If we are all descended from Noah ...

What struck me about the original post in this thread is the idea that had we all descended from Moses, his religion would dominate worldwide.Since that is not the case, the origin of religion becomes a real problem. To explain the religions of some early civilizations, you have to assume that Moses' descendants, within a few generations, abandoned the worship of a God who can destroy the world with flood-- and this before the mud dried. (Credit goes to Peter for preceding bit) People are not that stupid, even at their worst. People will hold onto prejudice and superstition like they are holding onto the last twinkie in the warehouse. Put some evidence, like global destruction, behind that belief and it becomes hard to imagine that they'd remodel those beliefs in the allotted time.: TrueCreation attributed the generation of other religions to "the result of diverging cultures and isolated populations as generations pass and cultural biases and beliefs develop." Think about the time table. In two thousand years, Christianity has changed only a fraction of what it would take to convert Judaism to Buddhism, or Hinduism, or to the Greek or Sumerian religions. Yet, at best, these religions would have had a few hundred years to develop. Assuming that these cultures developed after the Flood, they must have developed soon after it, or the time lines of the old testament have to be manipulated radically.This leads to another problem with TrueCreation's explanation: There really should not have been much in the way of "diverging cultures and isolated populations." A population of 14 adults (Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives-- assuming polygamy just to be fair) would likely swell to a somewhere between 800 and 1500 people over the first hundred years, hitting 4500 or so in five hundred years. There is not much population to diverge really, nor to spread and become isolated. I think this is a fair estimate. It assumes that the population doubles every generation, and that there is no mortality or infertility. Can't beat that with a stick.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
If we are all descended from Noah, is 4500 years sufficient
time to get enough diversity in the Y chromosome to be able
to trace which ancestral race the British populations have come
from.

​

This research has been carried out to investigate the genetic
legacy of the Vikings in the British Isles.

​

If there is sufficient time, doesn't that mean that mutations
can and DO occur and that they are not detrimental necessarily ?

---

Is 4500 years sufficient time to get race?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is no evidence against the authorship of Moses.

---

The evidence against it is overwhelming.

quote:

---

When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.

---

Agreed. How is this one? Gerald Larue Otll Chap3 » Internet Infidels

quote:

---

I won't chase around through dozens of skeptic websites.

---

Right... you'll only chase around through dozens of apologetic sites then? Very balanced.

quote:

---

I've already been there and already refuted hundreds of claims which are mostly due to poor comprehension or omission of associated Scripture fact.

---

quote:

---

When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.

---

quote:

---

Maybe not, but the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong were alien concepts to him.

​

WS: So where did that come from? That directly contradicts the Bible account, without a shred of support.

---

Adam had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How then is it that he HAD knowledge of good and evil?

quote:

---

There is no mention of Adam being altered to add sex organs, no changes announced for Eve, except for addition of pain to childbirth.

---

Which pain she suffered because of Adam's sin. Men are always the responsible party, if you are to be believed.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

---

You forgot this one:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

---

You have several inplicit problems there.1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later)2)Adam and Eve were created at the same time, hence Adam would have never been alone. This too screws with the whole rib story.3)The order is wrong. It doesn't mesh with the order of the other version of creation.4)In the Hebrew, the words used for 'them' (as in 'created he them') are masculine plural in both cases. This is very good news for like-gender lovers.

quote:

---

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

Oh... here it is. You just failed to bring it up when it conflicted with your other passage.

quote:

---

Chapter one is the abstract of creation, while chapter two adds interesting detail that reviews Adam's existence between his creation and some details of the making of Eve.

---

BS... you cannot construct a logical sequence of events in which all statements in both versions of creation are 1)included, 2)in order relative to the version in which the event is found, 3)and which does not cause conflicts in the final compiled version.

quote:

---

WS: "Sin" is already defined and 'set in stone', so your futile attempt to redefine sin and morality is pointless.
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

---

Of course, definitions are meaningless unless you believe the dictionary. Why do Christians not understand that?

quote:

---

Without knowledge of sin there can be no morality that would sustain any significant civilization for very long.

