|
|
|
Topic: CREATION OR EVOLUTION
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
There is good evidence through scripture that not only is the gap there, but also an earth-age before this one. That earth-age was destroyed by God at the overthrow of Satan. The first mention of this comes in Jeremiah. There are many mis-translations in the bible. The ones who translated the King James Bible did warn us in the preface that they did the best they could at the time it was written. So for me there is no conflict between archeology and my belief.
|
|
|
The forget not that people in bible times doesnt have the science proof of today. The credibility of the bible has been undermined by science. Religions have a purpose that people don't see: To control peoples behaviors. It does totally unnatural to say sex is bad for example. And to preach no such thing as objective truth is bad. Objective truth is real. Just because a criminal is found innocent doesnt change the fact he did the crime for example provided he actually did. So does there a god? The maybe. Does the bible incorrect alot? yes. The and all peoples are not all related. If Adam and Eve true then along time ago people die of inbreed related diseases. Plus no living being on Earth can live to a 800 year old much less a ancient times. Time to say good bye to Christianity and dogma religions alltogeather. What is objectively good for people is different then what the bible say's.
|
|
|
Philidor is assuming the Bible is not the Word of God. If it has truly been revealed by God, then it has nothing to prove; God surely knows more than scientists.
BTW, for a situation similar to Genesis 2's giving more details on the story of chapter 1, compare Daniel 3:7 with the verses that come after. Verse 7 says everyone worshiped the statue that Nebuchadnezzar had had built, but the rest of the chapter is about the 3 Jews who did NOT worship it. This is simply the style of Semitic writing at the time: State something categorically, and then give more details or exceptions. It's the same for Genesis 1 and 2.
|
|
|
Gil, what you are saying is a combination of several views, and it may nor may not be true. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, for example, it was amazing that those 2000-year-old manuscripts were nearly identical to what we have now. Jewish scribes were VERY careful about copying exactly.
If one believes that the inspiration for the Bible came from God, it is not difficult to believe that He has also protected it from significant errors creeping in.
So called "scientific" criticism of the Bible is given much publicity, but when that criticism is found to be wrong, and the Bible right, it is not given much publicity. For example, in the 1800s some made fun of the Old Testament because it mentioned the Hittites as a nationality, and since they were not mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible, critics assumed that they had never existed, and this "proved" that it was only a legend. However, at the end of that century references were found to the Hittites elsewhere, which proved that they had actually been a very great nation before the Hebrews left Egypt. And yet this is not told to many.
|
|
|
| tewald wrote: So called "scientific" criticism of the Bible is given much publicity, but when that criticism is found to be wrong, and the Bible right, it is not given much publicity. For example, in the 1800s some made fun of the Old Testament because it mentioned the Hittites as a nationality, and since they were not mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible, critics assumed that they had never existed, and this "proved" that it was only a legend. However, at the end of that century references were found to the Hittites elsewhere, which proved that they had actually been a very great nation before the Hebrews left Egypt. And yet this is not told to many. |
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Sure, nobody really mentions the evidence for the existence of the Hittites any more but that's because nobody really claims that they didn't exist any more. Likewise, nobody really mentions the rebuttals of the phlogiston theory of combustion for the same reason: nobody seriously advances the theory as being true any more.
Such is the way of the world: failed arguments are forgotten and, once the argument is forgotten, the counter-argument is redundant. Especially if the argument failed well over a hundreed years ago. Do you have anything more recent?
|
| Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next |
|
|
|
