What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[bumab]

that was pretty much a random post that seemed to make sense at the time, now that i'm at school and i'm looking at it i totally forget why i posted that. yes i've read it, though.

is it true the "new" testament was written 2000 or so years ago? (i believe i saw biochemist say something like this in another thread recently, i just forget what....gosh, me and my forgetfullness)

 

Yeah, and it's in another thread, so we shouldn't get into it here, but there is little doubt that the majority of the New Testament was written onto a durable media no more then 150 years after year 0, so about 2000 years ago. Most likely it was copied from a less durable medium before that, but we really have no way of knowing either way.

[Zohaar818]

... the old testament has been painstakingly coppied by hand; by jewish scribes whose job it was to make sure that the copy was exactly like the original since the time moses wrote the penatuch - (2000 bc or so). Thirdly we have more bits and peices and entire sections of text, of manuscripts dating back to the first century (and shortly thereafter) of the new testament than any other book that old known to man. The idea that what we have today is different than the original is nothing more than a myth.:)

 

I mean ..you're kidding ..right? Have you ever heard of the Council of Nicea..or of the Apocryphal texts..the Gospel of Philip, Of Thomas and of Mary [the Magdalene]?

Are you aware of how the books were assembled, edited, recopied and re-edited throughout the last 2,000 years. Where on earth did you get your assumptions?

 

The Creation of the Old Testament

The books of the Bible that make up the Old Testament were created and assembled over a long period of time. The oldest sections existed in oral form long before they were recorded; in some cases, multiple versions of stories were blended together to create the books we know today. The first five books of the Old Testament contain the oldest material, but the ancient stories were blended with more recent material as they moved from oral tradition to written document. The various threads were drawn together to form the Hebrew Bible in the ninth and tenth centuries AD. Translations into Greek began as early as the third century BC although a complete Greek Bible did not exist until much later.

Biblical scholars trace four different sources for the first five books of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible. The earliest of the four sources, known as the Yahwist or J, was first recorded about 950 BC. This material was blended with other material from a source known as the Elohist or E, first recorded a century or two later. Later editions came from a source known as Deuteronomy or D and a Priestly document, known as P. This last source dates from about 538-450 BC. The D source is found only in Deuteronomy and Joshua; the E source begins with the story of Abraham.

 

The Sources in Genesis

Thus the material that we are reading in Genesis is a combination of material from two sources, J (the oldest source) and P (the most recent source). The two sources are fairly easy to identify by how each refers to God and how these references are translated and printed. The Yahwist uses the Hebrew word Yahweh, generally thought of as the proper name of God; it is usually translated as Lord God or Lord and is traditionally printed in all capital letters (i.e. LORD GOD). The P source, uses the Hebrew Elohim, a more generic term for God, which is translated as God and printed with only the first letter capitalized. Thus, the P source is responsible for the first chapter of Genesis, while Genesis 2 comes from J. The two sources are more blended in the Noah story, but can still be traced by paying attention to the references to God.

 

Now for an opposing view you can go here...http://www.bibleorigins.net/ bit I doubt it will provide any comfort or support for your quoted position on the subject...

Then there's this one...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html

 

And a couple more to round out your knowledge of early Christian texts...

http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha/

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/ [which i find most revelatory regarding the early hebrew [Old Testament] text s which were once in and then out of the 'official' version.

 

BTW..Bible scholars are now willing to conceed that half of the Bible is based on purely unsubstantiated 'fact'...and that to this day no carving, standing stone, or archeological dig has revealed any evidence whatsoever that Solomon or his Temple ever existed.

Go figure....

[Biochemist]

I mean ..you're kidding ..right? Have you ever heard of the Council of Nicea..or of the Apocryphal texts..the Gospel of Philip, Of Thomas and of Mary [the Magdalene]?

Are you aware of how the books were assembled, edited, recopied and re-edited throughout the last 2,000 years. Where on earth did you get your assumptions?

You and Beaker seem to be on different topics. Beaker was corroborating the age of some of the texts (some of which you confirmed). We were not talking about how individual texts got assembled into the document we now call the Bible.