---

Sorry, but you don't need a concept of sin to create and hold a society together. All you need is common sense. The concept of sin is superflous.

quote:

---

WS: Can you prove that? Until you can, the Bible stands true, self-proven, self-supported, backed by the testimony of many.*

---

Self-proven and self-supported are by default invalid. Its called circular reasoning. Backed by testimony is a fallacy called an appeal to popularity-- argumentum ad populum.

quote:

---

The Bible, however, has been verified many ways, through writings of cultures that testify of event corroborations, existence of kings in order of occurrence, and many other means.

---

In your own words:

quote:

---

When you pass along those false accusations, you have no credibility at all when you leave off the specific reference.

---

quote:

---

Copy/paste if you must. One at a time please. However, if and when I demonstrate false accusation, please have the decency to acknowledge your error.

---

[quote]Over time that faith basis is augmented through personal experience that the promises of the Bible are abundantly true, and the believer is treated to bits of physical evidence that shores up their faith even more.[quote] People have a very hard time with causality, in general. People take coincidence as being meaningful and can't calculate probability to save thier souls. This is essentially why people keep gambling even though they are losing. It may make you feel better, but it proves nothing.

quote:

---

Secular historians and philosophers never supported the claims of those tales, but had no choice but to acknowledge the claims of the Bible.

---

No choice? This makes no sense. There are a few very shaky external bits of evidence that supports a couple of minor points mentioned in the Bible. That is it. And this is to be expected. The Isrealites were not living in a vacuum. That they existed is not the same as proving that there God existed, or that their religion is the one true faith.Show me your secular evidence.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Only theories, no evidence at all, just accusations based on ignorance.

---

Ignorance? Is that what you call objective analysis?
What would you consider evidence anyway? ...signed document on God's own letterhead?

quote:

---

WS: I've already been through all of that elsewhere. The main argument seems to be this verse: Genesis 36:31

---

If you think the main argument is this verse then you really haven't done your homework. I would accuse you of not reading the url I posted, but I can't get it to come up either. Try this. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.religioustoleance.org/chr_tora.htm

quote:

---

WS: I've already been all over many of those unbeliever sites chasing down the misunderstandings.

---

quote:

---

NEVER is there any acknowledgement of the answers, characteristic of unbelievers owing no courtesy to anyone.

---

This is off-topic, but the worst people I have ever known have been believers.

quote:

---

There are hundreds of so-called erors, all of them answered quite well over the years, which helped me deal with them.

---

I have seen a number of 'errors' which I wouldn't really consider errors. [quote][b]Several preachers online have noticed my involvement and have warned I'm really not supposed to engage in such foolishness with non/unbelievers.[/quote][/b]Yes, step one: seperate the believers from the rational.

quote:

---

They are right, in that I should not answer a fool on his level.

---

Interesting turn of phrase.

quote:

---

He had all God wanted him to have in that one commandment not to eat of that tree. One commandment was all Adam had.

---

You've missed the point. Having no knowledge of good and evil, Adam had no way to process the command from God.

quote:

---

Eve deceived Adam, listening to the serpent, and deserved punishment.

---

This is not what you implied in an earlier post.

quote:

---

1)God is refering to theirselves as plural. (The 'royal we' did not exist until much later)

​

WS: I offered that one earlier, but Nos couldn't handle it. The plural is correct. We call the Godhead a "trinity".

---

hmmm.... well, it only works if you can extrapolate backwards from the new testament, which makes a mess of chronology...

quote:

---

You make the common error of not recognizing the outline method of Genesis chapters one and two.

---

No, I am afraid not.

quote:

---

Both cover the same creation week, one in summary, one in more detail concerning Adam and Eve.

