Creation Museum

[vbnautilus 48]

The error here is many-foldI will focus on the obvious ones.First what was that sound? Was that your microwave exploding from all the negativity?The OT Bible was a collection of letters, stories, poems, and historical records of a people, that were enslaved and their country taken away from them for 2,000 years. The fact that they preserved it is amazing from a purely sociological position.They did this while all recording devices were subject to extremely short life spans.The Jewish religion is a miracle in any sense of the word.The NT Bible is a collection of letters and historical records that had many of the same problems the Jews had. They were a persecuted religion for the first 250+ years of their existence. ( largely mistaken as a branch of Judaism, or maybe not mistaken )But the record of the miracles performed by Christ were written within the lifetime of the people who experienced them. ( The dating of the Gospels supports this, and since they found a few fragments of the book of Matthew from the 1st century AD, we know they are right )Yet there are no records of the miracles being disproved, discounted or fabricated ( except by writers from the 20th century ), even though those hostile to Christianity ( including the Jews ) were the ones largely in power. And unlike the other hundreds of religions in the area (?) they did write things down and we have copies of much of their writings, seeing as how they were world powers and had libraries and stuff.The buddha had many miracle attributed to him, but not until a thousand years after his body was divided and temples built over parts of them. This makes it much more unlikely that they are true.The miracles of the first century church are unique historically.

The prevailing theory is that Sai Baba caused my my microwave to explode. But I don't see how any of what you wrote addresses the issue that I was commenting on: archeological findings have no bearing on the supernatural claims in the bible. But anyways, regarding what you said: eyewitness accounts of an event have been proven totally unreliable even after a delayed recall of only a few minutes, so whether something was written down within a day or a century, written reports are simply not sufficient to establish the details of what really happened.

[Balloon guy 158]

The prevailing theory is that Sai Baba caused my my microwave to explode. But I don't see how any of what you wrote addresses the issue that I was commenting on: archeological findings have no bearing on the supernatural claims in the bible.

But archeology could destroy it?Sounds like a double standard.

But anyways, regarding what you said: eyewitness accounts of an event have been proven totally unreliable even after a delayed recall of only a few minutes, so whether something was written down within a day or a century, written reports are simply not sufficient to establish the details of what really happened.

The notion that 1 or 2 people's eye witness testimony is suspect is one thing. The idea that thousands are is less so.Unless you are using the "Were you there?" defense, which of course is without flaw. Unless that also suffers from a double standard

[Balloon guy 158]

I think the glaring exception here is the insertion of the resurrection into the Gospel of Mark. I don't think the New Testament suffers from the copying problems nearly as much as Misquoting Jesus implies, though.

1st like the quote fix.I am not familiar with the notion that the original Mark didn't have Christ rising from the dead. And being a kind of pivotal part of the story, I would suspect it was always there.

[vbnautilus 48]

But archeology could destroy it?

I don't think I said that. But I'm not sure credibility does work the same both ways, I'll have to think about that.

The notion that 1 or 2 people's eye witness testimony is suspect is one thing. The idea that thousands are is less so.

Sai Baba has millions of people who saw him perform miracles.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think I said that. But I'm not sure credibility does work the same both ways, I'll have to think about that.

One of the many things used to prove the book of mormon as false is the description of large cities and great military battles in North America that no archaeological proof has been found for.

Sai Baba has millions of people who saw him perform miracles.

Well when he rises from the grave having paid the price for the sins of mankind then he can get a book deal. Until then....

[vbnautilus 48]

Well when he rises from the grave having paid the price for the sins of mankind then he can get a book deal. Until then....

How many times does a guy have to be reincarnated to get some respect? Really his haircut should suffice.

[BaseJester 1]

I am not familiar with the notion that the original Mark didn't have Christ rising from the dead. And being a kind of pivotal part of the story, I would suspect it was always there.

I'd be surprised if it's not mentioned in the footnotes of a bible on your shelf. The empty tomb is in all the versions but anything after that (16:9+) is suspect. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...mp;version=NASBWe discussed this in Randy's Easter quiz.

[timwakefield 68]

I don't know, I'm not sure that the bible is questioned as a relevant historical document, minus the fantastical details.

I assume you just mean the NT, since Adam + Eve and the rest of Genesis and all that nonsense is obviously "questioned," to say the least. But yeah, the NT is also anything but an accepted historical document, even if we ignore all the magic. Just a starting point. EDIT: Now I'm gonna go catch-up on the last few pages, but that just jumped out to me while skimming the recent posts.

