Christians dont see the errors in the ideas of evolutions, and therefor conclude that there must be a living God with a personal relationship to us instead.

God has personally interacted with man since Day One - has revealed His nature and character to us, has clearly indicates what He desires our relationship with Him to be.

That is what our faith and belief is based on. Not what we see in the physics lab, but what God has communicated to us, and to our ancestors over thousands of years.

And the concept of what is right and wrong is not personal and subjective. You can put everthing to the test, and see for youself what things are good and right, and what things are evil and destroy you , and the people around you.

evolutionsist follow the opposite path -they believe by studying rocks and insect fossils they can prove the God of the bible was not resonsible for the creation of life, and therefor they ARE free to come up with their own subjective concepts of what is right and wrong

EVEN WHEN they can put their own set of rules to the test, and see that their own lives are destroyed as a result.

they are not looking for truth, they are looking for rational and excuses to do whatever they please.

I disagree.

I believe that people that study evolution study it for the same reason that others search space with the hubble telesope and others search ways to make more lubricative engine oil.

We have sent out scientists to not seek out the meaning of life, but to understand the nature of life. How does life operate. How does space work. What is the nature of engine oil(that was a weak example). Why are these fossils here. I don't think that it needs to be a cosmic battle between religion and science. At this point, I don't think that a good scientist, a real scientist has as their mission to disprove the bible.

They seek answers to questions just as you do. It is the religious bodies that have turned it into a battle between science and religion. It was the religious bodies that fought against Darwin. Why? That is the question. Why is always the question. No matter what we discuss, its not the what, the when and the how but the why that drives us.

I believe that religious people can't accept that one part of the bible may have been interpreted incorrectly because it would invalidate their faith. "If I can't reconcile evolution with the book of Genesis, what does that mean for the rest of it?"

I said misinterpreted, not misunderstood. I think 1000 people could read the bible and interpret it in many ways. You have, Ken. Not that Koresh was a positive definition of a christian by any means, but he read the bible and interpreted it to mean that he was the messiah. You have interpreted the bible to have a very literal meaning, from what I have seen. Others see it as a more, I don't know-open meaning.

I have a hard time accepting "truth". I have come to the conclusion that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think that science and religion constantly have to be at opposite sides of the scale.

by definition, truth is that which exists independant of the beholder

your definition of truth is properly called opinion.

but even that - physicist have discovered that subatomic particles only act a certain way when they are being observed

so if nobody is observing them, they no longer exist in our normal way of thinking

which tends to imply that the entire universe is nothing but a simulation that exists only in the mind of God

in fact, this bothered one physicist so much, that he committed suicide.

and it also lines up exactly with something Jesus said: "I am the truth"

not 'I know the truth, or I speak the truth'

He IS the truth.

My definition implies that we interpret truth. You interpret the words of who you call Jesus everytime you read the bible. Using your brand of logic, you interpret the truth ( in your opinion)

HEY! we agree on something!

(Im scared now :c)

I think the way we interact with the outside world is that we form a little model of what we experience, and we add to it over the years

kinda like making a scale model of a railroad system, on a train board. We dont really interact with the real world directly most of the time - we consult our model in our brain (our interpretation) and we think things through first: if I do this then that will happen, then this other thing...

then we go out and do it.

Since the world is so vast and complex we cant possible understand every aspect of it - so we function based on what our internal model tells us to expect.

Its really a huge limitation - many people never try new things, or investigate stuff they never experienced, because they dont think it will work, or they dont think they will like it.

So what you think is true and correct is really your internal model of how you have interpreted the world so far. One of the cool things in life is when you meet someone and talk to them about life, and discover they have the same model of the universe that you do.

I think than when you meet many people who have the same understanding about a subject that you do, and they have reached it independantly from you, that verifies your interpretiation is correct - esp if they have real life experiences that support their view of the world.

Ive seen this with Christianity many times - met people from all over the world, who learned about God from many different sources, and they all have the same basic concept of who God is , and what our relationship with Him is. In otherwords, we may have all started with the same text (the Bible), be we all independantly came to interpret it the same way.

BTW - this internal model thing is also why some people frequently fail in things they try, and conclude the world is not fair. They expect the world (and people) to act like their internal model predicts they should, and when the world responds differently, when people dont do what they think they should, they think that life is not fair, or something is wrong with those people.

If you dont keep updating your understanding of the world all through your life, then at some point you are going to be stuck, and you wont be able to deal with reality as it actually is.

After 3 1/2 pages, we have found common ground

A lot of people refer to what you have talked about as paradigms. I saw a video on it with more of a business spin to it, but it applies to a lot more than that. One of their examples was the swiss watch makers. When looking at the quartz movement technology, they refused to believe that it would be accepted by the public who were used to their superior mechanical watches. The watch makers were stuck in the paradigm that the mecahnical way was the only way.

