Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Investigation of Biblical science errors
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 138 (117635)
06-22-2004 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 12:33 AM


am able to distunguish between the law of god and the law of moses. No points for you here.
Please do explain why I get no points. Moses passed on the teachings of God and that is what is found, especially within those sections.
While Xians may claim exemptions from those laws at this time, that is not the same as being able to claim God didn't say what he said, or Moses was not saying what God told him to say at the time.
Deuteronomy contained the laws of God for his people, and that lasted until Jesus came around to shake things up.
If you have some evidence of some kind to refute this, I am more than happy to look at it. Maybe there is an explanation. But you have not provided one.
Did humans write the bible or not? Your hebetudinous behaviour regarding this matter amazes me.
I'm sorry if you did not understand the real meaning of the question. It was not simply a question of if human hands wrote the Bible, but rather whether human misunderstandings regarding the world made it into the Bible through those hands.
The common claim made by those who follow "the Book" is that the writings, while written by men, were compelled or influenced by divine sources and so impervious to error.
This is not surprising as an admission that a Holy Book contains any error opens the door to questioning many other claims within that faith.
I am surprised that a person who uses a word like "hebetudinous" could not understand the deeper meaning of my question. Though I guess I wasn't so shocked to discover a person who missed my meaning, also used the word "hebetudinous" incorrectly.
Here's a second chance to actually answer my question and to use your word correctly.
Your stuporous frame of mind is beyond understanding. The fatuous nature of your thinking causes me to question whether logostic reason escapes you... One could easily surmise that continued interlocution with individuals such as yourself would precipitate exactly that type of unavailing scenario... Contumeliously Vituperative
Wow, I never caused a person's brain to melt before.
Or did you just get a thesaurus and decided to use it without double-checking their true meanings using a dictionary?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 12:33 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 10:04 PM Silent H has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 138 (117678)
06-22-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
06-22-2004 7:09 PM


holmes writes:
Please do explain why I get no points. Moses passed on the teachings of God and that is what is found, especially within those sections.
You get no points because of your inability to distinguish between the law of moses and the law of god. My understanding of the bible, limited as it may be, is that the law of god, apart from what was commanded in the garden, was contained on two tablets, while the law of moses was much more extensive.
It took me awhile to find this but, when referring to the law of moses after being asked why moses commanded the men to give their wives a writing of divorce, jesus says in matthew 19:8 "moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, commanded you to put away your wives in this manner, but from the beginning it was not to be so."
Here you have jesus pointing out the law of moses which required a writing of divorce, differing from the law of god which jesus quotes earlier in matthew 19:6, "what god has joined together as one, let no man divide in two." Hopefully that will clear things up for you, but somehow, I kind of doubt it because, as your signature says, "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.." At least you can't say I didn't try to show you where you made your error.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 06-22-2004 7:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2004 8:58 AM DarkStar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 138 (117864)
06-23-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 10:04 PM


Well, you at least get some points for finally answering my question properly.
Unfortunately, you missed the more subtle aspects of this issue.
It does not matter that one can define two sets of laws within Judaism/Xianity. I have already addressed this point and your own excerpt from the Bible proves my position.
when referring to the law of moses after being asked why moses commanded the men to give their wives a writing of divorce, jesus says in matthew 19:8 "moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, commanded you to put away your wives in this manner, but from the beginning it was not to be so."
This talks about the REASON for a law having been given. It does not explain the lack of understanding real biology that went into the law.
I understand that God originally did not intend for there to be many laws at all (in the garden there was none), and Jesus came to remove the numerous laws that came to be under Moses. But that is not the same thing as saying they were ERRONEOUS. It merely sets them in perspective.
If one accepts the logic of your argument it will lead to many conclusions I do not believe most Xians and Jews would readily accept. If Jesus was not only saying that Moses was in ERROR for making the laws he did, and even ERRONEOUS in the facts used to write those laws, what does that say about almost the entire Judeo-Xian faith and history?
Who is to say then that the writers of Genesis were also not simply in error?
Moses is a pretty big figure to be knocking down with errors.
In the end, while Mosaic law has been nullified to Xians by the acts of Jesus in order to restore what (according to Jesus) was God's original desire for mankind, that does not (and better not) imply that there were factual errors within Mosaic law. That has much greater implications for that faith as a whole.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 10:04 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by DarkStar, posted 06-24-2004 9:48 PM Silent H has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 138 (118440)
06-24-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
06-23-2004 8:58 AM


