Is the Bible the Word of God?

First I'd like to say I missed the debate! Ugh, oh well, my cable modem has been down since I believe Sunday and I just got it working, looks like I missed about 500 posts! Its tough to keep up with you guys, but hey, atleast I'm havin fun, don't know about you guys. It seems almost like its for every creationist theres about 7 or 6 evolutionists on their tail! Who ever said that was bad though? Considering whether the bible is the inerrant word of God or not is a matter of faith, on the other hand, this would be differentiated from whether it is accurate. The bible uses the literal translation I believe as, 'God Breathed' God didn't take the pen to the paper and jot down what he wanted written, and neither does the bible say so. God wrote threw the people that wrote the scriptures, Daniel didn't even know what he wrote, he was asking God to tell him what all this meant in his book. God told him to put the pen down and that it would be finished later and so John picks up the pen in revelations and finishes Daniels writting. I see the bible as a History book, which to my knowledge has never been disproven, and in attempts have been on the contrary, proven, or overwhelming evidence has been found.Considering--->"So, you are saying that all those bible verses I listed were not, in fact, self-contradictory? If you read some of them, especially when it says that God was satisfied with his work, "God saw all that he made, and it was very good."[Gen 1:31.]
But what about when it states that God was dissatisfied with his works? "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]
THAT IS A CONTRADICTION, is it not? Well a supposedly perfect creator would not have dictated or written a book that is so contradictory. IFF ( if and only if ) the bible/koran/torah was perfect and unerring, then we could presume the creator was perfect. Why would a creator create a book that was so full of errors? * sigh * I Really don't want to hear that i am ignorant as you dance around the questions like you have done before... give me a straight answer for a change, would you???
Thanks, -Kv"Did God say he was dissatisfied with what he created? No he really didn't, he said he was greived at his creation and his creation filled his heart with pain, I would feel the same way! Considering that God has a plan and he knows his plan, and knew that in his plan that this would come to pass, there is no contrediction, only a matter of following his unchanging plan, unchanging, because he knows his plan will come to pass. Take the analogy, Your a Father/Mother and you have a son, he is 12 years old and you know he is getting worse and worse, more and more helpless, rebelling, etc. You catch him falling apartmore and more threwout his short years and you find one day, he is near death. Would you not be in pain, whether you knew it would come to pass or not? (Not the perfect analogy, though I think a point is presented)--------------

"The short answer to this topic is....No the Bible is NOT the word of God. What it is is an interpretation of what men of those days long ago perceived as the divine,based on their observations of the world,their understanding of it and also,on ancient Sumerian and Babylonian legends which have been reworked by the Hebrew and than by the Muslims."
--Actually unless someone else would like to inform me, I already refuted your story that it is based on earlier cultures in another forum. And yes, the bible simply is, correct, and I think that is evidence that it is the word of God, you cannot say that the bible is inerrantly the word of God except by faith, but you can say that the bible is correct by logic."It contains some wisdom which COULD be divinely inspired but it also contains vague interpretations,myths and downright fallacies."
--Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any.". It is also heavily influenced by the cultural bias presiding in the days it was originaly writen."
--You continuouly perceive it as a bias culture, why so?"One good exemple is the story of original sin,in which man eats the forbiden fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. And the way it is represented is once Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit,they realise that they are naked and cover themselves with fig leaves. This implies from the get go that nudity in public settings is somehow evil,a cultural bias present in Babylonian and ancient hebrew times. But in the case of Adam and Eve,who did not even know what cloths were at the time and had never seen any living creature trying to cover their private parts,the concept of sudden shame at their own nakedness is absurd. It would be akin to them suddently realizing that slurping a bowl of soup instead eating it with a spoon is an evil thing even though they had never even heard of either soup or spoons."
--I refuted this earlier, though I will give you the benefit and say that you were unable to read it, possibly because this post was posted first, but I won't make a claim of the nature:

quote:

---

Its not that being naked is 'evil' its that they 'realized' that they were naked, an 'embarassment', there is no need to be embarassed in perfection. After they ate the Fruit the became aware of that.

---

--Not absurd in the least.------------------

"I think it is a good idea to have a new string for Biblical discussions.
However, i do have something to say on "Is the Bible the Word of God?".
I think that it is not, because it was written by man, therefore it must have flaws. I say this Because man himself has flaws, so something written by man must have flaws...right?"
--It would seem as logical as it is perceived from this perspective wouldn't it. But for one, ofcourse we are not flawless, but if we were looking at something no matter on how ill-understandable it is, and wrote about it, it would still be correct. Some of scripture I believe was passed down through oral concepts as is thought. One would say but then since you would argue that other myths such as odysseus was twisted throughout time till it got the lizards with all the heads and the singing girls on the island and the like, which seems true, but drastically 'matamorphesized' through the decades. The problem with this is that these oral traditions for passing down these stories were passed down for entertainment of legends around the camp fire, the biblical scripture was passed down as the Inerrantly Holy Doctrine of God, amazing care would have been taken to preserve its consealents.------------------

