|
Author
|
Topic: Where did the Egyptians come from ?
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 54 of 112 (14905)
08-06-2002 11:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-06-2002 8:37 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Would you be talking about genetic diversity bottleneck or geological evidence for the bottleneck?
Either works for me, if the dates are right, thought the genetic evidence would pack more punch.
quote:
Changes by microevolution occur rapidly in small populations, as you yourself should know. In large populations, diversification is a lot slower.
But aren't we talking about a genetic bottleneck? The population is small by definition.
quote:
How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago (the dates are arbitrary.)?
Just a thought, but you mention the mDNA studies that suggest we all have a common ancestor aroung 200k ago. This indicates a genetic bottleneck and probably a severe one. Well... very few people == very few or zero fossils until the population rebounds sufficiently.
quote:
Incidentally, the other article I mentioned in "reordering of fossils" topic could use the Cambrian explosion as an example. The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood. Thus, after they get off the ark, there is then fossil evidence for them.
But the flood carefully orders the bones of the dead critters. It doesn't wipe them out altogether. And what about pre-flood deposits? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 8:37 AM | | blitz77 has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
How often do you use this method to resolves apparrent contradictions in the Bible? I try to always use judgement in studying the Bible when someone claims there is a contradiction. David
But herein is the problem. Your judgement is based on what? Personal preference? Cultural norms? Upbringing? The word of God becomes just another book. The religion becomes the value judgements of the people who interpret the bible. The word of god should not need interpretation. Surely god is capable of writing precisely what he means. And think about your choice of words... 'to use judgement' is a version of the verb 'to judge' Are you qualified to judge god's word? Are you comfortable judging god's word? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
You're right, a much better word is logic. But judgement can be used too, if guided by the Lord. We are told not to cast our pearls before swine. We must use judgement in this case. This is a very spiritual matter, so I'll just stick to logic!
I honestly don't know how you can so confidently appeal to logic. The first rule of applied logic is verification of premises. The Bible is your premise and it cannot be verified. Put another way, logic is a system of reasoning from premises. Truth or falsity is irrelevent in logic. All you can know is that an inference does or does not follow from the premises. That something is logical does not mean that it is true, but only that given the premises the conclusion follows. Therefore, in the real world, logical conclusions are meaningless if the premises cannot be supported.
quote:
I see that elsewhere, God hasn't been concerned with precise numbering of years and measurements.
In principle, I don't have much of a problem with this. People round off numbers, no big deal.
quote:
How old was Adam? The Bible says 930 years. The Bible gives the ages of several people. Should I assume God meant to say everyone died on their birthday?
We to this day follow the same convention. Again, I have no real problem with this.
quote:
If we found the Ark, and it was 50.5 cubits wide, instead of 50... would people call it a contradiction too?
I wouldn't. But the ark has far more serious problems than half a cubit.
quote:
Now you're telling God what he should and shouldn't do!
No I'm not. This is a point that christians I've known don't really seem to get. You are assuming the bible to be god's word so criticism of it equates to criticism of god. I am criticising a book like a hundred others from around the world.
quote:
Let's look at it another way. "Why would God write the Bible in this manner?" Because it makes for interesting study, don't you think?
No. I think it makes for a lot of confusion. Why would god write a book supposedly critical to human salvation, but which is written in such a way that virtually anything can be derived from it?
quote:
One of the greatest blessings for me is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon -- I get a kick out of seeing a problem or contradiction, studying the Bible, and arriving at an answer.
Well, you should share some of your insight.
quote:
It also is intended to bring one towards Prayer. You pray, talk to God, and ask for the wisdom necessary to understand what he's trying to say.
And end up having a revelation that pretty much matches what you want to find. This isn't reasonable.
quote:
The important verses are *very* clear though.
Such as?
quote:
I can accept I don't understand everything there is that is going on.
But you accept on faith what priests made up two and half thousand years ago. Why not believe everything you read? I have recently been accused of being snide and satirical. This is a valid question, which has never been answered.
quote:
Actually, I think an even better example, is people who want the Bible to allow for evolution. It clearly does not. The only reason people think so, is they have gone in with existing ideas, and tried to make scripture fit man's ideas.
Interestingly enough the internal textual evidence of the Bible shows this sort of tampering throughout, from Genesis through Revelation. How, then can you take it as fact?
quote:
With an open heart, honesty, and prayer, I absolutely am comfortable judging. I would be uncomfortable, if I went in trying to make it say something that it did not. (i.e. the examples above.) I am also comfortable using logic when studying His word.
And everyone who has ever done terrible things, or things of which you disapprove, in God's name probably felt the same. The unreliable and subjective nature of this sort of reasoning should be glaringly obvious. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
I'm not up to replying in depth right now but...
quote:
That's quite an assertion. Do you have any examples of me coming up with what I want to find?
