Rather than...

I was wondering has anyone challanged the historical accuracy of the bible? Or used it inaccuracies or the biases of the authers to discredit the source of creationism? I am not scientific, and while I can grasp the theories from both sides the major flaw I always come back to is that creationism is rooted in a document that was put together by a group of people who's main goal was to further a religion.Documents from the time of Christ that could set the record straight are no longer around. Stored in the Library of Alexandria an early christian destroyed it. The only document we have(the Dead Seas Scrolls) are under Vatican control. The few pieces that were translated by 3rd parties forced Vatican II, and now the rest of the scrolls are under lock and key. The only people able to see them are Vatican puppets, who pick and choose the translations.The Pentateuch has wild speculation about its origins, from Moses being the author, to having four seperate authers. Unforunatly there has been no archeological evidence found to support the Conservative views of the bible(If I am wrong please correct me, I am going on what I have read over the past few years). Has there been any archeoligical evidence that coraberates the biblical record? All I know about is the historical blunders the catholic church has made throught the ages that contradict the teachings of the bible(which as a sacred text teaching a way of life is flawless). And that the nature of god from Genisis to Revelations changes a few times which seems to show a human interpritation that cannot be ignored. What I do know is that the people who say the bible is a literal history of man and the world are the same people who decided to kill Jews(The 1st of God's chosen people) send children into slavery during the crusades, and back Hitler and the Nazi's. The Bible was written by man, for man, to explain man's place in the universe. Can someone dispell my notions of corruptions about its authers and those that hold it as a history book, perhaps then I can be shown the truth about creationism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[b]I was wondering has anyone challanged the historical accuracy of the bible? Or used it inaccuracies or the biases of the authers to discredit the source of creationism? I am not scientific, and while I can grasp the theories from both sides the major flaw I always come back to is that creationism is rooted in a document[/QUOTE][/b]i CAME to C/E not as to further my decision on Sundays whether to attend Cornell's ecumenical service and listen to the organ or not but rather with understanding from personal experience that flaw or no as you note, not only do the evolutionists keep a closed shop as had been prior alledged but that there is resistence beyond social acceptance within the discussion of evolution on evolution terms itself. My grandfather had passed on the AMerican view of genetics to me and I avoided the issue of evolution and creation as so far as my mother had it passed on by detailing my interest in a taxononmy that with changes due to baramins could go either way as to the comptuer support used to co-ordinate the subjective expert taxogeny. But even talking about these origins apparently sounds more religious than the coast of audibles and visibles that Newton noted between lizards and fish. Go gish f. [QUOTE][b]that was put together by a group of people who's main goal was to further a religion.Documents from the time of Christ that could set the record straight are no longer around. Stored in the Library of Alexandria an early christian destroyed it. The only document we have(the Dead Seas Scrolls) are under Vatican control. The few pieces that were translated by 3rd parties [/QUOTE][/b]What happened to the offspring as opposed to the parent was that techonology (the micro-recorder was hidden from know use) was used to insert a third party into the parent-child relation causing untold harm that can not today be brought back no matter the transiton to objects for any subject.If one wishes to understand this it is not necessary to go to jail.

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-21-2002]

a jew decided to kill jews. except that that particular jew's soldiers were atheist or not jewish becuase it was either be a jew and die or be something else join him and not die. Hitler was a jew if you dont know.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
a jew decided to kill jews. except that that particular jew's soldiers were atheist or not jewish becuase it was either be a jew and die or be something else join him and not die. Hitler was a jew if you dont know.

---

I didn't think that the idea that Hitler was a Jew was widely-accepted among historians.I'd like to know how accepted the idea is, actually. Any info?

I started a thread a little while ago asking for
'Independent Historical Corroboration' for the Bible.Most of the links/information that came out of that seemed to
suggest that while real places and major events have been
used in some parts, they do not entirely tally with the biblical
descriptions.An example was the wandering of the Hebrews in the desert for 40 years,
which would have apparently taken then past numerous Egyptian garrisons.Check out that thread ... there might be something useful there.

quote:

---

An example was the wandering of the Hebrews in the desert for 40 years, which would have apparently taken then past numerous Egyptian garrisons.