"TC, how can you say that the Bible is "correct" when there are so many different versions of it, and it has been translated so many times (often for political reasons rather than theological accuracy), there is no original version, and there have been entire chapters left out it?"
--Sure there is an original version, unfortunately most of the population can't read hebrew. Hebrew words can be translated into a veriety of english words, this is one reason alot of debate pops up, so we most of the time need to go to the original hebrew or a literal translation. Many of the translations also simply take what the bible says, and putting it into an 'every day like' grammer so it is easier to comprehend."Do you care to address how "correct by logic" the contradictory versions of when Christ was said to have been crucified are? I lay out this contradiction in this thread, message #127.It is quite clear that the Last Supper is a Passover meal in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that Christ is crucified after Passover. However, in John, it is stated very clearly that Christ is crucified before Passover."
--Yup, but one thing that you would be to miss is that even when they said they were having the 'passover' meal, the day of passover was 2 days away."Everything that has ever been written, except maybe mathematics, is written with a cultural bias, because there is no such thing as a person that isn't influenced by culture."
--I see what you mean by this, but ofcourse I then do not see anything wrong with this 'bias', unless it isn't true, which ofcourse moves back into opinion."The cultural bias is made clear when you compare various religious books with each other. For example, the Hebrews were extremely patriarchal in their culture, so their religion and depiction of God reflects much of this bias in favor of males."
--Eve picked the fruit, not adam."Also, slavery was not considered strange or horrible in Biblical times the way it is today, as is obvious from reading the Bible. There is no commandment which states; "Thou shalt not enslave another human", but there is a commandment stating that we should not desire another's cattle, wife, or slave (see what category women are in?). There was no particular cultural bias against the idea of slavery the way there is today."
--I actually find it odd why I find absolutely no matches in the YLT of the word 'slave'. www.biblegateway.com"Some fallacies in the Bible:"
--Lets check it out."Bats are birds"
--The bible doesn't say bats are birds, it says that its a flying thing, it moves about in the air, not a bird."Rabbits chew their cud"
--Hm.. If you were to say chewing the cud would be to regergitate food and chew it and swallow it again, I would have to ponder that, but what rabbits do do is they chew their little poops they drop along again."Something called the "firmament" is where the stars have been "set into" and also what separates the "higher waters from the lower waters". So, TC, where are these "higher waters" that are above the firmament, and why haven't our spacecraft crashed into the firmament?"
--there are some theories on what exactly this was, the vapor canopy theory ties in with this, but this seems to be contredicted by Genesis 1:14, some say that this is a boundary of water vapor around the universe, or something of the like, it could even be that oort clouc (shrugs), this is not a fallacy."A talking serpent, that eventually is condemned to eating dust. (except that snakes do not eat dust.)"
--As the bible says we return to the dust of the ground, which is correct. Thus technically this is true, or it could be interpereted as a continuation of the previous statement '...on thy belly dost thou go'. As someone today would say something like 'eat the ground' or something like that, most likely they wouldn't actually mean eat it."Noah sent out a dove to find dry land after the flood, and it brings back an olive branch. How did this olive tree live through the flood if the Bible says that everything that wasn't on board the ark perished?"
--God never made reference to plants and vegetation, vegetation would have been abundant, and after seeds settled after the flood waters started receeding, the little bird could have brought back the sprout."Here is more:"
--Thanx"Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. Mt.26:64, Mk.14:62."
--Mk. 14:62? --Who ever said life ended after death?"Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners' lifetimes. Mk.9:1, 13:30"
--Mk.9:1, and Mk 13:30?"67.Jesus said that his true followers will routinely perform the following tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2)speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them. Mk.16:17-18"
--Yup, I have yet to see the drinking poisons without harm and cure the sick by touching them, but the rest is evident it happens."Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God.Lk.9:27"
--who said he was speaking of the rapture? And this is to see the kingdom of God, not the kingdom he would come and establish on the world as is depicted of the rapture."Jesus says that all that he describes (his return, signs in the sun, moon, and stars, etc.) will occur within thelifetime of his listeners. Lk.21:32"
--What? Way off the merit-->
32
"I tell you the truth, this generation[1] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
[1] or race"Paul thought that the end was near and that Jesus would return soon after he wrote these words. Phil.4:5"
--Yup 'A day is like 1000 years to God'"The author of Hebrews believed that he was living in the "last days" (Heb.1:2) and that Jesus would come "in a little while," and would "not tarry." Heb.10:37"
--He didn't believe that he was in the last days, he said Jesus would come soon 'in a little while' does not assert days or months or even a lifetime. A lifetime compaired with infinite numbers, I would even say 'in a little while' is exadurating it!"Peter wrongly believed that he was living in the "last times" and that "the end of all things is at hand." 1 Pet.1:20,.4:7"
--Who said this is speaking of the time of Jesus, the Christian population is skyrocketing today (though a fraction of the worlds population). And yes it sure is near, even 2000 years ago, it was near, 'A day is like 1000 years to God'."John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around. 1 Jn.2:18"
--He didn't say he was living in the last times, he said that it was the last times, and it still was in his time."John says that the antichrist was already present at the time 1 John was written. 1 Jn.4:3"
--Notice it says 'which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world'. It says he is coming, and then it says that he is already in the world, this is exactly true, as the antichrist is Satan, and he is in the world today, but has not taken the image of the antichrist yet as prophesy fortells.
1 John.4:3 - "but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.""John believes "the time is at hand," and that the things that he writes about in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." Rev.1:1, 3"
--Yup they will"Rev.1:7 says that "every eye shall see him," including those who executed him."
--Sure will, this was not possible untill the invention of television and the internet, another prophesy half way fullfilled, the next hafl if actually see them."Jeremiah (49:33) predicts that humans will never again live in Hazor, but will be replaced by dragons. But people still live there and dragons have never been seen."
"..A desolation -- unto the age..."
--Probley was, as some dinosaurs still would have been alive."In Jer.50:39 and Is.13:19-20 God prophesies that Babylon will never again be inhabited. But it has been inhabited constantly since the prophecy was supposedly made, and is inhabited still today."
--Any reference, on inhabitatin of the biblical babylon?------------------