I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was just making an observation about the unreliability of the method you choose. You are right. I don't know you and I don't know about the things you have or have not concluded. English doesn't have a proper pronoun for the use I intended. I should have phrased it more carefully but I am very very tired. Sorry. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
John, you're switching gears. Wether the Bible is the word of God or not is completely unrelated to using logic to find out what the Bible teaches.
Fair enough. I've made my point.
quote:
The message of salvation is very clear. "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
James 2:24 -- Ye see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith only.
quote:
Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Well, it is simple if you ignore the contradictory bits.
quote:
And you assume that anything can be derived from it.
I do not assume that anything can be derived from ONE verse taken alone. I was talking about the bible as whole. But I think you knew this.
[quote][b]I say, if you're going in and honestly reading it, you will come to the correct conclusion.[/quote] [b] So what is the correct conclusion? Belief, or belief and works. Logically, you cannot have both versions be correct.
quote:
Not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is, by giving us the opportunity to study the Bible, it has brought me together with many people.
Pick a verse of import and lets see how we reconcile it with conflicting passages. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Please tell me where James says you are saved by your works.
I just did. The Greek word "dikaioo: to render righteous, declare one to be just, be freed" Pretty close eh? That much of the Biblical authors chose to use "sozo: to heal as is heal the sick and injured, the make whole" dosn't make it a magical phrase. Different words can describe the same phenomena.
quote:
Is James teaching contrary to what Christ and Paul taught? Or is he correcting those who would use Paul's teachings as a license for sin?
Not the point. It is directly in conflict with another verse in the Bible.
quote:
When in court, if your motive comes into question, your acts are examined. Nothing more than that is said by James.
But why? Once one has confessed with one's mouth one is saved. This court case is therefore superficial. But the author of James does not think so. Let's bring this back onto topic..... From where did the Egyptians come? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Okay, I'll try one last time. I feel like we're back to pi... 
I don't think so. The debate over pi and rounding numbers isn't a problem for me and it also isn't critical to anything theological as far as I can tell, exept for those insisting upon the absolute infallibility of the Bible. One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim. How one gets to heaven is critical.
quote:
Paul says the same thing James says several times. He also says you are saved by grace only.
You've just buttressed my case for me. Thanks.
quote:
If you study the Bible, and all passages relevant to salvation, you get a very clear picture.
You've just contracicted this.
quote:
There is only a contradiction for those that want there to be one.
And not a contradiction for those willing to interpret the problems out of the text. It is just as simple to come to a different conclusion, and numerous sects have done so.
quote:
If a person is saved, and they are true believers, then there WILL be positive result of their conversion to Christianity.
But this is not what the text I cited says.
quote:
There is no escpaping that fact.
hmmmm..... this then is another very bad blow for the religion as Christianity has a very bad record for producing positive results. What are you trying to prove with your list of quotes? Nothing there is unambiguous, especially when taken as a whole.
quote:
I don't know how easy it is for you to look up passages, just let me know if I always need to qoute them.
I can probably find anything you quote, but references are much appreciated and make things much easier.
quote:
"If someone says, 'I love god,' and hates his brother, he is a liar."
Luke 14:26-- If any man come to me, and hate not his father,a nd mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. How does one follow both sets of instructions? You have to hate everyone, yet to love God and hate someone you are a liar. We are all doomed.
quote:
They, like every other civilization, descended from one of Noah's sons. If you're asking me about the contradiction between accepted secular history and biblical history, I don't have any answers -- and I don't have time to research this one at the moment.
Well, this is the topic you joined. Let me summarize. There is appr. 400-500 years between the end of the Flood and the Isrealite contact with the egyptians. This means that in under five hundred years a world population of 8 swelled to many millions- enough to populate Egypt and all of the other cultures mentioned in the Bible. This, to me, is patently absurd, and I have researched and written much on my reasons why I believe so. Most of those reasons involve food supply and reproductive rates. The case is made worse by the fact that these cultures would also have to be allowed the time to build some fabulously large scale structures and prior to that develop the technology to do so. Someone else, I forget who, brought up the fact that also within those 500 years, the descendents of Noah would have had to fabricate myriads of complicated 'false' mythologies. This too is patently absurd. Christ, has held sway in the west for two thousand years based on the unverified legends of his existence. The same should hold in spades following an event of such magnitude as the flood. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
--One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim-- To call rounding off an error, is just absurd.
Please read my post carefully. What I stated was that this isn't a problem unless one insists upon ABSOLUTE INFALLABILITY. Absolute is absolute, there is no middle ground.
quote:
Did you see my point?
No. In fact, just the opposite, but upon stating that I am accused of being childish.
quote:
All verses fit with Eternal Security.