[brvheart 1,752]

Tim, you should probably re-read Speedz' post and then take a look at yours and see if it was necessary.Also, having a wiki page and a couple fringe believers doesn't mean it's anything but crazies.For instance, I could repeat what you said but change the subject: "Speedz, a flat earth is FAR from being a settled argument. Not only is there still a society dedicated to it. There is also a Wikipedia page!Let's not even start listing all the famous smart people (like Homer) that believed in a flat earth! I got you on this one you Jew bastard!"

[BaseJester 1]

But archeology could destroy it?Sounds like a double standard.

The lesson here is if you invent a religion, don't include unnecessary mundane details you're not 100% sure of. They can only hurt your credibility, not help.

[BaseJester 1]

Tim, you should probably re-read Speedz' post and then take a look at yours and see if it was necessary.

He doesn't agree with Speedz, thus the post. What am I missing?

[timwakefield 68]

Also, having a wiki page and a couple fringe believers doesn't mean it's anything but crazies.For instance, I could repeat what you said but change the subject: "Speedz, a flat earth is FAR from being a settled argument. Not only is there still a society dedicated to it. There is also a Wikipedia page!

Yeah, but if you look at the wikipedia page you'd realize that it's not just crazies and fringe believers.

Richard Dawkins writes that a serious case can be made that Jesus never existed.

Note that he doesn't say he agrees with it, and also note that calling him a crazy would be ludicrous. He's an extremely well-respected scholar in the fields of biology and evolution, regardless of what you think about his God Delusion. It's kind of a shame that that's what he's become so famous for, because his writings about evolution are far more exciting and important.And before you jump on me for, "in the fields of biology and evolution," and pretend that makes his statement irrelevant, note that you'd be ignoring the main point which is that he's an extremely well-respected scholar (in mainstream scientific fields). Also though, the idea that Jesus was a myth is sort of the most extreme example of people questioning the historical accuracy of the NT.

[speedz99 145]

Do we really have to make the distinction between knowing a book is fiction because it's clearly historically inaccurate and the fact that you can't assume it's nonfiction just because it is based on some true events? I mean, that's kind of how many writers in Hollywood make a living. Not that it's exactly the same thing, but you get the idea.

[brvheart 1,752]

minus the fantastical details.

I assume you just mean the NT, since Adam + Eve and the rest of Genesis and all that nonsense is obviously "questioned," to say the least.

What am I missing?

^^^^

[brvheart 1,752]

Yeah, but if you look at the wikipedia page you'd realize that it's not just crazies and fringe believers. Note that he doesn't say he agrees with it, and also note that calling him a crazy would be ludicrous. He's an extremely well-respected scholar in the fields of biology and evolution, regardless of what you think about his God Delusion. It's kind of a shame that that's what he's become so famous for, because his writings about evolution are far more exciting and important.And before you jump on me for, "in the fields of biology and evolution," and pretend that makes his statement irrelevant, note that you'd be ignoring the main point which is that he's an extremely well-respected scholar (in mainstream scientific fields). Also though, the idea that Jesus was a myth is sort of the most extreme example of people questioning the historical accuracy of the NT.

My point: you've made it.From your link:"Dawkins, citing G.A. Wells, sees the gospels as rehashed versions of the Hebrew Bible, and writes that it is probable Jesus existed, but that a serious argument can be mounted against it, though not a widely supported one."

[timwakefield 68]

My point: you've made it.From your link:"Dawkins, citing G.A. Wells, sees the gospels as rehashed versions of the Hebrew Bible, and writes that it is probable Jesus existed, but that a serious argument can be mounted against it, though not a widely supported one."

I don't think I made your point actually. No it's not a widely believed hypothesis - that's what I meant by saying it's the most extreme example of respected scholars questioning the historic validity of the NT. Surely there are endless debates about the historic validity of other, somewhat less germane parts of the NT.