"TC,the story of Adam and Eve is merely that...a story...its not HISTORY. The characters in that STORY do whatever the AUTORS who invented them want them to do. And since the autors were chauvinistic sumerians,then woman was the bitch in most of their stories,a practice which was taken up by the babylonians,then by the jews who inherited the stories of the early sumerians."
--We have already gone over this, you know of no evidence that the summarians nor the babylonians pre-date the Flood or Adam and Eve or any other biblical happening. So if you would like to go back to this argument to make it at all attractive to a concept of logic then you must back up your claims that they are such and so old, because otherwize, you have it backwords."The book of genesis is not an account of historical events...its a book of old recycled sumerian folklore...and the sumerian version is way more interesting and actually a lot more scientific than the book of Genesis."
--Think its more scientific? By what basis? I would be very interested in this depiction."Neither Eve nor Adam "picked" the apple. Knowledge of good and evil was never contained in a fruit or a pill or any such nonsense and the human race does not originate from two middle easterner from 6000 years ago."
--And all of these assertion(s) are based on what? And are contredicted by what?"At no point in history was there ever a human being who could live for 900 years and while the world has suffered SEVERAL worldwide catastrophies that caused 5 great extinctions,none of them occured in the last 12000 years and not a single one of them was send by God to punish the world for crimes real or imagined."
--Sure, humans did live for 900 years (As I proved to you previously, if you don't accept that because of the odds, you might want to throw abiogenesis by chance(If this is what you or anyone else believes) in the can), and the world suffered one world wide catastrophy in the midsts of many catastrophic events, that cause the extinction of many verieties of animals, all of them occured in the last 6000 years and almost all of them were acts of God, and the Noacian Flood sent by God. Hm.. Its basically the same thing you just stated, but the other way around, it doesn't mean anything without a basis, any refutations or evidence towards your claims, I hae yet to see it, or if you can again state it if you have somehow allready explained it to me."There is no reason to believe that Bible is anything more than a collection of stories,myths,legends,philosophies mixed with SOME (very few) historical accounts here and there."
--Sure there is, it hasent been falsified even with falsifiability, and there is evidence towards the claims of its pages."The way it is writen is no doubt very clever because it can be interpreted to mean just about anything the reader wants it to mean,as you demonstrated repeatadly."
--Ofcourse it can't mean anything, as I have demonstrated repeatedly... You can't say that the heart is a bodily organ, you cant re interperet the noacian flood to be local, you cant interperet the creation to be millions of years, etc, and all of your claims show that this is true, if you would like to point any out and explain my fallacy in it, be my guest with your Biblical spins and twists but it is no more inspire by God than books of Santa Claus stories.------------------