---

Nope. The two accounts are much too different.

quote:

---

An illiterate person might fail to grasp the literary style there, but millions do not miss it.

---

You are full of implicit insult aren't you?Textual analysis reveals quite a few literary styles in there, indicating not one but several authors and a bunch of editting.

quote:

---

WS: Outline it. You are missing it. Chapter 2 isn't a day by day rehash of the sequence of chapter one. It concentrates on other details without contradicting anything.

---

This argument I have seen before, but the issue comes up again in a bit.

quote:

---

WS: Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

​

The Hebrew for male/female is zakar/neqebah. That doesn't fit your take.

---

Well, I wasn't exactly serious about this one. Nonetheless, it is interesting that your reply corrects me on something I never disputed. My comment was about the chosen pronouns.

quote:

---

Ch. 1
Day 1: day and night.
Day 2: separation between earth, atmoshphere, and the outer heavens.
Day 3: land raised, oceans lowered, vegetation started.
Day 4: Moon, planets, stars created in adition to the sun already separating day and night, the moon and stars ruling by night.
Day 5: Marine life and winged flying creatures, commanded to multiply.
Day 6: Earth dwelling creatures, followed by man, then woman.

​

Ch. 2
1. Summary of the finishing in chapter one, and the day of rest.
2. Recap: Heavens & earth made.
3. Verse 4 says the preceding was the Heb. towledah, or history of the creation, up through day 7.
4. Plant discussion. Already made in Day 3, the plants grow and multiply. No rain, but a mist arose to water plants.
5. Jumping to day 6. Mention of man's creation and building materials (dust), need of a man to till the ground, tend the garden. We already know Eve was made on that day from chapter 1.
6. After being set in the garden, God made the woman.

​

No conflicts, just two perspectives. thje first concerning all of creation in 6 days, the second concerning certain parts of the creation, but covering the same 6 days.

---

OK:1)Chapter one is creation in seven days. The version in chapter two begins with "in the day..." "Day" singular. The word is YVM, the same chosen for "day" in the first account. This alone is a pretty clear indication that we are dealing with two creation accounts.2)Your Chapter2 #2.... This apparently resides between the day of rest and verse 4, but where?3)Your Chap2 #3.... You seem to be saying that this refers back to the first account? Ie. That was the creation.... It isn't written this way. It is written as an intro to a story that is beginning.4)Your chap2 #4-5... now it gets interesting. Your 4-5 have plants growing prior to the creation of man, as in the first account. But actually, your points 4 and 5 should be reversed, at least partially. Plants don't grow until after man is created. Gen 2:9.5)Now, it could be said that Gen 2:9 only refers to plants in the Garden and not to plants in general, so lets look at verse 2:5 instead. "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." Where would an already created shrub, as in your point #4, be if not in the earth? Its the little things that get ya.

quote:

---

WS: The Bible predates all known dictionaries, doesn't it? Anyway, God's definition is the one that matters in eternity and in this life. So what do the dictionaries say of sin?

---

Again you've missed the point entirely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God so your appeals to its authority are meaningless to me.

quote:

---

WS: Says who? What philosopher? An atheist guru?

---

Must I be parroting an atheist? No. I have certainly read material which was written by atheists, but I have read far far more which was written by those of other religious persuasions.Chimpanzees build and maintain complex societies. Are they dependent upon the concept of sin?

quote:

---

WS: Looks like a description of evolutionary theory.

---

Cheap shot. Very painful. Ouch.

quote:

---

By self-supported I mean each independently written book by remote authors in different generations wrote without contradicting the others.

---

This statement proves only your biases.I have read the bible also. And I find it to be full of absurdity.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Adam was GIVEN the level of knowledge needed to know not to eat of that one tree. He was TOLD not to do it, and told what would happen to him if he did. If you tell an "innocent" child not to drink water from a toilet, but he does it anyway, would you say he had no knowledge of right and wrong, and remains innocent of the habit?