[Roll the Bones 74]

? 100s?I don't get this thinking. You assume that hundreds of religions just ignored books because...you say so?Its way too obvious that you are too comfortable making up facts with no basis at all for their validity. The Jews copied down their text with reverence. They would wash their hands before picking up the pen, copy, then set the pen down and wash again. They had a numbering system to count letters and if the sums didn't match by one number, the entire scroll was demoted to study only,. not to be used in their temples. Saying the Jews were good at protecting their Holy Scripture is like saying the US is good at war.We do not have complete collections from Shakespeare, which was 200 years, and we are looking at the Torah which is 4-5,000 years as being accurate and complete. That is a big big big difference than what you are saying and implying.Again, completely loose with the facts. you have nothing but a book written by some guy in the last year or two quoting some guy from a couple years ago saying this stuff. There is NO facts to back up what you say.You know why Christians are the largest source of funding for archaeological digs in the Holy Land? Because we aren't afraid of what we find. Our side gets excited when they find an ancient manuscript, because we are looking for perfection. Your side is looking for excuses. And that's why your side is nothing but make believe.The chances that you could prove one of the above bolded is Zero point zero percent. And that's being generous.But quick, say the birth of Christ story comes from the story of Osiris, when her husband dies and his body was chopped up and spread around the world, and she went around collecting the pieces and then had sex with it. That's where Chrisitans got the concept of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ.Those were all basic ABC theology questions. Not even remotely related to scriptural criticism. at least not by anyone who understand scriptural criticism. You pick the best example there, I'll give you the answer a first year theology student would give you. After his first month.

My point was simple.1. If the original manuscripts are inspired, we don't have them. 2. What we do have, while overall reliable and fairly easily examined for error, still leaves some serious questions of textual manipulation by scribes that makes several key passages difficult to stand upon for important doctrines. This is, in fact, is not a great a secret. There are a great number of books from all backgrounds and degrees of belief that acknowledge these types of issues. Ehrman, himself believes in God and is considered a very knowledgeable theologian, but he isn't alone, he just wrote it in such a way that a layman could understand it. Attacking him personally does nothing for your arguement.It seems clear that the Gospels are not so well textually preserved as some people would have us imagine and that there exist many variations which have profound effects upon the meaning of texts and theological issues. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the earliest manuscripts were the ones that hold the most dissagreement. Ignoring those and saying, "well, they all say Jesus was the Saviour" doesn't really cut it.It calls into questions many of Christianities most profound doctrines, e.g. marraige, divorce, atonement, and many of Jesus other purported views, which leads me and others to sincerely question whether in fact the original bible is "divinely inspired" and that undoubtedly the authors weren't. All of this is simply calling into question the written bible, which is a large part of why you "believe" and the moral precepts that are proclaimed within. I haven't even questioned those, though we could, pretty easily.

[BaseJester 1]

^^^^

Meaning you classify all of Genesis as fantastical details?

[Balloon guy 158]

My point was simple.1. If the original manuscripts are inspired, we don't have them.

You can only prove this by showing where the current versions are wrong.

2. What we do have, while overall reliable and fairly easily examined for error, still leaves some serious questions of textual manipulation by scribes that makes several key passages difficult to stand upon for important doctrines. This is, in fact, is not a great a secret. There are a great number of books from all backgrounds and degrees of belief that acknowledge these types of issues. Ehrman, himself believes in God and is considered a very knowledgeable theologian, but he isn't alone, he just wrote it in such a way that a layman could understand it. Attacking him personally does nothing for your arguement.It seems clear that the Gospels are not so well textually preserved as some people would have us imagine and that there exist many variations which have profound effects upon the meaning of texts and theological issues. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the earliest manuscripts were the ones that hold the most dissagreement. Ignoring those and saying, "well, they all say Jesus was the Saviour" doesn't really cut it.It calls into questions many of Christianities most profound doctrines, e.g. marraige, divorce, atonement, and many of Jesus other purported views, which leads me and others to sincerely question whether in fact the original bible is "divinely inspired" and that undoubtedly the authors weren't. All of this is simply calling into question the written bible, which is a large part of why you "believe" and the moral precepts that are proclaimed within. I haven't even questioned those, though we could, pretty easily.

You keep making nice comfortable broad brush statements about how the Bible is so easily disproven, yet you refuse to list some examples of these major tenets that are in limbo.The rest of the scholarly world looks at the differences and work on finding the most accurate translations. You guys look at two different manuscripts and pretend that the one written in Latin ( a hard language to translate into English and has many examples of corruption in regional areas which are easy to pin down ) is to be granted equal status to a version 500 years earlier that is supported by thousands of corroborating texts.If your goal is to cast dispersions, you have approached it correctly.If you want to find truth, your approach is seriously flawed.