Born to Err
I think anyone who has read the bible would have to agree that from the beginning to the ending, the errors of men are prevelant. That men make errors is not news. That moses made errors is not news. I think there is one story where god told moses to talk to a rock to make it bring forth water but moses struck it as he had done before. If I am not mistaken, the water still came out even though moses disobeyed god but moses was punished for it later. The bible is a book that is full from beginning to end with the mistakes that men have made. Moses was no exception. The bible says moses did murder someone and yet god still chose him to lead the people. The bible says the israelites saw god perform miracle after miracle and still they turned away from their god when things got a little tough. Men make mistakes, just ask any woman if you don't believe that. They will set you straight in a new york minute.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 06-23-2004 8:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 06-25-2004 7:49 AM DarkStar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 138 (118604)
06-25-2004 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by DarkStar
06-24-2004 9:48 PM


Thank you for admitting that the Bible does indeed contain scientific errors, and that is because it was written by men and not Gods.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DarkStar, posted 06-24-2004 9:48 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by DarkStar, posted 06-25-2004 10:15 PM Silent H has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 138 (118906)
06-25-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Silent H
06-25-2004 7:49 AM


Dishonest Holmes
Please do not credit me with something that I neither claimed, nor even came close to suggesting. Do not put words into my mouth. It is a most deceitful and dishonest behaviour that you have exhibited, posting what you did. It is a behaviour that I do not appreciate. You owe me an apology.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 06-25-2004 7:49 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 06-26-2004 6:21 AM DarkStar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 138 (118977)
06-26-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by DarkStar
06-25-2004 10:15 PM


I apologize if I didn't correctly understand your post. I thought you were answering my question. You see if you had been answering my question honestly, then that would have been what it meant.
However, if you were being deceitful, something I do not appreciate, and avoiding the real implications of deuteronomy, then you owe ME an apology.
I was not asking whether the Bible contained stories of human fallibility and you KNOW it.
If MOSES WAS WRONG IN LAYING DOWN THE LAWS IN DEUTERONOMY then that puts a pretty big fly in the matzo ball soup.
If the point of deuteronomy was that he could be wrong in explaining the laws that God had given him to give to his people, then not only are all of those laws bankrupt (which I might point out means he could be wrong about promiscuity and even homosexuality), but puts into doubt why we should believe Moses about anything else.
Suddenly you have pulled the rug right out from under all of Moses' teachings and claims. After all he was alone on that mountain top. If we can't trust simply relating the laws as God spelled them out to him, then why can we not doubt he ever talked to God at all?
Now answer the question, or admit you don't know jack.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by DarkStar, posted 06-25-2004 10:15 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by DarkStar, posted 06-26-2004 9:02 PM Silent H has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 138 (119107)
06-26-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
06-26-2004 6:21 AM


A Question of Law
Was the law of moses regarding divorce contrary to what the bible records as god's position on the matter? If it was not then your point is valid. However, if the law of moses was contrary to the original law of god concerning marriage, then my point is valid and you still owe me an apology. You be the judge.

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 06-26-2004 6:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Silent H, posted 06-27-2004 7:39 AM DarkStar has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 114 of 138 (119204)
06-27-2004 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by DarkStar
06-26-2004 9:02 PM


if the law of moses was contrary to the original law of god concerning marriage, then my point is valid and you still owe me an apology. You be the judge.
You seem to miss the point.
First of all, even in what Jesus said about Moses, it was not to say that the law of Moses was contrary to the laws of God.
I think it is pretty clear that he was explaining that God had set down some simple rules, but because of the nature of man he was forced to set down more rules through Moses, until another time came.
He was discussing the temporary nature of the Mosaic laws not the errancy of them.
But let's assume you are correct. If Moses, after the Bible clearly states that God instructed him in the laws he relates to his people in deuteronomy, ends up contradicting God... I mean let's get real here. Are you really suggesting the message of the Bible is that Moses was CONTRARY to GOD?
Can you not see the dire implications of this? How is one even to believe the ten commendments. He walked up alone and he came down alone. Whose to say he didn't make the laws himself against God's wishes. That is after all what you are saying he did shortly afterward.
This is a particularly tortured position you are taking, just to avoid admitting that the Bible contains very real scientific errors.
Second, this continues to say nothing about the errancy. Fine. Let's say you are correct. Moses defies God and manages to set into the Bible (and over Jews for quite a while) laws he claims came from God. But they are all fake.
The errancy, apparently, came from Moses then and not God. That still undercuts the Bible's claims about anything. Even in the beginning there was nothing and then there was light can go right out the window as lucky guesswork on the part of who wrote it. For he, like Moses, may have been half-assing it with the facts.
By the way I don't owe you an apology about jack. My apology would not hinge on whether Mosaic law was contrary to God's law. My apology hinges solely on whether I was being mean in attributing an incorrect meaning to your post.
As I pointed out, if you answered my question properly and not assigned incorrect meanings to it, then my read of your post was just fine.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by DarkStar, posted 06-26-2004 9:02 PM DarkStar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 138 (119346)
06-27-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 3:32 PM


