Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 2073 (573589)
08-12-2010 4:51 AM


All you have done, and keep doing repeatedly, is display your ignorance, and your unwillingness to learn.
actually all you are doing is decribing yourself as you do not stick to topic but go to the insult or personal attack. i posted good quotes and references and this is all you have to say--clearly the problem lies with you.
Why are you even here?
to present you with the truth so that you are without excuse come judgement day. this is the problem with dealing with evolutionists and atheists, they are so dishonest and cannot have a decent discussionwith those who disagree with them. as the Bible says-- men love darkness rather than light-- and you all prove it so true.
if you were correct then you would not be afraid of someone like me and would engage in a decent discussion sans the insults, personal attacks, et al and actually present real proof for your side. as it stands you show you do not have the truth and that evolution is wrong because you need to bully everyone who does not take your side.
The difference, of course, is that modern scientific papers are based on observations that anyone else can duplicate and either verify or refute. The bible is not.
science is not the standard, and i have shown that there is no real observation being done. what is observed is conjectured into a conclusion then extrapolated backwards to justify accepting a lie. or alternative to the Bible.
We know for a fact that life was not a one time creation event and that the Bible is factually wrong on many subjects such as the Biblical Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan and so it certainly does not belong in any Science class and it is unlikely that it would be of anything more than peripheral interest in a history course.
so wrong and you have destroyed any claim of being a christian with that post. Jesus said, if you do not believe Moses how will you believe me. faith starts with genesis, hebrews 11
Did you forget the Creation Museum?
i did but i never use it as 'evidence' as i heard recently that ken ham and AIG have accepted micro-evolution. i never agreed with it being constructed but it is his choice and his money problem.
oh and thanks for the link, i have never visited their website.
creo
the word is 'creationist' not 'creo' if you are goign to use english use it correctly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:00 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 120 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-28-2010 1:12 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2376 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 62 of 2073 (573590)
08-12-2010 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 4:51 AM


archaeologist writes:
i did but i never use it as 'evidence' as i heard recently that ken ham and AIG have accepted micro-evolution.
Wait, you're denying even micro-evolution? You do realize we can directly observe micro-evolution, don't you? I don't think you can find a single creationist on this site who will support your contention that micro-evolution doesn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 4:51 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM Huntard has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 2073 (573592)
08-12-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Huntard
08-12-2010 5:00 AM


Wait, you're denying even micro-evolution? You do realize we can directly observe micro-evolution, don't you? I don't think you can find a single creationist on this site who will support your contention that micro-evolution doesn't happen.
you do realize that micro-evolution does not exist, right? what is observed is not evolution or any form of that theory/process but the results of God's genetic design at work under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.
in reading most of the book called Genes, i forget the title as it is in my car right now, and it is a fascinating read, genetic research is showing that th efall of man is true as they come across so many little items (for lack of a better word) that corrupt the genes in the body.
oh and i do read secular books and find some of them really fascinating at what they discover unfortunately, like all evolutionary/scientific material they attribute the evidence to the wrong thing. the drawback of that particular book is that its agenda seems to be to make all humans robotic and a product of pre-programmed genes in a desperate attempt to relieve humans of the responsibilities that come with their choices.
one example thqat comes to mind is the so-called 'gay gene' or the attempt by some scientists to prove that homosexuality is not a choice but a pre-programmed response.
BUT getting back to topic, i made the comment that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in the science classroom and my reasoning behind thatis that origins is not a legitimate scientific interest. it is a theological/religious issue and science has intruded in on the discussion via disgruntled men like darwin and wallace.
the source of origins comes from the Bible alone as science has no history or roots in that topic. you may say it comes from the ancient 'stories' from the secular civilizations but guess where they got it from--noah and his sons and their wives.
the bible did not have to be in existence to be the first to tell the story. which means that for all nations to have a flood or creation tale Babel and the disporia that took place there is really true. there is no other reasonable explanation for that fact.
remember what sherlock holmes said, via his author, and i paraphrase, ...take away all the extra and what is left, no matter how impossible, how improable (and so on) is the truth. evolution does not fit the bill.
so i will stand with my earlier comments and say both creation and the theory of evolution should not be taught in the science classroom and those teachers can teach real science. creation is a one time supernatural act and evolution never existed thus neither belong in that room.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:00 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:42 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 08-12-2010 4:23 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-13-2010 9:44 AM archaeologist has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2376 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 2073 (573595)
08-12-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:24 AM