[Balloon guy 158]

We can take the letters written by early church fathers that quote all the major tenets, all the minor ones, and most of the obscure ones.Then we grab the ten thousand copies and compare the entire thing verse by verse. There is no confusing, there is no doubt, there is no reasonable person who would make the statements you are saying.

[brvheart's I Phone 0]

Meaning you classify all of Genesis as fantastical details?

You want to 'get' me so badly, that you're not even making sense. I'm not the one that said that. Speedz did, and yes Speedz thinks most, if not all of Genesis, is fantastical.

[BaseJester 1]

You want to 'get' me so badly, that you're not even making sense. I'm not the one that said that. Speedz did, and yes Speedz thinks most, if not all of Genesis, is fantastical.

Sometimes I'm trying to "get" you as in "gotcha", but here I'm trying to "get" you as in understand what you are saying.Speedz' post that you quoted does not assert that Genesis has no historical relevance. He might think that, but he didn't assert it there.Genesis has some historical claims, like civilization starting between the Tigris and Euphrates and a big flood, that strike me as pretty likely.These below look like historical claims that archaeology might confirm. Or not. I dunno.

1 And it came about in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of [a]Goiim, 2 that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 All these came as allies to the valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, came and [c]defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim and the Zuzim in Ham and the Emim in [d]Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their Mount Seir, as far as El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and [e]conquered all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazazon-tamar. 8 And the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah and the king of Admah and the king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) came out; and they arrayed for battle against them in the valley of Siddim, 9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of [f]Goiim and Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five. 10 Now the valley of Siddim was full of tar pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell [g]into them. But those who survived fled to the hill country. 11 Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food supply, and departed. 12 They also took Lot, Abram’s nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom.

The point both vb and Speedz were making is that if archaeology confirms a historical part (like Amraphel was a king of Shinar), that's not a reason to infer that the part about the rib is also correct. Nevertheless, if the historical parts were wrong, it would damage the bible's credibility. I think this is where Tim was going with his post, and I think you are unfair to say it was redundant.

[speedz99 145]

Speedz thinks most, if not all of Genesis, is fantastical.

Maybe certain stories, like the flood and the original tribes, were based on fact. But I think it's likely that those are basically fairy tales, verbally passed down from generation to generation, until they were finally written down and became part of an official religion. Kind of like the Native Americans had a strong tradition of stories about how the earth was created and how the tribes were split up, which probably eventually would have become written and part of organized religion as well, had we not interrupted their progress.

The point both vb and Speedz were making is that if archaeology confirms a historical part (like Amraphel was a king of Shinar), that's not a reason to infer that the part about the rib is also correct. Nevertheless, if the historical parts were wrong, it would damage the bible's credibility.

Yup. It would seem unfair, but obviously there should be a much higher burdon of proof for things that would shatter the laws of nature as we know them.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Maybe certain stories, like the flood and the original tribes, were based on fact. But I think it's likely that those are basically fairy tales, verbally passed down from generation to generation, until they were finally written down and became part of an official religion. Kind of like the Native Americans had a strong tradition of stories about how the earth was created and how the tribes were split up, which probably eventually would have become written and part of organized religion as well, had we not interrupted their progress. Yup. It would seem unfair, but obviously there should be a much higher burdon of proof for things that would shatter the laws of nature as we know them.

It also speaks to why the older the story the more fantastical they are, which falls in line with most stories as they are passed down through generations. In the early versions people lived a thousand years and that age slowly crept down as did other fantastical stories as the OT came closer to the end and presumably the people that were writing it. You can't fudge as much when people know that it isn't true. This was true for all kinds of events as well, not simply people's age. Not that this is proof, it's simply more of the background noise associated with it all.

[Balloon guy 158]

It also speaks to why the older the story the more fantastical they are, which falls in line with most stories as they are passed down through generations. In the early versions people lived a thousand years and that age slowly crept down as did other fantastical stories as the OT came closer to the end and presumably the people that were writing it. You can't fudge as much when people know that it isn't true. This was true for all kinds of events as well, not simply people's age. Not that this is proof, it's simply more of the background noise associated with it all.

Age changed dramatically all at once after the flood.Pre-flood= 900+ yearsPost-flood = <130 yearsYou evolutionist should understand this, a perfect person would live a lot longer, but as corruption enters the system, the life span decreases considerably.