---

Yes, I would actually, because knowledge and understanding comes from thought and experience-- none of which Adam had-- and is not simply a function of being told. Of course, the child now has experience with drinking from a toilet, but does that child understand? Doubtful.

quote:

---

Whether he understands or not, the order must be enforced via paddle or whatever promised would happen, until the child grows to understand.

---

So we are back to the idea that God exacted thousands of years of punishment upon the entire human race because Adam-- having no understanding but only a command-- drank out of the toilet. Adam, as well, had no idea of the consequences. He hadn't been around long enough to get paddled or to understand death-- his proposed punishment.In addition, you are glossing over the main philosophical trust of the tale-- the origin of evil, the understanding of good and evil, ethics, morality. You make this all into a very trivial issue. God said, so there!!!!!

quote:

---

John:
1)Chapter one is creation in seven days. The version in chapter two begins with "in the day..." "Day" singular. The word is YVM, the same chosen for "day" in the first account. This alone is a pretty clear indication that we are dealing with two creation accounts.

---

LOL......I post again, because you didn't addresst he point.

quote:

---

2)Your Chapter2 #2.... This apparently resides between the day of rest and verse 4, but where?

​

WS: 4a

---

This is a misreading on your part, in that case.

quote:

---

WS: The English word "generations" in 4a bridges the two summaries. It is from the Hebrew word for "history". What came before 4a is the same but with a shift in emphasis beginning in verse 5.

---

Sophistry. This is a severely forced reading of the Hebrew. And yes, I am reading the Hebrew.

quote:

---

while also understood to cover one complete event, as in "the day of the Lord" standing for a 42 month tribulation period.

---

When modified by an associated term. I cannot find any such modifiers.

quote:

---

WS: The BIBLE has plants growing prior to creation of man. In Ch. 1 day 3 plants are started before man is made in day 6, as you note. But then we find this: Genesis 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

---

More sophistry. Are you actually reading this? "every plant of the field before it was in the earth" and "every herb of the field before it grew" Yet you claim that plants were growing? LOL....

quote:

---

WS: The word rendered "plant" or "shrub" is from Hebrew siyach; a shoot (as if uttered or put forth), i.e. (general) shrubbery :- bush, plant, shrub. Verse 5 couldn't refer to the Garden, because it was planted AFTER man was made: Genesis 2:7-8

---

Re-read my post. I never said that verse 5 refered to the garden. I said that verse 9 could be said to refer to the Garden only and not to plants in general. I get the feeling that you really are not paying attention.

quote:

---

Where did you get "No shrub of the field was yet in the earth..." in verse 5?

---

ummm.... from verse 5.... Various translations read a bit differently. The Jewish Publication Society translates it as I have written. They ought to know their Hebrew eh?

quote:

---

Again you've missed the point entirely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God so your appeals to its authority are meaningless to me.

​

WS: That might be true among less than 2% of the population.

---

You're joking!!!! Christianity hold sway over nowhere near 98% of the population of the Earth.

quote:

---

Apart from your unbelief there is no other authority you can appeal to that has weight among practically every other human on earth.

---

Gee... If I screw up I go to jail. Now THAT is authority!

quote:

---

That is by mutual consent, not by anything authoritative.

---

As is any religious authoritarian structure. This points seems to be frequently missed. Religion's power is in the consent of its believers, not is any God's magic.

quote:

---

and many believe all the writings of evolutionists are demon-inspired.

---

Right. Mine certainly are.....

quote:

---

WS: The original religion was from the Judeo-Christian God, given first to Adam and Eve, passed on to their two sons who proceeded to offer sacrifices.

---

Valid only if you accept the truth of the myth.

quote:

---

All other religions that sprang up among the separate descendants of Adam were departures from the original religion given by God, to this day.

---

This is just blatantly silly. You cannot support this with anything other than faith.

quote:

---

Chimpanzees build and maintain complex societies. Are they dependent upon the concept of sin?