The japanese brought the quartz movement watch to market and obliterated the swiss.

I think if people can keep an open mind to new ideas, and judge them as they are, and make a decision based on those grounds they are fine. Its when people look at it through their paradigms, they don't see everything.

I can see that you judge evolution through the religion paradigm. I'm sure you can say the same thing about me and science.

If we agree on something, does that mean we have to stop debating?

johnnyk,

I'm not quite sure what I said that was unintelligent, or unthinking. I've had the last 29 years to think about it, investigate, re-investigate, read, re-read, discuss.

You know I've been able to OBJECTIVELY back up what I believe. I've never asked people to accept it "on faith". I have secularly verifiable proofs. I obviously have no eyewitness account of something that happened 2000 years ago, but cases are tried on circumstantial evidence daily.

The reality is after 29 years of investigating, I would have to be biased and intellectually dishonest to NOT believe what I do.

alright, then what are some facts that made you believe.. Specific points that changed your views? And I don't mean you thought 'this can't be random'.. i mean what happened specifically? curious here..

I dont think its exactly right to say that people view new subjects with the pre-judgement of their internal models (paradigms)

I think its more that we have build up a base of what we believe (know?) is correct, and then we test it against new things.

And that is where you have to be really carefull with your logic and reasoning, before you allow new observations to update your internal model. If I got out my logic and reasoning textbook and went through a few of the religious threads on this forum, like a professor grading a report, the pages would be full of red marks.

Most people think they are being logical and reasonable, when they are not. Darwin was guilty of this - he saw minor changes in species, some birds had longer beaks than others, observed that species adapt WITHIN their own kind to their environment

and then made the fallicy of generalization and concluded species also adapt from one into another. He had no idea how that could happen, and its never been explained (or performed in the lab) since then. It sounded like a good idea to him, and millions of people have accepted it

any honest scientist will tell you they have no idea how one species can mutate into another. They hope that it happens in leaps now (instead of gradual changes), but they cant prove it.

I (on the other hand) believe the bible is accurate and factual (for other reasons - which I discussed in the testimony I posted on my aol account) - and the bible states that each creature on the earth reproduces after its own kind

so I already have a source of information that I accept as authentic, which indicates what is possible through evolution, and what is not. And this can be tested and proven correct.

Dont forget that other cultures did not know this - other religions talked of cross breeded humans and animals, and mythical creatures that were combinations of different species. The Bible recorded back in Genesis 1 that this would not be possible.

Did Moses understand DNA, or the details of how all creatures in the world reproduce when he wrote those books of the bible? Or was he given this information by the one who designed DNA in the first place?

One quick thing:

Earlier someone (too lazy to look it up) argued against evolution because entropy says that things become more chaotic and less organized over time. A baby starts out from one undifferentiated cell and becomes a complex organism involving huge numbers of specilized cells. Granted, all that information is built into the first cell, but it is still something basic becoming something complex.

Steve,

There is DESIGN in a cell that results in a baby to keep it from becoming random. It REQUIRES addition of energy to allow that system to happen.

I think you've noticed that when energy is no longer able to be processed by that organism (it dies), it doesn't take long for it to become more chaotic and less organized .

I agree with frontal lobe.

when I was 14 or so, I asked my (Luthran) minister "How do we know the bible is correct"

his answer was "we accept it on faith" - to which my immediate thought was "PPPHHHTTTTBBPBPBPBP!"

It took me many years to learn about the things frontalobe pointed out, and to experience for myself that when you ask Jesus to take over your life, and to change you from the inside out

then real things actually happen - your life is totally changed.

Too many people think religion is 100% based on blind faith. There are things that are yet to come that we accept on faith -but we are not blind. The longer you walk side by side with God, the more things you experience for yourself, and the more faith you have in things that you cannot yet see for yourself.

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-27-2003).]

daniel was written after the predictions came true ie 250 bce NOT in the 600bce time claimed
real eazy to get the facts right after they happen
where are the post greek predictions
fall of rome
darkage ect?????
most bible dates are way off, both for their history and who wrote what when
btw most of daniel is rehashed as the REV of john5

basic facts are the holylands were a egyptian controled area at the time of moses, in fact the wandering jews never left egyptian controled lands AT ANY TIME, up to and including the claimed kingdom of david/soloman
egypt owned the land, and lists battles fought with other empires outside and past the borders of the so called holylands, find the site of KADISH, it is marked on modern maps

""New Empire (toward -1550 - 1069)

The army

Egypt is vulnerable. Pharaon knows that it is to better attack to defend oneself and that the military campaigns are as many shows of force. Buffer states must protect the borders and a news caste, the soldiers, makes his appearance.

Between -1546/-1524, Syria is invaded, Euphrate is reached under Amenophis 1 er which seeks to subject the Asian ones rather than to defend the border. The resistance of the natives is supported by the kingdom of Mitanni.