archaeologist writes:
you do realize that micro-evolution does not exist, right?
Oh no, it does exist, very much so, just ask any creationist on this site.
what is observed is not evolution or any form of that theory/process but the results of God's genetic design at work under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.
It's a result of mutations, so, yes, it is the result of evolution.
BUT getting back to topic, i made the comment that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in the science classroom and my reasoning behind thatis that origins is not a legitimate scientific interest.
You might be pleased to know then that evolution isn't about origins.
it is a theological/religious issue and science has intruded in on the discussion via disgruntled men like darwin and wallace.
SUre.... if origins is indeed supernatural, then science can never find out how it happened anyway, so what's your problem here? Oh, and who gets to determine what is or isn't science? You?
the source of origins comes from the Bible alone as science has no history or roots in that topic.
Sure it has. Also, you're wrong, it's in the sacred Hindu writings, which are older than the bible.
you may say it comes from the ancient 'stories' from the secular civilizations but guess where they got it from--noah and his sons and their wives.
No they didn't, they got it from Vishnu.
the bible did not have to be in existence to be the first to tell the story. which means that for all nations to have a flood or creation tale Babel and the disporia that took place there is really true. there is no other reasonable explanation for that fact.
Well, how nice of Vishnu to share that all with us, then.
remember what sherlock holmes said, via his author, and i paraphrase, ...take away all the extra and what is left, no matter how impossible, how improable (and so on) is the truth. evolution does not fit the bill.
Since evolution takes away the god part, it fits the bill more than your god does.
so i will stand with my earlier comments and say both creation and the theory of evolution should not be taught in the science classroom and those teachers can teach real science. creation is a one time supernatural act and evolution never existed thus neither belong in that room.
If it was a supernatural act science can't learn anything about it anyway, evolution has nothing to do with origins, and you don;t get to decide what was or wasn't a supernatural event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM Huntard has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 2073 (573640)
08-12-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Huntard
08-12-2010 5:42 AM


it does exist, very much so, just ask any creationist on this site.
if they believe that i doubt they are creationists. Gem 1:30 said that the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array which elimiates even micro-evolution from existence and participation in life.
It's a result of mutations, so, yes, it is the result of evolution.
no. you attribute the wrong thing. even though evolutionists have altered there theory and now say that evolution simply means change the example i gave here is not evolution in action, in any form. for species do not change just the individual whose genes were more affected than someone else's. there is no evolution at work at any time.
You might be pleased to know then that evolution isn't about origins.
yes i already know about that but 40 years ago it was. you forget that evolutionists alter the theory when they come to problems they cannot solve. still doesn't allow science to teach evolution for they cannot produce the evidence that proves the process exists nor can the reproduce the exact conditions evolution came in contact with life and started 'altering' it.
then science can never find out how it happened anyway, so what's your problem here? Oh, and who gets to determine what is or isn't science? You?
i am sure you wish so you could attack me on my definitions. science as it is designed right now cannot accomplish that and it doesn't need to for we already know how it was done. all evolutionists are doing is wasting time and money that could be better spent helping people get fresh water, healthier drugs (no side affects) and so many other good things.
it's in the sacred Hindu writings, which are older than the bible.
not really as noah came before the hindus and their writings as did adam and others.
the rest of your post is not germane so i will let those comments pass. and speaking of chronology, if one is honest thenthey will see that God preceeds all writings and passed His words onto adam who passed them on to his childrenand so on. whenmen decided to break from God thenthe stories were altered so they could be 'fee' from the correct words and live as they please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 5:42 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by bluescat48, posted 08-12-2010 9:03 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 67 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 9:11 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 4:08 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 66 of 2073 (573644)
08-12-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:28 AM