​

WS:
1. God made them that way.

---

Valid only if one accepts the myth.

quote:

---

2. Their society is not as complex as that of humans.

---

Wrong. Chimps exhibit social structures every bit as complex as pre-civilization level human cultures.

quote:

---

4. They don't praise and worship God, though they do share the burden of a damaged creation on account of man's sin.

---

God is punishing the critters now too?

quote:

---

WS: Many respected statisticians, both secular and Bible-believing- have analyzed the facts around the writings on the Bible, presenting powerful mathematical probabilities that eliminate coincidences and fraudulent last days creation ofthe books of the Bible.

---

'k.... where are these proofs?

quote:

---

Regardless of the evidences that support the inspiration of the Bible, the unseen God of the Bible requires belief by faith, not evidence alone.

---

Aha!!!!!! Ever wonder why there is such an injunction?

quote:

---

I will continue to expose the fallacy of such arguments as yours as being nothing more than simple non-belief based on simple error-ridden opinion with no basis, except the requirement of empirical evidence, which God will withhold from you until after you believe.

---

God will reveal it when you die. Yes I know. That is pretty vicious though don't you think? I need the info now if I am to be saved.Not to mention that it is enoumously convenient for those without a leg to stand upon.

quote:

---

I note that most non-believers celebrate all other religious texts in that they rarely or never attack them, even though none agree with the others.

---

I do not encounter rabid Osirian fundamentalists in this country, only rabid Christian fundamentalists. I have as much respect for the Bible as I do for any other mythology, though I think there are many other mythological systems that are much richer.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Namely Greek mythology. It is so much more interesting and detailed and has been around a lot longer than Christianity's.

---

My personal favorites are Hindu and Norse. The former largely because it is so abstract and mutable. The appeal, I think, is somewhat like the appeal of a Dali or an Escer. And the Norse... I just kinda like Yggdrasil.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
[QUOTE][B]
Whatever is taught in the New Testament is part of the gospel of Christ, though some is clearly cultural accomodation that can be omitted, such as modes of dress and transportation. [/quote]

​

[/b]

​

Has no-one noticed this point? See 78 above. Wordswordsman rejects the Good Book! He thinks things 'can be omited', based on his view of what a proper culture is (American Mid-West, I presume). Surely he is dammed by his own words?

---

That is a very good point. However, your reaction is due to a mis-understanding of holy doctrine. When Christian speak of salvation, what they mean is that Jesus saved them from all the nit-picky cultural stuff outlined in the OT. Dietary laws, for example. Or worship on the Sabbath. Or not working on the Sabbath. Or killing women who touch men's pee-pee's. Or not touching a menstruating woman or anything she touches. Or settling a rape case by paying off the family of the victim (and keeping the girl)------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

---

The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?

---

​

The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.

​

---

​

*********************************************

​

I still have to side with Me on this issue. If Wordswordsman claims that the bible is inerrant and has to be taken as the literal word f god...how can he claim that you can just ignore "cultural accomodations"? The bible is either consistent or it is in conflict. I think it is an important issue since he claims that the RCC is not mainstream christian and basically that only his sect is correct. However, he conveniently snips out the parts of the bible he does not like....makes for a nice convenient shifting of ethical standards.

​

---

I'm with Me on this issue as well. It does make for conveniently flexible ethics.The NT has Jesus saying something to the effect that 'I have not come to destroy the old law but to fulfill it.' This is represented by some as an out for dismissing things like dietary laws. But the consequence is that one gets to decide what to keep and what to not keep, because exactly what Jesus meant by that statement isn't clear.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: There is safety in numbers in many ways.

---

And ignorance. If your child was hit by a car would you poll your buddies for the best solution, or would you take that child to the hospital?This is special pleading.

quote:

---

Parents have a right to say what they want their children to learn, that they will be prepare to deal with life.