Thoutmosis III, "Egyptian Napoleon" conducts 17 campaigns in Palestine and Syria, fight against Mitanni and with the coalition of all Western Syria carried out by princes of Kadesh. Each annexation is accompanied by fortification and permanent garrison. Thoutmosis III gains a victory in Karkemish, he is victorious into -1479 in Megiddo against syro-palestinian coalition, in -1474 Kadesh is taken, and Phenicie is occupied. Its army reaches Euphrate and invades Mitanni (-1472). In the south, a forwarding with the country of Koush, pushes back the border until the 4th cataract. The defense of Syria mobilizes the Pharaon of -1471 until his death.

Under its reign, Egypt reaches its greater extension. ""

""At the beginning of the reign of Amenophis II, Syria revolts but in 3 years of countryside, the Egyptian army crushes any resistance and fights against Mitanni (towards -1450 -1425).

About 1408, alliance with Mitanni, prepared by Amenophis II is concluded to counter the power hittite.

Towards -1379 -1362, the religious revolution of Amenophis IV, famous Akhenaton, weakens Egyptian monarchy: this Pharaon lets Hittites crush Mitanni and drive out the Egyptians of Syria and Palestine. Towards -1290, Sethi I beats Hittites and reconquers Palestine. At the beginning of its long reign, Ramses II beats the Chardanes pirates whom it incorporates in his army. Towards -1275, Ramses II gains an undecided victory with Kadesh , against Muwatalli, the king of Hittites. Egypt east in war still 17 years, for subduing revolts in Palestine and Nubia and benefitting from the quarrels of succession at Hittites. But a new danger appears, the sovereign of Assyrie invades Mitanni and carries his border on Euphrate. Hattusili III, king hittite more reconciling, obtains the first peace treaty of the history towards - 1260. Egypt know peace during forty years. ""

please note the total lack of jews and jewish kingdoms in real history of this time 1500-1000 bce and the total lack of egyptian armys in the holylands in the bible but their constant battles there in real history !!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Most of what rayb posted has nothing to do with the time period I mentioned.

What rayb is referring to that is relevant is that many biased historians HAVE to try to make Daniel be written later or if they are to be intellectually honest, then they have to explain how the book of Daniel isn't true. They haven't been able to, and legitimate historians place it as it is supposed to be-600 to late 500's.

Regarding Daniel not predicting the fall of rome, the dark ages, etc. That's just silliness. He wasn't out to predict the entire course of human history. He was specifically interpreting another man's dream. To imply it weakens the validity of what he unbelievably nailed with total accuracy hundreds of years ahead because he didn't continue on to predict things further is absurd.

People have had thousands of years now to try to prove bible dates and history are inaccurate, and your contention that most dates are way off is wrong, unsubstantiated and biased. But that is your typical method, so consistent and predictable.

rayb - where do you come up with this stuff?

the people who lived in egypt at the time of Moses dissapeared without a trace, and left no written history other than the markings on their buildings

and the existance of the markings in no way proves the claims they make are correct. Why do you assume that the claimed history of a people that were scattered, or died off completely is correct, and the recorded history of the jewish people, who can trace their family tree back to Abraham (who was alive when Noah still walked the earth) is all fabricated?

Sounds like you simply hate the jews!

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: rayb - where do you come up with this stuff? the people who lived in egypt at the time of Moses dissapeared without a trace, and left no written history other than the markings on their buildings and the existance of the markings in no way proves the claims they make are correct. Why do you assume that the claimed history of a people that were scattered, or died off completely is correct, and the recorded history of the jewish people, who can trace their family tree back to Abraham (who was alive when Noah still walked the earth) is all fabricated? Sounds like you simply hate the jews!

earth to ken
historians CAN now READ THOSE MARKS ON BUILDINGS they arenot addresses [hyroglifs]
the egyptian's history is the best keap records ever found, and does cross check with others very well like the
summarians, assyrians at the same dates times and places for battles and who won ect
unlike jewish bible history that is 90% or more BS lies and half truth or just madeup storys

please note no bible story ever NAMES A PHARROW or [Pharaon] so we can date him and the story to a known year or even a century!!

if your god was the author, why can't he remember a egyptian kings name EVER!!!!!!
if moses wrote the story then he can't remember the name of a man who was rased as his BROTHER or his stepDADS name eathor!!!
smell something fishie yet???????

""rayb - where do you come up with this stuff?""

all most all of it is from real bible scholers web and book articals, some is from the history chanel, PBS, discovery, tv shows
some is from links posted by others here http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=30&forumid=8

if you did any nonthumper written research
you would know how little is thought of bible based "history" = fairytales is a better name for them!!!!!!!!

abraham and noah are mythic unreal people
or poorly remember tall tales at best
unlike the kings of egypt who were real, fought real battles, at real dates, and left real bodys in real toombs

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I just breezed through Ray's posts, and I can't find my stoner to english dictionary so I didn't get it all

Did I get it straight that christians don't even believe in the egyptian empire?