not really as noah came before the hindus and their writings as did adam and others.
Even if Noah & Adam existed, the writings of them were not compiled until the 10th century BCE. The Hindu civilization was already in flourish before Israel took control of Canaan.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2376 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 67 of 2073 (573646)
08-12-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:28 AM


archaeologist writes:
if they believe that i doubt they are creationists.
The "no true scotsman" fallacy?
Gem 1:30 said that the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array which elimiates even micro-evolution from existence and participation in life.
Well, seems Gen 1:30 is wrong then.
no. you attribute the wrong thing.
No! You do! Hey, assertion is easy.
ven though evolutionists have altered there theory and now say that evolution simply means change...
It was never altered in that regard, it has always been about change.
the example i gave here is not evolution in action, in any form.
Yes it is.
for species do not change just the individual whose genes were more affected than someone else's.
So? And species do change.
there is no evolution at work at any time.
Of course there is, all the time in fact.
yes i already know about that but 40 years ago it was.
Then why are you saying it is about origins now?
you forget that evolutionists alter the theory when they come to problems they cannot solve.
They change it to match the evidence, yes, that's how science works. It wants to be accurate, you see.
still doesn't allow science to teach evolution for they cannot produce the evidence that proves the process exists nor can the reproduce the exact conditions evolution came in contact with life and started 'altering' it.
Evolution is not a thing that "came into contact" with life. Evolution happens because the copying process of DNA is imperfect, and because certain environments require certain things to better survive in them. Please try to at least get what evolution is right.
i am sure you wish so you could attack me on my definitions.
I can, you got the definition of evolution completely wrong, for one.
science as it is designed right now cannot accomplish that and it doesn't need to for we already know how it was done.
What? Define what it is? Of course it can, just like baseball gets to define what it is.
all evolutionists are doing is wasting time and money that could be better spent helping people get fresh water, healthier drugs (no side affects) and so many other good things.
You do realize that evolution is very important to the drug developping companies, yes? The influenza shots for example could not be made as effective as they are now without the ToE.
not really as noah came before the hindus and their writings as did adam and others.
No he didn't. Vishnu was earliest anyway, and he made everything, so there!
the rest of your post is not germane so i will let those comments pass. and speaking of chronology, if one is honest thenthey will see that God preceeds all writings and passed His words onto adam who passed them on to his childrenand so on.
Vishnu sure did!
whenmen decided to break from God thenthe stories were altered so they could be 'fee' from the correct words and live as they please.
They are loyal to Vishnu, you just hate him and don't want to believe in him! That's why you changed everything to escape from Vishnu's truth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 68 of 2073 (573743)
08-12-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 6:47 PM


the idea of 'predicitions is just anothe rtool to lead people away from the truth. since creation was a one time supernatural act, we do not need to predict anything, we know what will take place and how things came to be.
A perfect example of what happens when religion is allowed into the science classroom. Scientific method? Out the window. Only dogma is allowed here.
Perhaps archaeologist can tell us how a christian is supposed to construct a testable hypothesis, per the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 6:47 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM Taq has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 2073 (573750)
08-12-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:28 AM


Gem 1:30 said that the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array which elimiates even micro-evolution from existence and participation in life.
How is that consistent with centuries of observation that life can and does change over time?
for species do not change just the individual whose genes were more affected than someone else's.
Species have long been observed to change significantly over time. That change occurs because some individuals are "more affected" by their genes, in terms of their survival, than "someone else's." That produces a change in species because species are made up of the individuals of that species.
yes i already know about that but 40 years ago it was.
And 2000 years ago "Christianity" was about carpentry. I think it's fair to demand that participants grapple with arguments as they're being made now, don't you think?
all evolutionists are doing is wasting time and money that could be better spent helping people get fresh water, healthier drugs (no side affects) and so many other good things.
The study of evolution, particularly in microbiology, is responsible for great advances in water purification and antibiotics.
Evolution solves problems in biology, it doesn't prevent their solution. That is what creationism does, however, by obstructing a true and unprejudiced view of the natural world that surrounds us. Your own inability to understand even the simplest biological concept (such as "species") is ample evidence of the obscuring power of creationist propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 70 of 2073 (573754)
08-12-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:24 AM