"Every historian worth his/her grades knows that the Sumerians are the very first civilisation to appear on earth in the Middle East."
--Ok great, now lets see what evidence you present to back up this assertion and hope we can take that giant leap from conjector to truth by logic, lets continue reading."The knowledge of the ancient Sumerians in cosmology was astonishing...they allready knew 6000 years ago that the solar system was a heliocentric system and had on one of their tablets a depiction of the solar system with all planets at their correct place orbiting the sun."
--Great, we can do the same thing today, calculate the trejectory of planet orbits, seeing they rotate finely on their orbital plane through all the years, you could figure it out by watching the skys over a couple years, given you have enough interest."They also refered to the reath as KI,which means in ancient Sumerian 7th world. The sumerian counted the planets from the outside in and they have writen evidence that there is a 10th planet to the solar system,whose large eliptical orbit brings it back near the earth every 3600 years(i believe that its next visit should occur in ~2400 ish). Astronomers around the world are actively looking for it even as we speak."
--Pretty intelligent people huh. I'd like to find a reference that explains exactly what it is they documented for this, sounds like almost like a large comment to me, but it could be an orbiting celestial body of the sun's. Very interesting."The Sumerians often refered to their gods(plural) as beings who came down from the heaven and brought their wisdom to the Sumerian people. Thats may well mean that they were visited by an alien civilisation,which would explain their advanced knowledge in cosmology and astronomy."
--Wow there, both of us know there is another explination, whether you think its logical because it is based on the bible or not, you see, people no doubt would have been very smart in those days in different fields, Adam and Eve came pre-programed with probably emense knowledge. After the Flood and assuming that the tower of babel was where they scattered, when they scattered they would have taken with them various people with their own knowledge in different areas, this is why you would see such an almost uniform consistancy in the way many ancient civilizations worked, Especially when it comes to astronomy and architecture it shows significantly. We don't have to jump to the conclusion that it could have been an alien civilization supplying them the knowledge."Incidently,they are not the only people on earth who make such claims. The aztech,the mayans and the people of the ancient kingdom of MU(known today as the easter Island) also made similar claims that they were visited by gods who came from heaven on flying chariots."
--Hm.. flying chariots sounds pretty apparent in my mind, I wonder where that came from? As I breifly explained previously this is expected."Another point of interest is that the Sumerians also mention waters above the heavens but from their writings,it is clear that they mean water in space.i.e. ice,which is found on many planets of the solar system and not some mystical water canopy enveloping the earth."
--This also is very much expected, also, who said it had to be a water canopy enveloping the earth? Though I do believe there was a canopy of some sort earlier, but this is out of my personal humble opinion, as it is not at all needed for any biblical implication. It is also expected that documentations would be slightly bent over the years."I dont have to assert anything concerning the book of Genesis. There is not a single shread of scientific evidence that anyone ever lived 900 years"
--I already did give you the scientific evidence, pure science. Now would you like to actually refute it or continually assert that there isn't any evidence?"that knowledge is contained in fruits"
--No one said knowledge is contained in fruits."and that we all originate from the middle east."
--How do we know exactly where we did originate, how are you going to figure that one out."Anthropological studies of the many people on earth has yet to establish points of commonality between Middle easterners,africans,australian aborigenal,native americans,Slaves,Celts and Asians."
--Hmm.. are we contredicting ourselves here? You just layed out some of the simpler similarities to the readers of the board previously."The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood."
--Why would you assert something so untrue? The tower of bable has been found. http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch4.htm

quote:

---

The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.

---

--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html"It is impossible to refute something that has never been observed."
--Wow, its about time someone will admit this."I believe this is your favorite argument as a creationist against evolution."
--Im not arguing against evolution in this thread, I am arguing against your perpetual erroneous claim that the bible is in accurate."Well have you ever observed a natural catastrophy caused by God?"
--Nope, have you ever observed it?"Do you know of anyone who has lived for centuries? Beside anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells which replicate ad infinitum,which really proves nothing other than the fact that cancerous cells can reproduce ad infinitum,is there documented medical evidence of people having lived for 900 years....even 300 or 200 years would suffice to convince me...anything?"
--You think they are going to go right in there and start preforming scientific experiments on humans messing around with genetics? They just arent allowed to do that. What we have done is done this to animals such as mice and have observed them to live many times longer than normal, as we discussed earlier, there is emense evidence that living to such an age is possible."Also,i've explained to you that the earth had been bombarded with many asteroids which had the same devastating power as the one who caused the last great extinction,some 65 million years ago."
--I also explained to you, and was hoping for continuing discussion, but it seems you don't like responding directly to any of my claims, evidences, and assertions, you don't know the characteristics of the impact velocity, or the size or weight of the object that hit earth.". there is at least 10 craters of 20 km of diameters and more litering the earth,all caused by potential Global killer asteroids...All of them in the last 6000 years?"
--Sure yup, I think it just made a big splash of mud, thats all. 'killer' astroids is rather an exaduration, unless ofcourse it hit you square on the top of the head. I also found this article interesting to read from space.com.
--Asteroids"i think not and neither does the scientific who knows more about these phenomenon then you or i do."
--Scientific explination would beg to differ, and just because we don't know as much as the PhD's in celestial astroid impact phenomena, doesn't mean we can't use our brain and conceive and contemplate the evidence and conclusions."All send by God? my my your God is really a capricious monster,isent he? Thankfully,that God only exists in your head."
--Like I have sustained the argument, you have it the other way around, it is only that way in your own opinion, no where else. That God you reject wrote his book for you to receive it, if you wan't to choose to ignore the even scientific validity of the bible, then you can do that, just don't continue to substantiate your claim that it isn't."The Bible has been falsified repeatadly by me and other people on this board...you simply do a little re-interpretation here and there whenever you're cornered and voila."
--If you can give me a single Ioda of truth out of this statement, I will withdraw my argument on the validity and accuracy of the bible, otherwize, don't continue to use it. Like I said in my last post, I could go through your responses to me and my responses to you, and give you at the bare minimum 30-50+ quotes that you have either ignored, or are simply silly fallacies included in your writting. Again, unfortunatelly, I must continue to sustain my valid argument untill you can prove it otherwize."TC,your entire identity seemed to be build around the unyelding belief in the Bible's inerant nature and i suspect that God Itself couldn't change your mind on this."
--God doesn't need to change my mind, nor does he want to, he's already showed me the truth in this subject.--I still find it unfortunate that you were unable to directly argue against any of my claims, assertions, and evidences, I hope to receive this from you at some point in the near/distant future.------------------