Ok, I can see where you guys are coming from on the evolution thing. That doesn't mean I'm throwing out my "History of Man" book, but I can understand how you see fault in the theory.

But Egypt? Pyramids, the sphinx and the rosetta stone isn't doin it for ya?

Because I study this stuff "professionally", and plan on getting my Ph.D. in a related field (I'm actually a classicist, but never balk at the opportunity to take classes in the biblical realm), this very academic vs. faith question has forced me into a serious crisis of faith. I posted about that personal issue a few months ago, but have not really made any great strides other than to decide to pursue Judaism. It's a huge rift! It's difficult to look at religion on the one hand, academically, because then religion comes in and your faith (if it's what you believe) just becomes one confusing mess in your head. My latest crisis was to figure out how christianity or any monotheistic religion really, was so very different from the anthropomorphic gods of polytheistic Greece/Rome/Egypt. Why is our bible so "true" and "real", and the Sibylline books or compendium of Greek myth simply "myth". Where is the line drawn between myth and fiction and truth? I've recently taken to reading the Bible as a story, like any other story, but that seems to bother my parents and even bothers me a little but I don't know why. I've found, however, that if I read the bible like it was just another story of Zeus and Hera, that I read it with much more intensity and fervor.
I don't know...
Just my $.02

obviously there was an egyptian nation at the time of Moses - SOMEBODY built the pyramids

but those people, that egyptian nation, dissapeared without a trace - there is nobody on the face of the earth who can trace back their family tree to the pharos, or the people of egypt from that time period. there was nobody who could read the inscriptions on the walls, there was nobody who knew how the pyramids were built.

Its wasnt until the rosatta stone was found that people could even read the inscriptions - that still doenst prove the inscriptions were historically accurate.

the fact that somebody marked up the stone buildings in egypt with a history doesnt make it correct. The history of babablon and other ancient cultures DOES match the biblical accounts of the jewish nation - right down to specific names of kings.

That stuff you dismiss?

BTW - we dont know who build the sphinx - geological dating puts it at 10BC or before - so at best, it was constructed before the flood, was probabally a lion, and the egyptians later carved a pharo's head where the lion head use to be.

if you cant tell that 'documentaries' on PBS, the discovery channel, the history channel, are extreemly bias towards humanism, evolution, and attempt to disprove the contents of the bible at every possible turn, then you are Captain Oblivious!

If you think that everything you see on TV must be true, then you are in serious trouble.

It's not a difficult thing to answer rayb's egyptian point.

The bible is NOT meant to be a history book. I never said that. I just said that when it mentions history, it is historically accurate.

The bible primarily deals with the jewish people. There are lots of nearby civilizations that it doesn't spend much time talking about, not just the Egyptians. When it applies to them a lot, like during the captivity, it mentions those societies and kings a lot. BY NAME. REAL HISTORICAL, verified-as-accurate-by-secular-historians people.

To sophia nova, good question. I tried to answer it with my earlier post. The bible is verifiable as accurate with NON-biblical secular sources. The greek mythology is not. The bible is full of prophecies by people of things that happened hundreds of years later that are too detailed to be by accident. That is the intellectual/scientific part. And then there is the heart/conscience part that Ken is talking about.

"" Sounds like you simply hate the jews!""

NO I never said that
not real fond of zionists
esp the extream rightwingers like sharron/lukid
or any other GOD IS ON MY SIDE BOYS
like tali-ban or hezzbala
or rightwing christian CONN's here
and fail to see much difference in any of them or their GOD's LAWs plans inc bush re-run's

Gridlock the key to all this is not egypt it's self [nile vally] but egypt's long rule and occupation of the so called holyland at the sametime as the jews claim a independant kingdom there ie 1500 to 1000 bce but in the bible the jews never see all the egyptian armys marching thru their lands to border battles with other empires that is a big and well recorded part of world history!!!

why is this??
spin doctors at work!!!!
clearly the books [first 4] were written after the fall of the egyptian empire [as they can't remember any pharrow's name!!!!!]
to claim a summaian [city of Ur] birth of the jews ie we are your homeboys, of the mid-easter invaders!!!!
around the time of the babloinan conquests ie 600 bce this pushes the other later books up closer to the present day toooo!!!
so we get DANIEL about 250bce or after the events "PREDICTED" and as hindsight is allways 20/20 right on target too!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Ok just to throw another spanner into the works for all who believe all the bible says.

The bible says there was a flood that wiped out the world except for Noah, his family and the animals he took with him.

