Is the Bible the Word of God II?

"To adress the thread...again. The logical conclusion,based on a carefull study of history and all of its many diverse culture is...no,the Bible is not the inerant word of God."
--Then I am almost positive you have that information that I asked for earlier, thanx, care to present it?"What it is is simply an interpretation of the divine made by people of earlier times with a primitive understanting of the workings of the universe."
--Primitive? I think you just boosted the definition of primitive as estramly knowledgable."And while we are far from the point where we can say that we understand the universe 100%"
--Probably closer to .005% on its workings."i'll bet my company's earnings last year (counted in 6 digits numbers...) that we know more about the world than the people who wrote the Bible did."
--Are you saying that because the Bible isn't a science book that it isn't scientifically accurate? Care for a supportive reference?------------------

"LUD: i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that."
--Thats ok, I wouldn't expect it to be."But then again,i dont think we can expect any certainty about the past until we invent time machines."
--Whew, I'm glad we can agree on that one."There is no set way by which historians determine the dates they work with. Most of them use selective judgement based one a number of historical references. Many of them even use books like the Bible among those references to varying degrees,something which i'll admit i found surprising at first."
--Neat."But one of em,Doctor Zelner i believe,a canadian anthropologist explained in a printed article that there was good reason to use holy books as historical references,since many of them do contain a number of confirmed historical events."
--They sure do."But at the same time,he was warning against using just one or too few references,as most of them are given a tolerence of about 20-40% as a rule when used alone."
--I could agree on these possibilities, (though ofcourse I havent encountered a problem with biblical dating, that is, on events)."About the study of Sumer now...aside from the Sumerian clay tablets,which historians all accept as the first writen language FOR THE TIME BEING(this was stressed several times by him),there is precious little direct information about the Sumerians."
--I guess the first written language goes hand and glove in who were the first cultures in the first place."There are however quite a few references to them in Babylonian lore. Now,the building of the tower of Babel is placed at about 2200 before christ and it was build by the babylonians."
--They would have come to that conclusion I am sure by the dating of the babylonians, along with babylonian structural techniques, and its location. Not near conclusive to say it was the babylonians, though they could have been one of the cultures that stayed near the tower after many other cultures dispersed."But the Babylonians in their stories talk about the ancient empire on which they build their as being something like a millenia or more in their past."
--How do they say this, do they directly say it, or is it product of dating Babylonian empire in contrast with the Babylonian date in the first place."As i said,its not iron clad but its about as good as those determinations gets about the disant past. If fact,Zelner said that an easy way to identify a historical fraud is when they claim greater precision than this. So...what do you think?"
--I think this is good informaiton, though I think we can both see that at this point it couldn't be used as argument against the dating of the Flood or the Creation date for that matter, we would need more information."LUDrimitive in comparaison to ours,yes it was...vrey much so."
--Sure, in a way they were 'primitive' compaired to our knowlege, but they were still either extreamly smart, or had some sort of inspiration on much of their writting."LUD:In that case,you could easily say that THEIR's was about .00005%."
--Well more of a .0008% "LUD:I gave you supportive evidence...you just re-interpret in however it strikes your fancy TC and i'm getting tired of going over this again and again and again. So i gave you supporting evidence,you did not accept it,lets leave it at that."
--You said it yourself: "i do,though its certainly not iron clad,i will grant you that."
--You have yet to give me something that can come to some conclusion. You can't argue out of a lack of evidence to bring about a conclusion.------------------

"Unfortunately I am unable to restore the posts of the last week to this thread. I apologize for the inconvenience."
--Thats allright, I was surprized though, that was like 150 or so posts that were lost, all from about 4 days of posting, thats one of the reasona I like your forum, its always active, and can't forget that it is a great place for intelligent discussion.------------------

"At this time Adam, Eve and Cain should have been the only humans on earth (Abel was slain by Cain). So where did Cain's wife come from? God does not explain that he made more humans. Did he leave this part out? If so, why?"
--They Simply do not mention other people that were born, as you can see it is perfectly compatable, and also if this is a real problem, than there would only be a couple hundred people by the time of Noah. The bible simply does not mention Cain's wife.------------------

"- I think we all know that rabbits DO NOT do this. This must be a mistake. It may have appeared that they were doing this, but upon closer examination we can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that rabbits do no such thing."
--What rabbits do do is that after they leave their little presents around, they go back and eat them again. What would this be considered?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-18-2002]

"You know what I think is going on? The OT is so mysogynistic that they have no interest in Cain's wife until he "lies" with her. After all, what else she was good for? Hardly worth a mention except as the world's first sex object."
--No more relevant worth mentioning in the bible than all the other son's and daughters adam and eve had.
--I could almost come to the conclusion that if the bible included the detail that many desire, that it would be well above 20,000 pages in type6 font.------------------

"Adam and Eve thing raises a biggie for me... What were the mutations that resulted from incest (other than life span)? Current mutations involve extra limbs, eyes, etc. Did they look like giant snakes?"
--I don't see what your implying and how is it relevant?"How did different skin colors come to be?"
--Basic population genetics, and of course a good dose of mutation and natural selection."The only explanation is evolution."
--Yup, I guess so! After all, evolution does mean 'change' right? Please run this past me once more, how does this falsify anything in Creationism?"-If God is all forgiving, why is there a hell at all?"
--Hell was created for Satan and his angels."If heaven is so good, why not just kill yourself?"
--Because God gave you existance so that you would have a life, and that life to serve the lord, if you wish to not have faith in God, then yes, kill yourself, though you will not enter the kingdom of heaven out of such selfishness, this is simply what suicide is."-Doesn't killing animals for food constitute a violation of the First Commandment (i might be wrong on this, the one that says 'Thou shalt not kill')"
--The problem is that this is out of context."-Even in the Bible there is alot of killing (Cain killing Abel, etc.). Again, violation of the 1st Command.?"
--Correct, it is a voilation, were not all perfect, if we were, the commandments would not be violated."Could God have rather created the first ameobas and let us evolve?"
--If you wish to believe that, sure go ahead, though God said it was 6 days of creation and a 7th day of rest, unless you wan't evolution to pick up the pace, I would rather just take its word for it."Could aliens have planted life on Earth ()?"
--If you wish to believe that, go ahead, but you definantly would have to have alot more faith than I have to do so."Science has failed to provide a reasonable explination to how life started..."
--I guess so.------------------

"I ALREADY SAID, DNA IS THE KEY TO EVOLUTION. GET THAT THOURGH YOUR THICK SKULL (guess god made a mistake with your head). CAR PARTS DO NOT HAVE DNA. GEEZUS FOG."
--This must be why I get frustrated debating in those yahoo chats (I think you remind me of someone :\, well this would be better in the 'free for all' forum )------------------