Flavius Josephus a Roman historian (AD 37-97) "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of surprising feats - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day . . ." Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. Pilate is said to have also kept a record, but it is disputed despite its early appearance. I am not clear on who wrote this, but the author refers to an account written by Pilate. "...in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And...they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' (First Apology 35) I am looking for the reference to Pilate's wife. I believe she piped up between the time Pilate send Jesus to Herod and Herod returned him. Coming back to the prophecies--I've made this point before--the general misconception is that they were predictions a la crystal ball. They were nothing of the sort. They were milestones and they could have been anything the prophets wished them to be, such was the belief that a true messiah would have it in his power to fulfill them by controlling events. To use a common analogy, a soldier who wishes to make the grade in an elite force must overcome a set of prescribed hurdles. These hurdles are set in advance by men who know what it takes to be a member of an elite force. In a sense they are predicting what steps a successful candidate will fulfill to become a member of the elite force. Dinner is ready..later. __________________ To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

09-28-2007, 04:01 AM	#200 (permalink)
Triple C Contributor Join Date: 04-10-06 Posts: 683	Glyn, respectfully: My assertion that the Bible as we know it was compiled at 125AD came from lecture notes of a Renaissance specialist on the history of the text of the New Testment that I took last week. As she put it, the New Testment of the Word of God was an oral tradition until those who were Jesus's disciples began to die; and Christians decided to collect what they remembered of Jesus and his teachings and put them down in paper. Wiki says that The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. While no organized church existed prior to Emperor Constantine to exclude or include gospels into an orthodox canon, some of St. Paul's 1st episitle to Timonthy was thought to be a rejection of Gnosticism. Those who are known to be Jesus's disciples insisted that Christ had died on the cross, and to challenge the veracity of eye witnesses without conclusive proof by evidence of equal weight does not seem prudent to me. __________________ What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. -Augustine of Hippo Last edited by Triple C : 09-28-2007 at 04:39 AM.

09-28-2007, 15:09 PM	#203 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,537	[quote=Triple C;410977]Glyn, respectfully: My assertion that the Bible as we know it was compiled at 125AD came from lecture notes of a Renaissance specialist on the history of the text of the New Testment that I took last week. As she put it, the New Testment of the Word of God was an oral tradition until those who were Jesus's disciples began to die; and Christians decided to collect what they remembered of Jesus and his teachings and put them down in paper. Wiki says that The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. While no organized church existed prior to Emperor Constantine to exclude or include gospels into an orthodox canon, some of St. Paul's 1st episitle to Timonthy was thought to be a rejection of Gnosticism. Those who are known to be Jesus's disciples insisted that Christ had died on the cross, and to challenge the veracity of eye witnesses without conclusive proof by evidence of equal weight does not seem prudent to me. Triple C, no less respectfully I ceased my intensive studies of the NT period about 10 years ago, and I am probably not up to speed on the latest developments. I think it likely that more knowledge of that era is still unfolding, and I do not claim to have a definitive answer. The biggest surprise was that the truth in the NT was hidden (in full view!) in the original texts. What a pity some gospels have disappeared without trace with only (in some cases) the name of the writer being known. It was a tragedy that the Roman Catholic church was responsible for the interpretation of the Dead Sea scrolls. They put Jesuits in charge and they did not permit scholars of other faiths (or atheists) to assist in their work. Admittedly it was demanding and the fragments had to be assembled like an incomplete giant jigsaw. Understanding of these texts did not come about until Jewish scholars took control. They should have been involved from the outset. The original authors were Hellenistic jews. It is known that certain scrolls ended up in private hands and these have not (so far as I know) been released for scholarly scrutiny. It is almost certain that there are no more scrolls to be found in the Qumran area, as the place has been endlessly searched. Barbera Thierings books impressed me the most, and I would strongly recommend them to anyone who has more than a passing interest in the subject. Last edited by glyn : 09-28-2007 at 17:36 PM.

09-29-2007, 10:42 AM	#206 (permalink)
Cromwell New Member Join Date: 10-17-06 Posts: 21 Country:	Genesis 1 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. According to the fossil record- something that can be seen and touched -Whales evolved from a group of terrestrial mammals. Just one of thousands of scientifically irreconcilable offerings to be found in the bible. So, as I have said earlier; you can either identify yourself as a man of reasoning -a scientist- or a man of faith - an irrational, brainwashed delusional. One cannot be both unless suffering from clinical schizophrenia. My intellect renders me incapable of believing in something wholly intangible simply because someone tells me it exists but offers not even marginal evidence. I feel the same way about string theory. -C __________________ Paranoia is but a heightened state of awareness. Last edited by Cromwell : 09-29-2007 at 15:31 PM.

09-29-2007, 10:44 AM	#207 (permalink)
entropy Senior Reader *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-19-07 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,628 Country:	One can believe, but taking the Bible literally is medieval. __________________ If memory serves...

09-28-2007, 13:02 PM	#202 (permalink)
Tarek Morgen *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Kassel Posts: 807 Country:	mh..I would also like to ask a bible literaist where Cain got his wife. I mean according to the bible right then the only Humans were Adam & eve and their offsprings. But Cain was banished he wen to the land of Nod and found his wife there. Uhm....were did that wife come from? (I simply assume that he married a Human being, even though it is not directly mentioned that she is human, simply by the fact that he hat a son with her)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should members of the Church of God go to war?	Ray	World Affairs Board Pub	22	06-19-2008 09:53 AM
True Islam	Insomniac	International Defense Topics	252	09-11-2007 15:55 PM
My Opinion of Islam	Insomniac	International Politics	252	05-22-2007 07:30 AM