Now if this is the case how big was his boat really to manage to take the thousands of species in the world with him and what about all the different races of people?

Did he take 2 of each nationality too?

If he didn't and people changed colour when they went to different parts of the world would this not be called evolution?

What about inbreeding from the same family, that has been proved to bring tragic results in the offspring. So if Noah and his family was all that was left wouldn't that make for horrible mutations and the species wiping itself out before now?

No proof has been provided in this thread yet to prove the bible is right. So far Ken has used the bible to prove it is right. Using the document in question to prove itself is not proof at all.

ken: IF he believes everything on TV, then he is an idiot? You're believing everything in a FICTIONAL BOOK meant to explain events before they had logical answers! I wouldn't be surprised if back then people accepted it was FICTIONAL.

Johnny, that can't be true.

I experience the truth on a daily basis. The truth is all around us, we work in it, breathe it and live in it. The truth is a system. As a part of that system, the truth will always be against us.

As soon as I accepted the truth, I started dressing in black vinyl and calling my girlfriend "Trinity"

Aus,

Your questions are legitimate, and simple to answer.

All humans were killed except Noah and his family. There were no other nationalities to take along.

Of course, they had children with each other. Since people lived vast life spans back then, my assumption would be that the dna was a lot better then than now. So no horrible mutations and species wiping itself out.

Regarding the kind of "evolution" you are referring to, the bible allows for that. Genesis repeatedly says "after its kind." There is change, "evolution", of species. Just no proof of jumps BETWEEN AND INTO DIFFERENT species-which is what most people are referring to in the theory of evolution.

Aus, I completely like you as I've stated over the years, and so am not arguing with you. I'm just a little surprised that you said there was no proof provided in the thread that the bible is right. I gave one (only one for the sake of brevity) solid, well-documented and secularly substantiated example because, as you say, using the document in question to prove itself is not proof at all.

How many times do I have to say something to the effect of non-biblical, secular verifiable substantiation?

And to johnnyk, I'm not quite sure why you would say it is a fictional book when an honest observer would realize that there are large sections that have been historically verified as accurate by secular historians for multiple hundreds of years, yet there is not one part that has been proven incorrect.

You certainly have the option of deciding not to believe it if you don't want to. I just don't understand why you feel it necessary to then insist what is historically proven is fiction.

maybe johnny k sees what you willnot see
as you keep making this statement
""How many times do I have to say something to the effect of non-biblical, secular verifiable substantiation?

And to johnnyk, I'm not quite sure why you would say it is a fictional book when an honest observer would realize that there are large sections that have been historically verified as accurate by secular historians for multiple hundreds of years, yet there is not one part that has been proven incorrect.

You certainly have the option of deciding not to believe it if you don't want to. I just don't understand why you feel it necessary to then insist what is historically proven is fiction.""

some yes alot more NO
no 7 days to make everything
no 6000 year old world
no 1000 yearold men
no flood
no tower of babbel
no egypt king or army drown in the redsea or reedsea
no independant conquest of canaan by the jews
no independant jewish kingdom at early claimed dates or of david or soloman eathor
no real dates that can be checked in the early parts [first 4 books]

yes much later they do get a few kings names right after 800bce
but in the early part NO
btw no hebrew written records older than 800bce eathor

so you can say that you belive, but no real historian will back any of the pre-800 stuff at all,none of it is proven true, much is proven false
btw no real bible scholers think the books of moses were written by him or at a early date
but after 800bce and rewritten by "P" "R" and another guy who's letter I forget even later
study the real history of the bible
I DONOT MAKE IT UP, for these posts, all my info is real scholers ideas NOT MY ideas
but not thumpers BS eathor that ken follows like a slave, but the people who read hebrew and can date written styles and word useage
and do have PhD's from real schools like oxford or yale, not jimjones U
same as the late date for daniel,
5 guys named john, ect.
all are scholers facts NOT MY FACTS

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Ray your ability to think and reason logically is so foggy its not worth talking to you.

Daniel has been verified through mulitiple source to be have been written AT LEAST before 200BC.

That does not mean it WAS written in 200BC, it could have been written eariler, and their is much information that indicates it WAS written earlier.

If I can prove I was at work at noon today, that does not PROVE I was not at work at 8AM too - but you repeatedly agrue that it does ?!

There is no way anyone can read a text and determine if it was written by one or more authors. A change in writing style, or the useage of phrases or specific words, does not mean someone else picked up the pen and started writing. The 'scholars' you quote as your bible experts all have one thing in common - they dont believe the bible is accurate or factual to BEGIN WITH.

All your arguments againts the accuracy or consistancy of the Bible can be summed up with one comment: you simply dont understand what the bible is saying - and your references 'scholars' dont understand it either.

The bible is not a self contained history of humanity, it is a form of communication from God to humanity. The parts you flag as errors only point out your lack of understanding of what God is trying to say.