the source of origins comes from the Bible alone as science has no history or roots in that topic.
Emphasis added.
By this statement alone, the bold part in particular, you prove that you not only are not an archaeologist, but you don't know anything about archaeology.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 6:30 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3523 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


(2)
Message 71 of 2073 (573777)
08-12-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:41 PM


Gday all,
archeologist writes:
we have over 5,000 mss or partial mss. concerning the new testament alone with some written very close to the originals {Bruce: The NT documents: Are they reliable: pg 10}
Sorry, you confused two fundamentally different issues - that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -
* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?
No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.
Kap

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:41 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:00 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 72 of 2073 (573786)
08-12-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by subbie
08-12-2010 4:23 PM


By this statement alone, the bold part in particular, you prove that you not only are not an archaeologist, but you don't know anything about archaeology.
I think the website he moderates clearly shows he is not trained in archaeology as we would understand the term.
Check out the forums. Looks like he writes 90% of the posts. Quite a hoot actually.
http://www.archiesarena.com/welcome.html

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 08-12-2010 4:23 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 2073 (573818)
08-12-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
08-12-2010 3:58 PM


A perfect example of what happens when religion is allowed into the science classroom. Scientific method? Out the window. Only dogma is allowed here.
this is an example of the blind faith some people have in science and it shows that they do not want to know the bad things that take place in that field and that their 'scientific method' is at the whim of subjective, fallible humans.
to answer it i am going to liberally quote an article that demonstrates the weakness of the 'scientific method'. I will give you the details of the source after i finish quoting oh and do not let your bias blind you to the facts.
Evolutionists sometimes accuse Christians of restricting the free exercise of scientific endeavor, and sometimes this has been true. But it is not difficult to find examples of blindness on the part of scientists in the past, and of evolutionists throughout their history. About 200 years ago the Academy of Sciences of France declared: In our enlightened age there can still be people so superstitious as to believe stones fall from the sky. (Tomas 1971:57). Eyewitness accounts of meteor falls were summarily dismissed at that time, because science had spoken. Does this mentality still exist within the field of astronomy?
{to answer that question--yes it does}
Ernest Brown, past president of the American Astronomical Society, confessed that many of the beliefs regarding the solar system cosmogony, dynamics, and stability which he had held throughout his life were illusions, mere articles of faith, adhered to for non-rational reasons, and impossible of legitimate presentation as the logical consequences of observations and valid calculations.
Act 1 of this mighty Big Bang drama was announced in April 1992 at the meeting of the prestigious American Physical Society (Ann Arbor News 1992: A1). A discovery was made that was described in the following manner:
Explains how stars and galaxies evolved.
Shows evidence for the birth of the universe.
One of the major discoveries of the century, in fact, of all time.
Unbelievably important: its significance could not be overstated.
The Holy Grail of cosmology has been found.
Solved a major mystery and deserved the Nobel prize.
The discovery is like looking at God.
With more than 300 million measurements, the astronomers discovered ripples of matter near the edge of the universe. How did they know this? The measurements were all of temperature taken by sensors pointed in different directions from the earth. In averaging the 300 million measurements, astronomers found a temperature difference in different parts ofthe universe. How big was the difference? One report stated 30 millionths of one degree; another said 10 millionths of one degree.
The study cost $400 million and 28 years of work by many scientists. Shortly after the announcement there came an embarrassed silence. Apparently there is no instrument in the world that can measure such an infinitesimal difference. Presumably a gnat flying across a sensor 100 miles distant would create a greater temperature difference. All that had evidently happened in the study was averaging an almost infinite number of meaningless measurement errors.
All was not lost, however. Act 2 of the Big Bang drama was announced nine months later at the annual meeting of the equally prestigious American Astronomical Society (Ann Arbor News 1993: A1).
The great new discovery was described in these terms:
Strong new support for the theory that the universe began some 15 billion years ago with a Big Bang.
Precise measurements of remnant energy from the Big Bang gave results exactly as the theory predicted.
It was the toughest test yet of the theory.
The powerful new evidence verifies the textbooks
The results exactly match the theoretical curve of temperature energy decay that would be expected in the Big Bang theory.
We now learn that the 300 million measurements taken at a cost of $400 million dollars, described above, were just preliminary results prematurely released to the media a few months previously. The new study, hundreds of millions of measurements later, is 30 times more precise. What was found? Nothing! That is, no temperature differences at all, which is exactly what the first study should have concluded.
But read these studies again! Two opposite results are reported, and both claim to be exactly what the theory required.
Astronomy: technology, science, or speculation?
by Erich A. von Fange
Associates for Biblical Research. 2001; 2006. Bible and Spade (2001) Volume 14 (vnp.14.1.26). Associates for Biblical Research
this is from my personal library and i have not found a copy on the internet yet. is it no wonder christians and others do not trust scientists or the scientific method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 8:07 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 8:08 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 8:40 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 74 of 2073 (573824)
08-12-2010 7:56 PM