"Actually,good old fashion law of physics contradict the water/ice canopy "theory". If the earth had been surrounded by this ice bubble at one time,most of the sun's ray would have been reflected away from the earth and it would have been considerably colder than it is today...like winter cold."
--sure wouldn't, it would most likely magnify it, a problem with the vapor canopy theory, is if you want to use it as an even somewhat realtively major portion of the flood waters, you have earth surface temperature too hot. But since we don't need it, all I would use is mabye 20 inches of water, either that or have the equivelant as crystalized water vapor."Furthermore,the gravemetric sheer of the earth would have shatered any such bubble in a matter of moments,with all the pieces falling on the earth or getting lost in deep space...it certainly would not have lasted 1600 years,unless God held it there through magical means,which is then no longuer science."
--I think you mean gravimetric, and no it would not shatter the vapor canopy, just as it doesn't shatter Jupiters emense gasseous atmosphere, unless you can substantiate evidence otherwize.------------------

"i guess those dont really motivate me, of course reproducing is fun :-). i do have a crazy idea which is that we actually do use all of our brain just that we dont have the technology to view it. like people say that your entire life flashes b4 you when you die. i think that our brain may be able to effectively start an entirely new life of course imagined, but we do have the power to do this and is demonstrated in dreams in my opinion. i don't think there is a limit to how fast we can think, maybe we can do whatever we allow ourselves to imagine. all of this wouldnt be very likly to me, but its a thought."
--Seems as if it would explain alot, and also discredit alot, there could be a link between it and photographic memories, I have met some people like that before, its very cool .------------------

"If that is so then i suggest that following your own reasoning the KJV is inferior to the original and you would be better served learning hebrew to avoid any possible mistranslation....."
--I like to compare and contrast, I use the YLT to get as literal as you can it seems, and I use the other various to better understand the text as all of that 'ye be to loust in thy neighborhood' and stuff like that gets quite confusing, but the YLT is good for getting directs from verbs, adjectives, and the like.As for the Ezekial prophesy, I'm lost, I missed the discussion, whats the supposed contrediction.------------------

"LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...we require powerfull telescopes which were not invented before the 18th century. That means that there was no way back then to tell from earth that there were planets beyond saturn,and much less describe them in detail like the Sumerians do in their tablets. And the Sumerians make no claim of having received this knowledge through "divine inspiration"...they are quite clear that this knowledge was communicated to them verbally by their GODS....one of them,more precisely,the goddess Ishtar."
--This would be expected, Gods are divine inspiration, it would be typical for beliefs such as these to be bent. People would have been very knowledgable in those days, and would have passed this knowledge to the summarians and other groups that may have had the knowledge before they split."LUD:Most of their knowledge is catalogued in hundreds of clay tablets. Contrary to what you implied the other day,Sumerians were prolific writers...their writings are the oldest on earth as far as we know,dating back 4500-7000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of their most famous story.lots of interesting info on the subject here...
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html
--For one, I based the assertion that there werent many historical documents on what you previously stated. Also, you can't claim that they are dated at 4,500-7000 years without evidence, what would this evidence be? The epic of gilgamesh is very interesting."LUD:I'm curious TC....aside from the Bible and the cultures in the ME,is there any mention of Adam and Eve in any other civilisations? Do either the mayans,the Aztech,the norse,the celts,the aborigenals,the chinese,the africans,the native americans and so on mention them or people even remotely like them in any of their legends? Do you know of any mention in any of these cultures about this ME origin for all of humanity? even a word?"
--Besides the one's that you stated earlier, for the babalonians and summarians, there are many, I will site some that I have found--Many of the following creation stories have some interesting parallels in the biblical creation story.--Aborigenals
--iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

quote:

---

AND again like the Lord God, Baiame walked on the earth he had made, among the plants and animals, and created man and woman to rule over them. He fashioned them from the dust of the ridges, and said,
'These are the plants you shall eat--these and these, but not the animals I have created.'

​

Having set them in a good place, the All-Father departed.

​

To the first man and woman, children were born and to them in turn children who enjoyed the work of the hands of Baiame. His world had begun to be populated, and men and women praised Baiame for providing for all their needs. Sun and rain brought life to the plants that provided their sustenance.