And its not because you are unable to understand it, its because you dont want to ACKNOWLEDGE what God is saying to YOU specifically.

Instead of you ranting about the historical accuracy of the bible, lets switch gears here and talk about the REAL issues. The bible communicates the relationship we are able to have with the creator of the universe, and communicates the things that are expected of us, and the way we are expected to interact with our fellow humans.

Lets focus on that for a while, and Im confiscating your "ITS ALL BS" harpoon and your can of foam.

We will talk about the real issues of what it means to be a christain, and what happens to those who turn their back on their creator and go their own way. This is all independant of the bible, because society continually puts these issues to the test on a daily basis. What a person does with their life, and the daily and longterm outcome of those actions are directly observable and verifiable

and they have nothing do to with what the 14th pharos name was.

Are you up for the challenge?

Here is another inconsequential "I think" post regarding this hotly debated topic.

I don't believe that the Bible in its entirety was even supposed to be TRUE. I mean, Noah's ark, many of the parables, the four horsemen, Adam and Eve and the talking serpent, the creation story...

Many of these stories, I firmly believe, were created to explain phenomenon that people did not (and still do not) understand. So maybe some man wanted to figure out why women were so "evil" and messed up and treacherous (an opinion of women that was, and in many places still IS, held steadfast by men), so someone made up a story about Eve (a "dark" name, if you haven't noticed) and made her the cause of "original sin" and all that stuff.

I think for the most part the bible was meant to be used and read as a learning tool. Let's not forget that many of the stores in the bible were passed down through oral tradition and were mutated as they were passed from mouth to mouth, clan to clan.

For the most part I place the bible on the same level as Aesop's fables (an anathema, I know), because right now, this is just how I feel about faith and Christianity in general. Like Aesop's fables, there are stories in the bible; but the foxes trying to get grapes don't talk...in fact, foxes don't even eat grapes! The bible, like Aesop's fables, teach people moral through parables and anecdotes. "Don't be greedy because of this that and the other reason"...it's all about teaching and learning and morals.

I believe the letters in the Bible are real and all that kind of thing, but for the most part, I don't think it had as much to do with reality as it did with teaching standards for living, and explaining heretofor unexplainable phenomena.

soph

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Ok just to throw another spanner into the works for all who believe all the bible says. The bible says there was a flood that wiped out the world except for Noah, his family and the animals he took with him. Now if this is the case how big was his boat really to manage to take the thousands of species in the world with him and what about all the different races of people? Did he take 2 of each nationality too? If he didn't and people changed colour when they went to different parts of the world would this not be called evolution? What about inbreeding from the same family, that has been proved to bring tragic results in the offspring. So if Noah and his family was all that was left wouldn't that make for horrible mutations and the species wiping itself out before now? No proof has been provided in this thread yet to prove the bible is right. So far Ken has used the bible to prove it is right. Using the document in question to prove itself is not proof at all.

Good questions. I won't attempt to try and answer these. Probably part of the reason why Christians follow the New Testament (with the exception of the 10 commandments, of course). While the Old Testament is there to give us an insight into the world before Jesus, I would take it with a grain of salt. It would be impossible to explain the world's history in a book or two, therefore I believe there are a lot of generalizations.

This is the problem with all of the 'self-taught', 'reborn' and 're-discovered' Christians. I am not trying to offend anyone here but one has to be very conceited to believe that this book can be interpreted in one's bedroom and thousands of years of scholars' wisdom can be ignored.

The notion that everyone will find their own spiritual side and their own brand of faith is ludicrous. This is why we have cults who believe that a UFO will take them into space as soon as they stab themselves in the heart, or something.

Johnny - does it say somewhere in the Bible that it is a fictitious story? If so, then I have not found this statement. Please point me to it.

Regardless of whether the Bible is fiction or not (and I believe it is NOT fiction), is there ANYTHING in the New Testament that is bad for humans?? Could all of you non-believers point it out to me?

I mean, everything that Jesus taught is good for me and you. Examples: if you don't commit adultery, you won't get diseases. If you forgive others, there will be much less violence. And so on, and so on. I have yet to find something in there that is not good for us.

So why so much opposition to the Bible?? What is wrong with the commandments? Have any of you been hurt by someone who TRULY followed the 10 commandments?

Yes, I am a religious person but this is also just common sense.

------------------

if you take the old testiment with a grain of salt, then Jesus was either a liar, or He was psychotic

because Jesus referred to Noah, Jonah, Adam, Moses, Abraham as ACTUAL people, not parables.

The new testiment is a continuation of the old, with new insites revealed, its all based on the old testiment

so you dismiss the one, and the other goes out the window right behind it.