---

Right. And parents can teach their kids anything they like-- at home. School is not religion class.

quote:

---

Christians are willing to set before their children both creation science and the science/scientific method side by side, allowing them to make up their own minds. There is risk they will adopt evolution and even atheism, but risk is necessary.

---

Wow, very noble..... but.....This is a very biased gamble. By putting creationism in science class you actually give it an edge on evolution, not make it equal. If these kids have been taught the myth since birth at home and in church, putting it in school only reinforces the it. It does not lead to careful and reasoned analysis.Of course, why not teach all of the many and sundry varieties of creation myth as well. You could spend three or four years going over them, then your kids would be well prepared for life in the real world.

quote:

---

I find that hardly anyone educated since 1970 here has a clue about science, sciene method, or evolution in particular, though educated by liberals and evolutionists who control the educational arena, using textbooks that promote those ideologies. The students emerge almost de-educated, often not able to fill out an employment application without assistance, unable to locate Iraq on a globe.

---

This is funny-- the fundie creationist complaining about de-education! LOL------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: It was sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

---

right..... this was debated?

quote:

---

Consider this:
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

​

The Sabbath was past, Sunday was that day of the resurrection of Christ.

---

Wasn't Christ crucified on Friday? Hence the rush to get him off the cross? And he was in the grave three days, yes? At least, that is the prediction Jesus himself made. That does not add up to Sunday.

quote:

---

Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

---

So they chatted on Sunday. The rule has yet to be changed.

quote:

---

That same day was the pattern for believers to meet on

---

This practise being in violation of one of the ten commandments, yes?

quote:

---

Saturday having to do with the second day Jesus was in the tomb.

---

Again, what's with the math. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown == 1 day. Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown == 2 days. JESUS ROSE ON MONDAY!!! You guys have had it wrong all along.Of course, as above, this plays on the prediction Jesus made of his own death and resurrection. Though the gospels do all seem to agree that he was dead only a day and a half or so. Seems like, either Jesus was wrong or the Gospels all got it wrong. hmmm.... either way though, the bible has it wrong.

quote:

---

There was nothing to celebrate about that.

---

But there are those peskie ten commandments.

quote:

---

According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.

​

Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

---

Well, what da ya know. I stand corrected. It is in there.But what about Mat. 5:17-18?Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tiddle shall in no wise pass form the law, till all be finished.Have you not been arguing that some laws HAVE passed-- ie. no longer required? Does the Bible itself not argue such?Lets go to verse 19:Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kindom of heaven.....As per some of your previous statements, Jesus broke these laws, the apostles broke these laws and taught others to do likewise.Are you paying attention?

quote:

---

It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day.

---

You are not paying attention. IT IS BY COMMANDMENT.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002][This message has been edited by John, 09-21-2002]

Thanks for the definition of special pleading, but how is what you are doing NOT special pleading?You are claiming that in the case of creation it is ok to appeal to public opinion, yet you would not appeal to such in cases such as the one I cited. This is pleading special status for the creation issue.One could also consider this an appeal to pulbic opinion-- argumentum ad populum, if you prefer-- which is a version of an appeal to authority.You see, usually, a faulty argument can qualify for several different informal logical fallacies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: I think the saying is one that is proven useful. Any nation reconsiders attacking another if they believe they are outnumbered significantly.

---

Ah.... this would be the fallacy of faulty analogy. I believe I could also argue that it is misdirection, or the fallacy of the red-herring.You see, while greater numbers can in fact be an advantage in physical conflict, it does not follow that it is advantageous in matters of what is and is not factual. Consider all of the patently false things that have at one time or another been considered true by the vaste majority of people. Did this belief make these things true? Did this belief make the Earth flat? Or make the stars crystals of ice on the firmament?

quote:

---

Most empirical data is consistent around basic physical laws and properties of matter, testable through statistics, at least in determining such measures as standard deviation.