---

[Fixed quote. --Admin]I can see difficulties in examining the (or any!) bible to determine if it is historically accurate. It goes without saying that you need to go to the original language, and then interpret that with knowledge of what the original writer was intending to present. This is the way historical criticism is usually done. Of course, if the source writer was simply intending to transmit an earlier story, it is very hard to take any specific text string and decipher the writer's intention - there may literally be none if simple copying is being undertaken, and all sorts of odd errors creep in.As with any copied document there will be errors, misinterpretations, losses of whole sections, inappropriate additions of other material (I presume noone disagrees with the assumption that the bible is a varied collection of many documents from many sources?). But there is one point I would like to raise about the quote above, which illustrates the extreme difficulty of deciding what was meant by a translated sentence, and how hard it is to say that any sentence is 'accurate'.I had always understood that the use of the words 'for 40 years' was a common usage meaning 'for a long time'. Rather like our use of the word 'ages', which can be literally interpreted to mean 'lifetimes', or periods in excess of a few hundred years. If I now say 'Building that wall took ages', do I mean many hours, many days, or centuries? Because language can be used in complex metaphoric ways it is almost never possible to decide it has one single meaning.If the bible (or any other fundamental religeous text) was intended to be a definitive specific true-for-all-time message from a person-like deity, I would expect it to be written in legalese, or mathematic notation, like Z or Backus-Naur.Incidentally, why is creationism seen as such a problem? AFAIK, it is only an issue in parts of America. People can believe things which are much stupider elsewhere in the world and it doesn't cause a problem. Why not let towns ban scientists if they like? There were some political systems (luckily few nowadays) where any education at all was seen as a threat, and we didn't get half so worried about them.[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-21-2002]

Creationism really only becomes an issue here in the states when Creationists attempt to either have Creationism taught alongside evolution, or have teaching of evolution watered down or removed from the curriculum.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Creationism really only becomes an issue here in the states when Creationists attempt to either have Creationism taught alongside evolution, or have teaching of evolution watered down or removed from the curriculum.

​

--Percy

---

A bit off topic I suppose, but my point is: Why not let them? Presumably students in these schools will start failing their exams at this point, and parents will start withdrawing them. If a Creationist group then set their own exams, presumably few commercial organisations or universities will accept these as valid.I don't know much about the American educational system, but you must have centrally-moderated examination syllabuses? I presume these are nation-wide, and therefore proof against hijacking by a small group?

Me writes:

---

A bit off topic I suppose, but my point is: Why not let them? Presumably students in these schools will start failing their exams at this point, and parents will start withdrawing them. If a Creationist group then set their own exams, presumably few commercial organisations or universities will accept these as valid.

---

Here in the states, almost all public school education (public means provided by the government) is local. Taxes assessed on local property are used to fund the operations of the town, which includes providing public school education. The buildings, teacher's salaries, sports programs, books, etc, are all paid for by these taxes.Unless you opt for private schools (in which case you not only have to pay private school tuition, but also your local property taxes even though your children no longer attend public schools), in most cases children must attend the public schools in the town where they reside. If your town chooses to stop teaching evolution you cannot send your children to a nearby town where evolution is still taught. You can send them to private school, but that gets expensive and not everyone can afford it, so insuring that public schools continue to teach a full curriculum of science is important to most people here in the states.

---

I don't know much about the American educational system, but you must have centrally-moderated examination syllabuses? I presume these are nation-wide, and therefore proof against hijacking by a small group?

---

There are no educational standards at the national level. The closest we come here is state boards of education that usually develop a general curriculum for local schools to follow. A few years ago the Kansas Board of Education removed evolution from the science curriculum causing a state-wide uproar and a national embarrassment. In the next election (board members are elected, not appointed, in Kansas - it varies from state to state) two of the three responsible board members were up for reelection and were turned out of office, and evolution was restored to the guidelines.State guidelines are just that - guidelines. Local cities and towns do not have to adhere to the guidelines, but many don't have the resources to develop their own curriculums, plus text book publishers tend to strongly follow state guidelines to increase their sales.As you can see, there's a lot at stake.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Me writes:

---

A bit off topic I suppose, but my point is: Why not let them? ... fail their exams ...