BTW - are you referring to thousands of years of geniune desire to correctly understand mans relationship with God? or thousands of years of tradition of using Christianity as a means of social control, and a means to acquire wealth at the expense of the common man?

there is a big diffrence between sitting in your bedroom and interpreting what you think a 2000+ year old book means

and asking the creator of the universe to take over your life completely, and TEACH you what it means on a daily basis

(unless you think Jesus was lying again when He said He will send the Holy Spirit to you, who will teach you all things - large organizated religions HATE that, because it takes away their position of authority over the individual, and places it where it belongs - IN GODS HANDS!)

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-28-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: if you take the old testiment with a grain of salt, then Jesus was either a liar, or He was psychotic because Jesus referred to Noah, Jonah, Adam, Moses, Abraham as ACTUAL people, not parables. The new testiment is a continuation of the old, with new insites revealed, its all based on the old testiment so you dismiss the one, and the other goes out the window right behind it. BTW - are you referring to thousands of years of geniune desire to correctly understand mans relationship with God? or thousands of years of tradition of using Christianity as a means of social control, and a means to acquire wealth at the expense of the common man? there is a big diffrence between sitting in your bedroom and interpreting what you think a 2000+ year old book means and asking the creator of the universe to take over your life completely, and TEACH you what it means on a daily basis (unless you think Jesus was lying again when He said He will send the Holy Spirit to you, who will teach you all things - large organizated religions HATE that, because it takes away their position of authority over the individual, and places it where it belongs - IN GODS HANDS!)

well why does not your claimed holy spirit
rule and control the action of the churchmen??
where is the hand of god in the actions of the church in its long bloody history

one of my favorite bible quotes is
""NOT BY THEIR WORDS BUT BY THEIR ACTS YOU WILL KNOW THEM""

you are back to the only my cult knows the true way, and all or allmost all other christian cults are wrong esp the bigger ones

where is the action of this holyspirit
does he tell foulwell what to say???
jim baker how to act????
jimmie swaggart how to plead for forgiveness??

the is a third option in the teaching of your JC, the spin doc's reworded his message to suit their needs, in build a church.
jc was not a churchie, wanted or needed no church

maybe you will get it someday, my point is churchies have no place in goverment or laws or science
or history
and I never start these posts, only jump in to correct the miss-info churchies try to post

you are free to belive any fairytale you want
I will say nothing about that!!!

but when you use your belife to attack
science, you attack knowlage, and TRUTH
THAT IS A TERROREST ACTION
that your churchies DO HAVE A LONG HISTORY of DOING
there by allso proving to me the total lack of any HOLY SPIRIT in action
or god on your side
just a book
and a bunch of rightwing control freeks
with a record of bad results
darkages, book burners, and a billion dead
BUT NO GOD

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Sophia Nova: I don't believe that the Bible in its entirety was even supposed to be TRUE. I mean, Noah's ark, many of the parables, the four horsemen, Adam and Eve and the talking serpent, the creation story...

Noah's ark, Moses' miracles and other stories in the bible have there foundations in real events.

But you're absolutely right, Sophia, those events are subject to the interpretations of people who lived thousands of years ago.

The Great Flood, for example, is believed to have been a real event. But it did not flood the entire earth, as read in the bible, rather it flooded the land where the people who recorded the story lived.

At one time, the Black Sea was a fresh water lake located below sea level. Much like Death Valley in California. Eventualy, the Mediteranean Sea broke through and the Black Sea was formed.

This event was likely told and retold until it became the Great Flood.

References: http://www.christianstudycenter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=22 http://www.nationalgeographic.com.sg/press_humanhabitation.shtml http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/

Does this invalidate the Bible? Of course not. The bible, as you point out, is best used for communicating and teaching values to others.

Using it to prove the existance of God, for example, will always prove sorely disappointing. Especially for those who want more than anything for it to be true.

God seldom proves himself that way.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.

ray - you answered your own question in your post - do you read what you type, or just spew spew spew?!

Jesus said ahead of time that many would claim to represent Him, they would claim to be sent by Him - many would claim to BE HIM

you will will know them by the fruit they bear.

THANK YOU! now can we finally get over your ranting about millions of people being murdered by christian terrorist.

BY your own admission they were NOT CHRISTIANS - because (AS YOU POINTED OUT) you will know who the christains are by the way they act.

BTW - you can call me all the names you want (terrorist, churchie, whatever) - I could care less. I notice you chickened out on my personal challege to explore the reality of Christianity on a personal level.

we all know what your 'religion' is, and we can see what it has done to you!