---

--Chineese
--High Speed Internet | Business Phone | Syracuse, Utica, Oneida, Rome

quote:

---

The king was puzzled and asked, "Why don't you eat? Is it because I failed to keep my promise of marrying a dog?" To his surprise Pan Gu began to speak. "Don't worry, my King. Just cover me with your golden bell and in seven days and seven nights I'll become a man." The King did as he said, but on the sixth day, fearing he would starve to death, out of solicitude the princess peeped under the bell. Pan Gu's body had already changed into that of a man, but his head was still that of a dog. However, once the bell was raised, the magic change stopped, and he had to remain a man with a dog's head.

​

He married the princess, but she didn't want to be seen with such a man so they moved to the earth and settled in the remote mountains of south China. There they lived happily and had four children, three boys and a girl, who became the ancestors of mankind.

---

--Choctaw

quote:

---

At the beginning there was a great mound. It was called Nanih Wiya. It was from this mound that the Creator fashioned the first of the people. These people crawled through a long, dark cave into daylight. They became the first Choctaw.

---

--Comanche

quote:

---

One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Comanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets.

---

--Dingueno

quote:

---

"We are going to dig in the ground and find mud to make the first people, the Indians." So he dug in the ground and took mud to make the first men and the first women. He made the men easily, but he had much trouble making women. It took him a long time. After the Indians, he made the Mexicans and finished all his making. He then called out very loudly, "People, you can never die and you can never get tired, so you can walk all the time." But then he made them sleep at night, to keep them from walking in the darkness. At last he told them that they must travel toward the East, where the sun's light was coming out for the first time.