---

Which empirical data and physical laws you accept? Just checking.As to the statistics lesson and the stock market: It is a repeat of the same fallacy as above, unless you are taking the position that truth is relative.

quote:

---

They were totally unprepared for their perspective.

---

This is a sad statement about US schools systems, but to argue that we introduce psuedo-science to fix the problem is ridiculous.

quote:

---

"Creation science" can be presented without a single mention of anything religious

---

Sorry, but no it can't. I challenge you to do so.

quote:

---

Since evolutionists resist the issue of origin of life, prefering to concentrate on the development of life forms after the initial incidence of life on earth, creationists can accomodate that without having to resort to anything the Bible says about where life came from.

---

Isn't this just sweeping things under the rug? Sad way to go about educating ourselves.

quote:

---

Both sides can avoid the origin question.

---

I don't want to avoid the issue. It happens to be important. But I have a question. You seem to be making the case that God created everything and then evolution took over. Now, avoiding the inherent difficulties of that position, you then wish to avoid the creation, or origin issue. Sounds like you essentially have evolution being taught in school. Something isn't making sense.

quote:

---

It seems to me that if Christians wish to prepare their children with creation belief, that is a risk evolutionists must face, and should if they have confidence in their belief.

---

But not in science class. It is not science, but religion. [quote][b]If it is legal for Islamic studies, it must also be for the Bible to be brought back in.[/quote][/b]And there you have it.... Islamic studies, not science class. I happen to believe that US schools should be able to get 10 times the information on the table that they actually do, and a good broad survey of religion and culture would be a great part of that. But not in science class, unless creationism can come up with some real science.

quote:

---

It is only a matter of a decade or so that evolution will pass away, too difficult for the average citizen to retain accurately anyway.

---

Is this a prediction?

quote:

---

WS: Maybe funny, but true.

---

Yes. Funny but true. And very sad.

quote:

---

How much emphasis on evolution would you suspect? Not much.

---

Again... at HOME.

quote:

---

So cry all you want, but forget turning the tide. It's over your ankles already and the crest is a way off.

​

---

LOL------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: The prophets said the old contract God made with the Hebrews would be ended and replaced with an entirely new one. That didn't mean the old would no longer exist, as in vanished, because those words are always there. But the very contract promised to come came, in Christ, who fulfilled the prophets. It's described in the NT like pitching an old jacket into the chest never to be worn again, wearing instead a new jacket. The old is still there, but discarded. All was finished on the cross when Jesus cried out "It is finished".

---

WOW.... now that is sophistry!!!!! Don't you get it? You've made the entire old testament fluid and pliable, and much of the NT as well. You are now free to pick and choose whatever you want. This is the problem.

quote:

---

WS: The only "laws" Jesus broke were the ones the Pharisees added.

---

Now this is interesting, perhaps a new topic.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: By sophistry I suppose you mean literally subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation? What I wrote is what the Bible reports.

---

You still don't get it. The net result is that you get to pick and choose whatever you want from the OT and from much of the NT.

quote:

---

What was added is what was replaced.

---

But you've argued that there is no longer any need to worship on the Sabbath, Christians choosing Sunday instead. Did the Pharisees add that commandment to the other nine?

quote:

---

WS: You might learn something.

---

Yes, I might. I wish only that I could say the same for you.

quote:

---

My guess is you have no idea what part the Pharisee sect had on facilitating the need to end the old covenant, having perverted it beyond possibility of recovery. They were the lawyers of that day, having assumed the role of enforcers of the religion, which had been so altered as to make the whole thing a great burden.

---

Yes I know. This is the part that is interesting to me. I'll try to start that topic today.

quote:

---

In order to discuss the topic you will need to first understand what God commanded, then compare that to what the Jewish community leaders were teaching and enforcing. It's a two semester course in most Bible colleges, and that only introduces the topic.

---

I love the condescension of christians.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Burial was Wednesday about sunset, the same time Thursday began.

---

Maybe you should read this: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com