Do you understand that beyond the fact that ABR is not a Scientific organization and that what you quoted actually supports the real strength of the Scientific Method?
What you quoted shows that the Scientific Method works; as additional data is found the conclusions must change.
If the culture of ethics that is ubiquitous in Science was reflected in Christian Theology then you would have no problem understanding that many parts of the Bible like the Biblical Flood or the Exodus or the Garden of Eden story or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah are not historical.
But there is no culture of ethics in Christian Theology similar to what is found in Science.
Religion needs to be taught, but the above is a major lesson that needs to be taught to all kids.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:07 PM jar has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 2073 (573827)
08-12-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kapyong
08-12-2010 5:46 PM


you confused two fundamentally different issues
no i didn't as i was specifically refering to the gap between origin and copies.and in reference to the illiad {and i should have been specific and said the word 'ancient'} let me quote the late dr. metzger:
next to the NT, the greatest amount of mss testimony is of Homer'sIlliad...there are fewer than 650 greek mss of it today. some are fragmentary. they come down to us from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and following. when you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800BC, you can see there's a lengthy gap.
{--a side comment. leave it to the anti-biblical person to distort the argument and try to alter what is being discussed by throwing in whatis not being discussed. modernprinting is not the issue here but the actual real mss copies from history that were not privy to modern publishingmethods. there is a big difference. this is to be expected from this crowd as the goals of EvC are not met by their own side because they either cannot or refuse tobe honest in their presenting their point of view}
considering that their is an 1100 year gap from original penningof the document and the earliest surving document, one cannot say that what we have is what homer really wrote and it is prone to editing, changing etc.
whereas with the NT and the Old, are mss. are so close that we can see that no changes have been mad even during the gap years making the Bible more credible than any other ancient document.
the dead sea scrolls have done this for the OT as has the silver scrolls discovered by Gabriel Barkay in a dig in the mid 70's.
i have not returned the insults nor personal attacks, ad hominems, et al and have presented my point of view as instructed by the rules of this board, it would be nice to see the people who side with the anti-biblical forces do the same.
after all by resorting to thenegative, all you are doing is demonstrating that you cannot back up your point of view as required by the rules, if at all and show that your character is very lacking.
{forgot to add the source of the quote, and i am sure many of you will dismiss it because of theauthor eventhough the person speaking the words was a very reputable scholar. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel pg. 60}
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kapyong, posted 08-12-2010 5:46 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:13 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 95 by Kapyong, posted 08-13-2010 2:26 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024