---

-- Here is where you can find more Creation legends, and there is also Flood legends.-- http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/uranus.htm-- As you see throught reading, many of them induce many parallels towards the biblical creation, more than half include the beginning as a creation of a man and a woman."LUD: not all ancient cultures claim to have been visited by flying chariots...the aborigenals,africans,celts and native americans have no such claims in their legends."
--Expected, not all of the different cultures are going to have the same legends, if you were to put them all on a line, each of them next to their most simmilar ancient creation story, if you looked at the one at the beginning and the one at the end, they would sertainly be very different. This would be typical of creation stories passed on many of them by oral tradition."LUD:the vast majority of young earth creationist subscribe to this notion of a water canopy around the earth...many of them,like Kent Hovind are convinced that it was actually a bubble of ICE."
--Majority doesn't mean anything though, The Majority of scientist may believe Evolution (I don't really know) but does that mean Evolution is right, it isn't based on majority."LUD: I would like you to explain to me TC how you go from cancer cells replicating themselve infinitely to people living 900 years."
--The thing is, is that what I explained was that by cancer cells, which are caused by mutation, can replicate forever, because I believe it is because they lost the gene that controls the ability to replicate at a set amount of replicates. this is controled by telemeres that are like the 'capping' at the end of chromosomes which after each replication, a tip is lost, thus controling the amount of replication the bodily cells can produce. All you really need to live 900 years, is a longer capping, or for the gene that creates this ability to control replication amount to not be active."LUD:The Bible does....it states that eating the apple gave man knowledge of good and evil."
--The bible does not say that the knowledge of good and evil came from the fruit, it says that when they ate it, they knew good and evil, it could be tied in with a simple concept of experience, they had not experienced sin, so they did not know it."LUD: i do not know where we originate from. I merely said that i see no credible reason why i should be convinced that we all originate from the ME...thats where Adam and eve supposadly came from,IF the book of genesis is true. But i have yet to be presented with imperical evidence that should lead me to conclude that there even was an Adam and a Eve at any point of history."
--How do you expect to find any imperical evidence of the origin of humanity out of the middle east, or that adam and eve creation story is true accept by ancient literature. Because I know of no scientific observational technique in which we can interperete the existance of this evidence leading to conclusions on these questions. To come to a conclusion or explination for answrs to these questions, there must be evidence to point either direction, I do not know of any evidence period of pointing either way accept by ancient literature."LUD: according to the description of the tower of Babel in the book of genesis,it reached into heaven...meaning it should have been as high as mount everest and pierce the clouds....the zigurats discovered were nowhere near as high."
--Actually the heavens are simply the sky, the birds as is depicted in the bible, fly in this expanse/firmament/heavens and birds sertainly fly at this hight. And to the people building the tower in that day, it sertainly would look as if it were reaching to inconceivable elevations in the time."LUD: So then how can your Bible be used in a scientific discussion since there is no way to falsify "divine inspiration"?"
--I am not discussing whether the bible is divinely inspired, thats your opinion on what the book presents, I am discussing biblical validity on historical accuracy. Thus it is a scientific discussion in which we are discussing what we can observe and present by historical records and various scientific attributes in the argument."LUD:the Bible has some innacuracies...you just re-interpret them so they wont be inacurate anymore. Case in point,lust coming from the heart,which you point means from the soul. When i explain that lust is actually a chemical reaction in the brain,well you then say that by heart they meant brain. Also,the fact that lust is considered a sin is ridiculous...its a natural chemical reaction that cannot be controlled...we can control how we act on it but thats not at all what the Bible condemns...it condemns EXPERIENCING lust."
--First, the bible doesnt' say that it comes from the soul, it states that it comes from the heart as the same way we use it today when we would be to say 'have a heart', or 'its in the heart', or 'trust your heart'. These arent implications on a bodily organ, but as I stated previously, it contributes to the character or personality of a sertain someone. And considering the condemnation of lust, the bible does not condemn lust, it condemns a lustful heart (again the heart thing), ie someone that lusts to feel that serotonin get pumped into their brain when they see a naked girl, or something like that. The bible does not condemn experiencing lust in the scence that you describe, but it condemns the desire to experience lust. This is illustrated when david was on top of his house and spotted bathshebba taking a bath (what a coincidence) and he lusted with his eyes, the literal translation of the word that is used is 'gaze' he didn't just glance at her, this would not be a sin, but he gazed, as in, to view with interest, or study."LUD: So why should i assume that there ever was a disaster caused by God?"
--Whether it is caused by God is your own opinion, whether it happend is a scientifically valid question. Though I should say that with such a Flood for instance, it was an act of God.Here is some information and reading on this enzyme activity in its shortening telomerase:"LUD: I'm afraid your gonna have to provide me with a site where i can study the result of these researchs...""This enzyme, called telomerase, was discovered in 1980 by the winner of the 1998 Australia Prize, Prof. Elizabeth Blackburn. Without telomerase, cells cannot copy their ‘caps’."New Scientist: November 22, 1997, p. 7; January 3, 1998, p. 6; February 7, 1998, p. 14; February 28, 1998, p. 23.‘Can science beat the body clock?’ Sunday Times (London) January 18, 1998, p. 15.‘Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of aging’, Nature 389:958—960, 1997.‘Why do we age?’ U.S. News & World Report, August 18—25, 1997, pp. 55—57.‘Genetics of Aging’ Science 278(5337):407—411, 1997.--As I would also get frustrated if I did not have these resources, here is a web page that seems to be focused on the telomere: http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html"LUD: Yes it is possible to evaluate all of those things simply by analysing the dent (crater) caused by the meteorit. Its a complex mathematic calculation but thats how they do it."
--Yes, but they must assume that the place of impact had the same viscosity, density, etc as their calculations will give. If I hit a brick wall with my fist, it isn't going to do much anything, If I hit a wall made out of mud, it might do something, If I hit a damp mud wall, it will make an even bigger dent, If I hit a liquid-like muddy area with my fist, I could possibly make my own little crater. Also, with the effects of this impact, the distribution of dust as a result of impact in the atmosphere, will also be assumed by its density, particle size, and so on, If I threw a cup of flour in the air, it would take much longer to settle as if I threw sand or mud in the air. As it would fall right back to the ground."LUD: Interesting Article indeed. Thats not the first time someone challenged the well accepted conviction that a large enough asteroid strike would plunge the earth into an ice age and it probably wont be the last but Pope is not refuting earlier claims...he's merely casting some doubts,having done no actual research on his own. It is also pointed out that the spectacular anture of his announcement is somewhat suspect...Usually,researchers consult their collegues before making such anouncements,to make sure that their data is not in error...Pope seems more concerned with flamboyant public display than scientific truth...interesting indeed..."
--Yes it was an interesting article, Pope does do his own research, as some of the article addresses some of it. But more than these implications on celectial body impacts on the earth, would be the assumtions in the calculations as I addressed in my last comment."LUD:as i said,not being an expert on the subject i go with what the experts say and most of them still say that big rock hitting the earth means disaster. they are reviewing the pope study...lets see if it hold or if it goes the same way as other challenge did in the past..."
--No doubt it would have been disaster, the question is, how much disaster, as I stated previously, I think that the argument I place against the evidence for calculation used is quite valid and needs explination. Also, I would not just go with what the experts say, one because, they could be totally wrong, and thus throw your beliefs way out of scale, or something of that nature. Also, because there are many experts that have different opinions and interperetations on the evidence, including the phenomena of astroidal impact."LUD: I do not reject God....i do not even reject the Bible...i've never accepted the Bible as being THE truth so i cant reject what i never accepted to begin with. Thats doesn't necessarely mean its in error or that i buy the whole ToE head on...i go with the one i find the most credible...at the moment,thats not the Bible."
--I've been meaning to ask you, what would sway you toward the belief that the bible is in the least, scientifically accurate, and indeed has without a reasonable doubt, an accurate historical record. What is there that needs to be addressed to substantiate this question."LUD: i'm tired of this particular debate...i say poteto,you say potato and it never ends...I believe its been falsified,you dont,lets just agree to disagree on this for the time being."
--Ok thats fine, but I would just like to have a friendly discussion, what do you think is in the bible that you could point out is invalid?"LUD: God also showed me the truth and that truth was in the universe around us,not writen in any book."
--Then God doesn't seem to be interested in the previous living people, because they did not have the universe to look at to find answers, they just had a book inspired by God."LUD: There now i did. happy now?"
--I'd have to say that I am very glad you were willing to discuss in this fashion, this it would greatly seem is an advancement in our discussion, more accurate and direct inductions are able to be induced.------------------