What is eternal security? I have never heard this before.
quote:
Many verses do not fit with maintaining or losing salvation.
Please be more clear. 1) all verses fit with maintaining eternal security-- for the moment assuming this means that one cannot lose one's salvation. 2) Many verses do not fit with maintaining one's salvation. This implies that some verses DO NOT FIT, but are nonetheless present? This is boggling my mind. All verses fit, but some do not fit?
quote:
Other sects have gone wrong.
On what basis can you make this claim? It is all interpretation.
quote:
People cannot stand being helpless, and unable to earn their salvation. If they can't earn it, they can't feel as though they are better or more deserving than someone else.
No argument, but I can find verses in the Bible to support either view.
quote:
Again, this is ridiculous. Christianity has an excellent record and has done great things for the world. Any evil done in the world by supposed Christians are acts that are inconsistent with their supposed beliefs.
Don't make me start naming Christian atrocities. What you have done is construct a rational whereby Christianity cannot lose. If Christians do good works, then you count their actions. If Christians kill millions, then you deny that they are Christians, thereby allowing the buck to be passed. THIS is ridiculous. If I constructed the same argument about humanism-- the humanists who create horrors are not REAL humanists, you would likely find an example of an admitted humanist who contradicts the claim. Yet you DO NOT allow this same criticism of Christianity.
quote:
On the other hand, great examples of Atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are being CONSISTENT with their athieistic/evolutionary beliefs.
Hitler, though much effort has been made to deny the fact, was a CHRISTIAN. Have a read.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtml And by the way, I do not deny that non-Christians are nasty and brutish as well. I just deny that Christianity has done anything to improve the behavior of its adherants.
quote:
I noticed that's the KJV version, so maybe you just copied it from SAB.
Is this in the "How to defend Christianity" manual? To accuse your adversary of not being able to think? Just curious, I've met with many such accusations recently.
quote:
One thing that guy fails to do on several cases is consider the context and the actual meaning of a message. Always read the passage of a verse you're qouting, and if you still think there is something wrong, go ahead.
First, you are assuming I found this gem in SAB. I actually noticed it years ago while reading the Bible. Second, I always read the surrounding text. In case you are interested, I actually prefer Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible for looking up this sort of thing.
quote:
What do you think Jesus means when he says you must hate yourself and family to be a disciple?
There doesn't seem to be anything in the surrounding verse to modify the literal meaning. What I think he means, or what I want him to mean, is irrelevent. I take God at his word or I put words in his mouth. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Ahh -- Okay. Of course, that would be true wether God wrote the Bible or Not, considering Pi is irrational 
You know. I kept trying to tell my High School geometry teacher this same thing.... but... but pi is irrational!!!!
quote:
You mentioned that some sects read the Bible to say you must have works to go to heaven or to maintain your salvation. What I'm saying is there are verses in the Bible that contradict that idea. However in the opposing view point, "Eternal Security," all verses of the Bible make sense.
The two are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot have both at once. And it works both ways. You have admitted that some verses CONTRADICT other verses, but you then choose to accept one of the conflicting ideas rather than the other and somehow claim that there is not a problem. Really, this makes no sense. You can't claim that the latter-- eternal security-- encompasses both ideas because the ideas are fundamentally in conflict.
quote:
It is not interpretation, it's false doctorine.
This, my friend, is an interpretation!!!!
quote:
I don't have a liberal view on the Bible whatsoever. (i.e. I don't agree that everyone's interpretation is valid.)
Nor do I actually, but a case can be made for several alternate versions.
quote:
This is just where I put my faith -- I accept the easiest and simplest message. If you want to make the Bible say you must earn salvation, you have to stretch it. Other examples of what I call false doctorines and you might call interpretation is the idea that Christ isn't God.
You are right. This is the point I am laboring at in fact. You are convinced that your reading is the correct one, and it simply isn't that cut and dry.
quote:
Yes, I have constructed that rational, because I believe it's true. Jesus was a perfect man and he was a fundamentalist Christian!
I understand what you mean. But I also understand that there is equivocation in this line of reasoning. "Fundamentalist" is an interpretation not a fact. This point you seem to be missing.
quote:
I think a belief should be judged by it's fundamental principles, not the failing humans that try to carry them out.
Then apply this principle across the board.
quote:
Do you think fundamental atheist/evolutionist principles lead to good things or bad things?
I see: We have no one to blame but ourselves Christian: God is a scapegoat for horror.
quote:
Was he? I know he was at odds with the Church because they were sending him letters criticizing what he was doing. But what is Hitler known for? Trying to create the perfect race -- which I see coming directly from Evolution.