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: if you take the old testiment with a grain of salt, then Jesus was either a liar, or He was psychotic because Jesus referred to Noah, Jonah, Adam, Moses, Abraham as ACTUAL people, not parables. The new testiment is a continuation of the old, with new insites revealed, its all based on the old testiment so you dismiss the one, and the other goes out the window right behind it. BTW - are you referring to thousands of years of geniune desire to correctly understand mans relationship with God? or thousands of years of tradition of using Christianity as a means of social control, and a means to acquire wealth at the expense of the common man? there is a big diffrence between sitting in your bedroom and interpreting what you think a 2000+ year old book means and asking the creator of the universe to take over your life completely, and TEACH you what it means on a daily basis (unless you think Jesus was lying again when He said He will send the Holy Spirit to you, who will teach you all things - large organizated religions HATE that, because it takes away their position of authority over the individual, and places it where it belongs - IN GODS HANDS!) [This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-28-2003).]

Making reference to the Old Testament is not the same as attempting to explain every event that is referenced in the Old Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Jesus goes through the entire Old Testament for us.

Also, Christians follow Christ (as the name suggests). Well, while Jesus may have made references to the Old Testament, He certainly did not condone 'eye fore an eye' which was the old way, i.e. while there are many factual events in the old testament, He did not PREACH the Old Testament.

As you can see, I am not *dismissing* the Old Testament but simply suggesting (as RoadRocket put it) that the stories have 'foundations in real events' and should not be taken literally.

On your 'thousands of years' comment, I'm referring to the first part. I believe there have been good Christian scholars in the past, just as there are today, who did not study the Bible for their own immediate benefit but rather to benefit the society as a whole.

Care to explain to me how Jesus teaches you *all things* every day through the Holy Spirit? I DO believe in the Holy Spirit but our minds are too primitive to recongnize it unless we know what to look for. In your case, I think (and this is my opinion) your Lutheran background has given you the basis of what to look for. It has (initially, at least) taught you the ways of Jesus. Your desire to further pursue His teachings on your own is admirable but cannot be credited to your mind.

What I'm trying to say is this: if you were born on a deserted island and your mother died shortly thereafter, leaving you all alone to be raised by monkeys, I doubt very much that you would one day open your eyes to the Lord's teachings. In fact, all you know about Jesus is from the Bible which, while it's an accurate depiction of Jesus, was written by Men. Perhaps God sent the Holy Spirit onto those men, but nonetheless, there WERE people.

If it was not for your fellow men, you would know nothing about Jesus, unless He appeared in front of you and enlightened you.

Essentially you are dismissing the fact that the Lord works through others and, in a conceded way, believe that He speaks directly to you, therefore you don't ever need anyone else.

You have made reference to cults. I believe this is how they start - with someone who believes he speaks to God himself.

I don't understand why all these ultra religious types like yourself try to disprove the theory of evolution. We are finding pieces to the puzzle of evoltion every hour of every day. And they are real. We can touch them, smell them, and even prove without doubt what period of time they came from.

We can place bones in succession by year and literally SEE how the animal changes over time. You can see the dog's extra toe creeping up his leg over the years and we know that it will fully disappear in the next few thousand years.

This isn't my make believe story vs your make believe story. This is accepted FACTS building a theory vs. disputable stories (written by MAN) building a history and a direction for the future. Religion may mean well and indeed has done well for mankind, but that doesn't mean it isn't an institution created by MAN to keep the masses in order.

Evolution is reality whether you accept it or not. I don't care what your church tells you or what your parents taught you.

Why turn your back on proof when you can accept it and still believe in God? Maybe God did create life, but maybe he didn't create it individually. Is it so difficult to imagine that LIFE in general was created by God. Why does God have to be credited with individually creating every creature one by one? Isn't it more realistic that GOD or some cosmic event started life and life changed and adapted itself to better suit it's environment?

Please lets be grown ups and accept the truth of our origin whether you believe in God or not. Both theories are likely granted the possibilty that God created life in general and not individually.

(I apologize) to those I have offended:

Its interesting to see even the religious people in this thread starting to argue about their faith.

Ken, there are many things that separate you and I in life. One thing I do have respect for is the fact that you don't go to church because you have recognized that organized church isn't the answer.

When discussing religion and methods of control, I like to define two linked, but separate terms.

Church-a man made organization teaching the priniciples of faith and religion
Religion-the act of faith in itself.

I can see the acts of control that are present in church, but not religion. As Ken has said on numerous times, religion is personal(for him).

The entire anglican church was created as a means to a political end.

Sophia-i think you have found a beautiful way to harmonize what you see in the world and what you learn from the bible. I think if you are to close off the world that doesn't match the bible, you shut our too much.

I personally don't see how admitting that these are stories that may have been based on real events, but have changed over time diminishes the value of the bible for people.

The indian(native) culture has survived for centuries on this basis. They pass their stories on to the next generation verbally, and while some of the details have undoubtedly changed, the root point is still the same.

On a side note, I recommend to anyone that they read up on the native american religion and culture. It is a beautiful belief structure. We have a large amount of natives here on the west coast of BC and I have really tried to learn what I could of it since I moved here.