"I understand that you dont have a problem with the "goddidit" approach to explain just about everything,like most creationists...but thats not science i'm sorry to say. As for the canopy theory,yes it would deflect many of the harmfull rays of the sun but also most of the beneficial rays as well...the earth wouldn't be a greenhouse,it would be a highly pressurized meatlocker. On the talkorigin site,someone has estimated that a water canopy that would account for the alledged flood would have multiplied the weight of the atmosphere by 9,effectively crushing anything living on the planet."
--Actually it would be multiplied by a factor of 2, the effects of the water canopy would have been estimated by the amount and thickness, as I stated before, and I can almost truely assume without reading the article, that they assume that we account this water as a portoin of flood water. You would have to display exactly why it would have been a meet locker, and not act almost as if it were a magnifying glass.------------------

Mabye some people don't realize exactly how many people attempt to do the same think you seem as you portray would 'love to do'. To tell you the truth, after seeing his debates, It would be histarical to see an amature get into the ring. I think that Hovind does present some pretty erroneous claims in his seminars, but we should also notice, that his seminars were made years ago, in the midst of the internet 'bomb'. As for your comment regarding me re-interpereting it to mean what I want it to mean, advision is suggested on not using this claim, as you have yet to defend it.------------------

"So, the ToE ISN'T based on "pure faith", as you would like to believe."
--As a debater and discusser of the topic, I would be to believe that it isn't based on faith, but still not the best answer, is that it is based on indirect evidence, that is, a past deposition, we can only examine and dicree a plausable explination for the indications we find throughout the fossil record, genetics, and the like.------------------

"If Noah had taken babies on board the ark with him,the word "mate" would be quite innacurate...babie animals have no mate,thats a basic principle of zoology."
--Right, mate isn't the right word, as it isn't the literal meaning."Furthermore,animals dont come programmed with all the knowledge they require to survive. They have to be taught certain things by their parents and require protection from other animals...that too is a basic principle of Biology...Who would have taught the animals what kind of food was good for them,how to recognize dangerous animals,and so on to the babies that supposadly came on the ark?"
--For one, Noah didn't snatch them from the mommies canal right after it popped out and threw it on the ark, the baby could have been at a somewhat mature age, a couple months to a couple years old. And being not as specialized in their diet, it would have been less of a factor. They would have recognized the dangers of various animals a little bit after the Flood when God gave his creatures the right to eat meat and be omnivorous/carniverous. When they saw them comeing, they would get out of there, and thus, spread over the planet."And also,dinosaurs,being reptiles,attain maturity within a year...that means that even if Noah had taken babies diplodocus on the ark with him,he would have had fully grown diplodocus by the time he got off the ark."
--Oh my goodness, to reach a full grown size (actually there isn't one for reptiles) for any dinosaur in a year, implying that full grown is the equivelant of the multi-ton animal, you would have to increase celluar replication million/billion fold! Also, as I stated reptiles don't really have a full grown state, repitles such as iguanas and other lizards, thus including dinosaurs, do not stop growing, dinosaurs could have just been overgrown lizards in unique characteristics, assuming it was the other way around, say one type of dinosaur didn't die out and was still abundant today, and the komodo dragon were the extinct one, the komodo would have been just as amazing as the rest of the dinosaurs."And since these animals would have been fed by men most of their lives,there is no way that they couldn't have learned to survive on their own in what would have been,lets face it,a completely different world that what they left behind when they alledgedly went on the ark."
--How could they not adapt after the flood, they were not as specialized and thus could attain more environmental pressure than today for many of the kinds, wherever one prey migrated, the predator would follow its migratory pattern.------------------

"1)I thought you lot said animals started eating each other after adam and eve ate the fruit..... Bit befor3e noah that wasn`t it?"
--I sure don't ever remember sayin that "2)I assume you are saying you would have to increase the replication rate that much to attain sizes that we see evidence of in fossils (given that they had no maximum size) in this case a factor of millions/billions would suggest the examples that we find fossils of lived to ages between 10^6 and 10^9 years, Given your assertion of a 6,000 year old universe how?"
--I think millions/billions was exadurative, i didn't do the math myself I admit , I was pointing out that basically, lets say that a baby hatchling dinosaur weighed 6 pounds, so if you wan't to make the thing weigh say 30 tons, you have to have it multiply its weight by a factor of 10,000 in that year. These dinosaurs could have grown practically uniformly and lived for hundreds of years, just like humans, other animals that we know do not stop growing such as beavers, sea turtles, great white sharks, are found to be many times larger than today."3)Not really dinosaurs predominantly walked on 2 legs rather than 4, if say Allosaurs existed today they would be conspicuous as being the only lizards that walked on 2 legs......."
--Most dinosaurs did yes, I do realize your accusation, I was merely pointing out that it would still be seen as unique (especially if it grew to a more emense size). Some lizards can walk or run on 2 legs, but not the way the dinosaurs did.------------------