---

​

A few years ago the Kansas Board of Education removed evolution from the science curriculum causing a state-wide uproar and a national embarrassment. In the next election (board members are elected, not appointed, in Kansas - it varies from state to state) two of the three responsible board members were up for reelection and were turned out of office, and evolution was restored to the guidelines.

​

--Percy

---

Perhaps we should start a new thread - I find this topic interesting and maybe it has some relevance to the Creationist/Evolution debate.Your description of the US educational system matches many countries, I suspect. It is similar to the UK's - though we famously call a lot of private schools 'public' (because they were, back in the 1500s. In the sense that was meant, they still are 'public'!).The differences seem to come in the national or local standards. Many other countries have standard examinations - the French Baccalaureate or British A level are good examples. I assumed that any school or town altering their curriculum to avoid teaching evolution would fail the standard Biology exam. Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?My original point still stands - you seem to have tried the experiment in Kansas, and I suppose that it is no longer a problem there now? It may seem a bit cruel (that's Evolution for you!) but one approach to the problem may be allowing some local town to reject evolution every so often, and start an outcry.You might be aware that there is currently some concern in the UK that the A Level is becoming easier to pass? One result is that a few UK schools are now offering the International Baccalaureate as an option. Do you think that there is a evolutionary niche for a foreign moderated high-grade exam to exist in the US? Of course, there may be a niche for a creationist exam as well. In the UK, such an exam could easily be set up, but I suspect no employer would accept it as an appropriate qualification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?

---

There are a few standardized tests-- TASS is one of them. When I was in school it was SAT. The tests are implemented pretty much nationwide but the tests have little to no power. In other words, you an fail the test and still graduate High School. The tests are important for the student when it comes to applying for college admission, and for the school when it comes to aquiring funds from the federal government for the schools.Pretty much all of the exams that effect one's classroom success are locally set, often by the teachers themselves.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

In NY there are also the Reagent exams, failing them does not bar you from graduation, just graduating with a Reagent's diploma. In fact because the US has become so politically correct it is quite hard to keep a stupid child down. I have a friend that is a teacher in the NYC public school system who tells me how her curriculum is standardized, and how she pretty much has to pass all her students by whatever means necessary, even at the expense of boring the smart kids to death. Plus the fact the fact that she is a teacher is almost criminal.. she, herself, is only marginally above "specially abled" herself. I have faith that the liberals in this country in an effort to help us all out(since they obviously know more than any of us) will wind up getting creationism taught in schools.

quote:

---

Perhaps we should start a new thread - I find this topic interesting and maybe it has some relevance to the Creationist/Evolution debate.

---

I started this topic up, a while back:
What if creationism did get into the science class
http://EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science class -->EvC Forum: What if creationism did get into the science classThen I discovered that Mr. Pamboli had previously started:
Teaching evolution in the context of science
http://EvC Forum: Teaching evolution in the context of science -->EvC Forum: Teaching evolution in the context of scienceThe Education and Creation/Evolution forum topic list is at:
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: InformationMoose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?

---

​

Pretty much all of the exams that effect one's classroom success are locally set, often by the teachers themselves.

​

---

By the teachers themselves? I thought Italian degree courses were a bit iffy, but I haven't come across this idea. I suspect that the US may have more problems than creationism in its schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:
Your answer does not mention examinations at all - does that mean you have none, or that the examinations are also locally set, and so part of the problem?

---

​

Pretty much all of the exams that effect one's classroom success are locally set, often by the teachers themselves.

​

---

​

By the teachers themselves? I thought Italian degree courses were a bit iffy, but I haven't come across this idea. I suspect that the US may have more problems than creationism in its schools.

​

---

You have no idea..... US schools are, in my opinion, HORRIBLE. At least until you get to college level, but even then, you have to play catch up before getting on to the real substantial stuff.I dropped out of High School at 16 because I had been bored to tears since fifth grade. I should have learned about four times what I did, but no one cared to teach anything above what would have been third grade level in some of the private schools some friends of mine attended.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com