 

The Masoretes were highly skilled at painstaking transcription of Old Testament documents. The oldest Masoretic text is from about 900AD and it an accurate transcription when compared to Dead Sea scroll sources that predate the Masoretes by about 1200 years.

...The first five books of the Old Testament contain the oldest material, but the ancient stories were blended with more recent material as they moved from oral tradition to written document. The various threads were drawn together to form the Hebrew Bible in the ninth and tenth centuries AD.

But the source documents all existed far earlier. I suspect your discussion of oral history does apply to the text before genesis 12 (creation, Noah/flood, tower of babel) but there is probably some written record as soon as the patriarchs arrive, starting with Abraham in Genesis 12.

Biblical scholars trace four different sources for the first five books of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible.

This four-source model (J,E,D,P) is commonly called the Documentary Hypothesis. As far as I know, it has been held in low regard since the '60's or '70s among most textual scholars. Conservative scholars pretty much always rejected it. Even liberal scholars do not (I believe) hold to this generally anymore.

 

I have not yet looked through your links, but your final statement about corroboration of Biblical facts is a little odd. The view that the Bible was weakly corroborated was pretty common in the late 1800s and the early 1900. Generally , most folks think the Bible is accurate in most historical detail now. It is generally used as a credible source document in any archaeological exercize.

[eMTee]

multiple versions of stories were blended together to create the books we know today.

And none of them can be proven fake and inacurate in geology...only the lack of strong evidence makes it unclear, which is expect in time and environment, and it's wethering of such evidence.

 

and that to this day no carving, standing stone, or archeological dig has revealed any evidence whatsoever that Solomon or his Temple ever existed.

 

I got this off of CBS newspage..

 

The inscription on an ancient stone tablet detailing repair plans for the Jewish Temple of King Solomon. (Photo: AP)

 

 

 

"Our findings show that it is authentic."

Shimon Ilani

Israel's Geological Institute

 

 

 

(AP) Israeli geologists said Monday they have examined a stone tablet detailing repair plans for the Jewish Temple of King Solomon that, if authenticated, would be a rare piece of physical evidence confirming biblical narrative.

 

The find - whose origin is murky - is about the size of a legal pad, with a 15-line inscription in ancient Hebrew that strongly resembles descriptions in the Bible's Book of Kings. It could also strengthen Jewish claims to a disputed holy site in Jerusalem's Old City that is now home to two major mosques.

 

Muslim clerics insist, despite overwhelming archaeological evidence, that no Jewish shrine ever stood at the site. That claim was made by Palestinian officials in failed negotiations with Israel in 2000 over who would be sovereign there.

 

The origin of the stone tablet is unclear, making it difficult to establish authenticity.

 

The Israeli daily Haaretz on Monday quoted an unidentified source as saying it was uncovered in recent years, during renovations carried out by the Muslim administrators of the mosque compound known to Muslims as the Haram as-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary, and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

 

From there, it reached a major antiquities collector in Jerusalem, Haaretz said. The Holy Land has a thriving trade in antiquities, often operating on the edge of the law.

 

The sandstone tablet has a 15-line inscription in ancient Hebrew that resembles descriptions in Kings II, 12:1-6, 11-17, said Israel's Geological Survey, which examined the artifact. The words refer to King Joash, who ruled the area 2,800 years ago.

 

In it, the king tells priests to take "holy money ... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labor to carry out the duty with faith." If the work is completed well, "the Lord will protect his people with blessing," reads the last sentence of the inscription.

 

The Jerusalem collector has declined to come forward, and David Zailer, a lawyer for the collector, would not say where the tablet was found or give any further details.

 

Gabriel Barkai, a biblical archaeologist, said the collector asked the Israel Museum to determine the authenticity of the inscription and was told the museum's experts could not rule out a forgery. The Israel Museum declined comment Monday.

 

The collector then took the tablet to Israel's Geological Institute, whose experts studied it over the past year. "Our findings show that it is authentic," said Shimon Ilani, who performed geological tests on the inscription. Carbon dating confirms the writing goes back to the 9th century B.C., he said.