Re: For The Record
darkstar writes:
Neither the theory of evolution, nor the theory of intelligent design are capable of adequately explaining the origin of life.
Seeing as evolution is about the change in life and not about the beginnings, that should be not surprise -- you want to refer to Abiogenesis. Agreed that Abiogenesis has not yet shown that life could have started from the cosmic soup that helped form the earth (including organic molecules existing in space at the time), one has to realize that they come closer every day ... the day will be reached when chemicals are combined and life results. Does that mean that it happened the way the experiment works? No, it just shows that one method was possible. It is even possible that several methods will work, could have worked. Certainly progress in this direction cannot be rejected by an open mind. Will this mean that god is disproved? No, for the universe could have been created in a manner that was primed for life to occur and then to evolve.
ID has yet to qualify as a scientific theory yet, the best it has mustered is a hypothesis that is untested (all supposed tests have failed to rule out evolution which means they do not test for ID). What ID needs is a test that says if ID is right x happens while if evolution is right y happens: that will give it some scientific credence. Does this mean that the concept of a cosmic designer is false? No, no more than it means that god does not exist -- it gets down to an untestable concept that removes it from science but not from possibility.
At its most basic core, ID will need to grow more open-minded or end up discredited for its narrow-mindedness, especially in regards to the science of evolution. ID needs to use all of science to properly understand what is real in the universe, and any lapse in that regard opens it up for criticism. Science explains the how, faith the why (and ID is a faith at heart).
That's my take.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 3:32 PM DarkStar has not replied

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 138 (119514)
06-28-2004 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by DarkStar
06-22-2004 3:32 PM


Re: For The Record
Excellent stance, DarkStar!!
Don't let anyone take you down for remaining skeptical. You are, indeed, one of the wisest posters on here, because you are not so gullible as to swallow "certain evidence" like a Spring bear, starving for ANYTHING that moves.
I applaud your firm stance in favor of being OPEN until you are personally satisfied by the evidence in one direction or the other.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that Evolution is NOT proven, nor is it even nearly so, regardless of how loudly, or how often some people love to repeat that it is SO.
What we really have, rather than a lack of evidence, is the lack of what you are stating already -- a tremendous lack of objective reasoning.
If people really did not CARE whether there was a Creator or not, we would have much more objective research, rather than this emotional cry on every side for THIS opinion, or THAT "conclusion".
Even if it is just between you and I, (those who insist on closing their minds to either side could be ignored) we could share what arguments make it difficult for us, personally, to accept either Creation or Evolution as viable.
I have seen a tremendous amount of evidence that can truly be called Evidence in the scientific meaning (having to be observable, repeatable, and predictable), and I have also seen a great deal of "evidence" that is based on pure faith. If you are interested in discussing this sort of issue with me, I am delighted to engage.
However, I must warn you that I am a mother of small children, and much of the information I have come face-to-face with is quite complex, and I will not have much time to go into this data in detail in my own words. This does NOT mean that I have not studied it to my own satisfaction. The only links or books that I will suggest are things that I have looked into deeply enough to believe, with no doubts left, that this is scientifically-documented data, that is NOT based on blind faith, but is truly scientific in the most thorough sense of the term.
If you are open-minded enough to seek out links with such data, and look for (and study) books that I may point to, as excellent sources of deep research by scientists, like yourself, who have refused to accept others' "conclusions" and done some impressive research on their own, I believe you will, at some point, come to an understanding of the universe that will facilitate a decision, and that your OWN decision (which I will, by the way, never try to push)will be totally satisfying to you.
Since YOU are the person who needs to be totally satisfied with this decision, YOU will be (at least between you and me)the ONLY one who will make it. Frankly, I do not care WHAT you decide, or IF you decide anything at all. MY STATED GOAL here is to point you to DOCUMENTED DATA, much of which is censored or twisted, to make sure that I have done everything I know possible to help YOU come to a satisfactory position FOR YOURSELF.
Again, I wish to express my open admiration of you because you refuse to crunch yourself into following ANY of the propaganda from ANY POSITION. You are in a very special position, because you ARE, in fact, open-minded. Only the open-minded can see what is truly there to be seen. All others "see" what they CHOOSE to "see".
So, are you up to it? Shall we face TRUE evidence head on?
Waiting for your reply.
Respectfully Yours,
Reina

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DarkStar, posted 06-22-2004 3:32 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2004 5:55 PM Reina has not replied
 Message 118 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 12:52 AM Reina has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 138 (120087)
06-29-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Reina
06-28-2004 12:31 PM


Re: For The Record
Given your post in the other thread, where you never answered my reply, I'd suggest spending some time on your own with some books of physics, chemistry, and biology.
You can move on to whatever "websites" you think will help you, but you have not shown a grasp on the very basics of science theories.
Very important on that list will be actually understanding the 1st and 2nd Law of thermodynamics, as well as abiogenesis and evolutionary theories. Cosmological models would help as well.
I'm not trying to simply insult you. The statements you made were contrary to the theories you said you were talking about. You NEED to get them straight if you want to put them in cirtical perspective.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Reina, posted 06-28-2004 12:31 PM Reina has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 138 (131764)
08-09-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Reina
06-28-2004 12:31 PM


Re: For The Record
reina writes:
Excellent stance, DarkStar!!
Thanks for the support. Sorry for the extreme delay in responding. Suspensions will do that to you.
reina writes:
If you are open-minded enough to seek out links with such data, and look for (and study) books that I may point to, as excellent sources of deep research by scientists, like yourself, who have refused to accept others' "conclusions" and done some impressive research on their own, I believe you will, at some point, come to an understanding of the universe that will facilitate a decision, and that your OWN decision (which I will, by the way, never try to push)will be totally satisfying to you.
If you are still interested, I too am game.

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Reina, posted 06-28-2004 12:31 PM Reina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Reina, posted 08-09-2004 2:30 PM DarkStar has replied

Reina
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 138 (131950)
08-09-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 12:52 AM


For DarkStar
Glad to hear from you again!! I do wonder what you are and aren't familiar with already -- your signature at the end of your last post reflects my own feelings exactly (that "Micro-evolution" is certainly viable, but "Macro-evolution" doesn't stand a chance).
Please give me some idea of what evidences you are familiar with concerning both facets of evolution (Macro- & Micro-), and what counter-evidences you have found, also for both.
Perhaps, if you are already satisfied with a decision concerning Macro-evolution, you will prefer to discuss only Micro-evolution. I leave it entirely up to you, as to how narrow or broad you wish to develop this research. I am more than glad to discuss any part(s) or the whole package(which is pretty big, but we could tackle it in bits and pieces, according to your preferences).
One thing I have learned in my approx. 30 years of discussion experience -- I have the privelege of sharing evidence and truth with many people, but my responsibility and joy ends with having offered "clean, cool water" to people (sympbolically "horses").
As soon as I have done the work of carrying the good "water" to any "horse", it is then the choice of the "horse", whether he will drink or not. If he is not thirsty, I move on to the next, and on, until I have offered water to all the "horses" around me.
I do not get frustrated with "horses" who are not thirsty -- rather, I get frustrated with those other "water" carriers who try to MAKE "horses" drink. So, I am sorry about all who try to co-erce others into drinking their "water". Someday, maybe more people will finally realize that each must come to their own conclusions, in their own way, in their own time.
Any other way of coming to a conclusion is forced, and thus false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 12:52 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 4:35 PM Reina has replied
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 08-09-2004 5:00 PM Reina has replied
 Message 132 by DarkStar, posted 08-16-2004 12:59 AM Reina has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 138 (131997)
08-09-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Reina
08-09-2004 2:30 PM


but "Macro-evolution" doesn't stand a chance).
Despite it being supported by a vast wieght of scientific evidence?
What would it take to convince you if evidence won't do it?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Reina, posted 08-09-2004 2:30 PM Reina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Reina, posted 08-10-2004 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024