Actually, he was trying to rebuild the perfect race --- that descended from Adam which had become corrupted. This springs direcly from the Bible.
quote:
I guess it depends on what you would define an improvement of behavior. It's certainly improved my own. But improvement being based on the Bible. (Sex, Drugs, Honoring my Parents, controlling anger and hate, and treating others with kindness.) Not perfect, but I do try to be Christian-Like. Maybe you don't see it as an improvement.
Really, I'm happy if the faith has improved your life. But I am not talking about specific cases. There are some bright spots in the darkness-- Meister Eckhart for one, Bishop Berkeley for another. But as a whole I see a history of blood, and destruction in the name of God. No I don't see that as an improvement of behavior.
quote:
Everything else coming from Jesus is "don't hate your brother, love your enemy, love God." Doesn't it make sense to consider things in context?
You are actually getting pretty close to the point I am trying to make, which is that the Bible isn't a coherent document. It is a collection of opinions written by people many years after the death of the reputed founder. The context changes. This is what makes it impossible to take it at face value as the word of God. That word changes with the peculiarities of the various authors, and it shouldn't if it were divinely inspired by the SAME God.
quote:
This passage is about being a disciple. Why would hating your family make you a better disciple? How does hate help you?
It could make you a faithful disciple. Think about the textbook mechanisms of cult-followings. Rule number one-- seperate your followers from thier friends and family.
quote:
In the 33rd verse of that chapter, that question is answered."So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple."
And if I went out preaching the same? I'd be labelled a destructive and parasitical cult leader. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
No, I'm not saying some verses contradict others.
Let me get this straight.
quote:
I'm saying if you have anything but the "eternal security" viewpoint, there are verses that contradict what you believe.
1) There are verses in the Bible which support "eternal security" 2) There are verses which contradict #1 But...
quote:
There are no verses that contradict what I say the Bible teaches:
... there are no verses in the Bible which contradict other verses? Please tell me how this makes sense.
quote:
If you haven't changed anything, you ought to re-examine if you've really become saved.
So confessing belief isn't enough?
quote:
I said in another thread that one must become a believer, before the Bible makes any sense.
What leads one to become a believer? Reading a book that doesn't make sense? Since, as you say, it doesn't make sense until you believe. This is truly truly bizarre.
quote:
If God can create the Universe, and Guide the course of events so that Christ would fulfill 17 prophecies in the OT
hmmmm..... People who write a book with a previously written book in hand are more than capable of writing in 'fulfilled' prophecies.
quote:
I can also trust him to get me the Bible in good enough condition so that I can trust what it says.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of extensive editing?
quote:
So yes, ultimately it's a faith issue, and there isn't any point in arguing with me! There, I said it!
ah.... faith. You are right, there is no amount of fact that can shake good old blind faith. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
I think you misread me for the third time!
I am not misreading. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.
quote:
Quite a claim. Zero support.
uhhh.... you mean like the notes of the people who actually did the editing? We have those, in some cases.
quote:
Kinda like "If you have anything to add to the bible-has-been-edited topic, please say so. If you're going to quote the same old anti-Bible propaganda from deceitful, blind and lost men, save both of us the time and don't bother."
I really don't need to add anything. The issue is settled, at least in that the Bible has been repeated editted. Some debate remains on exactly what has been altered/removed/added. Though you may dismiss that evidence based on your own biases, it really does not reflect well upon you. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
quote:
I am not misreading. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.
You said I said the following three things: #1 Verses in the Bible support ES
#2 Verses in the Bible contradict #1
#3 No verses in the Bible contradict Obviously those three statements contradict each other, but I never said #2. So yes, you are definitely misreading.
OK. Back in post #96 you stated:
quote:
All verses fit with Eternal Security. Many verses do not fit with maintaining or losing salvation.
I responded with:
[quote]
Many verses do not fit with maintaining one's salvation. This implies that some verses DO NOT FIT, but are nonetheless present?[/b][/quote] To which I got no denial, so I assumed that the statement was acceptable. Hence, a contradiction. So the fair question becomes, are there any verses which support an alternate interpretation?
quote:
Pay attention to word choice. If you're going to say the Bible has overwhelming evidence of extensive editing: Define your Terms and show Evidence; not generalizations. "We have notes in some cases," is very obscure and could mean anything.
You are right. I have been working long hours and have not been citing sources as I should. A very interesting source concerning the KJV is this:
Tegart.com is available at DomainMarket.com. Call 888-694-6735 You'll note such things as "Many times, the KJV-translators translated from the 'qere' (the marginal note in the Masoretic text) rather than the 'ketic' (the actual text itself). Also note that the site is a Christian site, the author arguing not that the Bible is false but that it has been sloppily translated. Another one concerning the KJV:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm Or this on the Masoretic text:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/elohim.html ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
™ Version 4.2