 

In the outer layer, Ilani and his colleagues found microscopic flecks of gold that could have been burnt into the stone when a building containing both the tablet and gold objects was destroyed.

 

This could mean the tablet was actually part of Solomon's Temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., said Amos Bean, director of the institute.

 

"These specks of gold are not natural material, but a sign of human activity," said Bean. "They could be from gold-plated objects in the home of a very rich man, or a temple. ... It's hard to believe that anyone would know how to do these things to make it look real."

 

The stone itself was probably from the Dead Sea area and was originally whiter than its current dark gray, Bean said.

 

Hershel Shanks, editor of the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology Review, said the tablet, if authentic, would be "visual, tactile evidence that reaches across 2,800 years."

 

Barkai said the inscription's resemblance to biblical passages "has far-reaching implications of the historical importance of the biblical text."

 

Several other inscriptions excavated in recent years refer to characters or events from the Bible. A stone inscription found in northern Israel includes the phrase "house of David." Most experts consider this to be the first ancient writing outside the Bible that refers to King David or the Davidic line of kings, which has corroborated the basic history of the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

Adnan Husseini, the director of the Islamic Trust that administers the Jerusalem mosque compound, denied Monday the tablet was found during renovation work there.

 

In recent years, the Islamic Trust has turned an underground vault in the compound into a large prayer area, prompting complaints by Israeli archaeologists that important artifacts are being destroyed. At one point, the archaeologists said truckloads of soil from the holy site were dumped un-inspected into the nearby Kidron Valley.

 

The mosque compound is Islam's third-holiest site, while the adjacent Western Wall, the last remnant of the second Jewish Temple compound, is Judaism's holiest site. Most rabbis ban Jews from entering the Temple Mount for religious purity reasons.

 

When Israel conquered east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war, it permitted Muslim clergy to continue administering the hilltop area to avoid conflict with the Muslim world.

 

The mystery surrounding the stone tablet - its murky origins, appearance on the private antiquities market and a collector unwilling to come forward - mirrors the controversy over an inscription on an ancient burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus.

 

The burial box, or ossuary, had the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," leading some to believe it was used to store the remains of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Other experts said the inscription might be a forgery.

[Fishteacher73]

I believe I saw something about the fellow that "found" this item. He has been charged with making fake artifacts before and his house was raided. They found all the tools and supplies to create such a hoax (propper stone, soil samples, engraving equipment. etc.).

[eMTee]

goelogical findings around the "temple site" also point to the possability of it being real.

 

How could the tablet be of authentic ancient Hebrew text, and also dates to around 6th certery AD. I know that his lack of explianing where he got it rases some big questions.

[C1ay]

I supose that this is not evidence enough that the Bible is a strangly consistent and unique book, unlike any other book in the world?

Consistent? Please explain these. Here's some excerpts you can start with:

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

 

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.

GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.

NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

 

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.

JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.

LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).

1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).

RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

 

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.

EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

 

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

 

EX 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary).

GA 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).

 

EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.

MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.

 

EX 34:6-7, HE 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.

JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.

 

and hundreds more inconsistencies to keep you busy.

[Queso]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[bumab]

I didn't really want to get involved, but these aren't fair, C-

 

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

Poetic, not supposed to represent factual, concrete things.

 

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

 

Subject to death after eating the fruit, not neccessarily going to die. Regardless, most likely metaphorical.

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

 

Talking about two different things, and besides, Cain and Abel are likely metaphorical.

 

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.

GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.

NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

 

Jury is still out as to the origins of the Nephilim folk.

 

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.

JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.

LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).

1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).

RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

 

No one is righteous enough to be perfect without grace. Righteousness something nobody can achieve by themselves (nobody is perfect, something we can all agree in). Noah, Job, et al were only righteous through God. Besides, it's an ideal. You aren't so stringent with the word "good," why with righteous?

 

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.

EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

 

Poetical, of course. Let's not get overly silly here.

 

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.

HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

 

Ishmael was a son through a concubine, so could be considered a half-son, since he was born not of Abraham's wife, Sarah. In fact, God told Abraham (according to the story) to wait until Sarah bore a son, but he couldn't wait, and went to his concubine to concieve Ishmael. So it's very conceivable that in a culture so concerned with who begat whom, Ishamael could be considered a non-son at times.

 

EX 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary).

GA 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).

 

I'm not familiar with this one, however the "law" is taken as a literary term by Paul, so any literalist translation of Pauls letters is just as dangerous as a literalist interpritation of an personal letter.

 

EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.

MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.

 

The spirit of the law was emphaized in the New Testament, read the whole thing.

 

EX 34:6-7, HE 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.

JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.

 

Most certainly alegorical.

 

Like I said, I didn't want to get involved, but intentionally misinterpriting things to find inconsistancies is simply unacceptable. Much of the Bible is written in a not-literal style, just like our writing today. You can't say Whitman was an idiot because he can't sing a body into existance, yet he says he can in his poems. This is especially true in the older books, as the context is so distant from us that any interpritation must be made very carefully and with the understanding that many of the cultural connotations are lost.

[eMTee]

I have not run into any controdictions in those explanations.

 

EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.

MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.

 

EX 21:23-25, LE 24:20, DT 19:21 (man says) A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.

MT 5:38-44, LK 6:27-29 (God says) Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

I believed that.

 

You only believe in what is physicaly able, materialisic and nothing else.

 

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.

GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

 

Adam did die that day...to the point of eating the forbiden fruit, he lived in God's grace and acumpliment. supose you drank some poison, consider yourself beat, because you are..and death now in inevetable.

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

 

It is correct..lets see...God says remission of sin is only threw blood. fruit does not count.

 

I do not think that their poetic writing and speech makes what their saying not the truth.

 

You can say that the Hebrew religion was a bloody religion, if somone says that it included human sacrifices...then they are totaly wrong, and where did they get that notion?

[C1ay]

Poetic, not supposed to represent factual, concrete things.

Talking about two different things, and besides, Cain and Abel are likely metaphorical.

Poetical, of course. Let's not get overly silly here.

Most certainly alegorical.

So it's consistent, but not literally? Is that supposed to be some kind of metaphorical fact or something?

[Queso]

So it's consistent, but not literally? Is that supposed to be some kind of metaphorical fact or something?

 

:D maybe they are alluding to the metaphorical truth through unconcistency???!!! :)

[eMTee]

There are some chriesians that go with metaphorical when it comes to some stories..even stories that The Bible has as historical record.

 

I believe that if the Bible talks claims that they are true, then they are. It is so with the stories of Soddum and Gamorah (if I got the spelling wrond, sorry), Noah and the flood, Adam and Eve and Cain and Abal. such stories that might not be true stories are the parables that Jesus teches, in order to get a point across.

[bumab]

That's why I didn't want to get involved... obviously, I'm not a literalist.

 

But yes, things can be true and not literally true. Parables, sayings, legends- they can communicate truth. Washington chopping down the cherry tree did not literally happen, yet that story communicates a truth- you should tell the truth about things. Aesops fables communicate truth, yet did not literally happen. The Illiad has many truths about human's, yet did not happen as is told literally in the story.

 

I understand your gripes with literalism. I have the same ones. But an assumption that a grand book of various writings taken from various times in various cultures would all be under the banner of literal, historical writing is simplistic and obviously a fallacy.

[C1ay]

But yes, things can be true and not literally true.

I wonder what the case is with:

Sodom and Gomorrah

Noah and the flood,

Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel

 

MT seems to think they are literally true.

[bumab]

Yes, MT does. He's not the only one, either, to subscribe to a literal interpritation of certain Biblical texts. But it's certainly not the only point of view espoused by the religious community, and it's probably the minority.

 

I was responding to your assertation that the Bible has some glaring inconsistencies, not in support of a literal interpritation of non-literal writings. Hope that clears up my statement. :)

[BEAKER]

I wonder what the case is with:

Sodom and Gomorrah

Noah and the flood,

Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel

 

MT seems to think they are literally true.

That is my personal point of view as well.:hihi: