Bible Versus Science

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[/COLOR]The point being God worked for 6 days, like us, and then takes a rest. Since the act of creation could not possibly take 6 days (where did days come from if not from creation?)

So, because you don't know where the days came from, it isn't possible? Haven't you read that for God everything is possible? That's what's meant when it is said that God is omnipotent. Don't you believe in God's omnipotence?

and the Bible is very clear that there is "one creation", not six, not a million, just one.

Right and it clearly states in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 that God created everything in six days. Since there is only one creation, did God create man in Genesis 1:1 or on the sixth day? If you say on the sixth day, then don't you have two creations according to your gap theory?

This also supports my assertion that "God made man from the dust of the ground" refers to the process of evolution. Yes, God spoke not being as being, yes there was an instant in which the creation took place, after which we have time (remember "time will be no more", hence it is part of the creation). But that was not the end, after that God "made", "He worked for six days" like us. This process could have taken billions of years, what is that to God?

None of that is in the Bible. You're just making stuff up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right and it clearly states in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 that God created everything in six days. Since there is only one creation, did God create man in Genesis 1:1 or on the sixth day? If you say on the sixth day, then don't you have two creations according to your gap theory?

God created the heavens and Earth in the beginning.

He then made many, many, many things including man. Where did the stuff that evolved into man come from? Science has no explanation, only the Bible does, God created it.

What the Bible clearly says is:

1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth).
7 And Elohim made the raki’a, and divided the waters under the raki’a from the waters which were above the raki’a; and it was so.
16 And Elohim made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the kokhavim (stars) also.
21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.
25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and G-d saw that it was tov.
26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Now how do you explain the "created the universe...make man...so He created man". It was a two step process, but when looked at in total God created man. First he created the stuff from whence He would make man, then he made man, like at artist creates, finally when summing up -- So God created man.

When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.

Now it is true that both words Bara and Asah are used with God for certain items. So He created the stars and He made them.

God is a mystery, until we understand what it is to create something out of nothing that is the way it is going to stay. But I see no contradiction in saying that God both created and made man, or that He created and made the stars.

For example, if an artist paints a painting we can refer to that as being creative. But what if the artist first creates the paint out of nothing? He then paints the painting. Did he paint it or create it? He did both.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

None of that is in the Bible. You're just making stuff up.

I read somewhere that: Reason is the natural order of truth;
but imagination is the organ of meaning.

Maybe that will help.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a Local Church point of view, not a "Bible" one.
How do you get that Exodus 20:11 is saying anything other than that God made the heavens and the earth ex nihilo in six days?

Right, that's how the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't say he restored the heaven and earth in six days. It says he made them in six days.

Both here and in Genesis, the scripture delineates between "made" and "create," for a reason. The fact it does may not match your biased world view, but it's there.

For a guy who attempts to discredit the Biblical record with every post, I'm surprised you would even quote scripture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

37 And Jacob took him rods of fresh [o]poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth ringstreaked, speckled, and spotted.

If you don't laugh you have no sense of humor, or you are taking the Bible way too serious.

[Intothewind]

Zpanaah: All those explain aways are great examples of moving the goal posts.

Lets see.

You've backed up on flood geology, saying "I don't know" after claiming its been proven. No, it has not been proven-because a global flood did not happen. If you want it to be a regional flood-then you need to modify the original text.

Insects have six legs. It doesn't matter if the back two are used for hopping. It might make sense if the creatures only walked about with the front four and reserved the back two for only hopping-but alas they use all six to "walk about" I can't think of any four legged insects(because they don't exist)-was this a roundabout way of saying that all insects are ok to consume? Goeth upon four is pretty much just that.

On the rabbits your caveat is exactly my point. I suppose if they labeled it "these animals are unclean because they do gross stuff" that would work..but they label it as chewing the cud. If you think bringing something up from the stomach to chew on again versus grabbing it out of a butthole to eat is the same-I don't know what to tell ya-why didn't the Bible just say that for accuracy? The Bible is not a scientific textbook. To use it as such is ridiculous.

As for seeds, that passage you picked makes no mention of seeds sown except the mustard seed. It does make mention that it is the smallest of seeds that are "upon the earth"...of which there are a wide variety. The mustard seed was, indeed, probably the smallest seed Palestinian farmers planted....but not, as Jesus said, the smallest seed in the world(or even of plants in Palestine). And the whole thing is a parable-so it need not to be accurate to the world. Hey! Maybe that goes for everything else in the Bible. If Jesus was speaking allegorically here, then why should we be so bothered that other portions of the Bible are factually inaccurate?



I'm not even going to bother with the supernova one...wow

With Jacob's story, he is picking the best animals, sure. But their is no mention in those verses of a pen. Why not just say he put them in a pen? When I read that it implies that the carefully prepared branches do something to the animals color...why else would the first verse in that passage be so concerned that he peeled them down to make the white on the rods appear and that the animals need to be around the special rods as they are conceiving? The Bible is also a pretty poor instruction booklet, too. Maybe I should write a book "How to breed livestock the Laban way".

Anyway, Jacob did not discover Mendelian genetics. It looks like you need to read what Gregor Mendel actually discovered so you actually understand-it was a bit more complicated than like makes like. Jacob had an idea that like produces like, but pretty much all people who have domesticated animals(or who noticed they resembled their parents and siblings) figured this one out. So your claim is incorrect.

Why don't we move the goalpost on the whole Bible? Say it is not a scientifically accurate text for understanding how the world works, but a collection of writings by people long ago that could be cherished for other reasons...

I see nothing wrong with that if people are willing to admit to it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again you have proven yourself to be a deceitful worker who does not handle the word right. You misquote and intentionally attempt to deceive. You need to repent.

Now, now bro ZNP. Knock it off. Apology is in order. You're better than this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now, now bro ZNP. Knock it off. Apology is in order. You're better than this.

It does seem too strong and if this was a new one asking a question it would be completely out of line. But this is a person who strongly asserts that these verses have been disproven by science. He then completely misquotes the verse saying the Bible called stars "little things" which it never did and that they "fall to earth" again something they don't do.

So what am I supposed to do? Treat him like a child that cannot read the Bible and say "now, now, it didn't say that" or treat him like an adult who knows exactly what he is doing? If you want me to treat him like a child I will go ahead and apologize for treating him like an adult who knows what he was doing.

[Intothewind]

Perhaps they were speaking poetically in revealation 6:13, where stars are compares to figs falling from a tree in the wind.

Ok, I don't get how a supernova is a star falling in heaven....as you stated. Exploding maybe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It does seem too strong and if this was a new one asking a question it would be completely out of line. But this is a person who strongly asserts that these verses have been disproven by science. He then completely misquotes the verse saying the Bible called stars "little things" which it never did and that they "fall to earth" again something they don't do.

So what am I supposed to do? Treat him like a child that cannot read the Bible and say "now, now, it didn't say that" or treat him like an adult who knows exactly what he is doing? If you want me to treat him like a child I will go ahead and apologize for treating him like an adult who knows what he was doing.

I know it's hard, but don't deal with "him" at all. You/we don't know him personally. Deal with the facts. For example, the falling stars. Does the Bible anywhere say the stars fall to earth? If not he's wrong, or mistaken. If it does somewhere then it needs to be explained. Do that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah: All those explain aways are great examples of moving the goal posts.

Lets see.

You've backed up on flood geology, saying "I don't know" after claiming its been proven. No, it has not been proven-because a global flood did not happen. If you want it to be a regional flood-then you need to modify the original text.

Since when is speaking the truth "moving the goalpost"? That is despicable.

I will create a new thread focused solely on the science supporting the account of Noah. The bottom line is that "I don't know" and neither do you. What I do know is that Scientific inquiry decided to disprove the account of Noah's flood by looking at the historical accounts of other civilizations. It seemed straightforward until they discovered that every ancient society had an account of the flood. I say "the" flood, not unrelated floods. The oldest chinese word for boat literally means 8 souls, i.e. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives. The chances that this would be coincidence is off the charts. In science once the odds are greater than 1/20 we don't, as a matter of convention, chalk it up to chance. The odds that the chinese account is chance is much, much greater than 1/20. But then instead of finding that the Noah account was unique but rather the rule has served to confirm, not deny this account. So genuine scientists, without bias, agree that we don't really know what they are talking about. However, there have been a number of interesting finds, I will bring that out in the new thread.

I agree that the account in Noah cannot be explained with a regional flood.

6:17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

However, I think it will hijack this thread so I don't want to discuss it here. I said that Science has not disproved the account of Noah's flood, that is true. I also said I don't know what happened, that also is true.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.

That's an incomplete exegesis of these words, that will prove you wrong if looked into.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an incomplete exegesis of these words, that will prove you wrong if looked into.

There is a difference of opinion, some feel that there is no difference between the words because they are both used for the creation of man. One verse says "God made man" another says "God created man".

I am of the persuasion that every word in the Bible is meaningful.

But to discuss this further here would be to hijack this thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah:

You did not answer my questions.

You said that:
Mankind began in the Middle East, No.

To which I replied that in the Bible man includes the ability for written language. This is the basis for our civilization, our history, our religion, our culture, what makes us man and not just an animal.

And I asked you:

So go ahead, enlighten us, what written language predates the Sumerian language?


You also said:
Mustard seed is not the smallest.

To which I replied by supplying the verse:

Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,

And then asked you:

Great, what seed was sown by farmers at the time Jesus was speaking which is smaller?

If you want any more responses from me I want an answer to my two questions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know it's hard, but don't deal with "him" at all. You/we don't know him personally. Deal with the facts. For example, the falling stars. Does the Bible anywhere say the stars fall to earth? If not he's wrong, or mistaken. If it does somewhere then it needs to be explained. Do that.

12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; 13 and the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her unripe figs when she is shaken of a great wind. 14 And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and the [k]chief captains, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand?

This is also demands its own thread. I will have to get into the 7th seal which is precipitated by this event. I will then have to discuss the bowls of wrath which are also inevitable once this seal is open.

Basically, the star Betelguese is a red star, that means it is in the last "hour" of life before it explodes into a supernova. When a supernova explodes that is close enough to earth (Betelgeuse may or may not be there is some dispute on this) several things happen.

1st, it will burn up the ozone layer of the earth -- here it says "the heaven was removed as a scroll".

2nd without ozone to protect us from UV radiation we would have to hide ourselves from the sun in caves, under rocks, under mountains. Otherwise we would get skin cancer and go blind. That would be immediate.

3rd -- Governments would have to respond immediately to the impending economic collapse. In a catastrophic economic collapse that would ensue the only way the world will figure out to maintain order is to put the mark of the beast on everyone. That is the 7th seal.

4th People will get skin cancer (an ulcer upon the men with the mark of the beast), the fish of the sea will die. (The sea will become blood.) Likewise with fish in rivers and lakes, they also will die (become blood). And of course crops will be destroyed. And the sun scorches men with fire and great heat. The added energy from UV radiation that was not filtered out by the Ozone layer, plus the loss of all green things that were cycling the carbon out of the atmosphere + the fires that will burn up all this dead tinder will result in runaway climate change.

5th -- in this scenario it is not hard to imagine runaway blackouts. With rivers drying up many nuclear power plants will have to shut down, perhaps catastrophically, hydro electric will collapse, coal needs water as well. These power plants would be very difficult to maintain if people cannot come out during the day and if there is a general economic collapse.

However, over a period of 3 years the ozone layer will regenerate itself. So, if you can survive for 3-5 years you can make it through this "tribulation".

To do that you need oil. Lots of oil.

These events are described in the bowls of God's wrath.

As for "falling to earth". What happens in a supernova is that C60 is formed (commonly known as buckyballs). This is how we can find evidence of previous supernovas. These tiny little balls "fall to earth" and can be detected in the sediment. They come from exploding stars.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am of the persuasion that every word in the Bible is meaningful.

Mark Twain once quipped something like : "The difference between the right word and the wrong word is like the difference between lightning, and the lightning bug."

All words are meaningful, since the advent of words. Aren't you saying, or meaning, that every word in the Bible has special meanings? Your words are meaningful, if only to you, so tell it like you mean it. Is it meaningful or specially meaningful?

Originally Posted by ZNP

But to discuss this further here would be to hijack this thread.

Thanks for that. You saved me from all the time & trouble to exegete 'bara' and 'Asah.' I'll put what I've got so far away. And thanks again, for your concern for this thread. What's the name of it again?

Oh, it's something like : In this corner, we have the Bible. And in this corner we have Science. Now come out swinging, but no hitting below the belt.

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You did not answer my questions.

You said that:
Mankind began in the Middle East, No.

To which I replied that in the Bible man includes the ability for written language. This is the basis for our civilization, our history, our religion, our culture, what makes us man and not just an animal.

And I asked you:

So go ahead, enlighten us, what written language predates the Sumerian language?

You also said:
Mustard seed is not the smallest.

To which I replied by supplying the verse:

Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,

And then asked you:

Great, what seed was sown by farmers at the time Jesus was speaking which is smaller?

If you want any more responses from me I want an answer to my two questions.

Zpanaah: I don't think Sumerian being the oldest written language(ignoring written proto languages or the inconvenient fact that other written languages arose independently around the world shortly after) is relevant. Are you saying that people without written language are not human?

As for your second question. I answered it already. But dude, reread that verse again. Did Jesus forget a word? Your argument would make total sense if it read.

"It is, like a grain of mustard seed, which, upon when sown, though it be less than all other seeds that are sown upon the earth"

Maybe we need to fix it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God created the heavens and Earth in the beginning.

He then made many, many, many things including man. Where did the stuff that evolved into man come from? Science has no explanation, only the Bible does, God created it.

What the Bible clearly says is:

1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth).
7 And Elohim made the raki’a, and divided the waters under the raki’a from the waters which were above the raki’a; and it was so.
16 And Elohim made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the kokhavim (stars) also.
21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.
25 And G-d made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and G-d saw that it was tov.
26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
27 So G-d created humankind in His own tzelem, in the tzelem Elohim (image of G-d) created He him; zachar (male) and nekevah (female) created He them.

Now how do you explain the "created the universe...make man...so He created man". It was a two step process, but when looked at in total God created man. First he created the stuff from whence He would make man, then he made man, like at artist creates, finally when summing up -- So God created man.

When we look at the two Hebrew words, the word Bara translated create is only used with God, no mention of Man ever "bara" something. However the word Asah is used with both God and man making stuff.

Now it is true that both words Bara and Asah are used with God for certain items. So He created the stars and He made them.

God is a mystery, until we understand what it is to create something out of nothing that is the way it is going to stay. But I see no contradiction in saying that God both created and made man, or that He created and made the stars.

For example, if an artist paints a painting we can refer to that as being creative. But what if the artist first creates the paint out of nothing? He then paints the painting. Did he paint it or create it? He did both.

You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21

"And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov."

The word translated as "created" there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah: I don't think Sumerian being the oldest written language(ignoring proto languages or the inconvenient fact that other written languages arose independently around the world shortly after) is relevant.

As for your second question. I answered it already. But dude, reread that verse again. Did Jesus forget a word? Your argument would make total sense if it read.

"It is, like a grain of mustard seed, which, upon when sown, though it be less than all other seeds that are sown upon the earth"

Maybe we need to fix it.

You may have answered it in your mind, but I still don't know your answer. Is Sumerian the oldest written language? If your answer is yes, your reply is very strange and hard to decipher, then do you think we could have human civilization without written language?

I agree with all scientists that human beings evolved from apes. But there is a very big difference between apes and people. Mankind is eusocial, apes are not. There are only 19 species worldwide that are eusocial and each one is a dominant species. These 19 species dominate the world. Of these 19, only man chooses to be eusocial, all the others it is written into their DNA. Apes are not eusocial and there is only one other mammal that is, the naked mole rat.

I would argue that a tribe of homo sapiens that are not eusocial are not the "Man" that God formed and created in the Bible. They might look like us, be able to breed with us, but they are much closer to a tribe of apes than man. I would also argue that the first man that choose to be eusocial was Adam. This choice was made possible as a result of the discovery of the written language. This is what makes Adam the first man and one of our truly great forefathers.

For example a psychopath is normal behavior for an ape, for a reptile, for a bird, for any species other than these 19 eusocial species.

As for the second question "when it is sown upon the earth is less than the least of all seeds"

The context of it being "less than the least" is "when it was sown".

Let me explain why I truly have no respect for your arguments. To my mind there is one verse in the Bible that I truly do believe is contradicted by modern science and I have wrestled with it for 30 years. I have my take on it, but if someone wanted to argue "science vs Bible" this verse is the "excalibur". Now you referred to this verse and yet completely missed it.

Instead you give me this drivel about insects with 6 legs because that garbage is easily gleaned from google and yet you miss the biggest, baddest argument out there.

If this were Karate you would be a white belt.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both here and in Genesis, the scripture delineates between "made" and "create," for a reason. The fact it does may not match your biased world view, but it's there.

Please refer to my reply to ZNP in post 518. Yes there are different words for create and made. But, their usage does not support creation ex nihilo or the gap creation theory. My world view is open to the evidence. If the facts supported the gap theory, I would have no problem with it.

For a guy who attempts to discredit the Biblical record with every post, I'm surprised you would even quote scripture.

I haven't discredited the Bible. But, the notion that the Bible is a "record" of historical events is a presupposition that you bring to it not something that the Bible claims for itself. How do you justify that?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21

The word there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.

This thread is not about create vs form. It is about science vs Bible.

But since this is the second time it came up (Awareness also complained) and since I doubt anyone will really take issue with a detour lets address this.

I didn't completely skip it. I said "there are different interpretations". Anyone doing a search on the other interpretation would have immediately found this verse.

I look at the great sea creatures being created in the same way I look at man being created.

Step 1 -- God created the heavens and the Earth (the stuff of which everything is made, the step that science has no theory for).

Step 2 -- He then formed all life from this stuff he created. (evolution)

Step 3 -- the finished product has thus been both formed and created by God.

This is why the account of Man is so detailed. Sea creatures were given the cliff notes version because they are really peripheral to the Bible.

This may sound outrageous, but the key principle operating here is that no verse is of its own interpretation. The NT is very, very clear that there is "one" creation. Besides, if you agree that the sea creatures "evolved" then you agree with me. I am equating "God forming" with "evolution".

It is perfectly reasonable to say that the God who created the heavens and the earth also created the great sea creatures. That doesn't mean there were two or three creative acts.

[Intothewind]

Zpanaah: You are busy moving the goal posts again. I will play along, though-because your last post makes very little sense...(its also riddled with factual inaccuracies-but I am actually going to avoid correcting those for the sake of clarity to figure out your underlying argument).
--------------

Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization/eusociality (I'm going to assume you are merely switching eusociality for the definition of civilization-otherwise none of your post works) closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?

Why should one's humanity be dependent on creating the things that make up civilization? Some of it(stratified society) seems pretty unfortunate.

Your revisionist Bible history is oddly fascinating. How about this...

It looks like you've done away with literal days in the Bible. And you are now saying when God said create he meant evolved.

Does this mean that life evolved in the chronological order described in Genesis? Or is that order incorrect, as well? How do you explain that?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah: You are busy moving the goal posts again. I will play along, though-because your last post makes very little sense...(its also riddled with factual inaccuracies-but I am actually going to avoid correcting those for the sake of clarity to figure out your underlying argument).
--------------

Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization/eusociality (I'm going to assume you are merely switching eusociality for the definition of civilization-otherwise none of your post works) closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?

It doesn't make any difference what I say. This thread is about the Bible vs Science.

I think it is abundantly clear in the record that there were other homo sapiens alive at the time of Adam, clear to the reader and obviously to the writer of Genesis. So when it says that God created Man and God formed Man that can not be the sole definition of what the Bible is referring to as Adam being the first man. Even a first grader can realize that.

Therefore in the sense of the Bible what is a man? What does the Bible mean when it says Adam was the first man? Knowing full well that Cain knew he would be killed when the others learned he had killed Abel? Not to mention Cain's wife, etc.

God breathed into man the breath of life and then man became a living soul. Not a living flesh, not a living organism. If we agree that the soul is the mind, the emotion and the will then we can easily see that the written word truly does activate our soul.

Simple bushman language pre Sumerian is not that different from communication between apes, or wolves, or other animals. It is not the same thing. Without the human language we would never have become this society today with super computers, telecommunications, smart devices, Watson, etc. Trace that back, when did it begin? It began with Adam and the start of the Sumerian language.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

It looks like you've done away with literal days in the Bible. And you are now saying when God said create he meant evolved.

Does this mean that life evolved in the chronological order described in Genesis? Or is that order incorrect, as well? How do you explain that?

I have said this repeatedly, this is at least the 3rd time I have said it. The days do not refer to the creation, they refer to the restoration after some kind of cataclysmic event like a super volcano or meteorite strike that put dust into the air. This is my interpretation.

The days do not in any way match the order in which life evolved on this planet. However, it does match very nicely how life would return after some kind of extinction event or glacial retreat.

In this sense the days refer to key steps in this restoration.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You left out an inconvenient verse: Genesis 1:21

The word translated as "created" there is bara, the word that you and Ohio and the gap creationists have asserted is used uniquely to signify creation ex nihilo -out of nothing. Yet here it is on the fifth day of Genesis one, when, according to the gap theory God wasn't creating anything but rather restoring things after the putative "gap" which is not mentioned in the text at all.

"Bara" is used yet again in verse 27 with reference to the creation of mankind. Does it mean that like in Genesis 1:1 God is creating man out of nothing? Well, it might except that would contradict Genesis 2 where it says that man was formed out of the dust of the ground.

You asserted that there was only one creation. But, now, according to your reasoning, there appears to be at least three creations: 1) in Genesis 1:1 when God creates the heaven and the earth 2) in Genesis 1:21 when God creates the great sea creatures and 3) in Genesis 1:17 when God creates mankind. Such a conclusion supports neither the gap theory nor the literal six day reading of the text. Explanation?

In any case, the proposition that bara refers only to creation "out of nothing" is defeated by examination of how the word is used in the text.

Man's body was "formed" out of the dust of the ground, but man is not just a body. Man is also a soul, an individual person, "created" uniquely by God at conception with His own breath, which is how He "knows" even in the womb.

What is "formed" will die, be buried, and decompose back to dust. What is "created" will not die, rather live forever, and be resurrected with a new body.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Are bushmen, the Yanamamo, and numerous tribes without written language or civilization closer to a tribe of apes than man to you?

Why should one's humanity be dependent on creating the things that make up civilization? Some of it(stratified society) seems pretty unfortunate.

Well amen Intothewind. How about this :

Genesis, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, is a conflated story of the development of civilization by the Takers, or those that developed totalitarian agriculture and control by food, and who believe they have the one and only way to live a life.

The Takers are the ones that basically told God to get screwed (Cain), that they could take over providing their own sustenance, instead of, like the Leavers, who continued to trust God, or the gods, for their sustenance, like the Bushman and Yanomami.

At one time the world was populated by the Leavers, until the Takers took over, and now the Takers, with unlimited food supply (Totalitarian Agriculture), producing ever growing population (more food equals more population) have completely taken over the world (food control), so that now there's only maybe 1% of Leavers left, and the Takers are after them too. - (THE BOILING FROG by Daniel Quinn - http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm )

And their method : make in roads to remote indigenous tribes territory, so the Christians can go in, convince them their ways are satanic, and that they are fallen, and need to be saved, so they can be forced into the Taker way of life. (Like the oil companies did to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian rain forest - Savages by Joe Kane - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7RBNU...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 )

So remember bro Intothewind, you are now, on this forum, dealing with the Takers, who even believe they have God trapped in a book. haha ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Please refer to my reply to ZNP in post 518. Yes there are different words for create and made. But, their usage does not support creation ex nihilo or the gap creation theory. My world view is open to the evidence. If the facts supported the gap theory, I would have no problem with it.

I haven't discredited the Bible. But, the notion that the Bible is a "record" of historical events is a presupposition that you bring to it not something that the Bible claims for itself. How do you justify that?

Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact. Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.

Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood.

Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact. Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.

Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood.

Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.

My attitude has always been, at least for the last 38 years or so, that Moses, Jesus and Paul are much smarter than I am. I find much of this dismissal of the Bible based on "science" to be arrogant.

It is obvious to me and was from the first time I read it that the writer of Genesis knew there were other "people" on Earth at the time of Adam, people that we could marry and have children with and that would come and kill Cain if they heard Cain had killed Abel. So then that alone could not possibly be what was referred to as God forming man and God creating man, otherwise why would the Bible say that Adam was the first man?

It is like a grandmaster chess player, I might not understand why he makes the move he does, it may not make sense to me, but I don't assume that he is more foolish than a 1st grader, yet all these who dismiss the Bible based on "science" always came across like that to me. They are like 1st graders who think they are smarter than a Grand master. How many books can stand the scrutiny of thousands of years with an army of critics with an agenda to find error or fault?

Once you change your opinion you realize the entire Bible is what it means that "God formed man". Our history, our ancestors, our poetry, our songs, our culture, our food, our feasts, our religion, our faith, this is what it means that God created Man in His own image and after His likeness.

This is why concerning all these arrogant snots it says "He will have them in derision". There is nothing more humiliating than thinking someone is an old fool, only to then learn you are the fool.

Can you imagine comparing man to an ape? Do they cook? Do they have songs and poetry? Can they tell you who their great ancestors were and why? Do they have faith? Is having five fingers and five toes really all there is to being a man?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen Intothewind. How about this :

Genesis, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, is a conflated story of the development of civilization by the Takers, or those that developed totalitarian agriculture and control by food, and who believe they have the one and only way to live a life.

The Takers are the ones that basically told God to get screwed (Cain), that they could take over providing their own sustenance, instead of, like the Leavers, who continued to trust God, or the gods, for their sustenance, like the Bushman and Yanomami.

At one time the world was populated by the Leavers, until the Takers took over, and now the Takers, with unlimited food supply (Totalitarian Agriculture), producing ever growing population (more food equals more population) have completely taken over the world (food control), so that now there's only maybe 1% of Leavers left, and the Takers are after them too. - (THE BOILING FROG by Daniel Quinn - http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm )

And their method : make in roads to remote indigenous tribes territory, so the Christians can go in, convince them their ways are satanic, and that they are fallen, and need to be saved, so they can be forced into the Taker way of life. (Like the oil companies did to the Huaorani in the Ecuadorian rain forest - Savages by Joe Kane - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7RBNU...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 )

So remember bro Intothewind, you are now, on this forum, dealing with the Takers, who even believe they have God trapped in a book. haha ...

With great power comes great responsibility. When God created man in His image He gave him great power, even for those who fell and rebelled. Who is going to overcome the takers? Need to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

[Intothewind]

This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.

Yes but that process began with Adam. Jesus is the "Last Adam".

Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church. Therefore it is also reasonable to conclude that at the very end of the Bible we have "Adam and Eve", therefore this long 6,000 years is actually 6 days in which God formed a man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My attitude has always been, at least for the last 38 years or so, that Moses, Jesus and Paul are much smarter than I am. I find much of this dismissal of the Bible based on "science" to be arrogant.

It is obvious to me and was from the first time I read it that the writer of Genesis knew there were other "people" on Earth at the time of Adam, people that we could marry and have children with and that would come and kill Cain if they heard Cain had killed Abel.

Now I read this differently.

I read once that there was a tradition that Adam and Eve had 66 children. Adam lived 930 years, so it was conceivable that he literally saw a couple dozen generations of descendants. We are not sure that Cain and Abel were their first two children, (Cain probably was the first) nor do we know how much time had elapsed before the murder of Abel. It appeared like Cain was already married, perhaps marrying his sister, niece, grand niece, etc.

In Cain's mind he would live for ever, and after his conscience convicted him harshly, so playing the victim, he responded that he would be a marked man forever. Little did he know that soon after his descendant Lamech would repeat his deed, citing Cain.

In 4.25 the sequence of chronology is once again suspect since it appears like Seth was born after Lamech's murderous threats, which is doubtful to me. Eve's comment indicated Seth was born soon after Abel died.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

This thread was started on a simple premise...is the Bible scientifically accurate? Whether you take it literally like Ohio or some odd mix like Zpanaah it is obvious it is not. Complain about me being nitpicky, but if scientists were Not such pains in the butt your computer wouldn't work. I've had to correct a lot of your "facts" on this thread about science. All you have done is reinterpret Bible passages.

I am intrigued/horrified at Zpanaahs definition of humanity, though it makes sense of history. You say these tribes are more like apes...yet they possess every trait you just listed, save for a highly stratified and specialized society. Dehumanizing and then claiming you can save people is the root of the ills of colonialism. What is amusing is that in the Genesis story Adam becomes civilized not when he communes with God...but after.

The real question in this thread, and the greater Bible Versus Science debate, is whether man was created by God or not, and not whether the Bible is a scientific textbook.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now I read this differently.

I read once that there was a tradition that Adam and Eve had 66 children. Adam lived 930 years, so it was conceivable that he literally saw a couple dozen generations of descendants. We are not sure that Cain and Abel were their first two children, (Cain probably was the first) nor do we know how much time had elapsed before the murder of Abel. It appeared like Cain was already married, perhaps marrying his sister, niece, grand niece, etc.

Well that would create a number of issues for any scientist.

1. Eve had 66 children?

2. Incest and interbreeding -- we know that we need a bare minimum of 200 animals that can breed from different families to have a chance at a species survival. 66 all from the same family should not have survived.

3. Adam lived 930 years? We see absolutely no evidence of this kind of longevity in any human skeletons.

4. Scientists estimate between 1 and 10 million homo sapiens living 10,000 years ago. This is based on very good archaeological evidence.

If it is God's word that animates the soul, then it would be possible for this word to first be breathed into Adam and from him rapidly spread through thousands and millions.

But if you are suggesting there were 66 humans 6,000 years ago that flies in the face of all archaeological and linguistic studies that have been done.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real question in this thread, and the greater Bible Versus Science debate, is whether man was created by God or not, and not whether the Bible is a scientific textbook.

As far as judging whether it is "scientifically accurate" look at the arrogance of IntotheWind to assume he alone is the arbiter and judge of what is scientifically accurate.

If he wants he can submit his credentials for us to judge, but till then I'll take Dr. E.O. Wilson from Harvard. He classifies humans as Eusocial species. One of 19 and the only one that chooses to be (the other 18 were created according to their kind, we are not according to our kind but are rather according to God's image and likeness).

Now I am not aware of any scientific debate over this, so I'll assume that we all agree this is a fair and reasonable scientific classification of what a man is.

"Eusociality (Greek eu: "good/real" + "social"), the highest level of organization of animal sociality, is defined by the following characteristics: cooperative brood care (including brood care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste."

How do we, as humans, develop our level of organization, cooperative brood care, overlapping generations, and division of labor?

With other species like ants and bees they are born with it, part of the DNA. But with man that is not true, we are taught it, and that is with human language. This took place at about the same time as the agricultural revolution, but the underlying revolution is that we chose to become a eusocial species through the development of written language.

Now as Awareness seems to bitterly point out, there are those who are not willing participants in a eusocial civilization. Some are monks, some are recluses, some are in prison. But if we were not eusocial it is hard to imagine our population being much more than chimpanzees.

We should certainly study how this came about if we are genuinely interested in the intersection of science with the Bible because the Bible can give us tremendous insight into this process. Think about it, there are millions of species on this planet and yet man alone is the only one to choose to be eusocial, all the rest do what they do based solely on DNA.

When we look at ancient written language we discover accounting records, tax records, rulers exercising dominion. But it is the Bible, the ten commandments, basic laws and covenants conveyed in the Bible that allow for these organizations to work. Without them they self destruct, just like the Mafia, organized crime or any other evil alliance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. Adam lived 930 years? We see absolutely no evidence of this kind of longevity in any human skeletons.

But we have an historical record. Perhaps they have not found Adam's skeleton.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But we have an historical record. Perhaps they have not found Adam's skeleton.

It would seem extremely odd to me that every skeleton we do find results in very reasonable range of ages (principal of uniformitarianism) and that the one we have not found is way outside of the norm.

The Bible says "He called their name Adam". It seems to me that Adam was not just the name of the first man, it was also the name of the first city. It is not unusual for a city to "live" for 930 years. That seems to be much better aligned with science and the principal of uniformitarianism.

[Evangelical]

The fact is there has been no known invention of man or result from science that came from the Bible. There is no piece of technology today that we use that came from the Bible.

Why do defenders of the Bible's scientific worth have nothing to show for it?

Why has the Bible never contributed to science?

Even the great scientists who were also Christians such as Newton did not find their discoveries in the Bible even though Newton probably knew the Bible well.

[Intothewind]

Ohio: Fair enough. But exactly how god creates if he does is also up for question. Some folks(Zpanaah) have made a muddy compromise between science and the Bible. Zpanaah accepts evolution, including human evolution.


Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers. But I will put that aside and go ahead with your definition of eusociality. For one thing, it is a lot more than 19 species that qualify as eusocial-though on a whole it is a fairly rare phenomena in the animal world.

Your biggest fallacy seems to be assume that human eusociality must come with a written language, or other things.

Are parents who homeschool their children and forgo cooperative brood care not eusocial/civilized? Many human families get by with very limited cooperative brood care. In fact, other apes may use this system more often than we do.(many other apes that live in troops will leave their offspring with other females-usually though not always related)

In many tribes, different people took on different jobs. They could not be as specialized as we see today, simply because they have fewer people and fewer needs, but you have a medicine man, hunters, gatherers, craftsmen, and the like. Sure, people were not locked into their roles, but the same holds true today. You certainly had religion and spirituality and presumably contact with God as well.

Some form of lasting complex communication seems necessary to keep a civilization going. The Incas seem to not have developed a written language-but perhaps they had a lasting way of communicating that we have not quite deciphered yet. That is why I brought up proto languages...because some of these may contain more information than we can tell. These etchings were done by societies that, save for written language, had attained a lot of what you seem to be looking for in civilization

It is an interesting idea that the life God breathed into Adam was civilization...but keep in mind civilizations arose around the globe without contact with this particular civilization. Sumerian may be the oldest written language, but it can't claim to have spawned all the other ones. Does that still work with your narrative?


I haven't said anywhere I am the "sole arbitrator of science" ha. I am happy to go investigate and find the evidence to back up(or not) a claim. My apologies for poking so many holes in your posts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It would seem extremely odd to me that every skeleton we do find results in very reasonable range of ages (principal of uniformitarianism) and that the one we have not found is way outside of the norm.

The Bible says "He called their name Adam". It seems to me that Adam was not just the name of the first man, it was also the name of the first city. It is not unusual for a city to "live" for 930 years. That seems to be much better aligned with science and the principal of uniformitarianism.

Genesis 5:
1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in God's likeness.
2. He Created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name "Adam," in the day when they were created.
3. Adam lived one hundred thirty years, and became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he became the father of sons and daughters.
5. All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, then he died.

Somehow your interpretation of Adam as a city does not seem to fit.

I believe God changed the speed at which we age, shortening our life span.

These verses also indicate that Abel was probably slain more than 125 years after Adam and Ebe were expelled from the garden.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Somehow your interpretation of Adam as a city does not seem to fit.

I believe God changed the speed at which we age, shortening our life span.

If Adam was the first city, then it was also the first church in a locality! Wow, this actually makes sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Adam was the first city, then it was also the first church in a locality! Wow, this actually makes sense.

Just like WL ... He saw locality in every scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Ohio: Fair enough. But exactly how god creates if he does is also up for question. Some folks(Zpanaah) have made a muddy compromise between science and the Bible. Zpanaah accepts evolution, including human evolution.


Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers.

I'm glad I picked a name you could spell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah
First off, human eusociality is indeed a controversial science topic as of late. E. O. Wilson is actually one of the few prominent scientists who have put forth this hypothesis, and many others have challenged it. You can actually look on Google scholar or wikipedia for some relevant papers. But I will put that aside and go ahead with your definition of eusociality. For one thing, it is a lot more than 19 species that qualify as eusocial-though on a whole it is a fairly rare phenomena in the animal world.

Your biggest fallacy seems to be assume that human eusociality must come with a written language, or other things.

I certainly didn't say this. Of all the species identified as being eusocial only man has a written language, so it is a distinct minority.

My point is that unlike worker bees, or ants, or other species we learn using written language, we understand the organization of our society using written language. We understand what we should and shouldn't do based on our laws, written language. We have contracts -- written language. History -- written language. My point is that we could not have our civilization that we do have without written language, and that our civilization is an expression of the fact that we are eusocial. There is no other species that needs laws, contracts, debates, and years and years of school to learn how to behave in this civilization, this is uniquely human.

However, everything that has made us what we are today can be seen in the Bible. Our understanding of justice, government, contracts, poetry, song, celebrations, etc. We have learned to be eusocial from the Bible. That is what makes us man in the image and likeness of God.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Are parents who homeschool their children and forgo cooperative brood care not eusocial/civilized? Many human families get by with very limited cooperative brood care. In fact, other apes may use this system more often than we do.(many other apes that live in troops will leave their offspring with other females-usually though not always related)

In many tribes, different people took on different jobs. They could not be as specialized as we see today, simply because they have fewer people and fewer needs, but you have a medicine man, hunters, gatherers, craftsmen, and the like. Sure, people were not locked into their roles, but the same holds true today. You certainly had religion and spirituality and presumably contact with God as well.

Some form of lasting complex communication seems necessary to keep a civilization going. The Incas seem to not have developed a written language-but perhaps they had a lasting way of communicating that we have not quite deciphered yet. That is why I brought up proto languages...because some of these may contain more information than we can tell. These etchings were done by societies that, save for written language, had attained a lot of what you seem to be looking for in civilization

It is an interesting idea that the life God breathed into Adam was civilization...but keep in mind civilizations arose around the globe without contact with this particular civilization. Sumerian may be the oldest written language, but it can't claim to have spawned all the other ones. Does that still work with your narrative?

I never claimed that Sumerian "spawned all the other ones". You said that man did not originate in the Middle East (near the Euphrates). My point is that the man described in the Bible did originate near the Euphrates. I never said the first written language spawned all the others, simply that it was the first.

[Intothewind]

Ohio: LOL, no worries. I will probably keep botching it.

Not sure why you felt the need to clarify animals don't have written languages. Animals clearly have dialects(Orcas, birds), and they also do have to learn social norms, it is not completely innate.

By saying that we learn to be eusocial from the Bible-you in effect say that Sumerian culture has spawned the others. Tons of eusocial societies made it far without the Bible.(we could argue for the Incans their encounter with the Bible was the beginning of the end-ha) I think you are doing a disservice to these "simple" hunter gatherer societies who know and can do things modern civilized man could never fathom.

So then, do people without written language not understand these humanizing things you just listed? I hope you don't mean that.

Some anthropologists see agrarian society(which leads sometimes to civilization as people are no longer traveling) as not so much a step up, but a desperate attempt to survive famine. Early farmers lived shorter lives and dealt with malnutrition and cavities that hunter gatherer society remains do not show. And even today, hunter gatherer societies put in less hours of work per week than even those of us in plush first world habitation(I think this assumes that carrying capacity of the land is ok and the tribes territory is not otherwise compromised).

Genesis actually seems to paint a picture of the noble savage.(Adam only had to become civilized after sinning and getting booted from the magic garden-which I'm going to assume you do not think is an actual place).

Fair enough on the origins of Sumerian society. If Adam and Eve are only a type, and not actual human beings, then the general gist of the story may work. We have to attribute a lot of poetic language to just that, and allow for many interpretations and errors. We are drifting into the historicity of the Bible(also debated, I just read that Joshua is often seen as nationalistic propaganda rather than a good documentation). That is another thread which I have little interest in participating in.

If the genesis order is the order of creatures recolonizing the area after some sort of apocalypse...it is sure funny that the "creeping things" arrived last.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Ohio: LOL, no worries. I will probably keep botching it.

Well you got that right.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Not sure why you felt the need to clarify animals don't have written languages. Animals clearly have dialects(Orcas, birds), and they also do have to learn social norms, it is not completely innate.

Orcas and birds are not classified as eusocial species. However, all eusocial species have to have some means of communication -- ants use pheromones, etc. Communication is typical of a society whether apes, or birds, etc. Since eusocial species are highly organized (there can be as many ants in a large anthill as humans in a large city) they require a high level of communication.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

By saying that we learn to be eusocial from the Bible-you in effect say that Sumerian culture has spawned the others.

No, I don't. You equate the Bible with Sumerian culture. I don't. The Bible's culture is fully defined in the Bible, there is no need to refer to ancient Sumerian culture. Has the Bible influenced other cultures and other human civilizations, yes. Obviously the Bible is embraced by Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is has also influenced our western style of democracy as well as Marxist communism.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Tons of eusocial societies made it far without the Bible.

I was not aware that societies were measured by the ton. I suppose doing that gives the US society more weight due to our obesity epidemic.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

(we could argue for the Incans their encounter with the Bible was the beginning of the end-ha) I think you are doing a disservice to these "simple" hunter gatherer societies who know and can do things modern civilized man could never fathom.

You can argue whatever you wish, I have not mentioned the Incas. The Bible is very clear that man can know God from creation. Besides, I do not know enough about the Incas, have not read their writings, have not given more than a cursory study of their history, to relate. Since the original argument was concerning the oldest written language unless you wish to put forward the Incas as being older than the Sumerians it does not appear relevant.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

So then, do people without written language not understand these humanizing things you just listed? I hope you don't mean that.

As far as I know you are the only one who has said that.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Some anthropologists see agrarian society(which leads sometimes to civilization as people are no longer traveling) as not so much a step up, but a desperate attempt to survive famine. Early farmers lived shorter lives and dealt with malnutrition and cavities that hunter gatherer society remains do not show. And even today, hunter gatherer societies put in less hours of work per week than even those of us in plush first world habitation(I think this assumes that carrying capacity of the land is ok and the tribes territory is not otherwise compromised).

Genesis actually seems to paint a picture of the noble savage.(Adam only had to become civilized after sinning and getting booted from the magic garden-which I'm going to assume you do not think is an actual place).

Wow you sure do make a lot of assumptions about what others say and think without actually responding to what they do say.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Fair enough on the origins of Sumerian society. If Adam and Eve are only a type, and not actual human beings, then the general gist of the story may work.

Really? And why wouldn't it work if they were real people. We know that the Bible refers to them figuratively in the New Testament, but I don't see why they couldn't be just as real as Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Or are you now going to tell us that none of the men in the OT were real? Just the book of Genesis, only those men aren't real?

Originally Posted by Intothewind

We have to attribute a lot of poetic language to just that, and allow for many interpretations and errors. We are drifting into the historicity of the Bible(also debated, I just read that Joshua is often seen as nationalistic propaganda rather than a good documentation). That is another thread which I have little interest in participating in.

If the genesis order is the order of creatures recolonizing the area after some sort of apocalypse...it is sure funny that the "creeping things" arrived last.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

The creeping things arrived on the same day that all the land creatures arrived: cattle, creeping things and beasts.

No, to a scientist the give away that this is not the order of creation (or evolution) is the mention of the grass. One would think the first thing to show up after melting ice would be the grass, but on an evolutionary time scale it was definitely the last thing to show up.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread is not about create vs form. It is about science vs Bible.

I thought your gap hypothesis requires a create vs. form distinction. You raised the issue not me. I think your failure to acknowledge that exemplifies what Intothewind refers to as "moving the goal posts." It may be that you are doing that unconsciously since you appeared shocked when he pointed it out to you.

But since this is the second time it came up (Awareness also complained) and since I doubt anyone will really take issue with a detour lets address this.

You had no problem with taking detours on the POE thread. It seemed like you wanted to detour. Besides if the Bible is scientifically accurate as you assert, then discussing its distinctions like "creation vs form" is no detour.

I didn't completely skip it. I said "there are different interpretations". Anyone doing a search on the other interpretation would have immediately found this verse. I look at the great sea creatures being created in the same way I look at man being created. Step 1 -- God created the heavens and the Earth (the stuff of which everything is made, the step that science has no theory for). Step 2 -- He then formed all life from this stuff he created. (evolution) Step 3 -- the finished product has thus been both formed and created by God. This is why the account of Man is so detailed. Sea creatures were given the cliff notes version because they are really peripheral to the Bible.

The fact that the text states that sea creatures were created (bara) on the fifth day contradicts the notion that bara refers to creation ex nihilo. Without that what basis do you have in the text for Pember's gap.

This may sound outrageous, but the key principle operating here is that no verse is of its own interpretation. The NT is very, very clear that there is "one" creation. Besides, if you agree that the sea creatures "evolved" then you agree with me. I am equating "God forming" with "evolution".

The NT may be clear about one creation, but you haven't made it clear in the context on Genesis Chapter One. If the authors point in stating that the sea creatures were created is to say that they evolved why didn't he just say that they evolved? And why did he say that G-d created the sea creatures and made the beasts of the earth (vs 25)? The text doesn't support your hypothesis.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that the God who created the heavens and the earth also created the great sea creatures. That doesn't mean there were two or three creative acts.

It's contrary to the creation gap theory which states that God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and only restored but did not create during the six days of Genesis 1. If that's not what you have been proposing then please clarify.

The text says that waters brought forth and the earth brought forth and then that man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Do you interpret all three of those statements to refer to evolution?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The fact that the text states that sea creatures were created (bara) on the fifth day contradicts the notion that bara refers to creation ex nihilo. Without that what basis do you have in the text for Pember's gap.

The NT may be clear about one creation, but you haven't made it clear in the context on Genesis Chapter One. If the authors point in stating that the sea creatures were created is to say that they evolved why didn't he just say that they evolved? And why did he say that G-d created the sea creatures and made the beasts of the earth (vs 25)? The text doesn't support your hypothesis.

It's contrary to the creation gap theory which states that God created everything in Genesis 1:1 and only restored but did not create during the six days of Genesis 1. If that's not what you have been proposing then please clarify.

The text says that waters brought forth and the earth brought forth and then that man was formed out of the dust of the ground. Do you interpret all three of those statements to refer to evolution?

Since we are discussing this I'll just ignore your first couple of comments.

Once again, this is my hypothesis: I view it like a venn diagram, the big circle is God created the heavens and the Earth, that includes everything. The small circle can be thousand, millions of little circles of God made this and God made that. However, the Bible doesn't go into detail ad nauseum, except perhaps in the book of Job. Here he cuts to the chase and focuses exclusively on man. So although if we looked at sea creatures under a microscope we would see that God did "form" them, the Bible is not looking at them under a microscope, it is looking at Man.

Points of clarification:

1. My hypothesis does not in any way rule out saying that God created man, or the stars, or the earth or the moon, or sea creatures, etc.

2. The focus of Genesis chapter 1 is not the "creation story" but rather the restoration story. Yes, creation is mentioned, but the vast majority of the chapter is dealing with the restoration after something like an ice age.

3. This chapter does not give an evolutionary timeline, grasses were one of the last things to show up in evolution and yet they are listed as the first thing to appear once the land came out of the water.

4. The making of man is complicated, unlike all the other creatures which are after their kind. First, God forms man from the dust of the ground = evolution from single cell life forms. But to be in the image and likeness of a corporate God, that is to make us eusocial, not by DNA but by choice. This requires human language which we first see with Adam naming every single creature, communing with God, tending the garden, having rules, etc.

5. I do not equate this with the reference to the waters bring forth, just like we have after a volcanic explosion, we will have pioneer species show up first, followed by others. My guess is that Genesis 1:3 is more like 10,000 years ago, whereas Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life began evolving about 500 million years ago (at least that is the start of the Cambrian explosion). The focus of Gen 1 is not on sea creatures or evolution or even creation, but rather where did man come from.

6. I cannot think of a more eloquent way to refer to evolution than to say that "Man was made from the dust of the ground".

[Intothewind]

Zpanah: We are running two lines of thought between zeek and me, but I see a good opportunity to bring them together here.

So in Genesis 1.1 God created the heavens and the earth. By creation-you mean all evolution-including human evolution.

(there is some ginormous catastrophe that wipes off everything in a local area)

The following verses are the recolonization of that area.

starting with grasses, and higher plants that are bearing seeds and fruit(without insect pollinators, of course...).

Some unspecified time later, the other life arrives in the said order. Never mind airborne plankton creeping things that God ignored-and would have arrived almost as soon as the land could be touched down upon. Nevermind that the birds would starve long before they could "multiply and fill the earth" unless God simply neglects to mention that little creeping things arrived.


I'm trying hard to make this work, and it just does not.

And it is a pretty long stretch to call "formed from the dust of the ground" evolution.








By moving the goalposts, I mean taking evidence to support a claim it does not seem to support. Zpanah has this elaborate idea of Adam being the first eusocial human, and the basis for that is Sumerian being the oldest written language.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanah: We are running two lines of thought between zeek and me, but I see a good opportunity to bring them together here.

So in Genesis 1.1 God created the heavens and the earth. By creation-you mean all evolution-including human evolution.

(there is some ginormous catastrophe that wipes off everything in a local area)

The following verses are the recolonization of that area.

starting with grasses, and higher plants that are bearing seeds and fruit(without insect pollinators, of course...).

Some unspecified time later, the other life arrives in the said order. Never mind airborne plankton creeping things that God ignored-and would have arrived almost as soon as the land could be touched down upon. Nevermind that the birds would starve long before they could "multiply and fill the earth" unless God simply neglects to mention that little creeping things arrived.


I'm trying hard to make this work, and it just does not.

And it is a pretty long stretch to call "formed from the dust of the ground" evolution.

By moving the goalposts, I mean taking evidence to support a claim it does not seem to support. Zpanah has this elaborate idea of Adam being the first eusocial human, and the basis for that is Sumerian being the oldest written language.

Breakingwind: this thread is comparing science with the Bible.

1. I relate the Big bang theory to Gen 1:1

2. I relate various extinction events that have occurred on Earth to Gen 1:2

3. I relate the 6 days described in Gen 1 to the restoration of the Earth after the last ice age.

4. The Bible then talks about God making man from dust of the earth. I equate that with the process of evolution.

5. The Bible also says that God created Man. I explain that as being similar to a venn diagram, the big, all encompassing circle, is that God created all things. The Big Bang included man in it. You can equate that to current theories about how at the time of the Big Bang there were certain laws of physics that resulted in the universe we have including man and all other creatures.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Breakingwind: this thread is comparing science with the Bible.

1. I relate the Big bang theory to Gen 1:1

Looks like you are having trouble spelling names also.

But this is no comparison at all. For science to espouse the Bing Bag Theory is blind "anti-science" resulting from dogmatic atheism.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

OBW: Except for the literal translation of the Genesis story. It also warms the hearts of men to know they are different from the animals because they were specially created. (interestingly, in Ecclesiastes Solomon claims otherwise)

I would excercise extreme cau...actually just do not try to use the bible to prove science. Yes, people may tout the gap between 1.1 and 1.2 to explain away the fossil record (it does not), and the flood supposedly matching the geological history of this planet. The actual geological record is so complex that it cannot provide any support for these simple outlandish claims. This is an utter waste of time.

The idea that we split off from chimpanzees, inheriting mistakes in their genome which explain why we need vitamin C, evolved bipedalism first, then evolved larger brains which allowed humans to spread throughout the globe may not be particularly flattering to some...though I find it remarkable. But it explains a lot more of our current health problems than does special creation and then the fall.

There are things about man that are unique:

1. We have written language, no other animal species has a written language. There is a huge difference between a number of alarms and calls, and a written language. There is no explanation according to your fundamental rules of evolution to explain this. We lost a huge portion of our brain that was used for photographic memory, very useful in foraging for a hunter gatherer and replaced it with the ability to read and write. This change also requires a very substantial increase in our calorie requirements, the human brain is the most expensive brain on a calorie consumed per weight of person of any creature. However, there should not have been an evolutionary advantage to lose the ability to have a photographic memory in exchange for the ability to read when there were no books, and to write when no one else could read. Likewise, the increased calories required for this exchange makes it even harder to justify or explain as an evolutionary advantage.

2. There is no other example in the evolutionary history of all creatures of a creature choosing to be eusocial. Chimpanzees are not eusocial, yet somehow we are, and not due to DNA, due to choice. That is unprecedented.

Ecclesiastes says that men will know that they are but flesh. Yes, our physical bodies evolved from other creatures, but that does not mean that we aren't unique. You would have to be willfully blind to not see that Man is unique among all species.

We alone have a written language, we alone have religion that teaches us to be eusocial.

There is no dispute between Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1 which says "God made man from the dust of the ground". The two verses are equivalent in meaning. Our bodies are but flesh, our bodies were made from the dust of the ground.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looks like you are having trouble spelling names also.

But this is no comparison at all. For science to espouse the Bing Bag Theory is blind "anti-science" resulting from dogmatic atheism.

I don't understand that?

Big Bang theory basically explains two observations:

1. The universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up. If you rewind the video about 13 billion years ago the entire universe would have been in a single location.

2. There is cosmic background radiation in every direction we look. It is explained as the "ringing of a bell". The universe is still vibrating from the explosion.

How is this theory any different from the Bible which says that the God stretched out the heavens like a curtain? Or, God spoke not being as being?

How is it atheistic, we have no explanation for how this happened other than God, rather we have observable evidence that the Universe sprang into being just as the Bible said it did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus Himself refers to events and people in scripture as matter of fact.

According to the Gospels, Jesus never stated anything in the OT was a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus Himself endorsed the scripture as an accurate record of historical events. He never corrected one flawed verse or recorded event.

He corrected many Old Testament flaws. For example in Matthew 5 he is quoted as saying:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus even endorsed the impossible, like when Jonah lived in the belly of a great fish for three days, and then applied the story to Himself. He did the same with Noah and the great flood. Contrary to the nature of this sub-forum, I happen to accept as fact the words Jesus spoke and the historial events He referred to.

According to the Gospels Jesus cited the stories of Jonah or Noah, but he never stated that they were historical events or that they were scientifically possible.

You apparently think there is something meritorious about believing the unbelievable. That might get you an "Amen" in the Local Church, but I thought you said you had left.

[zeek]

ZNP--

My response to your post 548 is that you are torturing the text of Genesis One to make it say what you want it to say. The author didn't have modern science and it's just not scientifically accurate. There's no evidence of a "gap" or "interval" between verses one and two. The gap theory is a desperate attempt to reconcile the text with modern science and it simply fails. You're a smart imaginative guy but your efforts to make this theory work look silly. The question that remains for me is why you need to believe this doctrine so badly. Do you suppose that your faith will fail you if you don't?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't understand that?

Big Bang theory basically explains two observations:

1. The universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up. If you rewind the video about 13 billion years ago the entire universe would have been in a single location.

2. There is cosmic background radiation in every direction we look. It is explained as the "ringing of a bell". The universe is still vibrating from the explosion.

How is this theory any different from the Bible which says that the God stretched out the heavens like a curtain? Or, God spoke not being as being?

How is it atheistic, we have no explanation for how this happened other than God, rather we have observable evidence that the Universe sprang into being just as the Bible said it did.

It is atheism because calling it a Big Bang defies all science and common sense, that some horrific explosion at the dawn of time could produce ever expanding order without giving due credit to the Creator.

I realize that you must think this way in order to work in academia, but I can still express my views on the subject.

[Intothewind]

Zp: humans may have unique traits, but that doesn't seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom...because many animals also have key unique traits of there own. I don't see evolution of the ability to communicate in detail a problem at all if you see how quickly we ostracize people who can't pick up on social norms even today.

Ohio: whatever it is physicists are working on(i am not learned in this matter) it is more explanative than yelling "Goddunit!"

[Intothewind]

Ralso, im not sure how big bang removes a creator. Lc folks loved the idea that God perhaps wrote the laws of the universe and then pulled the pin to set it all in motion.

My current viewpoint is naturalism...which would require a completely impotent creator perhaps even at this point. That is why I have specifically not addressed miracles in the Bible.

I agree with zeek. I sorta admire zps attempts to reconcile the Bible and science discoveries...it wa a heavy topic on my mind starting from middle school. I remember going to yp meeting after spending the lords table mulling over evolution and reading a factually inaccurate piece by WL that espouaed design. But zeek us right...the scripture is so tortured to give up this narrative as to be hardly recognizable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zp: humans may have unique traits, but that doesn't seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom...because many animals also have key unique traits of there own. I don't see evolution of the ability to communicate in detail a problem at all if you see how quickly we ostracize people who can't pick up on social norms even today.

Ohio: whatever it is physicists are working on (i am not learned in this matter) it is more explanative than yelling "Goddunit!"

ITW, who is yelling?

As far as unique traits go, there is none more unique than man's desire to worship God. This trait alone spans time, space, culture, economics, and most importantly intelligence. It provides sufficient proof of God the Creator, since no other need in man or in the animal kingdom corresponds with the "imaginary."

[Evangelical]

If we are talking about a Creator who can create, bend and modify the laws of physics we cannot possibly assume that what we observe now is what happened then. A miracle is something unexplainable so if the Creation was a miracle then it is by definition unexplainable and our observations are likely to lead to wrong conclusions.

There are many assumptions in science based upon the belief that what we observe today and how things are today is the same as it was trillions of years ago. The big bang and other "observations" are based upon the assumption that things then were the way they are now, or that the laws of physics remain unchanged. Recently NASA scientists have discovered a way to propel spacecraft in space which contradicts known laws:
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/why-na...robably-bogus/

There is a joke on Seinfeld that is about aliens looking towards the Earth and they observe people walking their dogs on a leash. Because the aliens observe the humans walking behind the dog and picking up their poop, they wrongly conclude that dogs are the superior species. Alien attempts to communicate with humans have failed because they have been trying to communicate with dogs, thinking them to be the superior. This is one illustration about how observations and assumptions can easily lead to wrong conclusions. Scientists today make observations about the past and coupled with their assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the Gospels, Jesus never stated anything in the OT was a matter of fact.

He corrected many Old Testament flaws. For example in Matthew 5 he is quoted as saying:

According to the Gospels Jesus cited the stories of Jonah or Noah, but he never stated that they were historical events or that they were scientifically possible.

You apparently think there is something meritorious about believing the unbelievable. That might get you an "Amen" in the Local Church, but I thought you said you had left.

The sad thing to me is that you apparently believe what you wrote here, and I see little value in providing correction.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The sad thing to me is that you apparently believe what you wrote here, and I see little value in providing correction.

What's sad is that you can't admit that you have no good argument against my reply. But, it's understandable because you have so much invested in your position and you think it is synonymous with saving faith.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is atheism because calling it a Big Bang defies all science and common sense, that some horrific explosion at the dawn of time could produce ever expanding order without giving due credit to the Creator.

I realize that you must think this way in order to work in academia, but I can still express my views on the subject.

Amen Ohio!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP--

My response to your post 548 is that you are torturing the text of Genesis One to make it say what you want it to say. The author didn't have modern science and it's just not scientifically accurate. There's no evidence of a "gap" or "interval" between verses one and two. The gap theory is a desperate attempt to reconcile the text with modern science and it simply fails. You're a smart imaginative guy but your efforts to make this theory work look silly. The question that remains for me is why you need to believe this doctrine so badly. Do you suppose that your faith will fail you if you don't?

I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1. When Paul says that there is "one creation" as an item of the faith, I also feel that is a very clear reference to Genesis 1. When Ecclesiastes says that "they will realize they are just flesh" I also think that is a reference to Genesis 1.

I consider the observations and evidence that seems to contradict the account. I have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old as some sad doctrines teach. I accept that the fossil record and archaeological record and linguistic record clearly provide a record of homo sapiens that did not begin with a single individual 6,000 years ago.

However, I find those that dismiss the account to be less than credible. For example it seems obvious to me from the record in Genesis that the author knew there were other homo sapiens besides Adam, so then breathing into him and he becoming a living soul might mean something other than the original simplistic understanding. The Bible is very clear that no verse is of its own understanding and that is the main weakness I have found in the deniers. They don't actually know the Bible, don't really read it, don't really consider it. I know this because in your (collective your) attempt to show where science contradicts the Bible you miss the really difficult verses, the ones that truly are contradicted by science.

You claim I am torturing Genesis 1, but what do you and all the others do? You take a few verses and try to say that in less than 500 words God is going to describe 13 billion years worth of creative activity. Who is being silly? There is not a scientist alive that could do that. It is absurd to read it this way. This is the first chapter of the Bible, is this book really about how God created the universe or is it about God and His relationship with man? Man needs to know who God is and where Man came from, that is what the chapter tells us. That makes sense for what the Bible is about.

You think it is silly because my angle is different from a multitude of Bible expositors. So what, I could care less what they have said. If they had it so right then why is there so much dispute over this chapter to this day? That alone suggests taking a fresh look from a different angle.

Viewing the 6 days as the restoration after an extinction event is very interesting for someone whose background is "the Lord's recovery" but it is equally interesting to me as a geologist because it is the experience of life here on Earth. We have had 5 major extinction events. We are now in the 6th major extinction event.

During the last 10,000 years during which time mankind and human civilization has been on this earth we have had several super volcano explosions, several large meteor strikes, several mega tsunamis. These are not "impossible" they are part of this place we live in. It also ties the final judgement of Armageddon, with the Lord's crucifixion, with the parting of the Red Sea with the flood at Noah's time with Genesis 1. This makes this theme of God's judgment a major theme from the get go, which also corresponds with fundamental teaching on the fall of Satan and the creation of man.

You are quick to dismiss the Bible, I refuse to do that without a careful analysis that begins with the assumption that I have made a mistake before I jump to the conclusion that the writer of the Bible has made a mistake.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ITW, who is yelling?

As far as unique traits go, there is none more unique than man's desire to worship God. This trait alone spans time, space, culture, economics, and most importantly intelligence. It provides sufficient proof of God the Creator, since no other need in man or in the animal kingdom corresponds with the "imaginary."

Let's not forget that in the Genesis flood story God saved way more critters than humans. So maybe God prefers them over us jibber-jabbers.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1.

I already cited this translation which I think clears that problem up without a hidden time interval:

1 When God began to create heaven and earth— 2 the earth being un-formed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— 3 God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Inc., Jewish Publication Society. JPS TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures (blue): The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (p. 3). The Jewish Publication Society. Kindle Edition.

When Paul says that there is "one creation" as an item of the faith, I also feel that is a very clear reference to Genesis 1. When Ecclesiastes says that "they will realize they are just flesh" I also think that is a reference to Genesis 1.

Where does Paul say there was one creation? Anyway, if anybody is saying there's more than one creation, it's the gap theorists, not me.

I consider the observations and evidence that seems to contradict the account. I have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old as some sad doctrines teach. I accept that the fossil record and archaeological record and linguistic record clearly provide a record of homo sapiens that did not begin with a single individual 6,000 years ago.

Yeah, I don't see the young earth theory as tenable based on massive evidence.

However, I find those that dismiss the account to be less than credible. For example it seems obvious to me from the record in Genesis that the author knew there were other homo sapiens besides Adam, so then breathing into him and he becoming a living soul might mean something other than the original simplistic understanding. The Bible is very clear that no verse is of its own understanding and that is the main weakness I have found in the deniers. They don't actually know the Bible, don't really read it, don't really consider it. I know this because in your (collective your) attempt to show where science contradicts the Bible you miss the really difficult verses, the ones that truly are contradicted by science.

Which verses are those?

You claim I am torturing Genesis 1, but what do you and all the others do? You take a few verses and try to say that in less than 500 words God is going to describe 13 billion years worth of creative activity. Who is being silly? There is not a scientist alive that could do that. It is absurd to read it this way. This is the first chapter of the Bible, is this book really about how God created the universe or is it about God and His relationship with man? Man needs to know who God is and where Man came from, that is what the chapter tells us. That makes sense for what the Bible is about.

You and I seem to come to the Bible with different presuppositions. I think you treat it as if it is the inerrant product of supernatural omniscient intelligence. I treat it as the product of natural human intelligence. The writers were inspired by their experience of God, but they were ordinary fallible humans. The six day creation may have had something to do with the seven day ritual week which seems to have been central to the pattern of living that they believed God had revealed to them.

You think it is silly because my angle is different from a multitude of Bible expositors. So what, I could care less what they have said. If they had it so right then why is there so much dispute over this chapter to this day? That alone suggests taking a fresh look from a different angle. Viewing the 6 days as the restoration after an extinction event is very interesting for someone whose background is "the Lord's recovery" but it is equally interesting to me as a geologist because it is the experience of life here on Earth. We have had 5 major extinction events. We are now in the 6th major extinction event.

Sadly, I am aware that we are in the sixth great extinction. I do my bit to fight against that. Do you see something supernatural about it?

During the last 10,000 years during which time mankind and human civilization has been on this earth we have had several super volcano explosions, several large meteor strikes, several mega tsunamis. These are not "impossible" they are part of this place we live in. It also ties the final judgement of Armageddon, with the Lord's crucifixion, with the parting of the Red Sea with the flood at Noah's time with Genesis 1. This makes this theme of God's judgment a major theme from the get go, which also corresponds with fundamental teaching on the fall of Satan and the creation of man.

Yeah, we seem to be bent on destroying ourselves and the planet. The apocalyptic writings reflect our intuitions of our ultimate annihilation and our hope for meaning beyond our natural finitude.

You are quick to dismiss the Bible, I refuse to do that without a careful analysis that begins with the assumption that I have made a mistake before I jump to the conclusion that the writer of the Bible has made a mistake.

I haven't dismissed it. I'm viewing the Hebrew Bible as the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament, I see as the product of the early Christian movement. Based on the evidence and my expereince up until now, it makes sense to view the Bible not as written by God but as the response of these two ancient communities to their experience of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You and I seem to come to the Bible with different presuppositions. I think you treat it as if it is the inerrant product of supernatural omniscient intelligence. I treat it as the product of natural human intelligence. The writers were inspired by their experience of God, but they were ordinary fallible humans. The six day creation may have had something to do with the seven day ritual week which seems to have been central to the pattern of living that they believed God had revealed to them.

I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.

Magical realism :

"what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_realism

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't have anything invested in the gap theory as a doctrine, nor do I "need" to believe it.

I do believe in examining the word of God. I do believe in putting the word of God under intense scrutiny. When God said He didn't create the earth waste and void I feel that is a crystal clear reference to Genesis 1.

Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang

I'm sorry, I looked at 10 translations and couldn't find this one which says "God began to create".

The translations that I have come to trust all say "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Based on those translations the heavens and earth were created prior to God saying "let there be light".

So perhaps you can tell us what this special translation is that you are using and why you think it is more accurate than the standard ones?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang

I find this quite humorous. This so-called "desperation" in all those who happen to read the Bible. It just ain't so!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also accepted your viewpoint until I discovered that something I assumed to be impossible was not.

Psyche by Virginia Moore

The Soul that has believed
and is deceived
thinks nothing for a while.
All thoughts are vile.
And then because the sun
is mute persuasion
And hope in Spring and Fall
Most natural,
The soul grows calm and mild,
a little child, Finding the pull of breath
Better than death…
The soul that had believed
and was deceived
Ends by believing more
than ever before.

Once burned, twice shy. I no longer jump to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.

Let me see if I follow what you are saying. You used to think like me, but then you discovered something in the Bible that you had previously thought was impossible and as a result you no longer think you're right and the Bible is wrong. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think of myself as right and the Bible wrong. I hadn't thought of looking at it that way until I read your post.

The Bible is what it is--the sacred canon of the Christian church. The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it? And, I tried to explain how I am doing that currently in my previous post.

How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years and I expect it will continue to change as I go on. According to what you said above, your view of the Bible has changed over time as well, but apparently in a different way than mine has.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang

Like I said below, I view the opening chapters of Genesis not as God’s account of creation but as ancient Israel’s stories of creation. Most ancient cultures had such stories and I described a few on another post. Not surprisingly, as a pre-scientific writings, the chances that ancient Israel’s stories of creation would contain scientifically accurate information are extremely low. I look at them as metaphorical or symbolic narratives, not as literally factual accounts. But, that doesn't imply that they aren't profoundly meaningful.

So, unlike the gap theorists, I'm not trying to find Darwin's theory or the Big Bang or shifting tectonic plates in Genesis One or to reconcile it with such modern scientific theories. I do try to understand what the author is getting at and like I said below, I suppose that the author was implying that Israel's way of life was divinely established by God in the way he created the cosmos. The six days of creation and and God's rest on the seventh day are significant examples.

Perhaps it is especially meaningful that the author ascribes the creation of light to God's speaking rather than to the sun and the stars. Many of the ancient cultures actually worshiped the sun and the stars as gods. And it symbolizes the way God's word brings enlightenment. So this may be something uniquely Judaic. What do you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me see if I follow what you are saying. You used to think like me, but the you discovered something in it that you had previously thought was impossible and as a result you no longer think you're right and the Bible is wrong. Is that what you're saying?

I don't think of myself as right and the Bible wrong. I hadn't thought of looking at it that way until I read your post.

The Bible is what it is--the sacred canon of the Christian church. The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it? And, I tried to explain how I am doing that currently in my previous post.

How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years and I expect it will continue to change as I go on. According to what you said above, your view of the Bible has changed over time as well, but apparently in a different way than mine has.

There have been times when I was seduced into thinking, "yeah, that can't be right" only to later find out, oops, it can be. So now I take the Bible at its word, and say to myself "how do you explain this?"

Since we are talking about Noah's flood on the other thread, that is a good example.

It didn't make any sense to me, even if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights it didn't seem that the whole Noah's ark thing would work. A flash flood is not like a bathtub filling up, it is like a whitewater river that would cause the boat to be dragged and flipped.

But then in 1996 I read about the Black Sea being flooded by the ocean and I thought, OK, that could explain the boat. But it didn't really explain the rest. Why 40 days and 40 nights of rain in that region of the country?

But then about six years later they discovered the meteor crater in the Indian ocean and tied it into the deposits on Madagascar and dated it to virtually the same time.

So then it seemed much closer to the story, that would be a global flood, that could explain 40 days and 40 nights of rain, it could explain many other civilizations talking about floods and it could have been the event that caused the Black Sea to flood.

But it still didn't explain how the water could have gone over the highest peaks. Everyone knows that the highest peaks are the Himalayas, and even if this thing were 10 times higher than the last tsunami it would not be anywhere close to explaining that.

But then they discovered the biggest flood in human history, 500 cubic miles of water being released from a high mountain pass in the Himalayas, again at this time.

Even so there are other problems. I knew that all the animals on Earth had not been killed, neither had all the people. So I went back and reread it and realized, oops, it didn't actually say that. It sounded like it, I could easily see how it had been misread, but if you look more carefully it most definitely did not say that.

My error was that I assumed the parts that seemed utterly impossible were impossible, when in fact that was a very accurate description of what took place. My second error was assuming the part that everyone knew to be true, that the Bible said all men died, that was not what it said.

I find every time I think the Bible is wrong and I am right, I wind up playing the fool. But then once you come to believe things you thought were utterly impossible actually did happen exactly as the Bible said, well then it is a lot easier to believe every word.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now if I were inclined to this seeming desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science -- which I'm not -- I would point out this "light" that God brings forth, out of nowhere, before the creation of any light bearing objects, that were created on the 4th day.

It would be more credible, and conceivable, sensible even, to say that, this sudden out of nowhere light was : The Big Bang.

But of course, science hadn't yet discovered the big bang in Chalmer's and Pember's day, so out of their desperation to prove the Bible aligns with science they had to go for the gap theory. But rest assured, if they were around today, animated by the same desperation, they would use verse 3 to prove the Bible aligns with the big bang

Suppose this is the movies, you walk into the dimly lit room where the seriously depressed drug addict has been holed up for the last two weeks. What is the first thing they do? "Let there be light" they pull back the curtains.

You see this same scene play out a hundred times, but for some reason you can't see it with God?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Suppose this is the movies, you walk into the dimly lit room where the seriously depressed drug addict has been holed up for the last two weeks. What is the first thing they do? "Let there be light" they pull back the curtains.

You see this same scene play out a hundred times, but for some reason you can't see it with God?

That's a cute way to put it, that God just pulled back the curtain, as in he had the light behind curtains all along ... a pre-existing light perhaps. It's not Biblically based, but cute nonetheless. I'm starting to warm up to your imaginative style. Please be patient with me. I'm still working on my psyche.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The question is what does it mean? How should I understand it? How can I understand it?

And more than anything else, how can I apply it to my life today? And why is it is so important that the Bible aligns with science? That seems to be superfluous mind baggage to me.

Originally Posted by zeek

How I look at the Bible has changed based on my study and experience over the years ...

And oddly enough, after decades of no contact with each other, when we reconnected we had gone thru similar ways of learning, subject matter, and thinking. The reconnect has proven to be a real blessing for me ... tho maybe frustrating the hell out of him.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There have been times when I was seduced into thinking, "yeah, that can't be right" only to later find out, oops, it can be. So now I take the Bible at its word, and say to myself "how do you explain this?"

Since we are talking about Noah's flood on the other thread, that is a good example.

It didn't make any sense to me, even if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights it didn't seem that the whole Noah's ark thing would work. A flash flood is not like a bathtub filling up, it is like a whitewater river that would cause the boat to be dragged and flipped.

But then in 1996 I read about the Black Sea being flooded by the ocean and I thought, OK, that could explain the boat. But it didn't really explain the rest. Why 40 days and 40 nights of rain in that region of the country?

But then about six years later they discovered the meteor crater in the Indian ocean and tied it into the deposits on Madagascar and dated it to virtually the same time.

So then it seemed much closer to the story, that would be a global flood, that could explain 40 days and 40 nights of rain, it could explain many other civilizations talking about floods and it could have been the event that caused the Black Sea to flood.

But it still didn't explain how the water could have gone over the highest peaks. Everyone knows that the highest peaks are the Himalayas, and even if this thing were 10 times higher than the last tsunami it would not be anywhere close to explaining that.

But then they discovered the biggest flood in human history, 500 cubic miles of water being released from a high mountain pass in the Himalayas, again at this time.

Even so there are other problems. I knew that all the animals on Earth had not been killed, neither had all the people. So I went back and reread it and realized, oops, it didn't actually say that. It sounded like it, I could easily see how it had been misread, but if you look more carefully it most definitely did not say that.

My error was that I assumed the parts that seemed utterly impossible were impossible, when in fact that was a very accurate description of what took place. My second error was assuming the part that everyone knew to be true, that the Bible said all men died, that was not what it said.

I find every time I think the Bible is wrong and I am right, I wind up playing the fool. But then once you come to believe things you thought were utterly impossible actually did happen exactly as the Bible said, well then it is a lot easier to believe every word.

Please cite peer reviewed scientific papers so that I can make an independent evaluation of your claims.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's a cute way to put it, that God just pulled back the curtain, as in he had the light behind curtains all along ... a pre-existing light perhaps. It's not Biblically based, but cute nonetheless. I'm starting to warm up to your imaginative style. Please be patient with me. I'm still working on my psyche.

Whenever a super volcano erupts or a large meteorite strikes the earth it fills the atmosphere with dust that blocks the sun. This is why we saw a small cooling after Mt. Pinatubo erupted. This is simply Geology 101

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Please cite peer reviewed scientific papers so that I can make an independent evaluation of your claims.

Black Sea Deluge

https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/revie..._sea_45589.pdf

Burckle Crater

http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPap...ter/Weaver.pdf

Himalaya Flood

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3673729?...n_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7640de2509.pdf

Holocene Monsoon in India

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/12/1083.short

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Black Sea Deluge

https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/revie..._sea_45589.pdf

Burckle Crater

http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPap...ter/Weaver.pdf

Himalaya Flood

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3673729?...n_tab_contents

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7640de2509.pdf

Holocene Monsoon in India

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/12/1083.short

Thank you. I skimmed the articles. It seems the authors argue that various catastrophic floods which may have "remained in the collective memory leading to the creation of flood myths that are common in many early cultures" as the author states in the first article. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. It's a far cry from affirming the historicity of Noah's flood as depicted in Genesis.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And more than anything else, how can I apply it to my life today? And why is it is so important that the Bible aligns with science? That seems to be superfluous mind baggage to me.


And oddly enough, after decades of no contact with each other, when we reconnected we had gone thru similar ways of learning, subject matter, and thinking. The reconnect has proven to be a real blessing for me ... tho maybe frustrating the hell out of him.

We're alike in that we're both "misfits". But, I've only been married twice. You've got me beat there.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you. I skimmed the articles. It seems the authors argue that various catastrophic floods which may have "remained in the collective memory leading to the creation of flood myths that are common in many early cultures" as the author states in the first article. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. It's a far cry from affirming the historicity of Noah's flood in Genesis.

It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to "affirm the historicity of Noah's flood".

1. We are not clear precisely when Noah's flood was based on the Bible.

2. Our dating methods using radiometric dating can be plus or minus a thousand years. That is perfectly precise for geologic uses, but could hardly confirm three cataclysmic floods were part of the same event in human history

3. Other forms of dating, more typical in dating the sediments deposited by a flood are relative dating, even less precise.

Therefore any legitimate scientist would never say that "this event is that flood".

I also have repeatedly predicated my statements saying that I don't know what happened.

What I do know did happen is that there was a flood that went over the highest peaks on Earth, very similar to what is recorded in the account of Noah.

What I do know is that an entire civilization surrounding the "Black Sea lake" was completely wiped from the face of the earth. Similar to the account in Noah.

What I do know is that it is highly likely, even evidence strongly supports that there was an extremely strong monsoon like event during this same time period, similar to the 40 days and nights of rain referred to in the account of Noah's flood.

What I do know for a fact is that anyone who claims the account given in the Bible is "impossible" is a fool. All of those events did happen during human history and would have appeared as recorded in the Bible.

What I and all other scientists cannot tell you is what year did it happen, and were all three events interconnected?

Therefore, as far as it is possible science has confirmed the account of Noah's flood. Obviously finding the boat would be a great archaeological find and would also confirm that aspect of the story.

To the extent that science has not confirmed the story of Noah, it is not because of any issue with the Bible but because of the shortcomings in our scientific techniques.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

As much as false science wants people to read the Bible as a fairy tale, and thus the rest of the Bible with skepticism as if written by fallible men, it is too bad that the skeptics do not apply that same standard to the falliblity of men in the false science that is the evolution theory.

Going back to the original post by Jesus4Me, I think we can agree that if there is a "false science" there is also a true science, just as there are false prophets and true prophets. Paul would not refer to stuff "falsely called science" if it were not possible to be "truly science".

I think this is an example of how true science, no agenda to either prove or disprove the Bible, can show that the Bible is not a "fairy tale" but rather a very useful and descriptive account of the absolute worst natural disaster in recorded human history, and also possibly the best most formative natural event in human history (some theorize that the spread of agricultural revolution across the globe coincided with this event -- I can certainly imagine that those who survived might have preferred to populate areas further from the sea).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Going back to the original post by Jesus4Me, I think we can agree that if there is a "false science" there is also a true science, just as there are false prophets and true prophets. Paul would not refer to stuff "falsely called science" if it were not possible to be "truly science".

I think this is an example of how true science, no agenda to either prove or disprove the Bible, can show that the Bible is not a "fairy tale" but rather a very useful and descriptive account of the absolute worst natural disaster in recorded human history, and also possibly the best most formative natural event in human history (some theorize that the spread of agricultural revolution across the globe coincided with this event -- I can certainly imagine that those who survived might have preferred to populate areas further from the sea).

That's an incredible leap of faith. You just admitted in the previous post that "It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to 'affirm the historicity of Noah's flood'." This is what I meant when I referred to your need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of Bible stories. Your thinking seems to be motivated by need to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your religion and your scientific knowledge. How is the Noah flood any better than the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or other ancient flood myths from a scientific point of view?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's an incredible leap of faith. You just admitted in the previous post that "It would be virtually impossible for a scientist to 'affirm the historicity of Noah's flood'." This is what I meant when I referred to your need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of Bible stories. Your thinking seems to be motivated by need to reduce the cognitive dissonance between your religion and your scientific knowledge. How is the Noah flood any better than the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh or other ancient flood myths from a scientific point of view?

This thread was formed by someone other than me. I did not see the need for it. I respond to those who claim that the Bible is a fairy tale or disproved by science. That is not true. But out of 2,600+ posts maybe 2% are science related. That is not evidence of some need to substantiate the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible stories but rather the willingness to defend the gospel. 98% of my posts do not do this.

I said that it is impossible for science to confirm the account of Noah because we cannot accurately date these events down to a single year.

However, science can confirm that the description "the heavens were opened" is an accurate description of what the Earth would be like after an asteroid of this size hits the Indian Ocean. Science can confirm that when you get rain of that magnitude there will be flooding of all rivers, streams, lakes, etc. That would be very tough for any agricultural society.

Science can also confirm the report that the flood came down from the highest peaks on earth. That also did happen. 500 cubic miles, that is 1000 miles by 132 miles by 20 feet. Imagine a sheet of water 20 feet deep, 1,000 miles wide and 132 miles deep sweeping across India from the Himalaya mountains. This would be something that no one could forget and would certainly write about if they survived.

Science can also confirm a catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea where the water rose 500 feet in an incredibly rapid way, the force of the water rushing in is estimated to be 400 times more powerful than Niagra falls.

Science can also confirm that in the case of the Black Sea flooding the large boat might be an effective strategy to weather the storm. It would not have been effective in a Tsunami or Ice dam collapse.

The Tsunami, the Black Sea, the flood from the Himalayas, the monsoon like rain. All of these would be so extreme that no one would ever forget. They would enter our written record of human civilization.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All of these would be so extreme that no one would ever forget. They would enter our written record of human civilization.

As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.

It doesn't appear to be "fantastical".

The Black Sea region experienced a rapid 500 foot rise in water level.

500 cubic miles of water from the Himalaya mtns would be a wall of water 20 feet high, 1,000 miles by 132 miles. A flash flood rolling off the Himalayas and across India doesn't seem anymore fantastical than the record.

The water that would have been shot into the atmosphere and then come back down as 40 days and nights of rain appears to be an accurate depiction.

It seems to me that whoever did the writing did a very thorough and accurate job of collecting the witnesses.

They say the "heavens were opened" -- sounds like a reasonable description.

They also say the fountains of the deep were broken up. This sounds to me like volcanos, which is certainly something we would expect from an impact this powerful, though of course it could also refer to the Tsunami.

There were five volcanos that erupted at 4200 BCE, for a total of roughly 350 cubic km of material.

But which part of the record do you find "fantastical"? It seems like all of these descriptions have been confirmed as accurate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

500 cubic miles of water from the Himalaya mtns would be a wall of water 20 feet high, 1,000 miles by 132 miles. A flash flood rolling off the Himalayas and across India doesn't seem anymore fantastical than the record.

I perceive it farfetched that water running from the Himalayas would result in flooding 15 cubits above the mountains.

Originally Posted by ZNP

It seems to me that whoever did the writing did a very thorough and accurate job of collecting the witnesses.

Oh yeah, those 4000+ yr old witnesses.

Originally Posted by ZNP

They also say the fountains of the deep were broken up. This sounds to me like volcanos

Volcanoes shooting water not hot lava. Sounds like a stretch to make things fit to me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I perceive it farfetched that water running from the Himalayas would result in flooding 15 cubits above the mountains.


Oh yeah, those 4000+ yr old witnesses.


Volcanoes shooting water not hot lava. Sounds like a stretch to make things fit to me.

Those 4,000 year old witnesses have been scrutinized longer and more thoroughly than any other.

Where do you think we got water from in the first place? Water in "fountains of the deep" was a major scientific discovery just this year.

Those that claim the Bible thumpers run from science are actually those who don't even know the science.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I'm sorry, I looked at 10 translations and couldn't find this one which says "God began to create".

The translations that I have come to trust all say "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Based on those translations the heavens and earth were created prior to God saying "let there be light".

So perhaps you can tell us what this special translation is that you are using and why you think it is more accurate than the standard ones?

You addressed this question to Harold but I was the one who cited this translation. When I quoted it I included the Kindle Edition citation i.e. :

Inc., Jewish Publication Society. JPS TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures (blue): The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (p. 3). The Jewish Publication Society. Kindle Edition.

Given that citation, I'm surprised you couldn't find it. Here it is on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/JPS-TANAKH-Sc...eywords=tanakh

I'm not a Hebrew scholar so I didn't claim that this translation is more accurate then others. I did state that it provides a plausible rendering of the Genesis 1:1-3 that doesn't necessitate correcting the author by inserting a vast and mysterious time interval into the text.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

i.e. : Given that citation, I'm surprised you couldn't find it. Here it is on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/JPS-TANAKH-Sc...eywords=tanakh

Don't do it ZNP. Amazon is asking $12.00 and I can tell you how to get it for free, and over 40 other translations. Hit me in PMs if interested.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

As I pointed out the "written record" came thousands of years after the supposed event. And memory during the millennia would typically become ever more fantastical. As is the case.

When you put it that way Star Wars isn't fantastical.

There's prolly as much fantastical in both. But this thread is not about the Bible v. Science Fiction. Or is it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Those 4,000 year old witnesses have been scrutinized longer and more thoroughly than any other.

Where do you think we got water from in the first place? Water in "fountains of the deep" was a major scientific discovery just this year.

Those that claim the Bible thumpers run from science are actually those who don't even know the science.

ZNP, where can I read more?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, where can I read more?

You've stated that you don't read links ... or books ... something about eyes getting tired. But I would read more. I'll read anything. I'm open like a garbage can ... haha

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, where can I read more?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1265

[ZNPaaneah]

In my opinion the Bible is a faithful witness and provides us with an extremely valuable accounts of what took place at the beginning of human civilization. This should be true for any investigator regardless of whether or not they accept that the book is the word of God.

So then, according to this account something really important, revolutionary, happened at the time of Adam. They tell us several things, first, Man begins to look at nature as a "garden to tend" rather than simply seeking your next meal, you take ownership and responsibility for the outcome. that is very revolutionary. Also, man begins to name every single animal and observe their characteristics. Third, man begins to raise domesticated sheep and goats.

I would then look at the archaeological record and see that at this time, when man began to domesticate sheep and goats it was approximately the beginning of the agricultural revolution. You could argue that wild cereal grains were domesticated a little earlier, but the initial process is done by hunter gatherers. They gather the biggest grains, bring them back to camp, some spill and next year when they return to the same campsite they will have sprouted up. Do this for a few hundred years and your campsite will have become a farm with cereals that have been selectively bred to have larger grains. Maybe after a thousand years of this they realize that they can domesticate, and selectively breed the plants they want. Hence they go from "gatherers" to farmers "tending" the garden.

Based on this there is a very nice correlation to the archaeological record 8,000 years ago and Adam, and Abel.

Also, the process of farming would require a much more sophisticated language, community, and division of labor.

All that is fine, but then I would be very intrigued that the ancient account refers to this as "the first man". What do they mean by that? You have the first farmer, we can all see that, you have the first shepherd, we can all see that, you even have the first written language. But why the first man?

I would think any genuine scientist without an agenda would ask these questions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion the Bible is a faithful witness and provides us with an extremely valuable accounts of what took place at the beginning of human civilization. This should be true for any investigator regardless of whether or not they accept that the book is the word of God.

So then, according to this account something really important, revolutionary, happened at the time of Adam. They tell us several things, first, Man begins to look at nature as a "garden to tend" rather than simply seeking your next meal, you take ownership and responsibility for the outcome. that is very revolutionary. Also, man begins to name every single animal and observe their characteristics. Third, man begins to raise domesticated sheep and goats.

I would then look at the archaeological record and see that at this time, when man began to domesticate sheep and goats it was approximately the beginning of the agricultural revolution. You could argue that wild cereal grains were domesticated a little earlier, but the initial process is done by hunter gatherers. They gather the biggest grains, bring them back to camp, some spill and next year when they return to the same campsite they will have sprouted up. Do this for a few hundred years and your campsite will have become a farm with cereals that have been selectively bred to have larger grains. Maybe after a thousand years of this they realize that they can domesticate, and selectively breed the plants they want. Hence they go from "gatherers" to farmers "tending" the garden.

Based on this there is a very nice correlation to the archaeological record 8,000 years ago and Adam, and Abel.

Also, the process of farming would require a much more sophisticated language, community, and division of labor.

All that is fine, but then I would be very intrigued that the ancient account refers to this as "the first man". What do they mean by that? You have the first farmer, we can all see that, you have the first shepherd, we can all see that, you even have the first written language. But why the first man?

I would think any genuine scientist without an agenda would ask these questions.

Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.

awareness, are you a scientist like ZNP? where is this coming from , your own learning/study or some particular book?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting rundown but anachronistic. Agriculture didn't start with the first pair of humans. The story is being told backwards ... and can't help but to be full of assumptions about our beginnings. The agricultural revolution came thousands of years before this story was written. The author(s) looked back and thought it all began from the beginning.

But it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of years passed before the advent of totalitarian agriculture, and resulting civilization ... the times when this story was being told and written.

Estimates are that cereal grains were first domesticated about 10,000 years ago, and sheep and goats were first domesticated about 8,000 years ago.

However, if you read Jared Diamond's books he describes the process by which hunter gatherers would have first "domesticated" cereal grains. On any stalk you will see grains of differing sizes, humans would have picked the biggest, gathered them and taken them back to camp. Some of these would have been spilled while eating, preparing or using the latrine. A year later when this troop of hunter gatherers returned to this campsite they would find these grains having grown up a their campsite. This process of choosing the biggest and best seeds to eat would have been repeated each year. So then the first thousand years of "domesticated" grains might have been done by hunter gatherers and not those who had made the switch. It is a big change to go from a nomadic existence to building a farm and a barn. Presumably you would need a potentially very successful farm to warrant that change.

Herding sheep would have been the "big" breakthrough as far as convincing your typical hunter gatherer to switch because wool, clothes, milk, cheese and meat would have been major draws, not to mention the fact that fermented grains should have also been discovered by this point.

Also, after a catastrophic flood that wipes out much of the wild game yet leaves the land wide open for planting should have given those making the switch a leg up. Since all those barn animals can eat the grasses you are growing the flood would have really paved the way for ranchers and farmers. The three events that were at approximately the same time (perhaps even the same time) were around 7,500 years ago.

Also, this is not "my" theory. The people studying the flooding of the Black Sea have pointed out the correlation with the rapid spread of the agricultural revolution in the area and they are the ones who have suggested the possible link.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

awareness, are you a scientist like ZNP? where is this coming from , your own learning/study or some particular book?

Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold

The archaeological evidence is pretty solid that hunter gatherer societies were the first to "selectively breed" plants. By collecting the ones they wanted and having the seeds pass through them in the latrine near their campsite their campsites would yield varieties of the plants that were progressively more and more domesticated for human consumption.

That would not yet be the move to an agrarian society. Once you have a farm house, a town, a dwelling where you live 12 months a year, and a barn to store your crops/seeds, then that would be the transition.

It is possible that this first town was established by one family.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The archaeological evidence is pretty solid that hunter gatherer societies were the first to "selectively breed" plants. By collecting the ones they wanted and having the seeds pass through them in the latrine near their campsite their campsites would yield varieties of the plants that were progressively more and more domesticated for human consumption.

That would not yet be the move to an agrarian society. Once you have a farm house, a town, a dwelling where you live 12 months a year, and a barn to store your crops/seeds, then that would be the transition.

It is possible that this first town was established by one family.

It's also possible, likely even, that the transition to agriculture took place when powers that be learned that food is a great way to control people. There's even a name for it. It's called Totalitarian Agriculture. That's when we told God to get screwed. That we no longer leave it up to Him to provide, that, we can do it for ourselves.

And we still do it today. The hunter-gatherers are now at Walmart.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's also possible, likely even, that the transition to agriculture took place when powers that be learned that food is a great way to control people. There's even a name for it. It's called Totalitarian Agriculture. That's when we told God to get screwed. That we no longer leave it up to Him to provide, that, we can do it for ourselves.

And we still do it today. The hunter-gatherers are now at Walmart.

Hunting is the sport of kings.

Early agriculture was a matter of necessity, not choice. Archaeologists have found that hunter gatherers were bigger and healthier than the early adopters of agriculture. Early farmers got most of their calories from a very few starchy crops which led to malnutrition. They risked famine if a crop failed. A lot more pestilence from living in crowded, dirty little towns.

Many people believe the biggest technological advancement in human history is modern plumbing.

Hunter gatherers have a healthier lifestyle, they always eat fresh food, they always eat a healthy variety of food.

As a result of the agricultural revolution we have had to learn about nutrition, e have had to learn about sanitation, and we have had to learn governing. But as we do that we become less and less like the primates. A tribe of homo sapiens living as hunter gatherers are not that different from a troop of chimpanzees. But, a city of homo sapiens with modern sanitation, trucking in food from all over the country, sold at the local Walmart, dealing with all the dirty laundry of government (all 2,000 pounds of it) do not look anything like a troop of chimpanzees, they are men.

Yes, hunter gatherers can discover the little animals go crazy when they eat beans from a coffee plant. But if it was not for the agricultural revolution we would never have discovered espresso. Without a vision we would have perished.

I view our 6,000 years of human history much like the 12-16-20 years of school we go through now. In 1900 I think about 10% of the US population graduated HS. Today we have more than that with a Master's, Phd or professional degree. It took us about 100 years for our country to come up with public elementary school for all, now we are discussing making college the same as elementary, JHS, and HS. Hunter gatherers don't need to read to thrive, today if you can't read it is difficult to function in society.

Like it or not we are being made into the image of the incarnated word.

Without the agricultural revolution we wouldn't have chili cheese fries or open heart surgery.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for asking brother Evangelical. If I'm a scientist of any sort, since I started my life long career at IBM, it would be computer science.

But I've been an avid reader all my life, or most of it anyway. And where "this is coming from" is from all my reading.

Why, do you disagree with my statement that agriculture didn't begin with the first pair?

Thanks again ...
Harold

No, you just seemed well read on the subject.

[Intothewind]

It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

There is a fourth one - modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible. This is the approach taken by "creation scientists". My view is the third one, which one do you believe?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

It seems we have a few themes here.

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

First, thanks Intothewid for simplifying this thread.

So Evan, you'd modify it to read :

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

4. Modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible.

I'd go with 3 with a caveat. The Bible isn't unsalvageable as a spiritual book. But it's not a science research reference book.

As to choice 4. That seems unrealistic. Who would want to do it? And would there be enough of them to be able to pull it off?

But it does make me wonder. Which branches of science would have any interest in what the Bible says at all? My guess is a few. Maybe scientists that like to dig for stuff. But they'll use all the ancient writings. All writings reveal information about places and times they were written during. The Bible isn't special there.

I don't think it's the scientists that are concerned with the Bible aligning with science.

That's a concern only of the Bibleists. And their influence is waning.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

First, thanks Intothewid for simplifying this thread.

So Evan, you'd modify it to read :

1. literal translation of Bible as God's inerrant word. Ignore scientific evidence.

2. As new scientific evidence comes to light, modify interpretation of the Bible to match the most current thoughts in science.

3. Decide the Bible is unsalvageable as an accurate account.

4. Modify the majority interpretation of science to match the Bible.

I'd go with 3 with a caveat. The Bible isn't unsalvageable as a spiritual book. But it's not a science research reference book.

As to choice 4. That seems unrealistic. Who would want to do it? And would there be enough of them to be able to pull it off?

But it does make me wonder. Which branches of science would have any interest in what the Bible says at all? My guess is a few. Maybe scientists that like to dig for stuff. But they'll use all the ancient writings. All writings reveal information about places and times they were written during. The Bible isn't special there.

I don't think it's the scientists that are concerned with the Bible aligning with science.

That's a concern only of the Bibleists. And their influence is waning.

You realize of course that option 2 is what scientists do. Originally they thought the earth was flat, then modified that as more information came along, they thought the earth was at the center of the universe, again modified that as more information comes along. Hence the Pessimistic Meta-Induction.

Everyone in science understands that the process of getting these theories correct is just that, a process. So then why is it that those who are using science to claim the Bible is not an accurate account treat modifying the interpretation of the Bible as some form of cheating? You aren't modifying the words of the Bible, you aren't modifying the translation of the Bible, you are merely realizing an old interpretation is flawed.

"Perhaps the history of errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." (Benjamin Franklin -- 1784)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Perhaps the history of errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities." (Benjamin Franklin -- 1784)

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches

I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his [Jesus] Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
-Benjamin Franklin

As I was saying, the scientific mind has no time for the Bible and the supernatural.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches

I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his [Jesus] Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.”
-Benjamin Franklin

As I was saying, the scientific mind has no time for the Bible and the supernatural.

I agree, why would your average typical scientist try to prove or disprove the Bible? The Bible is nothing to science. So I have this question for ZNPaaneah - the bible does not seem to add anything novel or significant that can not be already obtained from the fossil record. So why do you need "fossil record + bible" ?

I believe your motivation is based upon the faulty assumption that proving the bible to be scientifically accurate means it is also spiritually accurate. There is nothing to say that the Bible cannot both be scientifically inaccurate and spiritually accurate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree, why would your average typical scientist try to prove or disprove the Bible? The Bible is nothing to science. So I have this question for ZNPaaneah - the bible does not seem to add anything novel or significant that can not be already obtained from the fossil record. So why do you need "fossil record + bible" ?

Really, an eyewitness account to the events "adds nothing"? To be able to get an accurate description of the events that corresponds to what we see in the fossil record helps us interpret what happened. We have never seen what happens when a meteorite of this magnitude hits the ocean. We can calculate the force, we can estimate the resulting tsunami, the resulting seismic impact, the resulting water sent into the atmosphere. But to hear the account of "40 days and nights" of rain gives us a detail we could never be able to discern from the fossil record. Do you realize we have two different scales for measuring earthquakes, one "the richter scale" is based on data we get from seismograms. But what about earthquakes that took place prior to the invention of a seismogram? For those we use written records, generally from monks. We can then correlate "church bells ringing" with a certain level on the richter scale, "some damage", "severe damage", etc. So instead of 80+ years of data we can now look at thousands of years of data and get much better picture of the pattern of earthquakes. Let's be honest, you don't really know anything about science do you?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe your motivation is based upon the faulty assumption that proving the bible to be scientifically accurate means it is also spiritually accurate. There is nothing to say that the Bible cannot both be scientifically inaccurate and spiritually accurate.

Yes, you are working on a faulty assumption. I have determined, independently from any scientific evidence, that the Bible is true. Because I believe the Bible is spiritually true, the word of God, the word of the one who created the universe, I also believe that there is light and inspiration in the word that can help me in my scientific endeavors.

Several examples

1. I was at Rice university in the 70s, there was a scientist there going to Antarctica studying global warming (what we called it back then). At the time the prevailing thought was that this was a minor deal. But, when I read some verses in Revelation that was the first time I realized that global warming was going to be a really big issue.

2. Geologists did not really embrace the theory of plate tectonics until after the invention of sonar and the mapping of the ocean bottom after WWII. However, Paul referred to this in his epistles.

3. Likewise the Big Bang theory is a very modern theory only recently accepted, yet it also was described in the Bible.

4. Any geologist who read the account of Noah would immediately think it was impossible. Not just that there could have been a flood that big, but that it could have happened this recently without our knowledge. Yet, 30 years later it seems we have found so much evidence to support the account that it seems absurd for any credible scientist to dispute it anymore.

In the 70s scientists assumed all of these "myths" were fanciful imaginations based very, very loosely on reality. Today we have come to the conclusion that we need to reassess everything we once thought of as a "myth".

Augustine said that error is essential to who we are. I have found out more about who you, and Awareness and Zeek are from your error on this topic. In fact, I would say this thread is essential to understanding who you are.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Really, an eyewitness account to the events "adds nothing"? To be able to get an accurate description of the events that corresponds to what we see in the fossil record helps us interpret what happened. We have never seen what happens when a meteorite of this magnitude hits the ocean. We can calculate the force, we can estimate the resulting tsunami, the resulting seismic impact, the resulting water sent into the atmosphere. But to hear the account of "40 days and nights" of rain gives us a detail we could never be able to discern from the fossil record. Do you realize we have two different scales for measuring earthquakes, one "the richter scale" is based on data we get from seismograms. But what about earthquakes that took place prior to the invention of a seismogram? For those we use written records, generally from monks. We can then correlate "church bells ringing" with a certain level on the richter scale, "some damage", "severe damage", etc. So instead of 80+ years of data we can now look at thousands of years of data and get much better picture of the pattern of earthquakes. Let's be honest, you don't really know anything about science do you?

The problem for you is that according to the Bible Noah was not an eyewitness. He was safely shut into an ark with no windows (except one at the top), and did not emerge until after the dry land appeared. That's what the Bible says. All the other witnesses around him in his local area perished (you believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors in his local area, right?). So there is no eyewitness account of Noah's flood in his area actually. The verses which describe the height of the flood could not have come from Noah, and they must not have been for his region.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem for you is that according to the Bible Noah was not an eyewitness. He was safely shut into an ark with no windows (except one at the top), and did not emerge until after the dry land appeared. That's what the Bible says. All the other witnesses around him in his local area perished (you believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors in his local area, right?). So there is no eyewitness account of Noah's flood in his area actually. The verses which describe the height of the flood could not have come from Noah, and they must not have been for his region.

Wow, so if you don't actually look out the window at the rain then you aren't an eyewitness? What if he was able to hear it?

Being there doesn't count? He was unable to know that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? He was unable to know that the boat was carried along by the flood? He didn't know where the boat ended up? He didn't know what day it started, what day it stopped, and how many days before the water receded?

He wasn't able to view the aftermath? He didn't see or hear stories from others?

By your logic we should eliminate a vast majority of our historical records.

What is the point of reading Josephus?

Have you ever heard the expression that when you find you have put yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. You have just condemned all scientists and historians. We aren't "eye" witnesses, so therefore whatever witnesses we do find and piece together are apparently disqualified?

[zeek]

This just in: "SCIENCE THROWS IN TOWEL UPON DISCOVERY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

This just in: "SCIENCE THROWS IN TOWEL UPON DISCOVERY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING."

This is fake news. Science didn't get into the ring. Science has more important things to do than boxing with a book from the bronze and iron age.

[Intothewind]

Evangelical: Ah yes, forgot about that one. 4 is pretty darn common as well.

I personally go with no. 3. It seems fairly clear that the Bible is historically as well as scientifically inaccurate, which is only to be expected. It may perhaps have utility to folks in some other ways, but it is not a particularly exceptional book in that regard either.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is fake news. Science didn't get into the ring. Science has more important things to do than boxing with a book from the bronze and iron age.

Yeah, it's fake news. It's a take on the notion of "Bible vs. Science. If fundamentalism wins, science loses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, so if you don't actually look out the window at the rain then you aren't an eyewitness? What if he was able to hear it?

Being there doesn't count? He was unable to know that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights? He was unable to know that the boat was carried along by the flood? He didn't know where the boat ended up? He didn't know what day it started, what day it stopped, and how many days before the water receded?

He wasn't able to view the aftermath? He didn't see or hear stories from others?

By your logic we should eliminate a vast majority of our historical records.

What is the point of reading Josephus?

Have you ever heard the expression that when you find you have put yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging. You have just condemned all scientists and historians. We aren't "eye" witnesses, so therefore whatever witnesses we do find and piece together are apparently disqualified?

40 days and 40 nights, yes, but not some of the other details.

I cannot see how Noah could have measured the flood's height to an accuracy of 1 cubit from behind a 1 cubit sized window. The flood's height must have come from other sources besides Noah. And doing all this without navigational equipment, without terrain maps, without a barometer to measure pressure height. If he did take any measurements, it was probably as he stretched out his arm and used his thumb as a measure. Not very scientific.

How did Noah know where he ended up if the Earth have looked vastly different after the flood to before it? Did Noah have a map? a compass? Noah had no navigational instruments. Noah was not tracking his location during the 40 days and 40 nights. So this information in the Bible could not have come from Noah.

Genesis 6:16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

40 days and 40 nights, yes, but not some of the other details.

I cannot see how Noah could have measured the flood's height to an accuracy of 1 cubit from behind a 1 cubit sized window. The flood's height must have come from other sources besides Noah.

Wow, OK, so this gives me a pretty good idea of your scientific acumen.

How do you think we know how high the Tsunami was in Indonesia? After Katrina cameras went into people's homes and they pointed at the water mark left on the wall. In Japan they pointed to the watermark in the nuclear power station. How do you think a scientist determines the height of flood when they weren't there?

I don't mind that you are ignorant, what I despise is how arrogantly you presume to know what you so obviously know nothing about. I don't care if you deceive yourself, what bothers me is that you are deceiving others as well.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And doing all this without navigational equipment, without terrain maps, without a barometer to measure pressure height. If he did take any measurements, it was probably as he stretched out his arm and used his thumb as a measure. Not very scientific.

If Noah reported on the barometric pressure this might be relevant, but he didn't. His observations can be very valid, and very useful.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How did Noah know where he ended up if the Earth have looked vastly different after the flood to before it? Did Noah have a map? a compass? Noah had no navigational instruments. Noah was not tracking his location during the 40 days and 40 nights. So this information in the Bible could not have come from Noah.

Genesis 6:16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.[/QUOTE]

The altitude of the North Star gives you your latitude. The ancients were much more aware of the stars as they lived outside. Mountains, oceans, and rivers act as landmarks. What is the point of this?

[Evangelical]

The problem is not solved just because you say "Noah witnessed the event".

You have not explained how Noah was able to measure that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits. Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. This is because all the mountains were covered. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. And the location of the ark would have had to have been over the top of the highest mountain. Unlikely since the ark had no rudder and Noah had no control over it. Impossible for him to measure given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

The Bible says Noah did not open a window until after 40 days (Genesis 8:6), so could not have directly witnessed the event. He could not have tracked his position using visual references or made measurements of the flood's depth during the event. Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

Noah could not have recognized where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were not same after the flood as before. Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

The accuracy of star navigation is 1 nautical mile, not 1 cubit. There is no way Noah could have measured to that level of precision by guesstimating.

Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. Impossible for him given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

Noah was able to recognize where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were the same after the flood as before.

Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.

Noah didn't navigate anywhere. He was not told by God to even put a rudder on the Ark. Noah and the ark just bobbed around like a cork in the water.

And Noah couldn't know the whole earth was flooded, as he couldn't see the whole earth. He could have tho, if the earth was flat, which is what Noah believed back then. So Noah would look out and see water all around, and believing the earth flat, would concluded the whole earth was flooded, when it was just a local flood. The other side of the earth wasn't flooded. Noah, nor the author(s) of Genesis, knew anything about the other side of the earth. They didn't know it was round.

And, going with the story, the poor ark would have been covered up with birds. The flood wouldn't kill the fish eating birds. They would have a heyday. They would just need a place to land, and roost. And that would have been the ark. Or other lands that weren't flooded.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Noah didn't navigate anywhere. He was not told by God to even put a rudder on the Ark. Noah and the ark just bobbed around like a cork in the water.

And Noah couldn't know the whole earth was flooded, as he couldn't see the whole earth. He could have tho, if the earth was flat, which is what Noah believed back then. So Noah would look out and see water all around, and believing the earth flat, would concluded the whole earth was flooded, when it was just a local flood. The other side of the earth wasn't flooded. Noah, nor the author(s) of Genesis, knew anything about the other side of the earth. They didn't know it was round.

And, going with the story, the poor ark would have been covered up with birds. The flood wouldn't kill the fish eating birds. They would have a heyday. They would just need a place to land, and roost. And that would have been the ark. Or other lands that weren't flooded.

Daniel and Jesus (Matthew 4:8) also saw the whole Earth because it was flat. But it must have referred to the local area.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Daniel and Jesus (Matthew 4:8) also saw the whole Earth because it was flat. But it must have referred to the local area.

A person on top of Mt. Everest can see about 200 miles. On Mt. Ararat sight would be approximately 150 miles. That's a lot, but a far cry from the whole earth. But they didn't know that back then. To them they were seeing the whole earth. The devil, being a cosmic being, might have known, but he was trying to trick Jesus, who was land bound, like everyone else. Now if like many believe today that, Jesus was/is God, Jesus knew the earth was round, but he kept it to himself. His ministry wasn't about cosmology.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem is not solved just because you say "Noah witnessed the event".

You have not explained how Noah was able to measure that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits. Noah could not have measured that the water covered the highest mountain by 15 cubits using the "water stain" method. This is because all the mountains were covered. He would have had to drop a depth line from the ark at the flood's peak. And the location of the ark would have had to have been over the top of the highest mountain. Unlikely since the ark had no rudder and Noah had no control over it. Impossible for him to measure given he was shut in. Noah could not even go fishing.

The Bible says Noah did not open a window until after 40 days (Genesis 8:6), so could not have directly witnessed the event. He could not have tracked his position using visual references or made measurements of the flood's depth during the event. Noah would not have been able to use star navigation as he would not have been able to see the stars because of the rain and cloud cover.

Noah could not have recognized where he was based upon the landmarks which presumably were not same after the flood as before. Did not the great flood re-shape the surface of the earth? So what was once familiar landmarks to Noah must have been a foreign wasteland. The ark would have traveled hundreds of miles and Noah would have found himself in a place he was not familiar with and did not recognize.

Does this help? I didn't see what happened but I'm gonna guess there was a flood that carried this boat and left it on top of these buildings.

Second, did the writer of Genesis claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide? Or did he just report that it happened?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Does this help? I didn't see what happened but I'm gonna guess there was a flood that carried this boat and left it on top of these buildings.

Second, did the writer of Genesis claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide? Or did he just report that it happened?

The boat on top of the building does not tell you how high the water went above that boat. The bible says it went 15 cubits above.

Genesis does not claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide.
How does seeing damage tell you that the water covered the mountains by 15 cubits? Where does the figure 15 cubits come from?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The boat on top of the building does not tell you how high the water went above that boat. The bible says it went 15 cubits above.

Genesis does not claim that Noah saw all the damage worldwide.
How does seeing damage tell you that the water covered the mountains by 15 cubits? Where does the figure 15 cubits come from?

OK, but at the very least the water went that high. There is a simple equation that we use. The size of a deposit, say a boulder is based on the velocity of the water. When we see a large boulder that was washed off of a mountain we can determine the speed of the water.

Now the equation for the speed of water is based on two things, slope and discharge. Over the last 10,000 years we can accurately determine what the slope was. Therefore with the deposits and the slope we can calculate how much water was flowing.

We can also do the same thing with ripples. These form in a river bed and the size of the ripple is dependent on how much water is flowing over the top.

This is how we can now determine that this flood from the Himalayas dumped 500 cubic miles of water down from the top of the mountain.

Some have complained that the account says from the top. However, for those who hiked these mountain passes the lake being held with an ice dam would be the top of the mountain pass. Once again, lets consider how much water 500 cubic miles is. Imagine a flood 100 miles wide, 1,000 miles long and 20 feet high. That is 500 cubic miles.

As for Noah or anyone back at that time might be able to see debris in tree tops or marks on canyon walls.

The point is very simple, a person who comes out after a flood and examines the area can get a good guess on how high the water was.

Second, unless Genesis says that Noah is the one who saw how high the water was all over the earth then it is perfectly reasonable that the writer of Genesis is referring to Noah as the most dramatic story of the flood, but that they might have gathered numerous other stories as well, just as any reputable historian would do.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, but at the very least the water went that high. There is a simple equation that we use. The size of a deposit, say a boulder is based on the velocity of the water. When we see a large boulder that was washed off of a mountain we can determine the speed of the water.

Now the equation for the speed of water is based on two things, slope and discharge. Over the last 10,000 years we can accurately determine what the slope was. Therefore with the deposits and the slope we can calculate how much water was flowing.

We can also do the same thing with ripples. These form in a river bed and the size of the ripple is dependent on how much water is flowing over the top.

This is how we can now determine that this flood from the Himalayas dumped 500 cubic miles of water down from the top of the mountain.

Some have complained that the account says from the top. However, for those who hiked these mountain passes the lake being held with an ice dam would be the top of the mountain pass. Once again, lets consider how much water 500 cubic miles is. Imagine a flood 100 miles wide, 1,000 miles long and 20 feet high. That is 500 cubic miles.

As for Noah or anyone back at that time might be able to see debris in tree tops or marks on canyon walls.

The point is very simple, a person who comes out after a flood and examines the area can get a good guess on how high the water was.

Second, unless Genesis says that Noah is the one who saw how high the water was all over the earth then it is perfectly reasonable that the writer of Genesis is referring to Noah as the most dramatic story of the flood, but that they might have gathered numerous other stories as well, just as any reputable historian would do.

Thank you for the explanation and have a blessed day!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thank you for the explanation and have a blessed day!

After all this wackiness I'd advise scientists to stay way from the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

After all this wackiness I'd advise scientists to stay way from the Bible.

I would advise scientists to read Colossians 2:3 "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would advise scientists to read Colossians 2:3 "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

You seem to want to torture the scientists. That verse applies to Christ, that's outside the scope of science. Nice verse tho, but not science.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You seem to want to torture the scientists. That verse applies to Christ, that's outside the scope of science. Nice verse tho, but not science.

Jesus Christ is the incarnated word. All of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact is there has been no known invention of man or result from science that came from the Bible. There is no piece of technology today that we use that came from the Bible.

Why do defenders of the Bible's scientific worth have nothing to show for it?

Why has the Bible never contributed to science?

Even the great scientists who were also Christians such as Newton did not find their discoveries in the Bible even though Newton probably knew the Bible well.

I have not forgotten this post, I wanted to address this when we could give it the full and proper response it deserves. I will start a new thread concerning this. It will be controversial and I think everyone knows how much I shy away from controversial topics.

The good news is that I will be directly contradicting Witness Lee, so that will make this relevant to the LCD mission.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have not forgotten this post, I wanted to address this when we could give it the full and proper response it deserves. I will start a new thread concerning this. It will be controversial and I think everyone knows how much I shy away from controversial topics.

The good news is that I will be directly contradicting Witness Lee, so that will make this relevant to the LCD mission.

Sounds exciting. Just to be clear, when I say "came from the Bible", I mean literally, word for word, from the Bible. Not using the Bible as a source of inspiration, or divine revelation, nor using the Bible in hindsight of scientific knowledge. Let us consider the Bible's worth, to a person with no spiritual bone in their body such as an atheist. Let as consider the Bible like any other scientific publication, for its factual contributions to science. Let us consider the Bible's scientific worth as a citeable source of knowledge like any other academic publication.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sounds exciting. Just to be clear, when I say "came from the Bible", I mean literally, word for word, from the Bible. Not using the Bible as a source of inspiration, or divine revelation, nor using the Bible in hindsight of scientific knowledge. Let us consider the Bible's worth, to a person with no spiritual bone in their body such as an atheist. Let as consider the Bible like any other scientific publication, for its factual contributions to science. Let us consider the Bible's scientific worth as a citeable source of knowledge like any other academic publication.

Great points, but I think we have to put another requirement in that will raise the bar higher.

Pick a problem that we have today, let's look to the Bible for the Biblical solution that is scientific and that a non believer can receive.

Climate change is a big one, we have also mentioned the fact that this generation is in the sixth major extinction, which does relate to our discussion on Noah, or it could be the immigration issue (Trump's "build a wall"), or the refugee crisis that we are in the midst of, etc.

Pick a problem that has very good scientific basis for and for which there is no known solution and let's see.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great points, but I think we have to put another requirement in that will raise the bar higher.

Pick a problem that we have today, let's look to the Bible for the Biblical solution that is scientific and that a non believer can receive.

Climate change is a big one, we have also mentioned the fact that this generation is in the sixth major extinction, which does relate to our discussion on Noah, or it could be the immigration issue (Trump's "build a wall"), or the refugee crisis that we are in the midst of, etc.

Pick a problem that has very good scientific basis for and for which there is no known solution and let's see.

I'm happy to settle for how the bible has contributed to science thus far, rather than raising the bar.

But here's one - how do we beat drug-resistant bacteria? Does the bible give any particular insights into that?

And a second one - what is consciousness?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm happy to settle for how the bible has contributed to science thus far, rather than raising the bar.

But here's one - how do we beat drug-resistant bacteria? Does the bible give any particular insights into that?

And a second one - what is consciousness?

That is a good place to start. Please note that all bacteria is "drug resistant". Also most if not all bacteria plays a critical role in the web of life. In addition you may be bringing your preconceptions to the table with the word "beat". You are presuming that there are "good" bacteria and "evil" bacteria. It may very well be that this presumption is the cause of the death.

So I think the question should be: how to we effectively treat deadly bacteria.

This is actually a topic that Witness Lee did cover, at least superficially, in his exegesis of the Bible.

[awareness]

This just in:
Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God :
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...god-kurt-godel

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This just in:
Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God :
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...god-kurt-godel

Mr. Why. His incompleteness theorem helped inspire Turing's invention of the computer.

[ZNPaaneah]

I recently was reading from an Iroquois author and their word for mountain is a verb, not a noun. I found that very interesting.

We think of river, and mountain and ice cap as nouns. But in my Earth Science class we learn about how these various features function. They perform a key role in the ecosystem, in the climate, in the web of life. So although I do describe these items as nouns, I also describe them as verbs.

We are now witnessing the complete loss of the arctic ice cap. It is amazing. Something I would never have thought possible 40 years ago. Naturally you might wonder "what should we do?" That is a very difficult question if you consider the ice cap to be a noun. But if you realize it is a verb it is a simple question, we need to now do the things that the ice cap was doing.

This may seem irrelevant to a discussion of "the Bible vs Science". Does it really matter what we call a mountain or if we make it a noun or a verb? According to the Bible it does. Man is a noun. But his function is to give a name to all of the creatures and to tend the garden. In that sense man is a verb. If we don't understand our function we could think it is to make money, maybe set up a phony foundation to fund your daughters wedding in exchange for government assistance. Or perhaps a press conference is a great opportunity to hawk your wares, rent out space in your hotel, etc.

In the end man will be judged on how well he tends the garden, and he can't do that unless he understand how all the pieces fit together, and you can't do that until you have given each piece of the puzzle a name. This author related a major revelation that the native people had concerning the "three sisters". Corn, beans and squash. These three vegetables provide a full nutritional diet. It is the basis of life in the Americas (which did not have as many of the domestic animals and plants that were in Europe). They grew these three together in their garden, unlike our mono crop farms. there is an amazing interaction between these three (Corn is the vertical element, squash is the horizontal element flat to the ground -- big flat leaves, and beans tie the two together). One by itself is not enough, corn doesn't have protein, beans don't have starch, and neither has the nutrients of squash. One diet, three components.

One of the offshoots of this thread was the one on deadly bacteria. Our misconception when we first discovered bacteria is to call them "germs", as though that is a bad thing (i.e. evil) and the to figure out how to kill them (disinfect). The word "disinfect" indicates that the germs have "infected" us like a disease. But each one of these creatures has a function, and when you distort that you have problems. It is healthier to live in a home full of bacteria than one that is disinfected like some kind of laboratory or operating room. To be "full of bacteria" is to be "full of life". To be "sterile" is just another word for death. These words promote a false understanding and harmful practices.

Language is very important. In a day where our highest leaders can use the term "alternative facts" with a straight face we need to come back to this realization.

[ZNPaaneah]

I was recently reading a book concerning the dramatic decrease in violence over the last 6,000 years.

He discusses Solomon and his threat to cut the baby in half. I think that is interesting that today no one would believe that, but back then it was believable, especially at the beginning of Solomon's reign when no one really knew what to expect. (Today would anyone believe a judge if he threatened to cut a baby in half?)

He then goes off the rails saying that had the woman called his bluff and not responded in a spiteful way then we must assume that he would have followed through with the threat and cut the baby in half.

This is wrong and violates everything we have learned in interrogation. Detecting lies is a science and one very important principle is to ask people questions they have not prepared for. In order to lie convincingly a person needs to practice, in front of a mirror, for a long time. Even if the woman knew she shouldn't appear spiteful it would be impossible for her to hide her true emotions, these "leak" out in what are known as micro expressions. To prove this point my forensic class offered a prize of $500 to anyone who could deceive them. What we did was we gave students from he school a folder that contained a picture. Regardless of what picture they were looking at they were to tell us it was an attractive young woman. Half of the folders did have pictures of attractive young women, but half were of something quite disgusting. We videotaped their performance. Round 1 they win $5, Round 2 they win $50 and Round 3 they win $500. Two girls won round 1, but after review of the video the entire class could easily see the tells that revealed their tell tale signs of deceit. No one won round 2. We modeled this experiment on the basic research. The higher the stakes, the harder it is to lie. We held up the $50 bill at the beginning of round 2. Cutting a baby in half is extremely high stakes. Even if the other woman did try to mimic the real mother's grief it would have shown an abnormal delay in timing.

It is very disheartening when you read a book that is supposed to be filled with the scientific wisdom of the day concerning violence (and presumably criminal violence) and the writer isn't even aware of basic research on the topic.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was recently reading a book concerning the dramatic decrease in violence over the last 6,000 years.

He discusses Solomon and his threat to cut the baby in half. I think that is interesting that today no one would believe that, but back then it was believable, especially at the beginning of Solomon's reign when no one really knew what to expect. (Today would anyone believe a judge if he threatened to cut a baby in half?)

He then goes off the rails saying that had the woman called his bluff and not responded in a spiteful way then we must assume that he would have followed through with the threat and cut the baby in half.

This is wrong and violates everything we have learned in interrogation. Detecting lies is a science and one very important principle is to ask people questions they have not prepared for. In order to lie convincingly a person needs to practice, in front of a mirror, for a long time. Even if the woman knew she shouldn't appear spiteful it would be impossible for her to hide her true emotions, these "leak" out in what are known as micro expressions. To prove this point my forensic class offered a prize of $500 to anyone who could deceive them. What we did was we gave students from he school a folder that contained a picture. Regardless of what picture they were looking at they were to tell us it was an attractive young woman. Half of the folders did have pictures of attractive young women, but half were of something quite disgusting. We videotaped their performance. Round 1 they win $5, Round 2 they win $50 and Round 3 they win $500. Two girls won round 1, but after review of the video the entire class could easily see the tells that revealed their tell tale signs of deceit. No one won round 2. We modeled this experiment on the basic research. The higher the stakes, the harder it is to lie. We held up the $50 bill at the beginning of round 2. Cutting a baby in half is extremely high stakes. Even if the other woman did try to mimic the real mother's grief it would have shown an abnormal delay in timing.

It is very disheartening when you read a book that is supposed to be filled with the scientific wisdom of the day concerning violence (and presumably criminal violence) and the writer isn't even aware of basic research on the topic.

Author? Title?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Author? Title?

Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.

You're gonna teach Pinker about how to do research.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of our Nature, why violence has declined.

The better angels of our nature has knocked nature out of whack. Yes it has allowed us to populate the earth like crazy. But we removed ourselves from the food chain ; that keeps the species population in balance.

But it is a wonder why violence has decreased over all. Why is that? Can we attribute it to the Bible or to science? Let's see? Which has come along lately, upon the scene the Bible dominated for millennia?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The better angels of our nature has knocked nature out of whack. Yes it has allowed us to populate the earth like crazy. But we removed ourselves from the food chain ; that keeps the species population in balance.

But it is a wonder why violence has decreased over all. Why is that? Can we attribute it to the Bible or to science? Let's see? Which has come along lately, upon the scene the Bible dominated for millennia?

I take it you have not read the book. At this point he is not crediting science (which has brought us such violence decreasing tools as smart bombs and weapons of mass destruction) he is crediting what he calls "the leviathan". Large, centrally run governments with an interest in keeping two potential adversaries from fighting a war.

Now as we have discussed man, unlike all apes, is eusocial and forms these large leviathan societies.

Yes, it is the invention of human government, laws, and everything else we see written in the Bible that has breathed life into man.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I take it you have not read the book.

I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. Will report my findings.

But I wish to make a point that I think matters in regard to less violence :

I think it's a matter of sight. I think it's a matter of seeing more, and seeing more clearly. Ever since the invention of the telescope we have come to see more and more ... and more clearly. Now we can see violence happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

I think the more we see violence the more we're repulsed by it, and so on the whole eschew it.

That's just my own personal two cents. I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. Will report my findings.

But I wish to make a point that I think matters in regard to less violence :

I think it's a matter of sight. I think it's a matter of seeing more, and seeing more clearly. Ever since the invention of the telescope we have come to see more and more ... and more clearly. Now we can see violence happening on the other side of the world, in real time.

I think the more we see violence the more we're repulsed by it, and so on the whole eschew it.

That's just my own personal two cents. I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.

There is something speculative here, but if you understand the methodology you can see there are numerous ways to calculate the violence of different societies. Now his way of comparing is on homicides per 100,000. If you agree with his premise that this is a fair way to compare societies then the evidence is solid that we have seen a spectacular drop in violence.

At that point you can push different hypothesis. But "scientific advancement in forensic techniques" would not be very persuasive as we saw a huge drop prior to much if any advancement in forensics. Second, the forensic techniques we have developed are a direct result of a very large society that can afford to pay for scientific research and development. Therefore, even those who would like to credit advancements in science would have to admit that this hypothesis is contained in the "Leviathan" hypothesis.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I take the challenge. I bought the Kindle version. [The Better Angels of Our Nature] Will report my findings.

I'll entertain Pinker's conclusions. He has studied it much longer than I have. But I suspect his will end up as speculative as my little sight diddy.

Well I'm reading Pinker's book. So I'm reporting back.

Before I bought the book, or even knew about it, I stated on the Politic thread (post 527) :

Originally Posted by awareness

They didn't. ". . . the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period."*

It took renaissance humanism, not the Bible, to recognize that slavery was/is wrong.

* Reference = "History of human rights" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights

And somewhere, I don't remember where, ZNP poopoo it.

Also, on Bible v Science post #304 IntotheWind asks :

The advent of being able to record and share evidence made the difference. I wonder how much sooner the renaissance would have occurred had most of the world not fallen under the mind numbing spell of organized religion.

Well lo and behold, in "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Pinker says :

"The third transition unfolded on the scale of centuries and took off around the time of the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries (though it had antecedents in classical Greece and the Renaissance, and parallels elsewhere in the world). It saw the first organized movements to abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism. Historians sometimes call this transition the Humanitarian Revolution."
~ Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

My point is, I guess, that, there other forces and moralities, other than the Bible, that come together to make the human race better. But yes, they do seem to be very Jesus like.

Maybe this thread should be called "Jesus v. Science."

That's because the Bible is so confusing with it's morality, and outright conflicting at times. When it comes to what's good for the human race, the Bible doesn't always come thru. Science, even with all it's flaws and shortcomings, is delivering these days.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And somewhere, I don't remember where, ZNP poopoo it.

I did not poopoo the idea of slavery was discredited with as an institution based on renaissance philosophy. What I poopoo'd was the idea that we actually saw businesses do away with it because of this philosophy.

Slavery was not done away with because we became more humanistic, but rather because sweatshops and illegal aliens are less expensive.

The economics are simple: slave is a lifetime commitment, including when the person is too young and too old to work. Sweatshop you merely pay for the labor and if they can't work, you replace them with someone who can. Slaves you are responsible for their health care, sweatshops and illegals you aren't. Slaves have been known to rebel. Illegals can't, you simply ship them out of the country. Sweatshops also can't because the local govts will beat them and you can just move your operation to a different country.

Let's puts this into perspective. In the 1960s internal documents prove that Tobacco companies knew that the cigarettes were causing cancer and killing people. As we all know they immediately, due to their heightened humanism, trumpeted these dangers and pulled their products from the shelf as any socially responsible company would do. In Awareness' dreams.

Nope, what they did was hire Hill and Knowlton, a public relations firm who advised the companies on how they could continue to make huge profits from a product they knew was killing people. They were told clearly that they couldn't lie, but they could sow doubt. "We don't know ..." That is what they did for the next 30 years. We aren't talking about slavery here, we are talking about murder. Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?

While this could be true, the fact of one bad act (or even two or more) does not force a conclusion about any other. Let the facts speak for themselves. Don't skip the evidence because you know they are so bad that it doesn't matter if the thing we get them for is not true.

Truth always matters.

Or it should.

And there could be truth there. But you respond as if it doesn't matter and you don't need to prove it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not poopoo the idea of slavery was discredited with as an institution based on renaissance philosophy. What I poopoo'd was the idea that we actually saw businesses do away with it because of this philosophy.

Slavery was not done away with because we became more humanistic, but rather because sweatshops and illegal aliens are less expensive.

The economics are simple: slave is a lifetime commitment, including when the person is too young and too old to work. Sweatshop you merely pay for the labor and if they can't work, you replace them with someone who can. Slaves you are responsible for their health care, sweatshops and illegals you aren't. Slaves have been known to rebel. Illegals can't, you simply ship them out of the country. Sweatshops also can't because the local govts will beat them and you can just move your operation to a different country.

Let's puts this into perspective. In the 1960s internal documents prove that Tobacco companies knew that the cigarettes were causing cancer and killing people. As we all know they immediately, due to their heightened humanism, trumpeted these dangers and pulled their products from the shelf as any socially responsible company would do. In Awareness' dreams.

Nope, what they did was hire Hill and Knowlton, a public relations firm who advised the companies on how they could continue to make huge profits from a product they knew was killing people. They were told clearly that they couldn't lie, but they could sow doubt. "We don't know ..." That is what they did for the next 30 years. We aren't talking about slavery here, we are talking about murder. Now if these corporations are above lying about murder in order to make a profit does anyone really believe they aren't above slavery?

Yeah Harold. We conservative Christians have bought into the doctrine of total depravity [TD]. People [ apart form the Elect AKA our sect] only do things for selfish motives. Once you accept TD as a pre-supposition, confirmation bias ensures that you will only accept evidence that supports it and reject the rest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah Harold. We conservative Christians have bought into the doctrine of total depravity [TD]. People [ apart form the Elect AKA our sect] only do things for selfish motives. Once you accept TD as a pre-supposition, confirmation bias ensures that you will only accept evidence that supports it and reject the rest.

I do not buy into "total depravity". I feel that there are fleshly people, soulish people and spiritual people. No one is 100% anything. I also feel that "those who condemn everything understand nothing".

Right now I am considering why violence has decreased over the last 6,000 years (on a per capita basis). In my opinion Matthew Brady and Nick Ut (the photographers) did as much to limit violence as any philosopher. Therefore Joseph Niepce should be given just as much credit. But again, none of them would have had any impact if we didn't have a democratic government that cared about the feelings of the people and a free press that could publish this. To be fair the technology of the camera is also useful in smart bombs, which in turn can decrease the overall violence while making these weapons more effective at killing the person that is targeted. There is also another advantage of a large centralized government with a professional military that is doing research and development. We can determine that fewer civilian casualties is a good thing, better than the middle ages when the goal was to kill as many serfs as possible to weaken the opposing Knight.

If you credit this to some "age of enlightenment" as though humans were no different from a cartoon depiction of a cave man until a philosopher told them that killing was wrong, that is just idiotic. Genghis Khan enjoyed watching people suffer as he killed their loved ones. Everyone has known that war was evil, but the silent majority was powerless to do anything until we had the technology, governmental and laws to do something about it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not buy into "total depravity". I feel that there are fleshly people, soulish people and spiritual people.

Only Christians are spiritual or soulish and the rest of the world is "fleshly" and that unregenerate majority is totally depraved, right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Only Christians are spiritual or soulish and the rest of the world is "fleshly" and that unregenerate majority is totally depraved, right?

Of course not. Like all people we have Christians who are fleshly, soulish and spiritual. You just need to read the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor, to realize that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course not. Like all people we have Christians who are fleshly, soulish and spiritual. You just need to read the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor, to realize that.

Oh. OK then, all non-Christians plus fleshly Christians are "fleshly" and therefore totally depraved, right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh. OK then, all non-Christians plus fleshly Christians are "fleshly" and therefore totally depraved, right?

No, why do keep on trying to put words into my mouth. Man is made of three parts: Spirit, Soul and Body. All men. Saved and unsaved. The worldly system tries to make us fleshly and soulish and ignore our spirit until our conscience is scarred so bad it no longer functions. As a result there is a large percentage of people who are fleshly and soulish. That is true of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. But among all of these groups, and many others I haven't enumerated there are those who are spiritual. Paul in Romans talked about those who did not know the law walking according to the law.

The problem is for all non saved people who try to be spiritual is what to do about sin? All have sinned, and all therefore need a propitiation for that sin. If you do not deal with sin it will deaden your conscience. Hence the caricature of the spiritual monk sitting alone on a mountain top. That is the disadvantage for all non Christians who try to be spiritual. But Jesus made it clear that there are many sheep and not all are goats.

The advantage all born again Christians have is that when they are redeemed the blood cleansed them and renewed their spirit. But like a garden if you don't take care of it, then it will soon be overrun by weeds again.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, why do keep on trying to put words into my mouth. Man is made of three parts: Spirit, Soul and Body. All men. Saved and unsaved. The worldly system tries to make us fleshly and soulish and ignore our spirit until our conscience is scarred so bad it no longer functions. As a result there is a large percentage of people who are fleshly and soulish. That is true of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. But among all of these groups, and many others I haven't enumerated there are those who are spiritual. Paul in Romans talked about those who did not know the law walking according to the law.

The problem is for all non saved people who try to be spiritual is what to do about sin? All have sinned, and all therefore need a propitiation for that sin. If you do not deal with sin it will deaden your conscience. Hence the caricature of the spiritual monk sitting alone on a mountain top. That is the disadvantage for all non Christians who try to be spiritual. But Jesus made it clear that there are many sheep and not all are goats.

The advantage all born again Christians have is that when they are redeemed the blood cleansed them and renewed their spirit. But like a garden if you don't take care of it, then it will soon be overrun by weeds again.

I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.

I know that you did not write this to me, but I will tell you how I view people who do not share my religion.

I believe that God (the one told of in the Bible) created the heavens and the earth, and man and all that is on the earth. (I don't care how he did it or how long it took.)

I believe that due to general rebellion at a point in the distant past, mankind refused God in some way that marked a separation that we refer to as the fall. Since that time man has been separated from God. This does not mean no contact, but that the open way to contact has been broken.

While not a popular position, especially in an era in which everyone has the god-given right to think whatever he/she wants, I believe that (as the Bible accounts) there was eventually a way given to be reconciled with God. That was through belief in Jesus. (Not just mental agreement, but true belief.) But in this life, even claiming that I believe does not stop me from living my life as if I do not believe. Therefore, outside of the possibility of "salvation" (something with varied understanding) all humans are exactly identical. But even though I believe that the only cure for our separation from God is as provided in the Bible, I do not have a "view" of people who don't share my religion that is predicated on that fact. Whether and how there is anything to be said/done about that in the end is not my responsibility and therefore not a factor in how I view them (any of them).

Now my view of certain persons, generally for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they do or do not share my belief, may not be positive. But it is mostly for how they behave and interact in society in general, and not whether they are "insiders" with respect to my religion. Some of the people I have problems with are probably insiders.

Does that mean that I will refrain from trying to convince someone that believing as I do is the right way to go? No. But whether I say anything to any particular person, or if I do and they simply ignore what I say, they have not changed status for me. I do not shake off the dust of their existence from my pants and move on. They do not become unworthy of my attention or care.

Do I successfully live in this manner at all times? Yeah, right. Who could. But it is what I strive for.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that you did not write this to me, but I will tell you how I view people who do not share my religion.

I believe that God (the one told of in the Bible) created the heavens and the earth, and man and all that is on the earth. (I don't care how he did it or how long it took.)

I believe that due to general rebellion at a point in the distant past, mankind refused God in some way that marked a separation that we refer to as the fall. Since that time man has been separated from God. This does not mean no contact, but that the open way to contact has been broken.

While not a popular position, especially in an era in which everyone has the god-given right to think whatever he/she wants, I believe that (as the Bible accounts) there was eventually a way given to be reconciled with God. That was through belief in Jesus. (Not just mental agreement, but true belief.) But in this life, even claiming that I believe does not stop me from living my life as if I do not believe. Therefore, outside of the possibility of "salvation" (something with varied understanding) all humans are exactly identical. But even though I believe that the only cure for our separation from God is as provided in the Bible, I do not have a "view" of people who don't share my religion that is predicated on that fact. Whether and how there is anything to be said/done about that in the end is not my responsibility and therefore not a factor in how I view them (any of them).

Now my view of certain persons, generally for reasons that have nothing to do with whether they do or do not share my belief, may not be positive. But it is mostly for how they behave and interact in society in general, and not whether they are "insiders" with respect to my religion. Some of the people I have problems with are probably insiders.

Does that mean that I will refrain from trying to convince someone that believing as I do is the right way to go? No. But whether I say anything to any particular person, or if I do and they simply ignore what I say, they have not changed status for me. I do not shake off the dust of their existence from my pants and move on. They do not become unworthy of my attention or care.

Do I successfully live in this manner at all times? Yeah, right. Who could. But it is what I strive for.

OK. So for you, it's a matter of reconciliation. You and other true Christians are reconciled with God whereas others are not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. So for you, it's a matter of reconciliation. You and other true Christians are reconciled with God whereas others are not.

If there is God, and that God is the one we are following, then it would appear that this is true. But what that means is not my problem. It is God's.

Your question had to do with my view of other people. That I made the statements concerning what I believe is the ultimate outcome of things does not affect my "view" of them. The Bible says a lot of things about those who follow and those that do not. But it is either an eventual fact or it is not. Meanwhile, I am commanded by that same Bible to love everyone the way I love myself.

So maybe the problem is what part of "view" are you talking about? I am assuming you want to know what I think about them. And that is different from what I think may happen to them (and me). I don't think of myself as superior for deciding to follow the way that I do. But if I am right, there is a benefit to it. Yet today my view of the IT guy across the hall is the same as for anyone else here . . . including the most "Christian" among us at this place of employment. (I will not say what it is about the IT guy that is notable in some people's books.)

So is your goal to understand my view of people, my view/understanding of the ultimate end of those following my religion (assuming it is correct) or what? They are both "views" but not in the same sense. They do see things differently. What are you trying to get at?

I would guess that for those who have no religion, they just categorize people for other reasons. Republicans call the Democrats socialists. Democrats call Republicans bigots. Tea Party folks think even the Republicans are not patriots. Muslims call America the Great Satan. One African tribe slaughters another. And on and on it goes.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If there is God, and that God is the one we are following, then it would appear that this is true. But what that means is not my problem. It is God's.

Your question had to do with my view of other people. That I made the statements concerning what I believe is the ultimate outcome of things does not affect my "view" of them. The Bible says a lot of things about those who follow and those that do not. But it is either an eventual fact or it is not. Meanwhile, I am commanded by that same Bible to love everyone the way I love myself.

So maybe the problem is what part of "view" are you talking about? I am assuming you want to know what I think about them. And that is different from what I think may happen to them (and me). I don't think of myself as superior for deciding to follow the way that I do. But if I am right, there is a benefit to it. Yet today my view of the IT guy across the hall is the same as for anyone else here . . . including the most "Christian" among us at this place of employment. (I will not say what it is about the IT guy that is notable in some people's books.)

So is your goal to understand my view of people, my view/understanding of the ultimate end of those following my religion (assuming it is correct) or what? They are both "views" but not in the same sense. They do see things differently. What are you trying to get at?

I would guess that for those who have no religion, they just categorize people for other reasons. Republicans call the Democrats socialists. Democrats call Republicans bigots. Tea Party folks think even the Republicans are not patriots. Muslims call America the Great Satan. One African tribe slaughters another. And on and on it goes.

Well, ZNP and I were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]

Now you seem to be saying that everybody is the same as far a your concerned, the only difference being between them and God which, is not primarily your focus in terms of your day-to-day interaction with them.

I have tried on all kinds of ideas about these matters. I'm not sure if any of them are right. So, it seems like a good time to find out what other people think about and to make sure that I'm getting it right, to paraphrase what they say in my own words and then check with them to see if I'm getting it right.

Now I suppose since this is the "Bible Versus Science" we should ask what if anything this has to do with the topic. We could look at the differences between the Bible's view[s] of human nature and that which science is presenting us. Can the two be reconciled? Is there middle ground between them? Are our perceptions of people really driven by the theories we hold about them?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm trying to clarify how you view people who don't share your religion. I'm doing that by re-phrasing what you say in my own words. If I'm wrong please correct me. From the above I get that you think some non-Christians try to be spiritual but they fail.

I consider a Christian to be a person who has received Jesus Christ's redemptive work by faith.

There is no criteria that such a person is spiritual, they could be primarily soulish or fleshly. The only criteria is that on receiving Christ their spirit was regenerated. It is a very good thing that your conscience would provoke you enough to confess your sins and repent and receive Christ.

The confusion comes in with nominal Christians. So I do not like to make a distinction in this way. This can be extremely confusing, so much so that I think the false prophet thought he was a born again Christian when in fact he wasn't.

I also don't like to make a distinction based on spiritual, soulish, or fleshly. All people have the soul and flesh. All have sinned. All have fallen short of the glory of God.

That said I have read or become aware of a number of people who are not "Christian" yet are spiritual. Some are truly mystifying, which is what the Bible says a spiritual person is.

But regardless of who you are, you are a sinner, you have the flesh, and those sins are like putting sugar in your gas tank. You have to be cleansed from those sins.

That is the extent of my understanding. In the end I am not the Lord, I let the Lord figure out the rest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, ZNP were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]

I disagree with this. I have met some depraved people who claimed to be born again Christians. I have also met some very spiritual people who were not. I see no reason why a fleshly person or a soulish person cannot receive Christ, nor do I think, in my opinion that the minute someone receives Christ all that changes. So in my opinion Christians encompass the entire range of humanity from the most spiritual to the most fleshly. The only distinction is that to truly be a Christian you have confessed your sins, repented of them and received the redemptive work of Christ. That is definitely a very positive step better than the most depraved people in human history.

On the other hand you can find some very excellent people, very high quality, spiritual, who have not received Christ or at the very least do not confess Christ.

I am reminded of the Lord's word to Israel that He didn't choose them because they were the greatest, or best, but that when He called them they were the least. I see no reason why Jesus should only save the most spiritual, but instead the real glory would be if He saved the worst, most sinful, most fleshly, most soulish. The bruised reed, the smoking flax, the pariahs, those that were rejected by the world.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, ZNP and I were talking about human nature. He characterized it as spirit, soul and body. He felt that Christians were in one condition and non-Christians in another. But, he doesn't think non-Christians are totally depraved but still more or less disabled in terms of their relation to God. [ZNP jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.]

Now you seem to be saying that everybody is the same as far a your concerned, the only difference being between them and God which, is not primarily your focus in terms of your day-to-day interaction with them.

I have tried on all kinds of ideas about these matters. I'm not sure if any of them are right. So, it seems like a good time to find out what other people think about and to make sure that I'm getting it right, to paraphrase what they say in my own words and then check with them to see if I'm getting it right.

Now I suppose since this is the "Bible Versus Science" we should ask what if anything this has to do with the topic. We could look at the differences between the Bible's view[s] of human nature and that which science is presenting us. Can the two be reconciled? Is there middle ground between them? Are our perceptions of people really driven by the theories we hold about them?

If you are trying to get a read on someone's understanding of Calvin's TULIP, especially as held by the 6-point Calvinists (hold to it stronger than Calvin) the I am not the man to talk to. I think that Calvin was over-impressed by certain passages and under-impressed by others. The result is too much certainty as to what it all means. Same can be said for the other side.

But my "view" of those not in my religion is not marked by Calvin or Arminius. By Catholics or Baptists. Or by a tulip. And it appears to be he view held by Christians that is the problem.

There is a way to use "depravity" in the discussion, but it doesn't look like Calvin's use of the term. But it is not selective as to who it attaches to like Z has implied. Depravity is a way to state that we are separated from God. Belief in Christ does cure the depravity, but it does not simply make us able to view ourselves above others. In this live, we are still under the curse of this depravity even though some have found a way out from under it. But even with that promise, our view of others should not be colored by their "depravity" and our alleged lack.

To the Christian there should not be the faithful and the infidels. But I know that some think that way.

[zeek]

By "total depravity" I meant the idea that as a result of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and that, apart from the grace of God, no one is able to accept the gift of salvation. I was looking for an up or down vote on that idea. Or, is it possible that people receive grace to follow God but not in the name of Jesus? Of course, we could just admit that we don't really know and leave it at that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

By "total depravity" I meant the idea that as a result of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and that, apart from the grace of God, no one is able to accept the gift of salvation. I was looking for an up or down vote on that idea. Or, is it possible that people receive grace to follow God but not in the name of Jesus? Of course, we could just admit that we don't really know and leave it at that.

Despite the popularity of this extreme statement of the condition of man, I keep finding the verses that supposedly support it stretched beyond recognition. I hate to say it, but before Nee and Lee did their little Eisegesis, it was practiced by others before them.

If you take the Calvinist position at its extreme (and possibly beyond what even Calvin thought) then there is no reason for personal evangelism because it is inevitable that certain ones will be saved and just as certain that everyone else will not. I find it so odd that anyone would be motivated to preach the gospel within that kind of framework.

I believe that scripture shows that we are only saved by the redemptive work of Christ, but that we are involved because we must choose to believe. We may be "led" to repentance, but it is not forced upon anyone. Otherwise "whosoever believes" becomes a hollow statement because "whosoever" is not open.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

By "total depravity" I meant . . . . .

I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?

I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.

OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..

And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?

I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.

OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..

And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.

Now I'm lost. What is a perfect primate?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I must be lost, how did total depravity get involved on the Bible v. Science thread?

Total depravity follows from the concept of original sin that so-called St. Augustine proposed was a Biblical doctrine. TP has biological, anthropological, psychological and theological implications. Need I say more?

I can only make sense of it if total depravity applies to the fact that we're primates. That is, I think, the source of such doctrine ; that, we've seen for hundreds of thousand years, with our very eyes, that humans are imperfect primates ; primates, I might point out, that if we are fallen, fell up ; we've clearly evolved from our more primitive primate days ; not much of a fall to me ; but I agree still looks depraved cuz we are still just imperfect primates.

I agree with this. Original sin is the result of our symbolic, socially-inculcated self being repulsed by our embodied biological self.

OBW's eisegesis comes to mind, in that it's a doctrine that springs from presupposition, that's wrapped with the Bible stretched beyond recognition, just to cloud the embarrassment that we're just imperfect primates..

Yes, I'm interested in whether TP or original sin are "Biblical" or not. Are they derived from a valid reading of the text? At this point I would venture the opinion that they can be read from certain Biblical texts without contradiction.

And we stay imperfected primates even after being "born again." Being born again doesn't reverse that, nor, in fact, reverse that we're fallen, in the traditional meaning of that term.

My own conversion experience was transformational to me. I understood myself forgiven. But, it didn't prevent me from sinning again. In fact, it increased my consciousness of my sins. Go figure.

[awareness]

This is why the Bible shouldn't guide our politics. That lawmaker prolly never even heard of science:

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is why the Bible shouldn't guide our politics. That lawmaker prolly never even heard of science:

Oklahoma State Rep says rape and incest are the ‘will of God’ in abortion bill hearing
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/watc...-bill-hearing/

This has nothing to do with the Bible and nothing to do with Science and nothing to do with this thread.

A politician, known primarily for lying and selling his vote the highest bidder, claims to know the will of God. No doubt this is how he has justified raping the voters of his state and the incestuous relationship he has with lobbyists.

But the Bible makes it clear that this guy has no inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

The Biblical version of the Will of God is that all men would be saved and come to the full knowledge of His will.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This has nothing to do with the Bible

Did you read the link? This lawmaker refers it to the Bible.

Originally Posted by ZNP

and nothing to do with Science

You're prolly right. This lawmaker prolly knows nothing about science.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did you read the link? This lawmaker refers it to the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it say that rape and incest is God's will?

[ZNPaaneah]

Another example where Science confirms the Biblical account.

Gobekli Tepe is a fantastic archaeological find in Turkey, the oldest known human "temple". But it has turned our theory of human development on its head. Based on the archaeological evidence this temple was not built by those who had adopted the agricultural revolution, but rather by hunter gatherers.

The prevailing wisdom had been that man adopted the agricultural revolution because we were smarter, growing food gave us a more stable food supply, wealthier, etc. Once man formed towns and cities then they began to build temples.

But we now know that entire story is baloney. The early adopters of the agricultural revolution were poorer, lived in filthier homes, more likely to get sick and had a poorer diet. Nor was it about security, they were more likely to get into wars since they now had something worth stealing.

But what Gobekli Tepe confirms is the account of man's fall. For some reason these hunter gatherers, who must have been quite successful since they could afford to build such a massive temple. And this would serve a very important service that you could see the fingerprints of Eve all over it. These hunter gatherer tribes would want to trade women, a yearly festival where they come together would give them the opportunity to do that. A kind of "Oscars" for the neolithic man. But there, in addition to evidence that the temple was built by hunter gatherers and that there was no agricultural village or town associated with this or the area or the time that it was built. They also discovered one key variety of domesticated wheat that began at this time 20 miles from this area. It seems that to build this temple they had to feed the workers. Perhaps they were encouraged to begin with a "bumper crop".

So then, what was the temptation? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What exactly is the "agricultural revolution"? Man decides which plants are good (wheat, barley, maize, potatoes, etc) and which are "evil". Which animals are good (horses, cows, sheep, chickens, etc) and which are "evil". Prior to this hunter gatherers had a much richer diet, more varied and they were far better suited to deal with a bad year for any one plant or animal.

But once they started that temple they had to feed those men, so they had to cultivate that wheat. The plant provides a lot of calories per acre, so when you have a concentrated group it is the ideal plant, hence you cut down or burn the fields to plant more. As you do that you have gone down a path of no return, no longer can you feed all the members in the small area by any other means. The quality of the food may be worse, but it is either that or starve. So you plant more, you start to hoe the field, water the crop, weed, etc. The more you work the more you have to work. All of these things do help you get a bigger crop, but you also start to have a higher number of children. There is the curse, by the sweat of your brow. Initially we were to tend the garden, every plant in the garden, not just select a couple of "good" ones and get rid of all the "evil" ones.

So why would they be tempted to build that big, huge temple? For what? So that they could "be like God". Show off their wealth, show off what they can do, show that they also can "plant a garden".

Adam and Eve were the beginning of the agricultural revolution, but not in the garden, it was the curse when they were kicked out of the garden, that was the agricultural revolution.

[awareness]

This archaeological find is interesting, but as to confirming the Biblical account is a reach full of jumps to conclusions.

Not that it may not be related to the Biblical account of Genesis. Genesis was written over a period between 800 bce to 500 bce. It likely comes from the oral period when stories were developed and told around campfires and religious rites.

So of course the Biblical account has to come from historical events, that warranted remembering and being passed down, in stories around campfires and from religious, or spiritual, imaginations.

One take on Genesis is presented by Daniel Quinn in his Ishmael Series, and "Story of B."

Quinn posits that The Fall was not the fall of human nature, but the fall of the human ways of life, or system development, that he termed Totalitarian Agriculture, or control by food.

This change in life styles Quinn terms "The Leavers" and "The Takers." The Leavers were those that were leaving their daily sustenance up to god(s). The Takers were those that told god(s), 'we're taking our sustenance away from you, and doing it ourselves.' This was essentially the shift from hunter-gatherers (Leavers) to the agricultural period (Takers).

Where it relates to the Biblical account is the story of Cain and Abel. God accepted Abel's offering (hunting) but rejected Cain's (agriculture).

Quinn bemoans this 'fallen system' of The Takers, as a break with nature's way of keeping the balance of the species. Totalitarian agriculture was the development of grand civilizations, and meant the continued growth of population that's come down to us today -- more food produces more population, every time, with every species (populations of every species is topped off when food resources become limited or nonexistent).

The Takers are represented in the Biblical account as Cain ; Abel (hunter-gatherers) died off, but Cain (agriculture) went on. In other words, Cain won, by bringing that, 'fallen system from nature,' down to us today -- Quinn's Totalitarian Agriculture (or us Takers, of our sustenance away from God. Didn't Jesus pray, "give us this day our daily bread" and teach "take no thought for tomorrow" (which means no crop growing)? Jesus was telling us to go back to the days and practices of paradise, and to the 'Leavers' way of life.

Oh and! Paradise in the Biblical account is the time of the heyday of the hunter-gatherers, when game and fruit trees, and plant foods, were readily available.

Now if that's what you mean by science confirming the Bible I might be inclined to agree with you.

ZNP's post left below:

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Another example where Science confirms the Biblical account.

Gobekli Tepe is a fantastic archaeological find in Turkey, the oldest known human "temple". But it has turned our theory of human development on its head. Based on the archaeological evidence this temple was not built by those who had adopted the agricultural revolution, but rather by hunter gatherers.

The prevailing wisdom had been that man adopted the agricultural revolution because we were smarter, growing food gave us a more stable food supply, wealthier, etc. Once man formed towns and cities then they began to build temples.

But we now know that entire story is baloney. The early adopters of the agricultural revolution were poorer, lived in filthier homes, more likely to get sick and had a poorer diet. Nor was it about security, they were more likely to get into wars since they now had something worth stealing.

But what Gobekli Tepe confirms is the account of man's fall. For some reason these hunter gatherers, who must have been quite successful since they could afford to build such a massive temple. And this would serve a very important service that you could see the fingerprints of Eve all over it. These hunter gatherer tribes would want to trade women, a yearly festival where they come together would give them the opportunity to do that. A kind of "Oscars" for the neolithic man. But there, in addition to evidence that the temple was built by hunter gatherers and that there was no agricultural village or town associated with this or the area or the time that it was built. They also discovered one key variety of domesticated wheat that began at this time 20 miles from this area. It seems that to build this temple they had to feed the workers. Perhaps they were encouraged to begin with a "bumper crop".

So then, what was the temptation? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What exactly is the "agricultural revolution"? Man decides which plants are good (wheat, barley, maize, potatoes, etc) and which are "evil". Which animals are good (horses, cows, sheep, chickens, etc) and which are "evil". Prior to this hunter gatherers had a much richer diet, more varied and they were far better suited to deal with a bad year for any one plant or animal.

But once they started that temple they had to feed those men, so they had to cultivate that wheat. The plant provides a lot of calories per acre, so when you have a concentrated group it is the ideal plant, hence you cut down or burn the fields to plant more. As you do that you have gone down a path of no return, no longer can you feed all the members in the small area by any other means. The quality of the food may be worse, but it is either that or starve. So you plant more, you start to hoe the field, water the crop, weed, etc. The more you work the more you have to work. All of these things do help you get a bigger crop, but you also start to have a higher number of children. There is the curse, by the sweat of your brow. Initially we were to tend the garden, every plant in the garden, not just select a couple of "good" ones and get rid of all the "evil" ones.

So why would they be tempted to build that big, huge temple? For what? So that they could "be like God". Show off their wealth, show off what they can do, show that they also can "plant a garden".

Adam and Eve were the beginning of the agricultural revolution, but not in the garden, it was the curse when they were kicked out of the garden, that was the agricultural revolution.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This archaeological find is interesting, but as to confirming the Biblical account is a reach full of jumps to conclusions.

Well we can see that the description of Adam and Eve walking in the garden in the cool of the day talking with God could be a very elegant description of the hunter gatherer lifestyle and the curse that the ground would be cursed and by the sweat of their brow is the fact and reality of the agricultural revolution.

What is interesting is what caused man to make the change? Originally it was theorized that there were advantages to food (we now know their weren't), advantages to living in communities (we now know their weren't). But Genesis describes a temptation to be like God and eat from a tree of "good and evil". That is a beautiful description of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest known temple of man that was built by hunter gatherers. The building of this temple was associated with the domestication of wheat. What is the agricultural revolution other than the eating of the tree of "good and evil"? Wheat is good. Corn is good. Some plants are weeds, they are bad, we need weed killer, we need pesticides because we have pests (evil creatures), etc. In addition to "evil" creatures we also have "good" creatures which we have domesticated. There are more chickens on this earth than people. In some countries sheep outnumber people. Even though there are millions of species we have identified a handful of "good" creatures which we have spread all over the world, and we have identified a handful of "good" plants which have also been spread over the whole world.

It was the process of trying to feed a large company of men involved in the building of Gobekli Tepe that appears to have sent us down this path, getting us booted out of the garden God planted that we used to inhabit into a world that we have created, a world that is on the path to becoming hell.

[awareness]

Good post ZNP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well we can see that the description of Adam and Eve walking in the garden in the cool of the day talking with God could be a very elegant description of the hunter gatherer lifestyle and the curse that the ground would be cursed and by the sweat of their brow is the fact and reality of the agricultural revolution.

I've been thinking about this. Today farming has been taken over by big agribusiness. I see 'em trucking the big harvesting machines in right here today.

And they don't work by the sweat of their brow. They sit in the machines in air conditioning, watching a DVD, while the machine follows GPS that's programmed for the field they are working. Red necks are now bygone history ; no sweat of the brow and no red necks.

Plus, I don't work by the sweat of my brow for my food. I go to Wallyworld and pick it up. My work also wasn't by the sweat of my brow. It was in A/C. The the offices I went into, and various other locations, like hospitals, nobody was working by the brow. Maybe that was true back when totalitarian agriculture took shape. But not any more, in modern times. Those Bible days are long gone.

Originally Posted by ZNP

What is interesting is what caused man to make the change? Originally it was theorized that there were advantages to food (we now know their weren't), advantages to living in communities (we now know their weren't). But Genesis describes a temptation to be like God and eat from a tree of "good and evil". That is a beautiful description of Gobekli Tepe, the oldest known temple of man that was built by hunter gatherers. The building of this temple was associated with the domestication of wheat. What is the agricultural revolution other than the eating of the tree of "good and evil"? Wheat is good. Corn is good. Some plants are weeds, they are bad, we need weed killer, we need pesticides because we have pests (evil creatures), etc. In addition to "evil" creatures we also have "good" creatures which we have domesticated. There are more chickens on this earth than people. In some countries sheep outnumber people. Even though there are millions of species we have identified a handful of "good" creatures which we have spread all over the world, and we have identified a handful of "good" plants which have also been spread over the whole world.

It was the process of trying to feed a large company of men involved in the building of Gobekli Tepe that appears to have sent us down this path, getting us booted out of the garden God planted that we used to inhabit into a world that we have created, a world that is on the path to becoming hell.

The stories Gobekli Tepe is telling us, so far, is incomplete. Only 5% of it has been excavated. So bro ZNP, don't be so overly anxious to prove the Bible that you count your chickens before they hatch.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good post ZNP.


I've been thinking about this. Today farming has been taken over by big agribusiness. I see 'em trucking the big harvesting machines in right here today.

It is like a little hamster wheel, the faster we run the faster we have to run. Without the huge agribusiness we can no longer feed billions of people, it is a drug, we are addicted and we now need a bigger and bigger fix. Look at the way chickens are raised. Look at genetically modified crops. Clearly we are no longer in the garden, we are in the middle of a horror film headed to hell in a car that keeps accelerating.

Originally Posted by awareness

And they don't work by the sweat of their brow. They sit in the machines in air conditioning, watching a DVD, while the machine follows GPS that's programmed for the field they are working. Red necks are now bygone history ; no sweat of the brow and no red necks.

That is always the promise, it is the "luxury trap". But, tell all the immigrants who pick the crops that. When I compare our modern farming approach with the Amish I wonder if it truly is an improvement. How are they able to continue year after year without any of that "improvement"? I watched a video about some chicken farmers, one guy seemed like a mental retard just so happy that he could be the proud "owner" of these large metal sheds full of chickens. Only problem, he didn't own the chickens. Unless he did exactly as he was told they (Purdue or some other large chicken supplier) would pull their chickens and he would be bankrupt. He had a multimillion dollar mortgage, yet lived on about $50,000 a year income. In addition, the chicken owners would require frequent "improvements", "upgrades" and "renovations" so that these chicken farmers never did get some breathing room between them and the precipice. Being on the edge of bankruptcy keeps them obedient. Also, the job is incredibly unhealthy for them to walk in these places, the air is filled with bird droppings, feathers, and a whole host of pathogens. Yet because these guys own their own business they have to buy their own health insurance which they cannot afford, especially since the insurance companies know how unhealthy the job is.

Originally Posted by awareness

Plus, I don't work by the sweat of my brow for my food. I go to Wallyworld and pick it up. My work also wasn't by the sweat of my brow. It was in A/C. The the offices I went into, and various other locations, like hospitals, nobody was working by the brow. Maybe that was true back when totalitarian agriculture took shape. But not any more, in modern times. Those Bible days are long gone.

Yes, this is true, about 150 years ago we discovered the industrial revolution, no longer did we need slave labor, we had oil and coal to do the heavy lifting for us. And yet sweat shops, a modern form of slave labor, has made a huge comeback. In a desperate attempt to stop working by the sweat of our brow we have in 150 years transformed the Earth's atmosphere. As a result we now have forest fires covering an area each year 9 times greater than just 30 years ago. Tornadoes, hurricanes and other storms are larger, more frequent and more powerful. We just saw Harvey, August 2017, but many people forgot we got an extremely large rain event in Louisiana in August of 2016. They said that rain event was "completely unexpected". Then they had the nerve a year later to say that Harvey was "unprecedented"?!

Still, the US experience is hardly representative of the experience of 6-8 billion people. Likewise, your job isn't even part of the industrial revolution, it is part of the technological revolution. The very same revolution that has given us real life terminators. People working 9-5 playing video games that kill real people thousands of miles away. The US is the "illusive goal" that 7.7 billion people aspire to. It is what keeps them running on that hamster wheel. Meanwhile the US has done more than any other country to transform the Earth into a hellscape.

Originally Posted by awareness

The stories Gobekli Tepe is telling us, so far, is incomplete. Only 5% of it has been excavated. So bro ZNP, don't be so overly anxious to prove the Bible that you count your chickens before they hatch.

The story is incomplete. What we know so far is that it predates the agricultural revolution, that it is a megalithic temple built by hunter gatherers, and that one of the first varieties of domesticated wheat was found 20 miles from this location dating to the same time. We also know that wheat used to be an ordinary grass, but through man's intervention has become so incredibly widespread because we burn down other vegetation, we plant the seeds, we water them, fertilize them, put down pesticide and herbicide to protect them, etc. We have decided that this wheat is a "good" plant and that all these other plants, animals, and insects that we are killing are "evil".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is like a little hamster wheel, the faster we run the faster we have to run. Without the huge agribusiness we can no longer feed billions of people, it is a drug, we are addicted and we now need a bigger and bigger fix. Look at the way chickens are raised. Look at genetically modified crops. Clearly we are no longer in the garden, we are in the middle of a horror film headed to hell in a car that keeps accelerating.

Bro ZNP, I'm sending you a ebook copy of Daniel Quinn's "The Story of B."

In the meantime, this expresses your concerns in a nutshell :

[clip]
When did we become we? Where and when did the thing called us begin? Remember: East and West, twins of a common birth. Where? And when?

Well, of course: in the Near East, about ten thousand years ago. That’s where our peculiar, defining form of agriculture was born, and we began to be we. That was our cultural birthplace. That was where and when we slipped into that beautifully pleasant water: the Near East, ten thousand years ago.

As the water in the cauldron slowly heats, the frog feels nothing but a pleasant warmth, and indeed that’s all there is to feel. A long time has to pass before the water begins to be dangerously hot, and our own history demonstrates this. For fully half our history, the first five thousand years, signs of distress are almost nonexistent. The technological innovations of this period bespeak a quiet life, centered around hearth and village — sun-dried brick, kiln-fired pottery, woven cloth, the potter’s wheel, and so on. But gradually, imperceptibly, signs of distress begin to appear, like tiny bubbles at the bottom of a pot.

What shall we look for, as signs of distress? Mass suicides? Revolution? Terrorism? No, of course not. Those come much later, when the water is scalding hot. Five thousand years ago it was just getting warm. Folks mopping their brows were grinning at each other and saying, “Isn’t it great?”

You’ll know where to find the signs of distress if you identify the fire that was burning under the cauldron. It was burning there in the beginning, was still burning after five thousand years… and is still burning today in exactly the same way. It was and is the great heating element of our revolution. It’s the essential. It’s the sine qua non of our success if success is what it is.

Speak! Someone tell me what I’m talking about!

“Agriculture!” Agriculture, this gentleman tells me.

No. Not agriculture. One particular style of agriculture. One particular style that has been the basis of our culture from its beginnings ten thousand years ago to the present moment — the basis of our culture and found in no other. It’s ours, it’s what makes us us. For its complete ruthlessness toward all other life-forms on this planet and for it’s unyielding determination to convert every square meter on this planet to the production of human food, I’ve called it totalitarian agriculture.
[End clip]
For full narrative of "The Boiling Frog" :
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is always the promise, it is the "luxury trap". But, tell all the immigrants who pick the crops that. When I compare our modern farming approach with the Amish I wonder if it truly is an improvement. How are they able to continue year after year without any of that "improvement"?

Amish are having much difficulty with farming. Many are moving into "value-added" products like furniture and construction. Many of the land based Amish are forced to relocate, seeking cheaper land. Where I am, many of the framing crews are Amish, and they compete with a whole host of tools, like pneumatic nailers run by gasoline powered compressors.

It's amazing what they can do without an electric bill.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, I'm sending you a ebook copy of Daniel Quinn's "The Story of B."

Well, I have started the book, just getting into it and it is an enjoyable read, quite reminiscent of the style Awareness uses. The aww shucks, less than the least, been around the block enough to be a little cynical. But not so much that he loses his sense of humor.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, I have started the book, just getting into it and it is an enjoyable read, quite reminiscent of the style Awareness uses. The aww shucks, less than the least, been around the block enough to be a little cynical. But not so much that he loses his sense of humor.

I am now well into the book, it is full of teasers, but is obviously headed towards some kind of rebuke of Christianity along with a very extensive (very extensive) discussion of the antichrist.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am now well into the book, it is full of teasers, but is obviously headed towards some kind of rebuke of Christianity along with a very extensive (very extensive) discussion of the antichrist.

This book uses a style that I find very manipulative. They are holding a mock discussion between a man of faith (Catholic priest) and a man who goes by "B" as in "Blasphemer", etc. In this discussion B ascribes certain fundamental truths that Christians hold to, agreed to by the Catholic priest. Problem is they are not fundamental truths, they are not Biblical and I certainly don't subscribe to them.

For example -- the priest agrees that according to his faith God has only spoken to Christians.

This is ridiculous, read the Bible, God spoke to all kinds of people -- Balaam, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, Cornelius, etc. There is absolutely no Biblical basis to claim that God only spoke to me, or to Christians. Rather, there is a Biblical basis to say that what God has spoken to me is truth and not a lie.

But then it gets worse, he describes the agricultural revolution as being like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we decide that chickens are good, so there are billions of them, and we decide that foxes are evil so we kill all of them. We decide wheat is good so we have wheat everywhere, but we decide that bugs that eat wheat are evil so we have pesticide to kill them all. So far so good. Then he says according to our Christian faith it is God that made this decision. Baloney. God was the one that forbade us to eat this tree and when we ignored that command He stated in very clear terms the consequences of that action. He also said that the ground would be cursed because of this decision on our part and we were put out of the garden. What hypocrisy to say that it is God who decided this when it was God who very clearly warned us and forbid us from going down this path.

[zeek]

On the "Protestant Principle" ---

The chief Protestant idolatry has been Bibliolatry. Protestants do believe that God speaks to people through the Bible as in no other way. But to elevate it as a book to a point above criticism, to insist that every word and letter was dictated directly by God and so can contain no historical, scientific, or other inaccuracies, is again to forget that in entering the world, God’s word must speak through human minds.

Smith, Huston. The World's Religions, Revised and Updated (Plus) (Kindle Locations 7588-7591). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

On the "Protestant Principle" ---

Very lame.

I and presumably many other Christians, though I do not presume to speak for all Christians as this person you quote does, am very open to discussing possible errors (scientific, historical, etc) in the Bible. In fact I am more than open to it I am interested in it.

But what I have found in all those who do claim errors are presumptions based on their opinions and understanding. What this author (and presumably you as well since you quote him without any caveats) is blissfully ignorant of (or willfully ignores) is that there are many, many instances where it was assumed the Bible was in error either historically or scientifically only to later learn that it was our opinion or assumptions that were in error.

I personally thought I had found 3 or 4 errors only to later realize I was the one in error. Though at present I still have one glaring scientific error in the Bible that I have yet to reconcile.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very lame.

I and presumably many other Christians, though I do not presume to speak for all Christians as this person you quote does, am very open to discussing possible errors (scientific, historical, etc) in the Bible. In fact I am more than open to it I am interested in it.

But what I have found in all those who do claim errors are presumptions based on their opinions and understanding. What this author (and presumably you as well since you quote him without any caveats) is blissfully ignorant of (or willfully ignores) is that there are many, many instances where it was assumed the Bible was in error either historically or scientifically only to later learn that it was our opinion or assumptions that were in error.

I personally thought I had found 3 or 4 errors only to later realize I was the one in error. Though at present I still have one glaring scientific error in the Bible that I have yet to reconcile.

Spoken like a true Bibliolatrist.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Spoken like a true Bibliolatrist.

Can't find this word in the dictionary. What is a Bibliolatrist?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can't find this word in the dictionary. What is a Bibliolatrist?

rotflmao ... lolololol ...

[awareness]

bibliolatrist
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibliolatrist

Alternative form of bibliolater
Noun
bibliolater (plural bibliolaters)
A worshipper of books, especially the Bible.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibliolater#English

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

bibliolatrist
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibliolatrist

Alternative form of bibliolater
Noun
bibliolater (plural bibliolaters)
A worshipper of books, especially the Bible.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bibliolater#English

Worship --
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed:

I do not treat the Bible I own as a "sacred object". I suppose some of the ancient artifacts an ancient manuscripts are handled with extreme care, but I do not equate handling something with extreme care due to its value, age, and irreplaceability to being a "sacred object".

Yes, I love the word, but that does not rise to the level of idolatry. I do not have ceremonies around the "worship of the word" nor do I pray to the word as though it were a deity.

Idol -- an image used as an object of worship.

I do not use the Bible in this way. It is not an image nor is it an object of worship.

Instead I would argue that this line of argument is created by those too arrogant to see that the errors they assume are in the Bible are in fact their own errors. Hence they assume that those who don't agree with them must be idol worshippers instead of seeing that they are blinded by pride.

Show me one instance when I have been unwilling to discuss openly any assumed error? Not once. That is not the action of some kind of blind, idolatrous worship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Worship --
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed:

I do not treat the Bible I own as a "sacred object". I suppose some of the ancient artifacts an ancient manuscripts are handled with extreme care, but I do not equate handling something with extreme care due to its value, age, and irreplaceability to being a "sacred object".

Yes, I love the word, but that does not rise to the level of idolatry. I do not have ceremonies around the "worship of the word" nor do I pray to the word as though it were a deity.

Idol -- an image used as an object of worship.

I do not use the Bible in this way. It is not an image nor is it an object of worship.

Instead I would argue that this line of argument is created by those too arrogant to see that the errors they assume are in the Bible are in fact their own errors. Hence they assume that those who don't agree with them must be idol worshippers instead of seeing that they are blinded by pride.

Show me one instance when I have been unwilling to discuss openly any assumed error? Not once. That is not the action of some kind of blind, idolatrous worship.

ZNP, how dare you love the Bible, believing it is God's word to us? Don't you know that the Bible has "errors?" That's right, a couple jots and tittles have gone missing.

So ... to all the agnostics, iconoclasts, atheists, and idolatrists out there ... you must be a Bibliolatrist!

.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not treat the Bible I own as a "sacred object".

That's encouraging. So you don't take II Tim 3:16 literally. Cuz if every word of the Bible is God breathed it's the most sacred object on the earth. Duh.

And you may not take the Bible as a sacred object, but plenty of others do. The Torah/Tanakh is considered by the Jews, the orthodox ones, as sacred. And google "sacred scriptures" to see for yourself.

Originally Posted by Z

I do not have ceremonies around the "worship of the word" nor do I pray to the word as though it were a deity.

Okay. You've come a long way from your days in the local church.

I remember too many times to count sitting around in circles, heads looking down at the Bible, and even rocking, and praying the words. That's a ceremony if there ever was one. You never did that?

LCer's are quintessential Bible worshipers. They even believe they are able to EAT God with it. Now that's Bible worship ... clearly they are bibliolaters. I'm glad you're not one now.

Originally Posted by Z

I do not use the Bible in this way. It is not an image nor is it an object of worship.

Not any more .. cuz ya learned better.

Originally Posted by Z

Instead I would argue that this line of argument is created by those too arrogant to see that the errors they assume are in the Bible are in fact their own errors. Hence they assume that those who don't agree with them must be idol worshippers instead of seeing that they are blinded by pride.

Snarky man snarky. And prolly projection.

Originally Posted by Z

Show me one instance when I have been unwilling to discuss openly any assumed error? Not once. That is not the action of some kind of blind, idolatrous worship.

It would be a big job but I think I can show by your posts that you'll twist and turn and go thru hoops a loops, like a pretzel, to prove that the Bible is a science book.

But I'll cut you some slack. You can't help it if you're not fully free from your bibliolater days in the local church. You need more time to recover. You're well on your way. You'll come out of it eventually. Or your bibliolater disease might get worse. I hope the former.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's encouraging. So you don't take II Tim 3:16 literally. Cuz if every word of the Bible is God breathed it's the most sacred object on the earth. Duh.

I remember too many times to count sitting around in circles, heads looking down at the Bible, and even rocking, and praying the words. That's a ceremony if there ever was one. You never did that?

LCer's are quintessential Bible worshipers. They even believe they are able to EAT God with it. Now that's Bible worship ... clearly they are bibliolaters. I'm glad you're not one now.

But I'll cut you some slack. You can't help it if you're not fully free from your bibliolater days in the local church. You need more time to recover. You're well on your way. You'll come out of it eventually. Or your bibliolater disease might get worse. I hope the former.

Wow, sounds like you have become a bibliohater, and projecting on ole ZNP.

Did I see you "rocking" to your Kindle? Now what would you call that?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow, sounds like you have become a bibliohater, and projecting on ole ZNP.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did I see you "rocking" to your Kindle? Now what would you call that?

Bibliophile ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow, sounds like you have become a bibliohater, and projecting on ole ZNP.

Did I see you "rocking" to your Kindle? Now what would you call that?

Yes, the transformation of Awareness from someone who mocked prophets of doom to a bonafide prophet of hellfire and brimstone is enough to give you whiplash. Follow this with Zeek picking up the mantle of Witness Lee to not just condemn Catholics of Idolatry but any and all who love the word of God.

These two have turned into modern day preachers of hellfire and damnation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Snarky man snarky. And prolly projection.

I don't like being accused of idolatry, a sin defined and spelled out in the Bible, from someone who apparently thinks that taking the Bible seriously is a sin as defined by the Bible.

Talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel. According to you and Zeek if you take the Bible seriously enough to treat idolatry as a sin then you are guilty of the idolatry of making the Bible an idol.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, the transformation of Awareness from someone who mocked prophets of doom to a bonafide prophet of hellfire and brimstone is enough to give you whiplash. Follow this with Zeek picking up the mantle of Witness Lee to not just condemn Catholics of Idolatry but any and all who love the word of God.

These two have turned into modern day preachers of hellfire and damnation.

There is a bit of irony in seeing those who once condemned all of Christianity now condemn all of Christianity.

And then claim that those who resist their gross stereotypes are still under the LC spell. Makes me wonder about the long-term side effects from whiplash.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't like being accused of idolatry, a sin defined and spelled out in the Bible, from someone who apparently thinks that taking the Bible seriously is a sin as defined by the Bible.

Talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel. According to you and Zeek if you take the Bible seriously enough to treat idolatry as a sin then you are guilty of the idolatry of making the Bible an idol.

All I did was quote Huston Smith. You guys did the rest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

All I did was quote Huston Smith. You guys did the rest.

Fair enough, Awareness is preaching hellfire and damnation, you are merely giving him the ammunition.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair enough, Awareness is preaching hellfire and damnation, you are merely giving him the ammunition.

Thank you. Awareness and I are different people. I appreciate it when people recognize that.

I don't know if you literally worship the bible. That would be kind of weird.

But I do think, based on your posts here and elsewhere, that you "elevate it as a book to a point above criticism." You seem to think it is absolutely true. And so you go to great lengths to come up with sometimes fantastical quasi-scientific hypotheses to justify it.

Whereas, I have accepted the presupposition that the bible writers were almost invariably subject to the "scientific" knowledge of their culture, time and place as are we subject to ours.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

But I do think, based on your posts here and elsewhere, that you "elevate it as a book to a point above criticism." You seem to think it is absolutely true. And so you go to great lengths to come up with sometimes fantastical quasi-scientific hypotheses to justify it.

Whereas, I have accepted the presupposition that the bible writers were almost invariably subject to the "scientific" knowledge of their culture, time and place as are we subject to ours.

Definition of criticism:

a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
b. A critical article or essay; a critique.
c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.

Thank you for this post because it is precisely what I have been trying to say in a nutshell. Accepting the "Presupposition that the Bible writers were subject to the scientific knowledge of their time" is a working hypothesis. It does not make your analysis any more "criticism" than my Presupposition that the Bible writers were working together with God to transmit God's word. Both are working hypothesis.

Every post I have made on this site for the last so many years involves analyzing, classifying, interpreting, and evaluating. They are investigations of these documents.

You are under the assumption (false) that your presupposition makes your analysis criticism, while mine invalidates mine. That is contrary to the idea of true criticism. The only thing that would invalidate true criticism is if you were unaware of what your presupposition was that you were evaluating, analyzing, and otherwise examining.

As for "fantastical quasi scientific hypothesis". The author you quoted pointed out that modern scientific theories are fantastical and make Newtonian physics seem quaint by comparison. When I was in high school black holes were science fiction. My quotes on the science is from peer reviewed research and respected scientists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Definition of criticism:

a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
b. A critical article or essay; a critique.
c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.

Thank you for this post because it is precisely what I have been trying to say in a nutshell. Accepting the "Presupposition that the Bible writers were subject to the scientific knowledge of their time" is a working hypothesis. It does not make your analysis any more "criticism" than my Presupposition that the Bible writers were working together with God to transmit God's word. Both are working hypothesis.

Every post I have made on this site for the last so many years involves analyzing, classifying, interpreting, and evaluating. They are investigations of these documents.

You are under the assumption (false) that your presupposition makes your analysis criticism, while mine invalidates mine. That is contrary to the idea of true criticism. The only thing that would invalidate true criticism is if you were unaware of what your presupposition was that you were evaluating, analyzing, and otherwise examining.

As for "fantastical quasi scientific hypothesis". The author you quoted pointed out that modern scientific theories are fantastical and make Newtonian physics seem quaint by comparison. When I was in high school black holes were science fiction. My quotes on the science is from peer reviewed research and respected scientists.

OK, so we are working from different presuppositions. Your understanding of what Bible criticism means is idiosyncratic though, I think. Mine is consistent with Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism Like William James, I am open to the possibility that there is something more. But, I'm skeptical about the ability of you or anybody else to turn God into a science. The past is riddled with failures. Witness Lee, for instance. It is hubris to think you can systematize God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, so we are working from different presuppositions. Your understanding of what Bible criticism means is idiosyncratic though, I think. Mine is consistent with Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism Like William James, I am open to the possibility that there is something more. But, I'm skeptical about the ability of you or anybody else to turn God into a science. The past is riddled with failures. Witness Lee, for instance. It is hubris to think you can systematize God.

How is my approach any different from this:

"Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as being ordinary pieces of literature, rather than set apart from other literature, as in the traditional view, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a historical Jesus.

It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies."

Although I view the Bible as the word of God that does not mean that we cannot examine it as any other writing. The difference for me is that you can find holes in other writings -- for example, Einstein's fudge factor. And you can easily find holes in these epic works, like JK Rowlings Harry Potter books. Therefore, if one author cannot write without leaving errors and blunders, it seems reasonable with the many different authors of the Bible written over hundreds and hundreds of years that it would be full of errors. I have yet to conclusively find one.

Therefore if someone is truly doing "scholarly research of the Bible" as an ordinary piece of literature I would expect that they too have come to this realization. If not I am skeptical of them and their hubris to so quickly assume they have found errors.

Also, I am not trying to "turn God into a science". Instead I see pure science as a close observation and examination of the creation. It is as though we are both climbing the same mountain (trying to understand and know God the creator of the universe), just taking separate trails.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is my approach any different from this:

"Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as being ordinary pieces of literature, rather than set apart from other literature, as in the traditional view, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a historical Jesus.

It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies."

Although I view the Bible as the word of God that does not mean that we cannot examine it as any other writing. The difference for me is that you can find holes in other writings -- for example, Einstein's fudge factor. And you can easily find holes in these epic works, like JK Rowlings Harry Potter books. Therefore, if one author cannot write without leaving errors and blunders, it seems reasonable with the many different authors of the Bible written over hundreds and hundreds of years that it would be full of errors. I have yet to conclusively find one.

Therefore if someone is truly doing "scholarly research of the Bible" as an ordinary piece of literature I would expect that they too have come to this realization. If not I am skeptical of them and their hubris to so quickly assume they have found errors.

Also, I am not trying to "turn God into a science". Instead I see pure science as a close observation and examination of the creation. It is as though we are both climbing the same mountain (trying to understand and know God the creator of the universe), just taking separate trails.

I emboldened the print on phrases where you clearly depart from critical thinking. Your use of the word "conclusively" may point to a difference in the way we think.

Critical thinking entails probabilities not absolutes. You're not usually going to come to a conclusion with absolute certainty thinking critically. There are many conflicts in the Bible best explained as errors. A person can't accept that when their presupposition is that the Bible is infallible. So they go to whatever length they must to explain the problems away. And if they can't, they tell themselves that God will reveal it by and by.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I emboldened the print on phrases where you clearly depart from critical thinking. Your use of the word "conclusively" may point to a difference in the way we think.

Critical thinking entails probabilities not absolutes. You're not usually going to come to a conclusion with absolute certainty thinking critically. There are many conflicts in the Bible best explained as errors. A person can't accept that when their presupposition is that the Bible is infallible. So they go to whatever length they must to explain the problems away. And if they can't, they tell themselves that God will reveal it by and by.

All the more reason not to jump to conclusions. My point is that over the last 30+ years I heard all kinds of reasoning explaining this or that error. One that I heard was that the Romans didn't scourge someone they were going to crucify. As you said these aren't absolutes, they are probabilities that people are using to absolutely claim the Bible is in error.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All the more reason not to jump to conclusions. My point is that over the last 30+ years I heard all kinds of reasoning explaining this or that error. One that I heard was that the Romans didn't scourge someone they were going to crucify. As you said these aren't absolutes, they are probabilities that people are using to absolutely claim the Bible is in error.

Zeek says that he deals in probabilities and not absolutes, but all his posts indicate that he is convinced that only his conclusions are absolutely true.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek says that he deals in probabilities and not absolutes, but all his posts indicate that he is convinced that only his conclusions are absolutely true.

My conclusions are mostly tentative, provisional and subject to change based on additional evidence should such surface. I experience therefore I am is about as absolute as I get. Even that is questionable since I don't know who "I" is in an absolute way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

My conclusions are mostly tentative, provisional and subject to change based on additional evidence should such surface. I experience therefore I am is about as absolute as I get. Even that is questionable since I don't know who "I" is in an absolute way.

With Clinton it depends on what the definition of is is. With you it depends on what the definition of I is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

With Clinton it depends on what the definition of is is. With you it depends on what the definition of I is.

In both cases it depends on the context, which means it is relative not absolute.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

With Clinton it depends on what the definition of is is. With you it depends on what the definition of I is.

"I think, therefore I am." A rock don't think, therefore it isn't.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"I think, therefore I am." A rock don't think, therefore it isn't.

Sounds like a defense lawyer claiming his client couldn't have killed the victim with a rock.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"I think, therefore I am." A rock don't think, therefore it isn't.

A rock doesn't think, therefore, it is not an "I".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

A rock doesn't think, therefore, it is not an "I".

Oh well, I guess Paul Simon is not an "I".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh well, I guess Paul Simon is not an "I".

Simon's rock was a metaphor, like Jesus' Peter.

[Ohio]

It's truly amazing what science can "prove" these days.

Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.

[Intothewind]

I can't believe this thread is still going. But at least it is a good testament to the arguments.

It does make me fond of thousands of varieties of fish that breathe air, however.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I can't believe this thread is still going. But at least it is a good testament to the arguments.

It does make me fond of thousands of varieties of fish that breathe air, however.

Well you just kicked the can down the road again. If you can, catch BBC's "Blue Planet II." They take you down to depth of the ocean that haven't ever been explored before ... to reveal lots of strange looking creatures, that display obvious intelligence.

Is that the reason the Bible depicts monsters down there in the deep?

Job 41:1* Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?

[Intothewind]

Yes!

Also, planet earth II that just came out is amazing. I particularly like the footage for the cities episode

[zeek]

https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-04-...gue-scientists

Scientists say they have traced the world's 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single "mother tongue," an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. That's before the earth was created for the young earthers. What say ye gap theorists?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-04-...gue-scientists

Scientists say they have traced the world's 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single "mother tongue," an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. That's before the earth was created for the young earthers. What say ye gap theorists?

Stone age women prolly invented it. So they could go on and on and on and on about why men only wanted one thing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-04-...gue-scientists

Scientists say they have traced the world's 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single "mother tongue," an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. That's before the earth was created for the young earthers. What say ye gap theorists?

The oldest, surest, most reliable Book known to man tells us that God confounded the languages at Babel, but you prefer the hypotheses and speculations of pseudo-scientists groping in darkness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The oldest, surest, most reliable Book known to man tells us that God confounded the languages at Babel, but you prefer the hypotheses and speculations of pseudo-scientists groping in darkness.

Good point bro Ohio. So the question is, for both sides of the question -- both the alleged pseudo-scientists, so called, as well as the alleged Bible believers, so self professed -- is, what was the original language?

Sure wish they could write back then. So they could tell us. The Bible doesn't say. They couldn't write.

Remember, In the beginning was the word. Cuz that's when the stories began, and mans' mind could be revealed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good point bro Ohio. So the question is, for both sides of the question -- both the alleged pseudo-scientists, so called, as well as the alleged Bible believers, so self professed -- is, what was the original language?

Sure wish they could write back then. So they could tell us. The Bible doesn't say. They couldn't write.

Remember, In the beginning was the word. Cuz that's when the stories began, and mans' mind could be revealed.

Perhaps the "original" language was lost, once God confounded speech. To assume that the original language even existed beyond that point is to assume that God selected certain one(s) to leave alone, and confound everyone else.

I doubt if everyone spoke a new tongue, rather I would guess that God would allow family structures to maintain a common language. We also know that language, both spoken and written, changes over time. Written language is definitely a stabilizing factor, but look at how much English has changed since the KJV/ Shakespearean days.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps the "original" language was lost, once God confounded speech.

Oh, don't you think that languages were confounded before Babel? The story was written looking back, from around circa 800 BCE, when the languages were clearly confounded, and the story of Babel was just a literary device to explain that reality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

To assume that the original language even existed beyond that point is to assume that God selected certain one(s) to leave alone, and confound everyone else.

Yeah, and all of them would have remembered their native tongue. So the original language had to go, as the story goes. I think. I wasn't there. None of us were. And neither were the author(s) of Genesis. Who knows the real original story? And we know how stories change on down the line. The original story could have been someone telling stories around a campfire, spit-balling something out to explain why all the tribes spoke different tongues. They weren't scientist's back then, even of your favorite pseudo type.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I doubt if everyone spoke a new tongue, rather I would guess that God would allow family structures to maintain a common language.

I don't know. It sure sounds like he wanted to confuse everyone :

Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech."

Originally Posted by Ohio

We also know that language, both spoken and written, changes over time.

"And the tales grow taller on down the line."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Written language is definitely a stabilizing factor, but look at how much English has changed since the KJV/ Shakespearean days.

I know. I've got many translations and one of them is in the original Old English KJV.

I'll quote Gen. 11:7 again, in the original KJV :

Gen 11:7 Goe to, let vs go downe, and there cofound their language, that they may not vnderstand one anothers speech.

BTW, if good ol' Boxjobox is listening, I think he'll get a kick of more proof of the trinity at work with the "let us" in v. 7. And they, us, bring the terrible and awful power of the whole sway of all all three of them at the same time. Babel must have been one whooper of a problem, to require all three at once. I guess it took trinity power to confound the languages, so trinitarian Christians like to think, and superimpose, onto the "us" statements in Genesis.

But I should point out that it was at least three-times-power. It was so powerful, in fact, that it confounded the languages of the Native American Indians. Those tribes spoke different tongues too. And they had nothing to do with building the tower of Babel. Apparently God casts His judgement with a wide non-discriminating brush. If you ask me He's a little too loosey-goosey with it. I expect perfect precision from my God, when it comes to being fair minded toward the innocent. What were those three (or more) gods doing? It's like they nuked everyone. for something just a few on the earth had anything to do with. That's not Godly behavior. Maybe jobox is right. Maybe the trinity is evil.

[awareness]

Most people who believe the Earth is flat consider themselves to be ‘very religious and think evidence of the world's shape is found in scripture', poll reveals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-reveals.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Most people who believe the Earth is flat consider themselves to be ‘very religious and think evidence of the world's shape is found in scripture', poll reveals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-reveals.html

Awareness, you really should refrain from reading those internet Tabloids.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Awareness, you really should refrain from reading those internet Tabloids.

Oh, okay. You and zeek. Let's try this one :
https://today.yougov.com/news/2018/0...&ICID=ref_fark

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh, okay. You and zeek. Let's try this one :
https://today.yougov.com/news/2018/0...&ICID=ref_fark

I can see you as one of those Flat Earth proponents.

You believe lots of crazy stiff!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can see you as one of those Flat Earth proponents.

You believe lots of crazy stiff!

Yeah, I don't need the Bible to prove the earth is flat. I just look at my front yard. I can also see, that the sun, moon, and stars go around this flat earth, so this flat earth is the center of the universe.

What? Should I believe those crazy scientists or my very own eyeballs?

That proves the Bible for me. Cuz they were honest about what they saw with their very own eyeballs too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, I don't need the Bible to prove the earth is flat. I just look at my front yard. I can also see, that the sun, moon, and stars go around this flat earth, so this flat earth is the center of the universe.

What? Should I believe those crazy scientists or my very own eyeballs?

That proves the Bible for me. Cuz they were honest about what they saw with their very own eyeballs too.

We don't have flat earth around me, just hills, good for walking though.

So do I have to join the Hilly Earth Society?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We don't have flat earth around me, just hills, good for walking though.

So do I have to join the Hilly Earth Society?

Well I'm a hillybilly why not you?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, I don't need the Bible to prove the earth is flat. I just look at my front yard. I can also see, that the sun, moon, and stars go around this flat earth, so this flat earth is the center of the universe.

What? Should I believe those crazy scientists or my very own eyeballs?

That proves the Bible for me. Cuz they were honest about what they saw with their very own eyeballs too.

what you need is your own rocket so that you can shoot yourself into space and see for yourself if the Earth is round or flat. A simpler option would be to simply look at the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It isn't surprising that the Bible seems strange when you consider how long ago it was written. The writers' worldviews were informed by the cultures of their times as ours are informed by modern culture.

Their world is like a foreign land to us.Their cosmologies are prescientific. Their society traditional and was thoroughly patriarchal.

The Hebrew Bible is the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. What the Bible says is the words of those communities which were very different than ours.

They could not have imagined the way we understand things. We try to imagine how they viewed things but I don't see how we can ever achieve more than a rough approximation of their ancient perspectives.

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That has already been discussed to some degree on this forum a little while ago, but I don't recall a thread devoted to this topic specifically. I was the first person on this forum to raise the matter of the bible's cosmology versus modern science.

In short, the bible proves that the bible contains ancient science, not modern science.

Proof:

Acts 7:22 says that Moses was educated by the Egyptians.
Moses wrote the Old Testament

Therefore the Old Testament contains the "education of the Egyptians".

No where does the Bible say Moses was educated by God in scientific matters.

Zeek replies:
The thread is called "Bible versus Science". There are 732 posts on the subject.

I don't know if the story that Moses was educated by the Egyptians is true, but the Hebrew worldview appears to have been influenced by the Egyptian cosmology. The Genesis 1 story speaks of the creation of the same flat earth as was believed in Egypt, with a bubble of air above it, topped with an arching sky, all surrounded by water. There are many passages in the Hebrew Bible that reflect its flat-earth cosmology—for example, “You stretch out the heavens like a tent and build your palace on the waters above.” Psalms 104:2-3.

The Hebrew firmament has much the same job as the Egyptian goddess Nut as she arches her back over the flat earth: the job of holding the celestial bodies and protecting the world from the watery chaos beyond. But heaven, earth, and air—which were the gods Nut, Geb, and Shu in Egypt—are inanimate in Genesis. Monotheism disenchanted the natural world of its gods.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

Why did awareness sign his name "Drake?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The thread is call "Bible versus Science". There are 732 posts on the subject.

I don't know if the story that Moses was educated by the Egyptians is true, but the Hebrew worldview appears to have been influenced by the Egyptian cosmology. The Genesis 1 story speaks of the creation of the same flat earth as was believed in Egypt, with a bubble of air above it, topped with an arching sky, all surrounded by water. There are many passages in the Hebrew Bible that reflect its flat-earth cosmology—for example, “You stretch out the heavens like a tent and build your palace on the waters above.” Psalms 104:2-3.

The Hebrew firmament has much the same job as the Egyptian goddess Nut as she arches her back over the flat earth: the job of holding the celestial bodies and protecting the world from the watery chaos beyond. But heaven, earth, and air—which were the gods Nut, Geb, and Shu in Egypt—are inanimate in Genesis. Monotheism disenchanted the natural world of its gods.

Yes, I know. I was part of that discussion. Apparently I was the first to raise the matter, and you and Awareness probably learnt a lot from my posts.

There is also what I know about the real Jesus being physically, a five foot tall black man, but not sure if I have shared that here or not, can't remember. Most Christians are not prepared to meet a shoulder-high Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

And that was well said too. And down to earth.

But it seems to me that God was very outspoken back in the Bible days, in ways that He's not speaking today.

Sure God can only speak to us, if He does, in terms that we can understand, or His speaking would be nothing but nonsense otherwise. That means that back in the Bible days God could only speak in terms of Bronze Age and/or Iron age terms.

Today, if God speaks to us, He could speak in cosmological terms that they couldn't have ever possibly understood back in the ancient days.

And then there's the problem of the ancients interpreting God's speaking, and recording it.

That's why, as you pointed out, they speak of the four corners of the earth, and in many places write that God fixed the earth unmovable. And of the pillars of the earth. They obviously didn't know better.

This is how they pictured the earth, and cosmos back then :

[awareness]

I've been moving posts about the Biblical view of the Cosmos from this thread to the Bible v. Science thread.

But this thread has exploded since those digressions, or segues, and I can't find all the related posts. Surely I've missed some.

So if anyone feels I've neglected or failed to move a post here that belongs there please let me know the post number and I'll move it.

Thanks ..
Harold - the MOTA, or MoAVs

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

On the one hand the Earth is a sphere, but on the other hand the continents are not round, neither are the countries, nor the alliances. The four corners of the Earth is very clearly a geopolitical reference, not an astronomical one. ( It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth).

As for some of your other points, mountains are columns. The average thickness of the continental crust is 20 km, but the thickness beneath a mountain range like the Rockies is 36 km.

There are other columns of the Earth which we are still not completely clear on, for example Hawaii sits over what is known as a hot spot. I think there are 7 of these on the Earth. Canary Islands and Iceland are two more.

[ZNPaaneah]

In my understanding any Biblical concept of creation has to follow the principle in John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him [a]was not anything made that hath been made."

To me this means that both the things made, like fossils, and the word of God (scripture) have to agree. If you have an interpretation where you have to throw out one of these then you have made a mistake.

For example, Genesis chapter 1. There are many issues with this chapter, but the one that sticks out most for me is day 3 when the grass appears. In the record in Genesis grass is the first thing to appear when the water is moved into one place and the dry land appears. However, according to the fossil record grass appears very late in the fossil sequence, definitely after flowers and fruit trees (which appear next), way after fish, etc.

So then, this day 3 is not talking about the creation of this life form, neither does it say that it is.

What does it mean that the "water was gathered together in one place"? This can't refer to lakes and rivers and oceans being the two places since we now have all of that and presumably the water is in one place. I would argue that this refers to the last ice age. At that time we had water in the form of Ice on top of the land as well as water in the ocean. When the glaciers retreated they were gathered into one place, the ocean. At that time the first thing to appear would have been grass followed by other forms of vegetation.

You are not a literalist if you reject the fossil record because you are also rejecting John 1:3.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why did awareness sign his name "Drake?"

Because... .. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that was well said too. And down to earth.

But it seems to me that God was very outspoken back in the Bible days, in ways that He's not speaking today.

Sure God can only speak to us, if He does, in terms that we can understand, or His speaking would be nothing but nonsense otherwise. That means that back in the Bible days God could only speak in terms of Bronze Age and/or Iron age terms.

Today, if God speaks to us, He could speak in cosmological terms that they couldn't have ever possibly understood back in the ancient days.

And then there's the problem of the ancients interpreting God's speaking, and recording it.

That's why, as you pointed out, they speak of the four corners of the earth, and in many places write that God fixed the earth unmovable. And of the pillars of the earth. They obviously didn't know better.

This is how they pictured the earth, and cosmos back then :

Thanks awareness for moving these here.

Cosmos graph: That is how they, the Hebrew scribes and scholars and most of the authors of the Bible that refer to it, understood and explained the cosmos. It was solid and crystalline in their view. Planets were stars albeit special because they wandered (Jude 13)

Yet, I agree with the zeekster that in spite of their limited understanding God did not expect their scientific knowledge to be complete or even accurate. Rather He just met people where they were at because though the Bible contains a lot of information about people, places, and things, it is primarily a revelation about God Himself.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To me this means that both the things made, like fossils, and the word of God (scripture) have to agree. If you have an interpretation where you have to throw out one of these then you have made a mistake.

And science may prove the gap theory :

"Did an extinct civilisation pre-date mankind on Earth? Scientists say it would be 'easy to miss' the signs of an industrial society like our own even if it were buried right under our noses"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-man-made.html

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

And science may prove the gap theory :

"Did an extinct civilisation pre-date mankind on Earth? Scientists say it would be 'easy to miss' the signs of an industrial society like our own even if it were buried right under our noses"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-man-made.html

Many decades ago, in a forum not unlike this one, I debated a precious brother who argued that the fossil record and other things that date the earth older than 6000 years were created by God in that old state. So all dating techniques we use were irrelevant because dinosaur bones were created by God to look like they were very old.

That met his need to reconcile but if that were true then why would God do that... nothing in the Bible suggests that a God would create such a diversion.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Because... .. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together?

From Duck to Walrus.

Somehow this makes more sense than some of the other stuff here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Many decades ago, in a forum not unlike this one, I debated a precious brother who argued that the fossil record and other things that date the earth older than 6000 years were created by a God in that old state. So all dating techniques we use were irrelevant because dinosaur bones were created by God to look like they were very old.

That met his need to reconcile but if that were true then why would God do that... nothing in the Bible suggests that a God would create such a diversion.

Drake

I've always felt that staunch "young earth" creationists did more harm than good, creating far more questions than answers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Many decades ago, in a forum not unlike this one, I debated a precious brother who argued that the fossil record and other things that date the earth older than 6000 years were created by God in that old state. So all dating techniques we use were irrelevant because dinosaur bones were created by God to look like they were very old.

That met his need to reconcile but if that were true then why would God do that... nothing in the Bible suggests that a God would create such a diversion.

Drake

I heard that one many decades ago too. It made me wonder if God is a trickster. That makes me wonder if God has a loony streak.

But then I realized that that explanation is just a desperate rationale of a young earther.

Like Pembers' gap theory.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And science may prove the gap theory :

"Did an extinct civilisation pre-date mankind on Earth? Scientists say it would be 'easy to miss' the signs of an industrial society like our own even if it were buried right under our noses"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-man-made.html

The point of the study was not that there was another society but rather what would be the markers. As it turns out there are very distinct markers left behind by the burning of fossil fuel. They have seen these spikes twice in the fossil record. They don't conclude that this is due to an industrial society but rather run away burning of coal seams and volcanic activity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I heard that one many decades ago too. It made me wonder if God is a trickster. That makes me wonder if God has a loony streak.

When it comes to either God Himself or Pres. Trump, you are always willing to believe the worst.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've always felt that staunch "young earth" creationists did more harm than good, creating far more questions than answers.

They claim they are literalists but aren't because they are denying many other verses in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I heard that one many decades ago too. It made me wonder if God is a trickster. That makes me wonder if God has a loony streak.

But then I realized that that explanation is just a desperate rationale of a young earther.

Like Pembers' gap theory.

The gap theory is based on Bible verses:

1. "became" indicates a period of time.

2. "Became waste and void" -- contrary to the verse in Isaiah where God says he didn't create the Earth void.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it comes to either God Himself or Pres. Trump, you are always willing to believe the worst.

I am tired of people comparing Trump with God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They claim they are literalists but aren't because they are denying many other verses in the Bible.

Definitely agree.

And if we take Gen 1.1 "literally," then we have to assume something happened to make the earth "waste and void."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Definitely agree.

And if we take Gen 1.1 "literally," then we have to assume something happened to make the earth "waste and void."

There are only two references to God creating in Genesis 1, creating the heavens and Earth, and then later creating Man.

Man is a very special creation -- according to the image and likeness of God. What is that? Colossians tells us it is Jesus Christ. John tells us Jesus is the incarnated word.

Man (not homo sapiens) is unique among all species on this planet. Man is eusocial (diversified jobs, we take care of others offspring, we change our environment, we live in groups larger than 100). There are only 19 species that are eusocial (ants, termites, bees, wasps, etc). However, of these 19 only 1 learns to be eusocial from the Bible and religion. We were not born eusocial, we have to learn this from the word of God and from our inner conscience. But this is the reason that we have dominion over all the other creatures.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh, don't you think that languages were confounded before Babel? The story was written looking back, from around circa 800 BCE, when the languages were clearly confounded, and the story of Babel was just a literary device to explain that reality.


Yeah, and all of them would have remembered their native tongue. So the original language had to go, as the story goes. I think. I wasn't there. None of us were. And neither were the author(s) of Genesis. Who knows the real original story? And we know how stories change on down the line. The original story could have been someone telling stories around a campfire, spit-balling something out to explain why all the tribes spoke different tongues. They weren't scientist's back then, even of your favorite pseudo type.


I don't know. It sure sounds like he wanted to confuse everyone :

Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech."


"And the tales grow taller on down the line."


I know. I've got many translations and one of them is in the original Old English KJV.

I'll quote Gen. 11:7 again, in the original KJV :

Gen 11:7 Goe to, let vs go downe, and there cofound their language, that they may not vnderstand one anothers speech.

BTW, if good ol' Boxjobox is listening, I think he'll get a kick of more proof of the trinity at work with the "let us" in v. 7. And they, us, bring the terrible and awful power of the whole sway of all all three of them at the same time. Babel must have been one whooper of a problem, to require all three at once. I guess it took trinity power to confound the languages, so trinitarian Christians like to think, and superimpose, onto the "us" statements in Genesis.

But I should point out that it was at least three-times-power. It was so powerful, in fact, that it confounded the languages of the Native American Indians. Those tribes spoke different tongues too. And they had nothing to do with building the tower of Babel. Apparently God casts His judgement with a wide non-discriminating brush. If you ask me He's a little too loosey-goosey with it. I expect perfect precision from my God, when it comes to being fair minded toward the innocent. What were those three (or more) gods doing? It's like they nuked everyone. for something just a few on the earth had anything to do with. That's not Godly behavior. Maybe jobox is right. Maybe the trinity is evil.

Seems like that us may have had a bigger crowd than three! “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
**Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

I was not there when things were created, but this is part of what God is telling us about that time. In the OT, and somewhat in the NT, at least related to Christ and the infancy of the church, angels played a big part in bringing God's plans into fruition. God created, angels helped make in my view. Angels seem to have some humanness to them, in that they appear as men often. There is also the old sons of God doing the naughty with the daughters of men. A certain religious philosophy that I label with the T word, really jumps on the US thing to create a 3 type God. But it seems like God has a lot of beings that are labeled as sons of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Seems like that us may have had a bigger crowd than three! “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
**Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

I was not there when things were created, but this is part of what God is telling us about that time. In the OT, and somewhat in the NT, at least related to Christ and the infancy of the church, angels played a big part in bringing God's plans into fruition. God created, angels helped make in my view. Angels seem to have some humanness to them, in that they appear as men often. There is also the old sons of God doing the naughty with the daughters of men. A certain religious philosophy that I label with the T word, really jumps on the US thing to create a 3 type God. But it seems like God has a lot of beings that are labeled as sons of God.

And to top it off, the book of Enoch, written c. 200 BCE, says there were 200 sons of God that got naughty with the daughters of men.

There may be more for all we know. But if Enoch is right there's at least 200.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it comes to either God Himself or Pres. Trump, you are always willing to believe the worst.

That would be funny if it weren't Soooo sad.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that was well said too. And down to earth.

But it seems to me that God was very outspoken back in the Bible days, in ways that He's not speaking today.

Sure God can only speak to us, if He does, in terms that we can understand, or His speaking would be nothing but nonsense otherwise. That means that back in the Bible days God could only speak in terms of Bronze Age and/or Iron age terms.

Today, if God speaks to us, He could speak in cosmological terms that they couldn't have ever possibly understood back in the ancient days.

And then there's the problem of the ancients interpreting God's speaking, and recording it.

That's why, as you pointed out, they speak of the four corners of the earth, and in many places write that God fixed the earth unmovable. And of the pillars of the earth. They obviously didn't know better.

This is how they pictured the earth, and cosmos back then :

The diagram is missing some key details such as the two heavens above the firmament - the ocean of heaven and another heaven above that. Also, the diagram is missing the ocean below the earth.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Seems like that us may have had a bigger crowd than three! “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
**Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

I was not there when things were created, but this is part of what God is telling us about that time. In the OT, and somewhat in the NT, at least related to Christ and the infancy of the church, angels played a big part in bringing God's plans into fruition. God created, angels helped make in my view. Angels seem to have some humanness to them, in that they appear as men often. There is also the old sons of God doing the naughty with the daughters of men. A certain religious philosophy that I label with the T word, really jumps on the US thing to create a 3 type God. But it seems like God has a lot of beings that are labeled as sons of God.

So we have in the scripture a whole bunch of beings that exist in a way science does not have the way to probe. These beings have great influence on the affairs of the earth according to the good book. Winds, weather, thoughts, wars, famines, religious things, good, evil, blessings, curses, etc are influenced and dispatched by beings science does not recognize.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that was well said too. And down to earth.

But it seems to me that God was very outspoken back in the Bible days, in ways that He's not speaking today.

Sure God can only speak to us, if He does, in terms that we can understand, or His speaking would be nothing but nonsense otherwise. That means that back in the Bible days God could only speak in terms of Bronze Age and/or Iron age terms.

Today, if God speaks to us, He could speak in cosmological terms that they couldn't have ever possibly understood back in the ancient days.

And then there's the problem of the ancients interpreting God's speaking, and recording it.

That's why, as you pointed out, they speak of the four corners of the earth, and in many places write that God fixed the earth unmovable. And of the pillars of the earth. They obviously didn't know better.

This is how they pictured the earth, and cosmos back then :

I have been a vegetarian just about my whole adult life. So, when I read through Leviticus and Numbers about taking various animals, slicing and gutting, and waiving, and putting the blood over here and the kidney over there, and the fat there, it draws this bizarre picture of God, and the pleasing of God. A sweet aroma of burnt sacrifices, offerings, incense goes up, up to where God dwells, dwells and watches over the children of Jacob. So this puts God in the heavens above where the sacrifices take place.
When Jesus was on earth, he would look up to heaven when he prayed ( today among the pastor set, they seem to like people to bow their heads when prayer time comes- not insignificant in their view of heaven) , when Jesus was taken up, a cloud received him, when God spoke at Jesus time, a voice comes out of heaven, and Jesus will return in like manner as he was taken up, in the clouds, as well as as lightning strikes, which is something in the earth's atmosphere, the heaven above the earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So we have in the scripture a whole bunch of beings that exist in a way science does not have the way to probe. These beings have great influence on the affairs of the earth according to the good book. Winds, weather, thoughts, wars, famines, religious things, good, evil, blessings, curses, etc are influenced and dispatched by beings science does not recognize.

Science does not recognize supernatural beings, of course.

We now know the natural causes of wind, weather, and the like, and don't consider, like the ancients, that they are dispatched by beings. I doubt, for instance, that you do rain dances when you need rain, to petition beings that science can't recognize.

And it also seems that even good and evil have causes that have nothing to do with beings ... other than human beings.

But back in the Bible days, they sure did believed that beings were behind everything. They even believed that God could stop the sun -- like the sun was going around the earth, and not that God stopped the earth from spinning. They obviously didn't know better. And can't be faulted for it.

But that doesn't mean that now these days we can't know better, than they knew back in the Bronze and Iron age.

And personally, just personally, I think it's nutty to try and say that the authors of the books of the Bible knew what science knows today. That's just not possible. Even if zealot Bible believers try to claim they did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I have been a vegetarian just about my whole adult life. So, when I read through Leviticus and Numbers about taking various animals, slicing and gutting, and waiving, and putting the blood over here and the kidney over there, and the fat there, it draws this bizarre picture of God, and the pleasing of God. A sweet aroma of burnt sacrifices, offerings, incense goes up, up to where God dwells, dwells and watches over the children of Jacob. So this puts God in the heavens above where the sacrifices take place.
When Jesus was on earth, he would look up to heaven when he prayed ( today among the pastor set, they seem to like people to bow their heads when prayer time comes- not insignificant in their view of heaven) , when Jesus was taken up, a cloud received him, when God spoke at Jesus time, a voice comes out of heaven, and Jesus will return in like manner as he was taken up, in the clouds, as well as as lightning strikes, which is something in the earth's atmosphere, the heaven above the earth.

The changes to our understanding of "space" due to scientific advancements notwithstanding, the Ascension is still tied to the conceptual metaphor "good is up". So don't expect that we will lose the orientation of heaven as upward regardless of scientific relativity as long as we're on earth. It's based on our embodied sensorimotor experience.

Jesus' exultation, the etymology of which comes from leaping, is related to the metaphor that higher is better. Authority is thought of in terms of hierarchy with higher authority pointing to greater power. Yahweh is the "Most High God" meaning he is superior to other gods.

The better and more powerful one is the higher they are metaphorically. Being or feeling "down" is a bad thing. "High" self esteem if generally thought of as good and sought after as preferable.

Moral strength includes the power to maintain an upright moral posture. "Uprightness" as a metaphor is grounded in the fact that health is associated uprightness. Being moral is being upright. Being immoral is being low. Doing evil is falling, as in "falling from grace". Keep looking up, as they say.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Science does not recognize supernatural beings, of course.

A 2002 article in Skeptic magazine entitled “Science Education Is No Guarantee of Skepticism” presented the results of a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. (W. Richard Walker, Steven J Hoekstra, and Rodney J. Vogl, Skeptic magazine v9, p24-27, 2002.)

Science is not a set of beliefs, as such your statement that "science does not recognize supernatural beings" is either completely ignorant of what science is or exceedingly deceitful. Think of the paradigm shifts from the Geocentric to the Heliocentric model of the solar system, or from Newton's theory that matter is constant versus the Big Bang theory.

Science is a process by which we study physical observations to deduce how the universe works. Scientific inquiry refers to the systematic approaches used by scientists in an effort to answer their questions of interest. (Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. by Lawrence Flick and N.G. Lederman). One critical tenant of science is that your "discovery" must be replicable.

For example, Jesus visits a man and his recently deceased daughter, tells everyone that she is sleeping and sure enough raises her up. That could be simply a case of a misdiagnosis. Jesus also sees a funeral bier, touches the dead boy and he rises. Starting to get a little creepy, but perhaps he saw the boy twitch. Jesus then goes to raise Lazarus from the grave. He couldn't see Lazarus twitch, and it is hard to believe that 4 days later this could be anything but what we are seeing. Finally, Jesus rises from the dead.

These four cases are "scientific" in that we have multiple eyewitness accounts, we have different scenarios, we can rule out many logical interpretations from some of the scenarios, and this was replicated 4 times. Therefore a genuine scientist without some kind of hidden agenda would recognize this phenomena as something worthy of study and would not dismiss it out of hand.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Science does not recognize supernatural beings, of course.

We now know the natural causes of wind, weather, and the like, and don't consider, like the ancients, that they are dispatched by beings. I doubt, for instance, that you do rain dances when you need rain, to petition beings that science can't recognize.

And it also seems that even good and evil have causes that have nothing to do with beings ... other than human beings.

But back in the Bible days, they sure did believed that beings were behind everything. They even believed that God could stop the sun -- like the sun was going around the earth, and not that God stopped the earth from spinning. They obviously didn't know better. And can't be faulted for it.

But that doesn't mean that now these days we can't know better, than they knew back in the Bronze and Iron age.

And personally, just personally, I think it's nutty to try and say that the authors of the books of the Bible knew what science knows today. That's just not possible. Even if zealot Bible believers try to claim they did.

It actually was not that long ago that folks as a whole thought along this same line. 1500's? Age of Enlightenment was a major clash with religion, we're still dealing with Darwin. Today, people don't consider angels controlling the winds, but do pray to God for weather. Same for sickness and healing- it's rare that someone would pray for healing and not go to the Dr. These things, science vs. Bible views are a real clash in what faith means.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The changes to our understanding of "space" due to scientific advancements notwithstanding, the Ascension is still tied to the conceptual metaphor "good is up". So don't expect that we will lose the orientation of heaven as upward regardless of scientific relativity as long as we're on earth. It's based on our embodied sensorimotor experience.

Jesus' exultation, the etymology of which comes from leaping, is related to the metaphor that higher is better. Authority is thought of in terms of hierarchy with higher authority pointing to greater power. Yahweh is the "Most High God" meaning he is superior to other gods.

The better and more powerful one is the higher they are metaphorically. Being or feeling "down" is a bad thing. "High" self esteem if generally thought of as good and sought after as preferable.

Moral strength includes the power to maintain an upright moral posture. "Uprightness" as a metaphor is grounded in the fact that health is associated uprightness. Being moral is being upright. Being immoral is being low. Doing evil is falling, as in "falling from grace". Keep looking up, as they say.

Great observations, and today is 4/20. A lot of high people today!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

It actually was not that long ago that folks as a whole thought along this same line. 1500's? Age of Enlightenment was a major clash with religion, we're still dealing with Darwin. Today, people don't consider angels controlling the winds, but do pray to God for weather. Same for sickness and healing- it's rare that someone would pray for healing and not go to the Dr. These things, science vs. Bible views are a real clash in what faith means.

There is no clash between Darwin and the Bible. Darwin does not talk about creation, he talks about how life evolved after the creation. He essentially confirms the verse in Genesis "God formed man from the dust of the ground".

Likewise, Darwin does not explain how Man was created. According to Darwin we evolved from apes. How then did we become eusocial? Not a single species of ape is eusocial. What makes man special and gives us dominion over all the other species is that we are eusocial, yet there is no other species on this planet that "learned to be eusocial from the Bible". We alone are unique in that respect.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no clash between Darwin and the Bible. Darwin does not talk about creation, he talks about how life evolved after the creation. He essentially confirms the verse in Genesis "God formed man from the dust of the ground".

Darwin only addresses the dead corpse.

But if we are discussing how life evolved, then we must discover how creation receives life.

The Bible alone informs us that God breathed life into the man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Darwin only addresses the dead corpse.

But if we are discussing how life evolved, then we must discover how creation receives life.

The Bible alone informs us that God breathed life into the man.

yes, but that is only in reference to man -- the word of God is what makes mankind a "living" soul

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

yes, but that is only in reference to man -- the word of God is what makes mankind a "living" soul

Exactly. Without His breath, man is only a dead corpse, though evolved perhaps, since he is formed of the dust of the earth like the rest of creation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Darwin only addresses the dead corpse.

But if we are discussing how life evolved, then we must discover how creation receives life.

The Bible alone informs us that God breathed life into the man.

Did He also breath life into all the critters too ... and into the gills of fishes?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did He also breath life into all the critters too ... and into the gills of fishes?

No mention of that in the word, no reason to assume or infer that. It would appear that the mention of this concerning Man was special.

Here is the thing I find disingenuous about those who claim that the Bible denies the science of evolution. How does evolution explain man being eusocial? It is not a small question, it is the reason that we have multiplied, subdued the earth, and have dominion. If you claim that man evolved from the Apes, then go ahead and explain, how we "evolved" from the apes. The apes are not eusocial and there is not a single example of any other species out of millions of them, that have evolved into a eusocial species.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No mention of that in the word, no reason to assume or infer that. It would appear that the mention of this concerning Man was special.

Here is the thing I find disingenuous about those who claim that the Bible denies the science of evolution. How does evolution explain man being eusocial? It is not a small question, it is the reason that we have multiplied, subdued the earth, and have dominion. If you claim that man evolved from the Apes, then go ahead and explain, how we "evolved" from the apes. The apes are not eusocial and there is not a single example of any other species out of millions of them, that have evolved into a eusocial species.

You've made this claim in the past. The problem with this premise is not that the Bible doesn't speak of evolution, not without a stretch, but that humankind is by far not the most eusocial :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#Examples

Also,

"An early 21st century debate focused on whether humans are prosocial versus eusocial.[37] Edward O. Wilson, in his controversial[1][38][39] 2012 book, The Social Conquest of the Earth, referred to humans as a species of eusocial ape."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#In_humans

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You've made this claim in the past. The problem with this premise is not that the Bible doesn't speak of evolution, not without a stretch, but that humankind is by far not the most eusocial :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#Examples

Also,

"An early 21st century debate focused on whether humans are prosocial versus eusocial.[37] Edward O. Wilson, in his controversial[1][38][39] 2012 book, The Social Conquest of the Earth, referred to humans as a species of eusocial ape."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#In_humans

These are not problems to the debate for me, only for proponents of evolution.

1. Fundamental theory of evolution is that you can explain behavior and outcome as species acting on behalf of what is best for their DNA. That could be the case as well for Ants since the Queen mates with a single male, who then dies, and all of her offspring are therefore related. But this is not true of humans.

2. Whether you call humans eusocial or prosocial is even more of a problem for evolutionists. As I have said man is not born eusocial, this is not part of our DNA, we have been taught to be eusocial by the Bible. That is a path that is even more unique and extraordinary, one that is in no way explained by Darwin. According to Darwin it is "survival of the fittest" referring to genetic fitness, yet Man has not simply survived but thrived not due to genetic fitness, but due to being eusocial. This tremendous ecological success of eusocial insects is undoubtedly due to their social organization, based on large numbers of individuals cooperating in social groups, which provides multiple competitive advantages over solitary species. (The Princeton Guide to Evolution by Jonathan B. Losos, David A. Baum, et. al.). So then, anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution should also subscribe to the theory that the tremendous ecological success of man is due to the Bible.

Anyone who is honest, and that includes Darwin, will admit that this is a huge issue for Darwin's theory.

Darwin had noticed something about ants that appeared to contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection and could prove fatal to it. (The Origins of Creativity, Edward O Wilson)

Darwin and other 19th century biologists found compelling evidence for biological evolution in the comparative study of living organisms, in their geographic distribution, and in the fossil remains of extinct organisms. (Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution). Now if you look at finches on Galapagos island and find compelling evidence for evolution, certainly looking at every single species on this planet for all geologic history and finding no other species like Man in this regard should also be considered compelling evidence.

[awareness]

Thanks for further explanation (left below).

But I think you are wrong when you state :

". . . that the tremendous ecological success of man is due to the Bible."

First, since both the OT and NT canons came after the 2nd century CE, the Bible is late on the scene.

Second, the most populous today, India and China, was not influenced by the Bible. Also true of the Native Americans (which it can be argued that, the Bible was behind their genocide).

Thanks again bro ZNP ...

Harold

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

These are not problems to the debate for me, only for proponents of evolution.

1. Fundamental theory of evolution is that you can explain behavior and outcome as species acting on behalf of what is best for their DNA. That could be the case as well for Ants since the Queen mates with a single male, who then dies, and all of her offspring are therefore related. But this is not true of humans.

2. Whether you call humans eusocial or prosocial is even more of a problem for evolutionists. As I have said man is not born eusocial, this is not part of our DNA, we have been taught to be eusocial by the Bible. That is a path that is even more unique and extraordinary, one that is in no way explained by Darwin. According to Darwin it is "survival of the fittest" referring to genetic fitness, yet Man has not simply survived but thrived not due to genetic fitness, but due to being eusocial. This tremendous ecological success of eusocial insects is undoubtedly due to their social organization, based on large numbers of individuals cooperating in social groups, which provides multiple competitive advantages over solitary species. (The Princeton Guide to Evolution by Jonathan B. Losos, David A. Baum, et. al.). So then, anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution should also subscribe to the theory that the tremendous ecological success of man is due to the Bible.

Anyone who is honest, and that includes Darwin, will admit that this is a huge issue for Darwin's theory.

Darwin had noticed something about ants that appeared to contradict the theory of evolution by natural selection and could prove fatal to it. (The Origins of Creativity, Edward O Wilson)

Darwin and other 19th century biologists found compelling evidence for biological evolution in the comparative study of living organisms, in their geographic distribution, and in the fossil remains of extinct organisms. (Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution). Now if you look at finches on Galapagos island and find compelling evidence for evolution, certainly looking at every single species on this planet for all geologic history and finding no other species like Man in this regard should also be considered compelling evidence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for further explanation (left below).

But I think you are wrong when you state :

". . . that the tremendous ecological success of man is due to the Bible."

First, since both the OT and NT canons came after the 2nd century CE, the Bible is late on the scene.

Second, the most populous today, India and China, was not influenced by the Bible. Also true of the Native Americans (which it can be argued that, the Bible was behind their genocide).

Read your history again. The Democrats were behind their genocide.

And white democrats invented the KKK, gave us Jim Crow laws, and are now revising our history.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for further explanation (left below).

But I think you are wrong when you state :

". . . that the tremendous ecological success of man is due to the Bible."

First, since both the OT and NT canons came after the 2nd century CE, the Bible is late on the scene.

Second, the most populous today, India and China, was not influenced by the Bible. Also true of the Native Americans (which it can be argued that, the Bible was behind their genocide).

Thanks again bro ZNP ...

Harold

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

The Bible recounts how God spoke to Adam, long before it was written down by Moses and others.

I think we all agree from the most radical to the most conservative that human society has evolved greatly in the last 6,000 years. Certainly things we consider scandalous and corrupt today were standard operating procedure at the time of Jesus.

Now if you want to argue that prior to the Bible human society was the lamp stand on a hill and since then we have come down, well, that is your prerogative.

But what was radical and "progressive" and "liberal" 100 years ago is considered human, decent, ethical and righteous today by both sides of the aisle.

It may seem like a joke because, as MLK said, the arc towards justice is long. But the reality is we are much more in the image and likeness of Jesus today than we were 100 years ago, which in turn was much more than 2,000 years ago, which again was much more than 6,000 years ago. It is simply taking 6 "days" to create man.

Also, if India was not influenced by the Bible what were they influenced by? You realize that Ghandi's ministry was based on the gospel.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no clash between Darwin and the Bible. Darwin does not talk about creation, he talks about how life evolved after the creation. He essentially confirms the verse in Genesis "God formed man from the dust of the ground".

Likewise, Darwin does not explain how Man was created. According to Darwin we evolved from apes. How then did we become eusocial? Not a single species of ape is eusocial. What makes man special and gives us dominion over all the other species is that we are eusocial, yet there is no other species on this planet that "learned to be eusocial from the Bible". We alone are unique in that respect.

ZNP- man evolving from apes is a definite clash with scripture. Your thought here is hard to understand. The evolution theory reaches back millions of years to explain its hypothesis. The Bible seems to go back less than 10,000 years. This is a clash also that I hear all around us.
In the scripture, sons of God mated with daughters of men and a different kind of man seems to have appeared; does science account for this sort of presentation?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Bible recounts how God spoke to Adam, long before it was written down by Moses and others.

I think we all agree from the most radical to the most conservative that human society has evolved greatly in the last 6,000 years. Certainly things we consider scandalous and corrupt today were standard operating procedure at the time of Jesus.

Now if you want to argue that prior to the Bible human society was the lamp stand on a hill and since then we have come down, well, that is your prerogative.

But what was radical and "progressive" and "liberal" 100 years ago is considered human, decent, ethical and righteous today by both sides of the aisle.

It may seem like a joke because, as MLK said, the arc towards justice is long. But the reality is we are much more in the image and likeness of Jesus today than we were 100 years ago, which in turn was much more than 2,000 years ago, which again was much more than 6,000 years ago. It is simply taking 6 "days" to create man.

Also, if India was not influenced by the Bible what were they influenced by? You realize that Ghandi's ministry was based on the gospel.

I confess ignorance of the history of what we call India today, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't modern India mostly influenced by British colonialism?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read your history again. The Democrats were behind their genocide.

And white democrats invented the KKK, gave us Jim Crow laws, and are now revising our history.

This probably belongs on the political thread, but In my view, the democrats are doing all they can to eliminate any influence of Christianity in the American culture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Bible recounts how God spoke to Adam, long before it was written down by Moses and others.

I think we all agree from the most radical to the most conservative that human society has evolved greatly in the last 6,000 years. Certainly things we consider scandalous and corrupt today were standard operating procedure at the time of Jesus.

Now if you want to argue that prior to the Bible human society was the lamp stand on a hill and since then we have come down, well, that is your prerogative.

But what was radical and "progressive" and "liberal" 100 years ago is considered human, decent, ethical and righteous today by both sides of the aisle.

It may seem like a joke because, as MLK said, the arc towards justice is long. But the reality is we are much more in the image and likeness of Jesus today than we were 100 years ago, which in turn was much more than 2,000 years ago, which again was much more than 6,000 years ago. It is simply taking 6 "days" to create man.

Also, if India was not influenced by the Bible what were they influenced by? You realize that Ghandi's ministry was based on the gospel.

I don't know what to make of this ... except ... The Bible Makes Great Again - TBMGA. You should sell hats bro ZNP.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read your history again. The Democrats were behind their genocide.

And white democrats invented the KKK, gave us Jim Crow laws, and are now revising our history.

Always identity politics.

Ben Franklin didn't say, "I hate these democrats with a Bible in one hand and an ax in the other to scalp Indians with." He said, I hate these Christians with a Bible in one hand ... etc."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This probably belongs on the political thread, but In my view, the democrats are doing all they can to eliminate any influence of Christianity in the American culture.

Not just the faith and the truths of Christianity, but all traditional values.

This radical new CA Assembly Bill 2943 would essentially criminalize all religious beliefs and would this prohibit the sale of the Bible. By "citing efforts to change behavior" in the Bill, they essentially ban parents from influencing their children.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

ZNP- man evolving from apes is a definite clash with scripture. Your thought here is hard to understand. The evolution theory reaches back millions of years to explain its hypothesis. The Bible seems to go back less than 10,000 years. This is a clash also that I hear all around us.
In the scripture, sons of God mated with daughters of men and a different kind of man seems to have appeared; does science account for this sort of presentation?

The Gap Theory was born from the clash between the ages of the earth according to archaeology, compared to the ages of the earth according to the Bible. Or rather, according to the perceived ages of the earth in Bible, according to James Ussher, who traced the creation date in the Bible back to October 23rd, 4004 BC.

Ussher is still today considered authoritative on the matter, even tho many Young Earther's don't even know of him. Among many Bible believers today it's just assumed that the Bible says the earth is 6000 yrs old (it doesn't).

That there is a clash, let's not forget the infamous Scope's Monkey trial, back in 1925 -- "You won't make a monkey outta me.".

Bible believer's mock evolution :

[awareness]

Adam and Eve may have been Cavemen ... or at least Neanderthal ....

[manna-man]

[QUOTE=awareness;73767]The Gap Theory was born from the clash between the ages of the earth according to archaeology, compared to the ages of the earth according to the Bible. Or rather, according to the perceived ages of the earth in Bible, according to James Ussher, who traced the creation date in the Bible back to October 23rd, 4004 BC.

Ussher is still today considered authoritative on the matter, even tho many Young Earther's don't even know of him. Among many Bible believers today it's just assumed that the Bible says the earth is 6000 yrs old (it doesn't).

That there is a clash, let's not forget the infamous Scope's Monkey trial, back in 1925 -- "You won't make a monkey outta me.".

Bible believer's mock evolution :

[/QUOTEl
Amen, and you won't make a monkey out of me also.....

And the Sun revolves around the Earth......

https://youtu.be/3PY0zzh8G3c

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Gap Theory was born from the clash between the ages of the earth according to archaeology, compared to the ages of the earth according to the Bible. Or rather, according to the perceived ages of the earth in Bible, according to James Ussher, who traced the creation date in the Bible back to October 23rd, 4004 BC.

Ussher is still today considered authoritative on the matter, even tho many Young Earther's don't even know of him. Among many Bible believers today it's just assumed that the Bible says the earth is 6000 yrs old (it doesn't).

That there is a clash, let's not forget the infamous Scope's Monkey trial, back in 1925 -- "You won't make a monkey outta me.".

Bible believer's mock evolution :

[/QUOTEl

Good find bro manna-man. That video shows what's at stake between science/evolution and the Bible :

1. The credibility of Genesis is at stake.
2. The credibility of Jesus is at stake.
3. Every other book of the Bible is at stake.

Is it any surprise the Fundamentalist movement was born as a reaction to science? declaring Bible truths that science finds to be superstition as facts and truth?

Question: Did Jesus say, "The Bible is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through the Bible?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I confess ignorance of the history of what we call India today, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't modern India mostly influenced by British colonialism?

This is simply one of Awareness' diversions. Approximately 6,000 years ago man as we know him came into existence.

I don't disagree with the fossil record concerning homo sapiens, that genetically we existed much earlier. However, linguistics trace the beginning of human language back to the Middle East and about this time.

Now if you look at the way in which every other species on this planet evolved it is quite different from Man. We are not eusocial based on our DNA, this is not "according to our kind" or "according to our flesh". We have had to learn to be eusocial and it is based on the spirit, our conscience and the word of God. The fundamental principle of evolution is that we can describe all behavior with regards to preserving and promoting ones own DNA. That is not true of Man. We go and fight in wars and die for causes that have nothing to do with protecting our DNA. We help others completely unrelated to us. We raise and teach others kids, health care workers treat and care for others completely unrelated to them. You cannot see this behavior in any other species on this planet. In addition we can organize a society of several hundred million and put it in good order. There is no other species that can do that. An ant mound can have a million ants, but the level of organization is extremely simple compared to us.

Now we are taught this behavior in the Bible, and the Bible records God's speaking to various men that have been significant in our past. But just because it isn't recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that God is prohibited or unable to speak and work with others.

Now consider our society today. We might be tempted to think it is not in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. (God made man in His image, He called their name Adam, and Jesus Christ is the image of God). But compare this society with the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus and we are much, much closer to the image of Jesus today than we were then. Now compare the Roman Empire with the Egyptian empire at the time of Moses and they were much, much closer to the image of Jesus than the Egyptians. According to Genesis it took 6 days to make man, so it should not be thought a strange thing if it takes 6,000 years for us to be made in the image of God. In the first stage our conscience and fellowship with God may have been sufficient. Later we needed the law of Moses to further the process along. Then we needed the Gospels. When I say that we are the only species that has "learned" to be eusocial from the Bible I am not ruling out God's working in a multitude of ways. What I am saying is that the Bible gives us the blueprint on how to a society that is completely unlike the apes but rather is in the image and likeness of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good find bro manna-man. That video shows what's at stake between science/evolution and the Bible :

1. The credibility of Genesis is at stake.
2. The credibility of Jesus is at stake.
3. Every other book of the Bible is at stake.

Is it any surprise the Fundamentalist movement was born as a reaction to science? declaring Bible truths that science finds to be superstition as facts and truth?

Question: Did Jesus say, "The Bible is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through the Bible?"

The proper principle is that "all things came into being through the word, and apart from the word there is nothing that has come into being". This includes fossils and radiometric dating. If someone wants to be "biblical" in their interpretation of creation then it must agree with the fossils and radiometric dating, if they dismiss that then they are not Biblical.

To me, the third day is the key day in Genesis 1 revealing that this is the account at the end of the last ice age.

1. The waters are gathered into one place (not referring to day 2 where we get water in the firmament and below the firmament).

2. Grass appears.

Grass is one of the last things to appear in the fossil record, so this cannot be giving the fossil record of creation. However, as the ice melted from the last ice age grass would have been the first thing to appear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is simply one of Awareness' diversions. Approximately 6,000 years ago man as we know him came into existence.

Poppycock. Our type of agriculture was born 10,000 or 11,000 yrs ago. Man as we know him existed long before that.

Originally Posted by ZNP

However, linguistics trace the beginning of human language back to the Middle East and about this time.

Around 3500 BCE actually. That's what is perchance really meant by, in the beginning was the word.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Now if you look at the way in which every other species on this planet evolved it is quite different from Man. We are not eusocial based on our DNA, this is not "according to our kind" or "according to our flesh". We have had to learn to be eusocial and it is based on the spirit, our conscience and the word of God.

Poppycock again. Man became 'unsocial' as you like to call it, because our move from hunter/gatherers to agriculture and animal husbandry necessitated developing civilizations. It had nothing to do with the Bible, or Bible stories, cuz they hadn't even been thought of.

Originally Posted by ZNP

The fundamental principle of evolution is that we can describe all behavior with regards to preserving and promoting ones own DNA. That is not true of Man. We go and fight in wars and die for causes that have nothing to do with protecting our DNA. We help others completely unrelated to us. We raise and teach others kids, health care workers treat and care for others completely unrelated to them. You cannot see this behavior in any other species on this planet. In addition we can organize a society of several hundred million and put it in good order. There is no other species that can do that. An ant mound can have a million ants, but the level of organization is extremely simple compared to us.

Now we are taught this behavior in the Bible, and the Bible records God's speaking to various men that have been significant in our past. But just because it isn't recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that God is prohibited or unable to speak and work with others.

Now consider our society today. We might be tempted to think it is not in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. (God made man in His image, He called their name Adam, and Jesus Christ is the image of God). But compare this society with the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus and we are much, much closer to the image of Jesus today than we were then. Now compare the Roman Empire with the Egyptian empire at the time of Moses and they were much, much closer to the image of Jesus than the Egyptians. According to Genesis it took 6 days to make man, so it should not be thought a strange thing if it takes 6,000 years for us to be made in the image of God. In the first stage our conscience and fellowship with God may have been sufficient. Later we needed the law of Moses to further the process along. Then we needed the Gospels. When I say that we are the only species that has "learned" to be eusocial from the Bible I am not ruling out God's working in a multitude of ways. What I am saying is that the Bible gives us the blueprint on how to a society that is completely unlike the apes but rather is in the image and likeness of God.

All of this is just theology ; declaring the Bible is better that science ; like the Bible is a book of science.

That's enough to make scientists bust a gut.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good find bro manna-man. That video shows what's at stake between science/evolution and the Bible :

1. The credibility of Genesis is at stake.
2. The credibility of Jesus is at stake.
3. Every other book of the Bible is at stake.

I heard this about Noah's flood.

1. There is no monsoon, hurricane or other weather phenomenon that can explain a worldwide flood where it rains for 40 days and 40 nights.

2. There has not been any flood that has gone over the tops of the highest mountains on Earth in the last 10,000 years.

3. The idea that Noah could save all the animals alive in an ark is absurd.

4. If you had a flood of this magnitude the Ark would have been rolled over and over, no one would have survived.

I heard all this 40 years ago. Since then scientists have verified that in fact all these things did take place in the last 10,000 years (however we are presently unable to verify they all took place during the same 40 days).

1. It wasn't a monsoon. An ice comet hit the Indian ocean and left a large imprint on the ocean floor. It created a huge tsunami that put giant sand dunes called Chevrons on the coastline composed of sediment from the ocean floor. This would have caused a tremendous amount of water to go up into the Stratosphere (it is rare for water to leave the troposphere). That would have resulted in a rain storm worldwide on a scale never seen since.

2. At the end of the last ice age ice dams broke around the world causing massive floods. We had one of these in Washington state. They had a strange formation that we never understood until we flew over it in an airplane and realized those were just really, really big ripples. However, the biggest known flood on Earth took place when an ice dam in the Himalayas broke and released a flood that washed across India. This could easily be related to the ice comet because the rain that fell was probably super heated and forty days of rain could easily have been the "straw that broke the dam".

3. One very troubling question to anthropologists is why all the large animals all went extinct at virtually the same time in the last ten thousand years. This is on Australia, N. America, S. America, etc. The theory is that when man arrived he hunted them to extinction. Extremely unlikely, or that we ate their food and destroyed their habitat driving them to extinction, again extremely unlikely, or that human diseases killed them off. All of those explanations are very unsatisfying to scientists and don't make sense. However, if Noah saved all the domesticated animals alive it would explain why 18 out of the 19 domesticated animals on this planet all come from Mesopotamia. The only one that comes from elsewhere is the Llama which lives on mountains and could have escaped flood waters. (The obvious achilles heel to all these theories is that if any of them were true how do you explain all the large animals in Mesopotamia surviving?)

4. In virtually all locations an ark would not have survived this flood. However, there is one exception and that is where we now have the black sea. This used to be a much smaller inland lake. During the ice age the sea level dropped and the Bosphorus was not a link to the ocean. However, when the ice melted the sea level rose and the black sea flooded. It is called the black sea because an entire civilization was killed. This area would have filled up like a bathtub, so in this area an ark could have worked.

So in my experience I have heard people like Awareness harping about how the Bible and Science disagree and how ridiculous the Bible myths are, only to then see that they were not myths but accurate accounts of what took place.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Poppycock. Our type of agriculture was born 10,000 or 11,000 yrs ago. Man as we know him existed long before that.

When I say Man as we know him I am referring to human government, poetry, music, art, language, etc. All the things that archaeologists would easily be able to find and identify. To this day the oldest known writing indicating commerce and accounting is about 6,000 years old. As I said very clearly I am not talking about homo sapiens, I am talking about man. We are much more than our flesh, we are "a living soul"

Originally Posted by awareness

Poppycock again. Man became 'unsocial' as you like to call it, because our move from hunter/gatherers to agriculture and animal husbandry necessitated developing civilizations. It had nothing to do with the Bible, or Bible stories, cuz they hadn't even been thought of.


All of this is just theology ; declaring the Bible is better that science ; like the Bible is a book of science.

That's enough to make scientists bust a gut.

The books of Moses explain in a very detailed way how to have a human government, laws, fair trade, etc. None of those things exist with any other species. No other species need these. No other species need or have "civilization" as we know it. There is no Darwinian explanation that explain why Man is unique in this way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bible believer's mock evolution :

Yo awareness, is that really you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yo awareness, is that really you?

Yeah. I'm Darwin's evil twin, back when we were ape brothers. We were eusocial.

[awareness]

I'll throw this into our evolution discussion :

Early humans may have learned to walk fully upright 3.6million years ago, say scientists analysing new footprints in Africa

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...years-ago.html

[Evangelical]

When a body is cremated, there is about a handful of "dust" remaining, no more and no less.

This is irrefutable proof that God took a handful of dust and made man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll throw this into our evolution discussion :

Early humans may have learned to walk fully upright 3.6million years ago, say scientists analysing new footprints in Africa

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...years-ago.html

Genesis 1:26 talks about the creation of man not as when he first walked upright, or first made tools, or even first started vocalizing sounds. It is the point at which "Man became a living soul".

Now we know that many animals have a mind and emotion and will. So this term "living soul" does not simply refer to a soul, but something special that the other animals don't have.

Poetry, History, Government, Prose, Drama, etc.

So although it may be difficult to trace back 300,000 years or 3 million years. It is relatively easy for us to trace back when Man first had a "living soul".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When a body is cremated, there is about a handful of "dust" remaining, no more and no less.

This is irrefutable proof that God took a handful of dust and made man.

That is funny. When I burn dinner it turns to charcoal, which is irrefutable proof that I made the dinner from charcoal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When a body is cremated, there is about a handful of "dust" remaining, no more and no less.

This is irrefutable proof that God took a handful of dust and made man.

And that God's breath was taken away.

Acts records Paul as saying :

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Paul missed something. A critical fact actually, according to the Bible, and the dust of the ground : it's God breath that makes us a living soul.

That means that God's breath is in us ; closer than fingers and toes ; in every cell in our body actually.

That was true for Adam, and Eve. And true for every sinner since. Even the biggest sinner today has God's breath in every cell in his or her body.

And since a hand full of dust proves the Bible true, and since the Bible doesn't say that God breathed into the animals, they live on a different breath.

Where did that come from?

And since we share like 98% of DNA with the chimps, do they share 98% of God's breath?

Or does science prove that we all, humans and critters alike, share the same "Gods'" breath?

I don't know. My lab is down at the moment.

Good thought there, tho, about the hand full of dust, bro EvanG. That thought came from the breath of God within you. That you've never been separated from, since your very first breath ; that according to the Bible makes you a living soul.

Will science ever figure that out?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And since we share like 98% of DNA with the chimps, do they share 98% of God's breath?

Or does science prove that we all, humans and critters alike, share the same "Gods'" breath?

You are confusing dust with breath. We are made from the same dust as the other critters, hence we share the same DNA.

But we don't share the same word with them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are confusing dust with breath. We are made from the same dust as the other critters, hence we share the same DNA.

But we don't share the same word with them.

Where does it say in the Bible that God made the critters from the dust of the ground ... and then breathed a different life into them?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I say Man as we know him I am referring to human government, poetry, music, art, language, etc. All the things that archaeologists would easily be able to find and identify. To this day the oldest known writing indicating commerce and accounting is about 6,000 years old. As I said very clearly I am not talking about homo sapiens, I am talking about man. We are much more than our flesh, we are "a living soul"



The books of Moses explain in a very detailed way how to have a human government, laws, fair trade, etc. None of those things exist with any other species. No other species need these. No other species need or have "civilization" as we know it. There is no Darwinian explanation that explain why Man is unique in this way.

I observe the crows in my neighborhood- a tight knit society that plague other birds- quite interesting actually.

So ZNP, you then must feel that six days of creation and making were only symbolic and there was death, change/ mutations prior to Adam? I read Genesis 1 & 2 and am somewhat neutral on a literal 6 day thing. It seems in chapter 2 that animals were formed after Adam. The two accounts give different versions.
But overall, I come away seeing Man is unique, God made man, God and man were close. Man is all important to God, and God should be all important to man. Don't see any of this closeness other than with Enoch, which is a blip on the screen, and Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not just the faith and the truths of Christianity, but all traditional values.

This radical new CA Assembly Bill 2943 would essentially criminalize all religious beliefs and would this prohibit the sale of the Bible. By "citing efforts to change behavior" in the Bill, they essentially ban parents from influencing their children.

California is the testing ground for the progressives. They have a definite plan for creating a new world. One would think someone would ask them where they want to progress to?, but it is really the proverbial frog in the kettle with the heat slowly increased, we won't find out until we are cooked.

Went hiking in the beautiful Laguna Mts. this weekend- if it wasn't for God's beautiful nature, it would be very hard to remain in California.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is how they pictured the earth, and cosmos back then :

I'll use rounded numbers in my example: I live in San Diego and want to fly to Seattle 1200 miles north. Old world model- jet goes north 1200 miles in 2 hours and I am there. New world model: round eathe spinning at 1000 mph west to east. 2 hours at 30,000 ft going north, earth spinning 2000 miles to the east, my jet should have to travel 3200 miles or we should land close to Russia. Which world model do the airlines follow?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where does it say in the Bible that God made the critters from the dust of the ground ... and then breathed a different life into them?

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust -- doesn't say that only refers to humans.

In Ecc it says that "they will know that they are just flesh" -- meaning that man's flesh is no different from any other flesh.

Likewise the word flesh in the Bible is used universally for both man and animal.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I observe the crows in my neighborhood- a tight knit society that plague other birds- quite interesting actually.

There are many creatures that will aggregate in large groups of hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands (Bats, Flamingos, Sardines, etc) but that is not organizational. There is no differentiated job, there is no one caring for others kids, there is no organizational structure as to who is in charge. On the other hand a pack of wolves will have an organizational structure, so will a tribe of monkeys, but those groups never grow to over a hundred and are generally around 20-30.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So ZNP, you then must feel that six days of creation and making were only symbolic and there was death, change/ mutations prior to Adam?

The principle I am working under is that I do not want to judge that any verse in the Bible is "wrong" likewise I don't want to dismiss any reliable scientific evidence as "wrong". That requires an overlap of these two. I believe the evidence for the evolution of homo sapiens over several million years is reliable and solid. However, I don't see that as contradicting the word. I read the Bible to say that the creation of man was a 2 step process. step 1, God formed man from the dust of the ground (i.e. evolved from single celled organisms)
step 2, God breathed into man and he became a living soul.

I see the breathing into man as being God's speaking to man the living word, the Rhema word, which in many cases is recorded in the written word, the Bible.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I read Genesis 1 & 2 and am somewhat neutral on a literal 6 day thing. It seems in chapter 2 that animals were formed after Adam. The two accounts give different versions.
But overall, I come away seeing Man is unique, God made man, God and man were close. Man is all important to God, and God should be all important to man. Don't see any of this closeness other than with Enoch, which is a blip on the screen, and Jesus.

From a scientific viewpoint I think "6 days" or "1 week" is absurd. But I view this differently from the Biblical viewpoint. In the NT the Lord refers to the "days of Noah". What were the "days of Noah"? He doesn't say the time of Noah, the age of Noah, but the "Days". I see that as the big days in Noah's life. The day he heard there was going to be a flood, the day he began to build the ark, the day he put the animals in, the day it began to rain, etc. These are the days of Noah, they are big days, meaningful, but not sequential.

Likewise -- the day the ice melted and grass appeared. We all know that one day we don't see grass, the next day it appears.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'll use rounded numbers in my example: I live in San Diego and want to fly to Seattle 1200 miles north. Old world model- jet goes north 1200 miles in 2 hours and I am there. New world model: round eathe spinning at 1000 mph west to east. 2 hours at 30,000 ft going north, earth spinning 2000 miles to the east, my jet should have to travel 3200 miles or we should land close to Russia. Which world model do the airlines follow?

Isn't the plane spinning with the earth? Or at least pitched that way upon takeoff? I don't know.

What's yer point?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust -- doesn't say that only refers to humans.

In Ecc it says that "they will know that they are just flesh" -- meaning that man's flesh is no different from any other flesh.

Likewise the word flesh in the Bible is used universally for both man and animal.

So the Bible doesn't tell it, in the way it tells making Adam from the dust. It just doesn't say it, and we're stuck with surmising it.

Thanks for doing that bro ZNP. It was interesting but not convincing.

The critters have breath. Where did that come from? Please, please, humor this idiot, and surmise that out for me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't the plane spinning with the earth? Or at least pitched that way upon takeoff? I don't know.

What's yer point?

His point is that if an Airplane is flying from Dallas to NY they don't aim towards NY but rather Ohio because as the plane flies the earth will spin towards it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the Bible doesn't tell it, in the way it tells making Adam from the dust. It just doesn't say it, and we're stuck with surmising it.

When the Bible says God formed man from the dust of the ground that is telling you that homosapiens are made from lower life forms. Dust is not fine ground rock, but rather composed of biologic matter.

Originally Posted by awareness

The critters have breath. Where did that come from? Please, please, humor this idiot, and surmise that out for me.

The breath of God is the word of God. Thy word is spirit (pneuma, breath). This is where the theory of evolution goes off the rails. There isn't a single other species that has "evolved" the ability to read and write yet many claim that this is settled science. That is absurd. Science has to be verifiable, and replicable. According to the theory of evolution it is simply a matter of odds of millions and millions of random mutations. Based on that theory there is absolutely no good reason to say that other creatures would not evolve to read and write.

The theory of evolution is very well supported when it comes to watching simple life forms evolve into higher life forms, right up until man and then it goes off the rails.

1. Man is the only creature that "learns" to be eusocial. According to evolution we evolved from Apes which are not eusocial. There is no explanation given by Darwin for why we would do this.

2. Although there are 19 eusocial species we are the only species out of millions that cannot explain our behavior using a formula concerning protecting DNA. Again, no explanation from Darwin's theory for that.

3. According to the theory of evolution genetic mutations are selected for based on them rendering a competitive advantage. You cannot explain man's ability to read and write with that theory. Reading and writing require a very large part of our brain, it is a very expensive mutation. Yet it would not have conferred any competitive advantage initially. What is the advantage in being able to write if no one else can read? What is the advantage in being able to read if no one else has written anything? As a result of our brain being able to read we lost the ability for a photographic memory, something apes have and would be highly advantageous for a hunter gatherer. The cost in calories and lost function is very great to a hunter gatherer yet it confers no immediate advantage.

Now if you are unbiased you will realize that these questions need to be answered.

According to Genesis 1 when God breathed His word into man he became a living soul. Although we can trace our genetic lineage back hundreds of thousands of years, we can only trace our "living soul" heritage back a few thousand.

One of the implications of this interpretation is that the entire Bible (except Genesis 1:1-2) is focused on Man. Also, the Bible's view of man is not homo sapien, but man with the ability to read, write, poetry, worship of God, holy days, songs, etc. Genesis 1:1 is important to let us know everything was created by Him. Genesis 1:2 is important because it sets a pattern -- creation, fall, restoration, which is repeated in Man's history. Although the account may be very accurate, it is not a Geologic history of the Earth, nor is it focused on dinosaurs, or 500 million years of history regarding life on this planet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When the Bible says God formed man from the dust of the ground that is telling you that homosapiens are made from lower life forms. Dust is not fine ground rock, but rather composed of biologic matter.



The breath of God is the word of God. Thy word is spirit (pneuma, breath). This is where the theory of evolution goes off the rails. There isn't a single other species that has "evolved" the ability to read and write yet many claim that this is settled science. That is absurd. Science has to be verifiable, and replicable. According to the theory of evolution it is simply a matter of odds of millions and millions of random mutations. Based on that theory there is absolutely no good reason to say that other creatures would not evolve to read and write.

The theory of evolution is very well supported when it comes to watching simple life forms evolve into higher life forms, right up until man and then it goes off the rails.

1. Man is the only creature that "learns" to be eusocial. According to evolution we evolved from Apes which are not eusocial. There is no explanation given by Darwin for why we would do this.

2. Although there are 19 eusocial species we are the only species out of millions that cannot explain our behavior using a formula concerning protecting DNA. Again, no explanation from Darwin's theory for that.

3. According to the theory of evolution genetic mutations are selected for based on them rendering a competitive advantage. You cannot explain man's ability to read and write with that theory. Reading and writing require a very large part of our brain, it is a very expensive mutation. Yet it would not have conferred any competitive advantage initially. What is the advantage in being able to write if no one else can read? What is the advantage in being able to read if no one else has written anything? As a result of our brain being able to read we lost the ability for a photographic memory, something apes have and would be highly advantageous for a hunter gatherer. The cost in calories and lost function is very great to a hunter gatherer yet it confers no immediate advantage.

Now if you are unbiased you will realize that these questions need to be answered.

According to Genesis 1 when God breathed His word into man he became a living soul. Although we can trace our genetic lineage back hundreds of thousands of years, we can only trace our "living soul" heritage back a few thousand.

One of the implications of this interpretation is that the entire Bible (except Genesis 1:1-2) is focused on Man. Also, the Bible's view of man is not homo sapien, but man with the ability to read, write, poetry, worship of God, holy days, songs, etc. Genesis 1:1 is important to let us know everything was created by Him. Genesis 1:2 is important because it sets a pattern -- creation, fall, restoration, which is repeated in Man's history. Although the account may be very accurate, it is not a Geologic history of the Earth, nor is it focused on dinosaurs, or 500 million years of history regarding life on this planet.

Written by Bronze and Iron age authors the Bible is way short of explaining the age of the earth, and pre-historic people.

So you then, to be able to attribute everything to the Bible, have to resort to calling the word breath in Genesis as word.

I think I understand ... but just don't agree with your rationales ... so have no gumption to refute them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'll use rounded numbers in my example: I live in San Diego and want to fly to Seattle 1200 miles north. Old world model- jet goes north 1200 miles in 2 hours and I am there. New world model: round eathe spinning at 1000 mph west to east. 2 hours at 30,000 ft going north, earth spinning 2000 miles to the east, my jet should have to travel 3200 miles or we should land close to Russia. Which world model do the airlines follow?

World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84)

I would hope so. Farmers here are using GPS to guide their farm equipment ... and they are on the ground.

[ZNPaaneah]

On another front, I would like to consider the death penalty in this thread "Bible versus Science".

The OT lays the legal framework for the death penalty and as far as I can tell there is no mention of that being changed in the NT. Yet there have been a number of scientific studies done, so I'd like to examine them.

1. The first argument made against the death penalty is that it is not cheaper, rather it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to keep them in prison for life. I think the analysis on this is sound, death penalty cases involve many more legal appeals and are therefore very expensive. However, I don't see this as a valid argument against the death penalty. On the contrary, I don't want the death penalty to be the "cheaper" choice.

Secondly, those appeals are not wasted money. It is through those that we have discovered many, many forensic tools at confirming guilt or innocence (fingerprints, DNA, and Trace evidence were all first used in confirming the guilt in murder cases).

2. The second argument is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminals. Again, I think the analysis on this is valid. However, this is one of the points that make me think those against the death penalty are either superficial or willfully ignorant. There are two sides to this, deterrent to criminals is one side, motivation to the justice department is the other. It is equally undeniable that the death penalty is a very big motivation to those involved in the justice department to get the truth. The appeals, the pro bono work, the work done by scientists on discovering new ways and better ways to get evidence can all be undeniably tied to the death penalty. So even though it doesn't deter criminals it does motivate investigators.

3. The third argument is that it is a terrible crime to kill an innocent person and we know that innocent people are unjustly convicted and presumably executed. I agree. However, I think it is a terrible crime to convict an innocent person of any crime, and that life in prison for a crime you didn't commit needs to be part of the equation. I also think that numbers matter. If it is a terrible crime to kill one innocent person it is 100 times worse to kill 100, etc. How many innocent people have been proven innocent by fingerprints, how many by DNA, how many by trace evidence, etc. In my opinion if you are going to make this part of the debate you need to view all of the people that have benefited from the death penalty as well as those who have been unjustly convicted. If you weigh it from both sides I feel there are thousands and thousands who need to thank the death penalty in just the last few years, whereas there might be less than 20 during that same time unjustly executed.

The bottom line is that it is a very serious thing to convict a person of a crime and you don't want to get it wrong and you will be accountable for how you handle this. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate your accountability.

4. The fourth argument is that the death penalty is racist, biased against those who are poor and cannot afford good lawyers. Again, the evidence for this is very strong and I would say is valid. However, to me this is an argument for the death penalty, not against it. First, if you are given the death penalty it opens the door for lots and lots of pro bono work, very often from the best scientists in the country. If the person were given life in prison they would not have gotten any of that help. Second, fingerprints and DNA have helped the poor every bit as much as the rich. The forensic discoveries have benefited everyone, and they benefit everyone who is on death row equally. So a bad lawyer that gets you life in prison might result in you not getting access to the best forensic teams in the country pro bono, but if you were on death row you would get access to them.

5. The fifth argument is that serial killers are very useful to the justice department. Case in point is the help we got from Ted Bundy. I agree with this. However, I see this as a major reason to support the death penalty. It gives the police and FBI a card they can play to motivate a killer. You are on death row, but if you help us with this crime we will postpone your execution. As long as you help us you can stay off of death row. Why would anyone want to take this card away from law enforcement? It can take 20 years for a death sentence to be carried out. We have plenty of time to learn that this person is more valuable to us alive than dead.

[awareness]

Bro ZNP, you bring up a lot of info on the death penalty, with a lot of vested interest in it. But,

Killing is wrong. Kill a million and you are a hero. Kill one and you're a criminal. Kill a prisoner and you are a hypocrite ... and a sanctioned serial killer.

Your romantic like love for the Bible may be charming, but in this case -- the death penalty -- there's no need for it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, you bring up a lot of info on the death penalty, with a lot of vested interest in it. But,

Killing is wrong. Kill a million and you are a hero. Kill one and you're a criminal. Kill a prisoner and you are a hypocrite ... and a sanctioned serial killer.

Your romantic like love for the Bible may be charming, but in this case -- the death penalty -- there's no need for it.

John 8 is a very interesting section for this debate. A woman, caught in adultery, an act that is punishable by death in the OT is caught and undeniably guilty.

However, the Lord added a whole new wrinkle to the debate "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and when it was shown that He was the only one without sin.

Second, He then declares that He does not condemn her.

But never once does He say that the death penalty is not necessary. Instead it appears to convict those who would use it. Like I said, it is a very high standard.

In the OT a crime worthy of death results in the criminal being judged. In the NT the first one to be judged is the judge.

For example, the shooting in Las Vegas -- how did the Hotel allow this man to take chests and chests of guns and ammo to his room? How could those responsible for this event leave the people open to being slaughtered (simply putting up a screen to block the view would have been very helpful, there are numerous safety measures they could have taken at minimal cost -- locate this further from the high rise hotels, why locate a loud outdoor concert right next to hotels where people sleep? etc.).

When the DC sniper was killing people the first response was to question those responsible for the public's safety. This resulted in microphones being put around the city that could immediately identify the time, location and caliber of gun that is fired. Couple this with cameras put up everywhere and they would have identified the DC sniper within hours.

The Son of Sam was caught due to a parking ticket. However, we have since improved that system so that cop cars are recording the time and location of every car in the city as they drive the streets.

Columbine has changed school curriculum to focus much more on bullying and to respond to it. In addition teachers are now trained to identify various red flags.

Electronic surveillance brought down the mob in NYC in the 70s. Today the FBI can turn on a cell phone remotely turning it into a listening device, a gps device, and of course they can get a transcript of every call, text and email.

BTK serial killer was caught, not with his DNA but by using his daughters. Since then there has been a concerted effort to gather DNA on people, if you can get DNA from 10% of the people you would virtually include everyone. For example, you could tell the suspect was a brother of someone, a cousin of someone else, a son or grandson of someone else, etc.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'll use rounded numbers in my example: I live in San Diego and want to fly to Seattle 1200 miles north. Old world model- jet goes north 1200 miles in 2 hours and I am there. New world model: round eathe spinning at 1000 mph west to east. 2 hours at 30,000 ft going north, earth spinning 2000 miles to the east, my jet should have to travel 3200 miles or we should land close to Russia. Which world model do the airlines follow?

I'm not sure that GPS gives us an answer, so I'll pose another: the world record for sky, or space, diving. Guy in Roswell NM takes a balloon up 25 miles which took 2 hours, stayed in balloon for additional 30 min, started his dive which took 15 min to land, so we are talking about 2 hr 45 min. He landed in Roswell. Old world view flat stationary earth, new world view found earth rotating about 1000 mph west to east. Seems like in new world view, he should have landed in the Pacific Ocean, not straight down back to Roswell.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, you bring up a lot of info on the death penalty, with a lot of vested interest in it. But,

Killing is wrong. Kill a million and you are a hero. Kill one and you're a criminal. Kill a prisoner and you are a hypocrite ... and a sanctioned serial killer.

Your romantic like love for the Bible may be charming, but in this case -- the death penalty -- there's no need for it.

I would say it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock someone up for life. The most insane argument about capital punishment being cruel because of the method used is really gone when you now have Dr assisted end of life, go out comfortable suicide.

Governments job is to end life of those who murder. It has to do with an orderly society so that we don't have individuals avenging the death of loved ones.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would say it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock someone up for life. The most insane argument about capital punishment being cruel because of the method used is really gone when you now have Dr assisted end of life, go out comfortable suicide.

Governments job is to end life of those who murder. It has to do with an orderly society so that we don't have individuals avenging the death of loved ones.

How can you believe in capital punishment when governments so frequently get it wrong? Governments are human products and humans are fallible. Study human history and learn how many people have been executed unjustly. We shouldn't give flawed human authorities the power to play God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can you believe in capital punishment when governments so frequently get it wrong?

I think I answered that question in the first post.

In the NT the standard is not lower than in the OT, the difference is that if a crime is committed those in authority are held accountable every bit as much as the criminal. To me that is the meaning of the cross of Christ. Jesus paid for our sins with his life. The idea that the NT rejects the death penalty is absurd, it is the foundation of the NT.

So, since governments get it wrong why are you against the criminal confessing? If there is a death penalty the prosecution can offer to take it off the table if the criminal confesses. That saves us a lengthy trial. Why take that card away from the prosecutors?

[awareness]

Great discussion on capital punishment but shouldn't it be on a different thread? like the Politics thread? or a new one, say Bible and Death Penalty?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great discussion on capital punishment but shouldn't it be on a different thread? like the Politics thread? or a new one, say Bible and Death Penalty?

No, I'm not looking at this from a political standpoint but from a scientific one. The evidence supporting the 5 points made in the first post are scientific. Forensics is the application of science to solving crime.

For example, Zeek said that "governments so often get it wrong" indicating convicting innocent people of felonies. If we look at about 20 years ago about 10% of the convictions were probably wrong. If we look back 120 years ago it was probably closer to 30% and if we look back 2,000 years ago it might have been closer to 50%. It is extremely difficult to get the numbers from 100 years ago or further, but when we look at the methods used (beat the suspect up continuously until he confesses) it isn't hard to believe that they were unlikely to get it right all that often.

What is really stunning is that crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 70s nationwide.

One possible contributing factor is that we are getting it right much more often. It stands to reason if you convict the guilty person then they are not free to continue committing crimes nor are they emboldened because someone else was convicted for the crime they committed.

I remember when the mafia was a major influence in NY. It seemed there would be no way to ever get rid of them. Now, they are a joke, punchline and after thought. If you are in organized crime you cannot put anything into writing, you can't use the phone, or email, or text. You can't keep records on the computer. I remember when stolen cars were a commonplace occurrence, no more, not with lojack and all the other versions of security for your car.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can you believe in capital punishment when governments so frequently get it wrong? Governments are human products and humans are fallible. Study human history and learn how many people have been executed unjustly. We shouldn't give flawed human authorities the power to play God.

Some say life in prison is a higher price to pay for capital offenses, but for most I think it is better and safer, except for those few cases where guilt is never questioned. But for most capital cases, hearing about a number of them where evidence comes along years later and acquits the prisoner, or perhaps evidence was initially suppressed by crooked prosecutors, prison time is definitely the preferred alternative.

There are just too many aggressive prosecutors out there willing to enhance their careers at some poor (literally) soul's expense. It really irks me how justice really favors the rich and the good-looking. Prison time also gives the criminal time to repent, reconsider his/her ways, and get redemption. There have been some cases when serious life-changing experiences of repentance and remorse have occurred to the prisoner, and yet the authorities still went along with the execution. To me that is heart-breaking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some say life in prison is a higher price to pay for capital offenses, but for most I think it is better and safer, except for those few cases where guilt is never questioned. But for most capital cases, hearing about a number of them where evidence comes along years later and acquits the prisoner, or perhaps evidence was initially suppressed by crooked prosecutors, prison time is definitely the preferred alternative.

There are just too many aggressive prosecutors out there willing to enhance their careers at some poor (literally) soul's expense. It really irks me how justice really favors the rich and the good-looking. Prison time also gives the criminal time to repent, reconsider his/her ways, and get redemption. There have been some cases when serious life-changing experiences of repentance and remorse have occurred to the prisoner, and yet the authorities still went along with the execution. To me that is heart-breaking.

Bro Ohio, over the years you've posted some pretty sensible posts. And this is among them. I say ... AMEN!!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some say life in prison is a higher price to pay for capital offenses, but for most I think it is better and safer, except for those few cases where guilt is never questioned. But for most capital cases, hearing about a number of them where evidence comes along years later and acquits the prisoner, or perhaps evidence was initially suppressed by crooked prosecutors, prison time is definitely the preferred alternative.

There are just too many aggressive prosecutors out there willing to enhance their careers at some poor (literally) soul's expense. It really irks me how justice really favors the rich and the good-looking. Prison time also gives the criminal time to repent, reconsider his/her ways, and get redemption. There have been some cases when serious life-changing experiences of repentance and remorse have occurred to the prisoner, and yet the authorities still went along with the execution. To me that is heart-breaking.

Yes I agree with everything here. But you have to realize in our system it can easily take 20 years before someone sentenced to death is actually executed. Also, in our system you are much more likely to have a judge listen to an appeal if you are sentenced to death. Also, the system favors the rich until you are sentenced to death, at that point there are many lawyers who have donated their time pro bono and when they go to scientists and experts for help it is a very persuasive argument to help someone on death row over someone for whom there is no deadline.

Finally, I do not see any logical argument that a life sentence is more likely to lead to repentance than being sentenced to death.

Remember, few cases, even capital murder cases, are given the death penalty.

1. If the goal is repentance it is very unlikely that doing away with the death sentence will in any way increase the number of people who repent.

2. If the concern is about executing an innocent person I have already provided evidence that the death penalty has had a significant and powerful role in exonerating far more innocent people in the last 100 years than were executed. Not only so but the benefits have helped innocent people charged with crimes regardless of the crime.

3. If the concern is that poor people get shafted in our legal system then I have also provided evidence that the death penalty has had a significant role in leveling the playing field. Yes, if you are charged with a crime the best advice you can get is to get the best lawyer and pay top dollar. But even so your chances are much better being poor today than they were 100 years ago. Fingerprints, DNA, and a host of other techniques are standard procedure today, regardless of rich or poor.

4. If the concern is an unethical prosecutor or justice department then again, I think the best solution is the death penalty. The innocent person sentenced to death has a much better chance of being found innocent on appeal if they are sentenced to death than if they are given life imprisonment. The case doesn't end there, generally there is a lawsuit where the state pays damages, and the spotlight is then placed on the cause of the miscarriage and if the prosecutor was guilty of knowingly railroading an innocent man this will come out.

This is where John 8 comes in. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I remember presidential candidates being destroyed when it came out that they had a mistress or affair. Several names come immediately to mind. Yet it didn't affect Trump. Why not? Trump never condemned philandering, never pretended to stand for "family values". With what judgement you judge you shall be judged. If the legal system is going to condemn someone to death it is a very high standard that must be met and if they don't meet it they will be condemned and pay the price. So to me the question is do you want your justice system to meet that standard or not?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes I agree with everything here. But you have to realize in our system it can easily take 20 years before someone sentenced to death is actually executed. Also, in our system you are much more likely to have a judge listen to an appeal if you are sentenced to death. Also, the system favors the rich until you are sentenced to death, at that point there are many lawyers who have donated their time pro bono and when they go to scientists and experts for help it is a very persuasive argument to help someone on death row over someone for whom there is no deadline.

Finally, I do not see any logical argument that a life sentence is more likely to lead to repentance than being sentenced to death.

Remember, few cases, even capital murder cases, are given the death penalty.

1. If the goal is repentance it is very unlikely that doing away with the death sentence will in any way increase the number of people who repent.

2. If the concern is about executing an innocent person I have already provided evidence that the death penalty has had a significant and powerful role in exonerating far more innocent people in the last 100 years than were executed. Not only so but the benefits have helped innocent people charged with crimes regardless of the crime.

3. If the concern is that poor people get shafted in our legal system then I have also provided evidence that the death penalty has had a significant role in leveling the playing field. Yes, if you are charged with a crime the best advice you can get is to get the best lawyer and pay top dollar. But even so your chances are much better being poor today than they were 100 years ago. Fingerprints, DNA, and a host of other techniques are standard procedure today, regardless of rich or poor.

4. If the concern is an unethical prosecutor or justice department then again, I think the best solution is the death penalty. The innocent person sentenced to death has a much better chance of being found innocent on appeal if they are sentenced to death than if they are given life imprisonment. The case doesn't end there, generally there is a lawsuit where the state pays damages, and the spotlight is then placed on the cause of the miscarriage and if the prosecutor was guilty of knowingly railroading an innocent man this will come out.

This is where John 8 comes in. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I remember presidential candidates being destroyed when it came out that they had a mistress or affair. Several names come immediately to mind. Yet it didn't affect Trump. Why not? Trump never condemned philandering, never pretended to stand for "family values". With what judgement you judge you shall be judged. If the legal system is going to condemn someone to death it is a very high standard that must be met and if they don't meet it they will be condemned and pay the price. So to me the question is do you want your justice system to meet that standard or not?

First you said you agreed.

Then you spent an extraordinarily long time proving me wrong.

This forum is crazy at times.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First you said you agreed.

Then you spent an extraordinarily long time proving me wrong.

This forum is crazy at times.

But you nailed it in post #823.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First you said you agreed.

Then you spent an extraordinarily long time proving me wrong.

This forum is crazy at times.

I have never heard of anyone who likes the death penalty. Of course I agree that I would prefer life imprisonment if the person were falsely convicted. But the reality is that a person falsely convicted is more likely to get it overthrown if they are given the death penalty. They are more likely to get legal help and any other help they need with their case.

Also, what I have seen is that the death penalty does not deter criminals, that is true, nor do I feel is it all that healthy for the victims of the crime as far as "resolving" the issue. But what is ignored is that it is very effective at motivating the people responsible for investigating crimes. That is the real benefit, you can look at the last 120 years of forensic gains and they all take place during capital murder investigations. That is because no one wants to see an innocent man executed and no one wants to be responsible for that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some say life in prison is a higher price to pay for capital offenses, but for most I think it is better and safer, except for those few cases where guilt is never questioned. But for most capital cases, hearing about a number of them where evidence comes along years later and acquits the prisoner, or perhaps evidence was initially suppressed by crooked prosecutors, prison time is definitely the preferred alternative.

There are just too many aggressive prosecutors out there willing to enhance their careers at some poor (literally) soul's expense. It really irks me how justice really favors the rich and the good-looking. Prison time also gives the criminal time to repent, reconsider his/her ways, and get redemption. There have been some cases when serious life-changing experiences of repentance and remorse have occurred to the prisoner, and yet the authorities still went along with the execution. To me that is heart-breaking.

I couldn't have said it better myself. No consistent libertarian would favor the death penalty. No one has accused me of libertarianism, but I do recognize that government should be limited. Capital punishment is but one instance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have never heard of anyone who likes the death penalty.

Also, what I have seen is that the death penalty does not deter criminals,

Wow! You really should get out more. Didn't you once live in Texas?

........................

Does anyone feel that public shaming, like caning in Singapore, is a deterent? Some countries just chop off the fingers of druggies, and they claim it "works." Obviously our present system is not working in the war against drugs.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I couldn't have said it better myself. No consistent libertarian would favor the death penalty. No one has accused me of libertarianism, but I do recognize that government should be limited. Capital punishment is but one instance.

Yes, but this is not the politics and the church thread. It is the Bible versus Science. The issue is not do you agree or not, but rather what is the scientific evidence against it and if that is the case why does the Bible give the death penalty?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow! You really should get out more. Didn't you once live in Texas?

I have talked to people who are pro choice and when I ask them why they like abortion they are offended. They tell me no one likes abortion. Therefore you can be "pro choice" without liking abortion. In the same way you can support the death penalty without liking executions.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Does anyone feel that public shaming, like caning in Singapore, is a deterent? Some countries just chop off the fingers of druggies, and they claim it "works." Obviously our present system is not working in the war against drugs.

These are interesting questions, however I put them in a different category from the death penalty because the NT clearly rejects the OT tactic of "an eye for an eye" whereas the NT does not reject the death penalty.

Instead, I would say the applicable NT verses would include the death penalty as part of the "Law" that has been given to us to lead us to Christ. The Law is not something we are to "keep" but rather it leads us to Christ and exposes our shortcomings.

To me, that is the function of the death penalty. It has led many researchers to discover new insights into how physical evidence can prove innocence or guilt and it has helped expose corrupt, negligent, biased and hypocritical people in the justice system. All of which has led to reforms which have made our justice system undeniably more just (when viewed over decades and centuries).

Also, although the NT does not explicitly reject the death penalty it does "show us a better way", the way of confession, repentance and a second chance.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but this is not the politics and the church thread. It is the Bible versus Science. The issue is not do you agree or not, but rather what is the scientific evidence against it and if that is the case why does the Bible give the death penalty?

If we bring the OT into this, then we could justify Duterte's policy of justing killing citizens on the street. (Gen 38:7)

And killing little children for making fun of bald men.

And killing teen boys for spilling their seed on the ground.

And stoning rebellious children.

So much for thou shalt not kill.

The OT is not very much pro-life.

But then, considering Revelation, neither is the NT.

If we bring the Bible into capital punishment we'd be stoning criminals, without a court of law, but with just the elders of the city.

Thank God we're more humane than the Bible, or thank Renaissance humanism. Thank something, other than the Bible.

Unless, of course, bro ZNP can prove, scientifically, that, our secular legal system came from it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we bring the OT into this, then we could justify Duterte's policy of justing killing citizens on the street. (Gen 38:7)

And killing little children for making fun of bald men.

And killing teen boys for spilling their seed on the ground.

These things are recorded in the Bible, not justified by it. If you read a textbook about the Holocaust doesn't mean that the school system is justifying it.

Originally Posted by awareness

And stoning rebellious children.

A rebellious child shot up a school, in our system for all we know he will get the death penalty.

Originally Posted by awareness

So much for thou shalt not kill.

This word "kill" does not refer to killing animals to eat. Nor does it refer to executing convicted criminals.

Originally Posted by awareness

The OT is not very much pro-life.

Perhaps not. But it does condemn abortion in the strongest language possible.

Originally Posted by awareness

But then, considering Revelation, neither is the NT.

If we bring the Bible into capital punishment we'd be stoning criminals, without a court of law, but with just the elders of the city.

The elders of a city are a court of law.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thank God we're more humane than the Bible, or thank Renaissance humanism. Thank something, other than the Bible.

Unless, of course, bro ZNP can prove, scientifically, that, our secular legal system came from it.

How are we more humane than the Bible. We imprison and execute rebellious children, we simply "try them as adults".

The holocaust is a far bigger atrocity than anything recorded in the Bible. If recording an atrocity makes the Bible inhumane then we are inhumane for our recorded atrocities and genocides.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we bring the OT into this, then we could justify Duterte's policy of justing killing citizens on the street. (Gen 38:7)

And killing little children for making fun of bald men.

And killing teen boys for spilling their seed on the ground.

And stoning rebellious children.

So much for thou shalt not kill.

The OT is not very much pro-life.

But then, considering Revelation, neither is the NT.

If we bring the Bible into capital punishment we'd be stoning criminals, without a court of law, but with just the elders of the city.

Thank God we're more humane than the Bible, or thank Renaissance humanism. Thank something, other than the Bible.

Unless, of course, bro ZNP can prove, scientifically, that, our secular legal system came from it.

In all my life I have never met anyone with so many ways to disparage the scriptures.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but this is not the politics and the church thread. It is the Bible versus Science. The issue is not do you agree or not, but rather what is the scientific evidence against it and if that is the case why does the Bible give the death penalty?

"An overwhelming majority among America's leading criminologists, who believe that capital punishment does not contribute to lower rates of homicide." Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers, "Deterrence and the death penalty: the views of the experts," Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87, no.1 (1996), pp. 1-16. Radelet with another collaborator, Traci Lacock, recently replicated this survey of leading criminologists and again found an overwhelming consensus that executions do not lower homicide rates. (The same Journal, vol. 99, 2009.)

Why does the Bible give us the death penalty? Because the Bible was written during a period of human history dominated by a culture of death. A few visionaries like Albert Schweitzer and Pope John Paul II have imagined a culture of life. I think that's the way to go.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In all my life I have never met anyone with so many ways to disparage the scriptures.

Yeah bro Ohio. It's easy. All I have to do is cite it. And I didn't even cite the worst.

But shame on me for knowing it. What little I do know. Thankfully, there's so much more to learn. From it I learn more and more about both human and divine nature's. So far I've learned : LOOK OUT!!! GET SOME SOPHIA ASAP !!! Including me.

Apparently, if we take from the Bible, God wants us to know both the good and the bad, the ugly and the pretty, about Him, and about ourselves, the human species.

And outside the promise of a new and better world -- and heaven, btw - they both need improvement -- or God wouldn't act the way He does in the Bible.

It will cost a lot of collateral damage -- killings, fryings, and such -- of many of our beloved neighbors, but we'll get there ... the Bible says.

See you on the other side bro Ohio. Taking again from the Bible, being cantankerous doesn't bother God. He promotes it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why does the Bible give us the death penalty? Because the Bible was written during a period of human history dominated by a culture of death. A few visionaries like Albert Schweitzer and Pope John Paul II have imagined a culture of life. I think that's the way to go.

Today, more than ever, we are living in a culture of death.

In the 20th century alone, governments killed upwards of 160 million of their own people. Add to that the slaughters of all the wars.

Add to that 60 Million abortions in the US since 1973 and 1.5 Billion abortions worldwide since 1980.

That, my friend, is a culture of death, such as the world has never seen!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today, more than ever, we are living in a culture of death.

In the 20th century alone, governments killed upwards of 160 million of their own people. Add to that the slaughters of all the wars.

Add to that 60 Million abortions in the US since 1973 and 1.5 Billion abortions worldwide since 1980.

That, my friend, is a culture of death, such as the world has never seen!

Like I said, a few visionaries have imagined a culture of life. I think that's the way to go.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

"An overwhelming majority among America's leading criminologists, who believe that capital punishment does not contribute to lower rates of homicide." Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers, "Deterrence and the death penalty: the views of the experts," Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87, no.1 (1996), pp. 1-16. Radelet with another collaborator, Traci Lacock, recently replicated this survey of leading criminologists and again found an overwhelming consensus that executions do not lower homicide rates. (The same Journal, vol. 99, 2009.)

Why does the Bible give us the death penalty? Because the Bible was written during a period of human history dominated by a culture of death. A few visionaries like Albert Schweitzer and Pope John Paul II have imagined a culture of life. I think that's the way to go.

I have already ceded this. The point is that there are 3 factors involved in the penalty phase of crime -- deterring crime, satisfying the victim that justice is done, and motivating people to solve the crime and improve the system.

I don't disagree with what you have quoted, my point is that the death penalty helps motivate people to solve crime and improve the system.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today, more than ever, we are living in a culture of death.

In the 20th century alone, governments killed upwards of 160 million of their own people. Add to that the slaughters of all the wars.

Add to that 60 Million abortions in the US since 1973 and 1.5 Billion abortions worldwide since 1980.

That, my friend, is a culture of death, such as the world has never seen!

Strong points bro Ohio, and ya got a chance to again express your pet-peeve.

But based on your post what I see is that : life and death go together ; we can't have one without the other.

And yes dying is happening all the time. We've made it easy. We've don't even have to get out of our car. A Big Mac can be had in minutes. We don't even have to think about killing and dying. We're happy ; the kids are all excited to get their Happy Meal.

Somebody had to kill it. Lot's of somebodies. Lot's of killing and dying.

But it's not all bad. Life lives off dying. It's even a mystery to evolutionary scientists ; if life lives off life, how did life ever have a chance of making it?

But here we are. All 7.5 billion of us, wiping off many of the other critters.

Be of good cheer. We're thriving. McDonald's is world wide ... lots of Happy Meals.

Just be like God. And have little sensitivity to death, killing, and dying. Else perchance you won't be able to fully enjoy living. Ain't that, in the end, what it's all about?

But then again ... what was said in the movie The Matrix? : 'The steak tastes good.'

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already ceded this. The point is that there are 3 factors involved in the penalty phase of crime -- deterring crime, satisfying the victim that justice is done, and motivating people to solve the crime and improve the system.

I don't disagree with what you have quoted, my point is that the death penalty helps motivate people to solve crime and improve the system.

If the system executes a "few" innocent people in the process, no problem, cuz the end [solving crime and improving the system] justifies the means. Is that what you're saying?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah bro Ohio. It's easy. All I have to do is cite it. And I didn't even cite the worst.

But shame on me for knowing it. What little I do know. Thankfully, there's so much more to learn. From it I learn more and more about both human and divine nature's. So far I've learned : LOOK OUT!!! GET SOME SOPHIA ASAP !!! Including me.

Apparently, if we take from the Bible, God wants us to know both the good and the bad, the ugly and the pretty, about Him, and about ourselves, the human species.

And outside the promise of a new and better world -- and heaven, btw - they both need improvement -- or God wouldn't act the way He does in the Bible.

It will cost a lot of collateral damage -- killings, fryings, and such -- of many of our beloved neighbors, but we'll get there ... the Bible says.

See you on the other side bro Ohio. Taking again from the Bible, being cantankerous doesn't bother God. He promotes it.

You want to see the worst? Look at what ancient Rome, or ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt did. And they didn't even have the Bible to guide them. How does Awareness explain that?

They had the "pit", they had the "well" and they had the "plank" which I view as a less humane version of the cross (tie you up to a plank and leave you until you expire).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You want to see the worst? Look at what ancient Rome, or ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt did. And they didn't even have the Bible to guide them. How does Awareness explain that?

See post #841.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah bro Ohio. It's easy. All I have to do is cite it. And I didn't even cite the worst.

But shame on me for knowing it. What little I do know. Thankfully, there's so much more to learn. From it I learn more and more about both human and divine nature's. So far I've learned : LOOK OUT!!! GET SOME SOPHIA ASAP !!! Including me.

Apparently, if we take from the Bible, God wants us to know both the good and the bad, the ugly and the pretty, about Him, and about ourselves, the human species.

And outside the promise of a new and better world -- and heaven, btw - they both need improvement -- or God wouldn't act the way He does in the Bible.

It will cost a lot of collateral damage -- killings, fryings, and such -- of many of our beloved neighbors, but we'll get there ... the Bible says.

See you on the other side bro Ohio. Taking again from the Bible, being cantankerous doesn't bother God. He promotes it.

Easy for you perhaps.

Remember, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the system executes a "few" innocent people in the process, no problem, cuz the end [solving crime and improving the system] justifies the means. Is that what you're saying?

The few for the many. You could say that they are our sacrificial lambs, laying down their lives for us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The few for the many. You could say that they are our sacrificial lambs, laying down their lives for us.

Moloch is happy?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the system executes a "few" innocent people in the process, no problem, cuz the end [solving crime and improving the system] justifies the means. Is that what you're saying?

No, what I am saying is that you have to look at the whole picture. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit that is injustice, just because it is one year, or ten years, or 20 years, you have to look at the total picture. Executing an innocent man is the worst injustice, but it is only part of the equation.

Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, in Feb. 7, 2007 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues," stated:

"Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:

• More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.

• More experts will be hired.

• Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.

• Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.

• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.

• The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials

• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row."

Feb. 7, 2007 - Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD

What I am saying is all of that extra time, extra lawyers, extra rigor in the process is a benefit to the poor, benefit to all of us as far as vetting the justice department for corruption and bias.

For example, the OJ trial had a major impact on protocols for the police department to follow. If you eliminate the death penalty trials you will lose this "audit" on the justice department.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Moloch is happy?

And maybe God. Who was no stranger to sacrifice. In fact, just like Moloch He sacrificed His own human son. The one for the many.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, what I am saying is that you have to look at the whole picture. If an innocent person is convicted of a crime they didn't commit that is injustice, just because it is one year, or ten years, or 20 years, you have to look at the total picture. Executing an innocent man is the worst injustice, but it is only part of the equation.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, in Feb. 7, 2007 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues," stated:

"Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:

• More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.

So death penalty cases are relatively expensive in terms of time and money.

• More experts will be hired.
• Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.

The death penalty is good for experts and attorneys.

• Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.

Death penalty cases are costly and disruptive for jurors.

• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment. • The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials.• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row."

The cases can go on for years at great cost.

What I am saying is all of that extra time, extra lawyers, extra rigor in the process is a benefit to the poor, benefit to all of us as far as vetting the justice department for corruption and bias.

How does the process benefit the poor? How does it curb corruption and bias? You haven't shown that.

For example, the OJ trial had a major impact on protocols for the police department to follow. If you eliminate the death penalty trials you will lose this "audit" on the justice department.

Where's the tangible evidence that police behavior improved? Videos showing police violently out of control are common. Can you really show that the benefits from death penalty cases exceed the costs?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

And maybe God. Who was no stranger to sacrifice. In fact, just like Moloch He sacrificed His own human son. The one for the many.

That.....is pretty twisted.

God is long suffering awareness but to equate Gods salvation with the burning of babies and children to Moloch is really messed up.

I pray that you still have the sense to know where the lines are.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How does the process benefit the poor? How does it curb corruption and bias? You haven't shown that.

Where's the tangible evidence that police behavior improved? Videos showing police violently out of control are common. Can you really show that the benefits from death penalty cases exceed the costs?

1. Fingerprints were first used in solving a crime during a murder investigation. This is a tremendous benefit to all who are innocent and accused of a crime. We can dust for fingerprints in every crime, especially those involving capital murder cases. Again, many further developments like using super glue also came during these investigations.

2. DNA was first used in solving a crime during a murder investigation. In addition, DNA is not a single discovery, there are multiple discoveries that have improved our ability to use DNA. This whole push for "ancestry.com" is based on the fact that if we have the DNA of 10% of the population we essentially have it for everyone. That concept was first used in the BTK case, a serial killer. We have also used plant DNA to solve crimes, again in a murder investigation. All of these people being exonerated for crimes they didn't commit, that is generally going into the evidence locker and using the most up to date techniques to pull DNA evidence from the evidence. This is how we just caught the serial killer in Sacramento.

3. We estimate that 10% of people in prison are innocent. Since death penalty cases involve two trials before you are sentenced to death, and since the resources are doubled it is reasonable to think that this lowers the amount of those who are convicted yet innocent dramatically. So instead of 10% it should be less than 5% and closer to 1%. Since these same people are given many, many appeals and a good 20 years before they are executed, and we know that a number of them are either overturned on appeal, or else the sentence is commuted to life. Therefore the number of innocent who are actually executed should be far less than those who are convicted. Yet it isn't for nothing. Techniques and strategies used to prove innocence in these trials are then used repeatedly in all other trials.

4. The bias against the poor in being sentenced to death is not ascribed to a bias in the jury but rather to poor lawyers who are not well funded. Once the person is sentenced to death that equation changes and there are foundations that will work to either overturn the conviction or get the sentence commuted. The lawyers and foundations involved in this specialize in this work, so now this same poor person is represented with the best people out there.

The tangible evidence that you ask for is in the book "Why Crime rates fell" referring to plummeting crime rates in the 1990s in the developed world. If your conviction rate of guilty people increases dramatically then you are truly removing the criminals from the street and this has an impact on crime. Likewise, our new technological tools were able to break apart organized crime and that had a huge impact. Certain technologies like Lojack and DNA had dramatic impacts on car thefts and rape.

When I was a kid the news would describe a suspect in a recent crime, today they have a photo. This indicates how widespread and pervasive are these cameras and they obviously have improved our ability to get "eyewitnesses" and the reliability of this testimony. I would much rather have a photograph of the suspect during the trial than some witness saying "yeah, that's him". This certainly benefits any innocent suspects being accused.

Also the same technologies used to convict criminals can be used to exonerate the innocent. Your phone keeps a record of your locations throughout the day. We can use that to prove a suspect was at the scene of the crime when it took place, we can also use that to prove you weren't.

911, instituted after the kitty Genovese murder, is now far more effective since we have cell phones.

Putting body cameras on policemen and police cars is having a tremendous affect on proving police acted negligently, or even criminally. Likewise, it is also protecting the police that didn't.

After the DC sniper case cities installed microphones so they could immediately record the time, location, and caliber of a gun when it is shot. This helps catch people shooting guns in the city (primarily gang members) and that in turn is a big benefit to the poor where these gangs operate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

That.....is pretty twisted.

God is long suffering awareness but to equate Gods salvation with the burning of babies and children to Moloch is really messed up.

I pray that you still have the sense to know where the lines are.

Drake

Brother Drake, I walked away from Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ very mad at God.

Why would God inflict pain, suffering, torture, and death, on His own son, to forgive us?

Couldn't God, being God, come up with a more humane way to forgive us?

He forgave King Manasseh without such cruel cold-hearted drastic tragic travesties.

After seeing that Slasher Movie, I'm still mad at God for doing it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Drake, I walked away from Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ very mad at God.

Why would God inflict pain, suffering, torture, and death, on His own son, to forgive us?

You obviously don't like the answer.

Perhaps it might serve you better to see things God's way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You obviously don't like the answer.

Perhaps it might serve you better to see things God's way.

That would be good bro Ohio. When's He gonna explain it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Drake, I walked away from Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ very mad at God.

Why would God inflict pain, suffering, torture, and death, on His own son, to forgive us?

Couldn't God, being God, come up with a more humane way to forgive us?

He forgave King Manasseh without such cruel cold-hearted drastic tragic travesties.

After seeing that Slasher Movie, I'm still mad at God for doing it.

When I taught forensics I wondered why we have sociopaths? According to the theory of Evolution it is "survival of the fittest". How do sociopaths make man "fitter"? According to the NT God is sovereign and all things are according to His plan.

But the way police catch a murderer is look at the ten or twenty people closest to the victim, see who has a good alibi and eliminate them, then of who remains look at a motive and charge one. They can't do that with serial killers, as a result we have been forced to discover all kinds of physical evidence that was there all the time, we just didn't know it.

As a result serial killers have made man much better equipped to rule and reign.

For example, a new technology that is being tried out now is digital license plate. Imagine one of these amber alerts, stolen cars, etc. As the car is driving down the road their license plate alerts the other drivers that the police are looking for this car. It could also send out a signal to police at the same time letting you know the location.

That woman that killed someone in Ohio and then drove to Florida where she killed someone else and stole their car. She never would have made it to Florida.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I taught forensics I wondered why we have sociopaths? According to the theory of Evolution it is "survival of the fittest". How do sociopaths make man "fitter"? According to the NT God is sovereign and all things are according to His plan.

So did the police catch that Golden State Killer when he signed up for 23andMe?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I taught forensics I wondered why we have sociopaths? According to the theory of Evolution it is "survival of the fittest". How do sociopaths make man "fitter"? According to the NT God is sovereign and all things are according to His plan.

But the way police catch a murderer is look at the ten or twenty people closest to the victim, see who has a good alibi and eliminate them, then of who remains look at a motive and charge one. They can't do that with serial killers, as a result we have been forced to discover all kinds of physical evidence that was there all the time, we just didn't know it.

As a result serial killers have made man much better equipped to rule and reign.

For example, a new technology that is being tried out now is digital license plate. Imagine one of these amber alerts, stolen cars, etc. As the car is driving down the road their license plate alerts the other drivers that the police are looking for this car. It could also send out a signal to police at the same time letting you know the location.

That woman that killed someone in Ohio and then drove to Florida where she killed someone else and stole their car. She never would have made it to Florida.

Thanks for the info bro ZNP. It made me happy that we've got serial killers. They are not the bad thing that I thought they were. They make us better equipped to rule and reign. Apparently, they must be our modern day priests of sacrifices.

According to the Bible we need sacrifices. Did the Jewish Bible writers, who lived by sacrificing, anthropomorphized God as needing them too?

Because they lived by sacrificing, did they spin the death of Jesus as our sacrifice ... as pleasing to God?

Something ain't right here. Maybe I can't put my finger on it, but something ain't right. The sacrifice of Jesus makes God look like a cruel monster.

And yes I know, "Look how much He loves us." I guess I'm not drawn to that kind of love. A truly loving God would never do such a thing. All His actions would be loving.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So did the police catch that Golden State Killer when he signed up for 23andMe?

You only need 10% of the populace to basically have everyone's DNA.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes I know, "Look how much He loves us." I guess I'm not drawn to that kind of love. A truly loving God would never do such a thing. All His actions would be loving.

If God were exactly according to your imaginations, then you would also condemn God for not being just and punishing people for their actions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for the info bro ZNP. It made me happy that we've got serial killers. They are not the bad thing that I thought they were. They make us better equipped to rule and reign. Apparently, they must be our modern day priests of sacrifices.

You can't have it both ways. If you think that Darwin was right, well according to Darwin it is survival of the fittest, therefore psychopaths make Man more fit, otherwise they never would have survived. Perhaps this is why darwinism appealed to psychopaths like the Nazis.

Originally Posted by awareness

According to the Bible we need sacrifices. Did the Jewish Bible writers, who lived by sacrificing, anthropomorphized God as needing them too?

Because they lived by sacrificing, did they spin the death of Jesus as our sacrifice ... as pleasing to God?

Without love what would be the point of human life? Without sacrifice how could love ever be expressed?

Originally Posted by awareness

Something ain't right here. Maybe I can't put my finger on it, but something ain't right. The sacrifice of Jesus makes God look like a cruel monster.

And yes I know, "Look how much He loves us." I guess I'm not drawn to that kind of love. A truly loving God would never do such a thing. All His actions would be loving.

Yes, I agree that "something is not right". It seems to me that human life appears more and more to be like a computer simulation for determining who is and who is not fit for the kingdom.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Fingerprints were first used in solving a crime during a murder investigation. This is a tremendous benefit to all who are innocent and accused of a crime. We can dust for fingerprints in every crime, especially those involving capital murder cases. Again, many further developments like using super glue also came during these investigations.

2. DNA was first used in solving a crime during a murder investigation. In addition, DNA is not a single discovery, there are multiple discoveries that have improved our ability to use DNA. This whole push for "ancestry.com" is based on the fact that if we have the DNA of 10% of the population we essentially have it for everyone. That concept was first used in the BTK case, a serial killer. We have also used plant DNA to solve crimes, again in a murder investigation. All of these people being exonerated for crimes they didn't commit, that is generally going into the evidence locker and using the most up to date techniques to pull DNA evidence from the evidence. This is how we just caught the serial killer in Sacramento.

3. We estimate that 10% of people in prison are innocent. Since death penalty cases involve two trials before you are sentenced to death, and since the resources are doubled it is reasonable to think that this lowers the amount of those who are convicted yet innocent dramatically. So instead of 10% it should be less than 5% and closer to 1%. Since these same people are given many, many appeals and a good 20 years before they are executed, and we know that a number of them are either overturned on appeal, or else the sentence is commuted to life. Therefore the number of innocent who are actually executed should be far less than those who are convicted. Yet it isn't for nothing. Techniques and strategies used to prove innocence in these trials are then used repeatedly in all other trials.

4. The bias against the poor in being sentenced to death is not ascribed to a bias in the jury but rather to poor lawyers who are not well funded. Once the person is sentenced to death that equation changes and there are foundations that will work to either overturn the conviction or get the sentence commuted. The lawyers and foundations involved in this specialize in this work, so now this same poor person is represented with the best people out there.

The tangible evidence that you ask for is in the book "Why Crime rates fell" referring to plummeting crime rates in the 1990s in the developed world. If your conviction rate of guilty people increases dramatically then you are truly removing the criminals from the street and this has an impact on crime. Likewise, our new technological tools were able to break apart organized crime and that had a huge impact. Certain technologies like Lojack and DNA had dramatic impacts on car thefts and rape.

When I was a kid the news would describe a suspect in a recent crime, today they have a photo. This indicates how widespread and pervasive are these cameras and they obviously have improved our ability to get "eyewitnesses" and the reliability of this testimony. I would much rather have a photograph of the suspect during the trial than some witness saying "yeah, that's him". This certainly benefits any innocent suspects being accused.

Also the same technologies used to convict criminals can be used to exonerate the innocent. Your phone keeps a record of your locations throughout the day. We can use that to prove a suspect was at the scene of the crime when it took place, we can also use that to prove you weren't.

911, instituted after the kitty Genovese murder, is now far more effective since we have cell phones.

Putting body cameras on policemen and police cars is having a tremendous affect on proving police acted negligently, or even criminally. Likewise, it is also protecting the police that didn't.

After the DC sniper case cities installed microphones so they could immediately record the time, location, and caliber of a gun when it is shot. This helps catch people shooting guns in the city (primarily gang members) and that in turn is a big benefit to the poor where these gangs operate.

Yes, technological advances help law enforcers catch criminals.I don't think anyone disputes that. But you haven't established a causal relationship between the death penalty and criminal catching. You would have to rule out the possibility that the advancement of technology is caused by the desire to catch and prosecute the criminals themselves among other possible motives for the improvements. I'm not saying that is the case. But, if it were, it would be a far more direct and ethical basis for advancing crime fighting technology, don't you think?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Drake, I walked away from Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Christ very mad at God.

Why would God inflict pain, suffering, torture, and death, on His own son, to forgive us?

Couldn't God, being God, come up with a more humane way to forgive us?

He forgave King Manasseh without such cruel cold-hearted drastic tragic travesties.

After seeing that Slasher Movie, I'm still mad at God for doing it.

Brother awareness,

I really care for you. Your testimony always grieves and humbles me. I wished we had known each other because I would liked to have been there for you and you for me. I think we would have shared some good times and laughs together. Might have wept too. We are much alike.

In here you are a provocateur. It’s who you are but it’s a role you also play. You skirt the line. I doubt you believe half of what you suggest. My response to you was because I genuinely became alarmed on your behalf. The good news is that it causes me to turn to God on your account. However, even now I am still unsettled in my spirit about the comparison you made. Our Lord is long suffering but still there are lines. God is loving but we should have a healthy fear. I do not believe your conscience has been seared yet you might push the envelope too far. I sincerely ask you to check yourself on these matters.

Grace and peace to you
Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You can't have it both ways. If you think that Darwin was right, well according to Darwin it is survival of the fittest, therefore psychopaths make Man more fit, otherwise they never would have survived. Perhaps this is why darwinism appealed to psychopaths like the Nazis.

The Darwinian principle has to do with the survival of the organism which best fits an environment. That doesn't entail any intention to make"Man more fit." Individual psychopaths survive and procreate in environments where they are fit.

Without love what would be the point of human life? Without sacrifice how could love ever be expressed?

Good questions.

Yes, I agree that "something is not right". It seems to me that human life appears more and more to be like a computer simulation for determining who is and who is not fit for the kingdom.

It seems you are going through a process of dehumanization. Do you have any idea what's causing that? I have thought I detected that in your posts for a long time. The Witness Lee cult had that effect on me, big time. But there are other sources of dehumanization out there. Working in a bureaucracy can do it. I experienced that to a degree working for the State of Florida. Maybe even interacting on the Internet can be dehumanizing. I'm just throwing that out there. What do you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, technological advances help law enforcers catch criminals.I don't think anyone disputes that.

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that there is no "deterrent" to criminals. Therefore, even those who oppose the death penalty agree that if it results in a decrease in crime that should be considered as part of the equation.

Originally Posted by zeek

But you haven't established a causal relationship between the death penalty and criminal catching. You would have to rule out the possibility that the advancement of technology is caused by the desire to catch and prosecute the criminals themselves among other possible motives for the improvements. I'm not saying that is the case. But, if it were, it would be a far more direct and ethical basis for advancing crime fighting technology, don't you think?

If you look at the key forensic discoveries in the last 120 years what is repeated in literally every case is the need to try this in order to save lives. Sometimes it is part of the defense of a man on trial for his life, in other cases it is investigators trying to catch a serial killer. The prospect that someone will die if we don't do something is repeated again, and again whenever you read the stories of how these developments were made.

Here is what I have established:

1. These developments have been crucial in reducing crime and reducing the number of innocent people convicted of crimes.

2. Everyone, on both sides of the debate agrees that a policy that reduces crime and reduces the number of innocent people convicted are two valuable benefits that should be factored into the discussion.

3. No one arguing for the elimination of the death penalty has discussed the motivation that this penalty gives to investigators and lawyers.

4. The death penalty has been the primary motivation in many forensic advancements in the last 120 years and the primary motivation in the most significant advancements (fingerprints and DNA). It is completely unreasonable to assume that these discoveries would have been made as early as they were without this motivation. So although we might be using fingerprints today even without a death penalty there would have been thousands, tens of thousands of innocent people who could have been convicted of crimes that otherwise wouldn't have.

5. Death penalty cases get twice the resources, twice the lawyers, twice the experts, twice the time and many more appeals. The added cost is not wasted and instead has resulted in many advancements and improvements to our system of justice that benefit everyone, rich and poor.

6. This should be part of the debate.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Darwinian principle has to do with the survival of the organism which best fits an environment. That doesn't entail any intention to make"Man more fit." Individual psychopaths survive and procreate in environments where they are fit.

"Male and female created He them and called their name Adam" -- we are social creatures, we live in societies. No one studying ants would say that Darwin's principles apply to the individual ant but not to the colony. Man is a eusocial species, therefore the same principle applies to us as much, if not more than to ants.

If the printing press makes man for fit to live, if the invention of the computer makes man more fit, then certainly this principle of looking at what strengthens the society should be considered.

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems you are going through a process of dehumanization. Do you have any idea what's causing that? I have thought I detected that in your posts for a long time. The Witness Lee cult had that effect on me, big time. But there are other sources of dehumanization out there. Working in a bureaucracy can do it. I experienced that to a degree working for the State of Florida. Maybe even interacting on the Internet can be dehumanizing. I'm just throwing that out there. What do you think?

Our discussion on the problem of evil. If human life is akin to a computer simulation, then you eliminate the problem of evil.

According to the Bible we are eternal souls dwelling in a temporary house of our body. Our affliction is referred to "our momentary lightness of affliction". We are told that "every tear will be wiped away" -- how can that be possible? I can envision this if our life is like a computer simulation. We use computer simulations in real life for training and testing. The NT tells us that Christ is the "body of all the shadows". These simulations must be a shadow of some spiritual reality. We are told in the NT that we are being trained to rule and reign. Our actions in this life determine who is and who is not written in the book of life. There are numerous testimonies of those who have been resuscitated from death, not just in the Bible. These all describe an eternal soul that leaves the body and enters a different realm. Physics has come to the realization there are 10 dimensions or more. This would make sense if the four dimensions of the simulation are different from the other dimensions we don't see in the simulation. Others have noted how our universe follows precisely laid out mathematical formulas, just like a simulation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Male and female created He them and called their name Adam" -- we are social creatures, we live in societies. No one studying ants would say that Darwin's principles apply to the individual ant but not to the colony. Man is a eusocial species, therefore the same principle applies to us as much, if not more than to ants.

If the printing press makes man for fit to live, if the invention of the computer makes man more fit, then certainly this principle of looking at what strengthens the society should be considered.

It seems like you are confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution. The printing press and computer are examples of the former.

Our discussion on the problem of evil. If human life is akin to a computer simulation, then you eliminate the problem of evil.

Your proposition eliminates evil by eliminating the human. That's kind of a high price to pay to assuage ones' fear of death.

According to the Bible we are eternal souls dwelling in a temporary house of our body.

Doesn't the Bible say we are are living souls? That seems more like a unified being than a dualistic one.

Our affliction is referred to "our momentary lightness of affliction". We are told that "every tear will be wiped away" -- how can that be possible? I can envision this if our life is like a computer simulation. We use computer simulations in real life for training and testing.

Seems like you want to de-realize your present existence in favor of a hypothetical future one.

The NT tells us that Christ is the "body of all the shadows". These simulations must be a shadow of some spiritual reality.

That's Platonism. It privileges the symbolic self over the embodied one. That conflict is basic to the human condition. How resolve it determines your fundamental anthropology

We are told in the NT that we are being trained to rule and reign. Our actions in this life determine who is and who is not written in the book of life.

This is your peculiar brand of millenarianism. It seems to be very real to you.

There are numerous testimonies of those who have been resuscitated from death, not just in the Bible.

Except for our contemporaries, those people all died again and stayed dead. The big question for Christians is, why after resurrecting did Jesus disappear? Why didn't he "rule and reign"? His disappearance was awful convenient and hard to believe.

These all describe an eternal soul that leaves the body and enters a different realm. Physics has come to the realization there are 10 dimensions or more. This would make sense if the four dimensions of the simulation are different from the other dimensions we don't see in the simulation. Others have noted how our universe follows precisely laid out mathematical formulas, just like a simulation.

The relationship between quantum mechanics and anthropology has yet to be worked out. At this stage, QM is used to support all manner of flipped out metaphysics.

The Bible doesn't seem to support a dualistic body-soul anthropology. Rather, the human being is characterized as a living soul not as a soul inhabiting a body. If we're going to have a life other than the one we are now living, it would require a physical resurrection.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

6. This should be part of the debate.

Debate? You've already proven that serial killers are good because they equipped us to reign and rule ... and that the death penalty is good.

Where's the debate? Death is good.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Debate? You've already proven that serial killers are good because they equipped us to reign and rule ... and that the death penalty is good.

Where's the debate? Death is good.

Wow! You have really embraced the goodness of serial killers Should I be worried?

I use the term debate because I have never heard the points I have raised used before. I did not realize that someone who has so much trouble embracing the goodness of the Bible would so quickly embrace psychopaths, my bad.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems like you are confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution. The printing press and computer are examples of the former.

Conflating the two, perhaps.

Originally Posted by zeek

Your proposition eliminates evil by eliminating the human. That's kind of a high price to pay to assuage ones' fear of death.

Nope, my proposition reveals evil without the potential harm. The cross still took place, but in the light of eternity it was simply a "momentary lightness of affliction".

Originally Posted by zeek

Doesn't the Bible say we are are living souls? That seems more like a unified being than a dualistic one.

Seems like you want to de-realize your present existence in favor of a hypothetical future one.

That's Platonism. It privileges the symbolic self over the embodied one. That conflict is basic to the human condition. How resolve it determines your fundamental anthropology

This is your peculiar brand of millenarianism. It seems to be very real to you.

Except for our contemporaries, those people all died again and stayed dead. The big question for Christians is, why after resurrecting did Jesus disappear? Why didn't he "rule and reign"? His disappearance was awful convenient and hard to believe.

The relationship between quantum mechanics and anthropology has yet to be worked out. At this stage, QM is used to support all manner of flipped out metaphysics.

The Bible doesn't seem to support a dualistic body-soul anthropology. Rather, the human being is characterized as a living soul not as a soul inhabiting a body. If we're going to have a life other than the one we are now living, it would require a physical resurrection.

There is a lot in that post to discuss, it seems to me a different thread: the Bible and QM, and a thread "why did Jesus disappear" seem to be better than mashing it all into this one.

As for "Jesus disappearing" I don't believe He did. I can understand why He would hide himself from people that "want him to walk across their swimming pool". But the promise is there, seek and ye shall find.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNP

"Male and female created He them and called their name Adam" -- we are social creatures, we live in societies. No one studying ants would say that Darwin's principles apply to the individual ant but not to the colony. Man is a eusocial species, therefore the same principle applies to us as much, if not more than to ants.

Oh! I see! You're one of those eusocailists! Eusocial, Eusocial, Eusocial. You seem obsessed with the notion. Maybe in your mind you're some kind of a Anthropocentric Eusociologist.

But I just can't point it out enough. I can't seem to get it thru your thick noggin. Humans are not eusocial like ants are eusocial. We're not hardwired for it like them.

If we're "eusocial" it's cuz we developed a fallen system. And I'm not talking about the fall in the garden ; unless the story of Cain and Abel is symbolic of the development of our present fallen system.

I can come up with wild harebrained ideas as well as you can. How's this one :

Our present fallen system could have been what the Cain and Abel story was originally about ; objecting to leaving the hunter/gather lifestyle for the agricultural lifestyle.

The Bible today doesn't say that's why God rejected Cain's offering. It was eventually modified, by the agriculturalists, so that God rejecting them wouldn't be in the record. They didn't want it to be told that God didn't like them for leaving trusting in Him for their daily bread, telling God : We no longer need you. We can provide for our daily bread ourselves, without trusting in You.

And it's that system, a system that rejects trusting in God for our daily bread, that required the development of civilization, leading to our present day totalitarian system, a system of control of the ever growing masses with more and more food (more food = more population growth = more of what you call eusocialism).

Moreover that system -- of control with food by agriculture -- is what made us humans social creatures, and builders of civilizations. ; but not eusocial, even tho that's what it may look like, to you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh! I see! You're one of those eusocailists! Eusocial, Eusocial, Eusocial. You seem obsessed with the notion. Maybe in your mind you're some kind of a Anthropocentric Eusociologist.

But I just can't point it out enough. I can't seem to get it thru your thick noggin. Humans are not eusocial like ants are eusocial. We're not hardwired for it like them.

If we're "eusocial" it's cuz we developed a fallen system. And I'm not talking about the fall in the garden ; unless the story of Cain and Abel is symbolic of the development of our present fallen system.

I can come up with wild harebrained ideas as well as you can. How's this one :

Our present fallen system could have been what the Cain and Abel story was originally about ; objecting to leaving the hunter/gather lifestyle for the agricultural lifestyle.

The Bible today doesn't say that's why God rejected Cain's offering. It was eventually modified, by the agriculturalists, so that God rejecting them wouldn't be in the record. They didn't want it to be told that God didn't like them for leaving trusting in Him for their daily bread, telling God : We no longer need you. We can provide for our daily bread ourselves, without trusting in You.

And it's that system, a system that rejects trusting in God for our daily bread, that required the development of civilization, leading to our present day totalitarian system, a system of control of the ever growing masses with more and more food (more food = more population growth = more of what you call eusocialism).

Moreover that system -- of control with food by agriculture -- is what made us humans social creatures, and builders of civilizations. ; but not eusocial, even tho that's what it may look like, to you.

Eusocial is defined by three characteristics:

1. Differentiated jobs -- man does this more than any other species.

2. Change their environment -- again, we do this far more than any other species.

3. We take care of children that we are not related to -- man is the only species that this is true of. The other eusocial species take care of children they are related to, but aren't their own.

Many species are social -- birds, fish, bats will congregate in large gatherings. But they don't have the three characteristics above.

This is what makes man different, unique among all creatures and why we have dominion.

If you want to talk about man evolving from apes then you have to explain this, because apes are not eusocial.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. We take care of children that we are not related to -- man is the only species that this is true of.

Not so :

https://www.google.com/search?q=crit...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[awareness]

Goodness. If it weren't for bro zeek I would have missed this post. And if ever there was a post that deserved a response it's this one.

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother awareness,

I really care for you. Your testimony always grieves and humbles me. I wished we had known each other because I would liked to have been there for you and you for me. I think we would have shared some good times and laughs together. Might have wept too. We are much alike.

And I care for you, and like you as well. I can picture us, like I've done with other LCers, after the LC, setting around having some laughs and good times.

Originally Posted by Drake

In here you are a provocateur. It’s who you are but it’s a role you also play. You skirt the line. I doubt you believe half of what you suggest.

Are you looking into my head? Now you sorta know what's in there, at least some of it. It's a wonder I haven't fried all me head wires.

Paul, or Silvanus, or Timothy, I don't know which, maybe all three, says in Paul's earliest epistle, I Thessalonians, (one of Paul's uncontested books - unlike 2 Thess), to "test all things, and hold to that which is good."

Well that is what I've been doing since leaving the LC. I've been doing that for decades. Have spent much of my life on it all. Am doing it now.

And you are right about believing. I'm not a fan of believing. I prefer experience.

Originally Posted by Drake

My response to you was because I genuinely became alarmed on your behalf. The good news is that it causes me to turn to God on your account. However, even now I am still unsettled in my spirit about the comparison you made.

I too find it unsettling, that God's plan of salvation, as commonly believed, involves the cruel sacrifice of His own human son ; something that God in the OT condemns. He saved Isaac didn't He?

Originally Posted by Drake

Our Lord is long suffering but still there are lines. God is loving but we should have a healthy fear. I do not believe your conscience has been seared yet you might push the envelope too far. I sincerely ask you to check yourself on these matters.

I much appreciate your concern.

I Thessalonians also says : "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." - 1Th 1:10.

So Jesus takes the wrath for us? If what Jesus went thru was an example of the wrath of God, then we should fear God.

My question is, can I love such a God with an innocent conscience? or is it all about fearing God?

Grace and peace to you
Drake

Grace an peace to you too brother. Thanks much for your heart felt response. As I've stated before, you're a peach.

[zeek]

A geologist on why Kim Jong-un may have halted nuclear testing program in North Korea. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn.../#7838212064c2

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

A geologist on why Kim Jong-un may have halted nuclear testing program in North Korea. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn.../#7838212064c2

Wouldn't this go under politics and the church?

[awareness]

Hidden letters found in tiny fragments of the mysterious 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scrolls points to the existence of an undiscovered ancient manuscript
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...anuscript.html

[awareness]

'Peter is here': Untold story of astonishing search for the apostle

“They’ve said that my faith controlled my science, but I had no faith until I had science,” said Guarducci, according to O’Neill’s paraphrase. “My science is what produced faith.”
http://www.wnd.com/2018/05/peter-is-...r-the-apostle/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

'Peter is here': Untold story of astonishing search for the apostle

“They’ve said that my faith controlled my science, but I had no faith until I had science,” said Guarducci, according to O’Neill’s paraphrase. “My science is what produced faith.”
http://www.wnd.com/2018/05/peter-is-...r-the-apostle/

Great story! Thanks awareness.

[awareness]

And God said, "Let there be life ... on Mars"

Breakthrough in search for Martian life as Curiosity finds organic building blocks of life and finally unlocks the mystery of methane emissions on the red planet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...l-methane.html

[ZNPaaneah]

There is a misconception perpetrated by some on this forum that the Bible is a book of mythology and is less reliable than science.

Several issues with this:

1. The definition of science includes being able to reproduce the published experimental results of others. Without this key component science is nothing but smoke and mirrors, the realm of illusionists, liars, and voodoo doctors. However, many scientists have been raising the alarm for the last few years that most scientific experiments are not reproducible. The problem is that no one wants to do this research, checking that others work is accurate. It is a lose lose situation saying someone else is a fraud. It often involves three times as much work and care as the person who published the findings in the first place. If you are right you are hated by many. If you are wrong you won't work again. Even if you are right publishing this research does not qualify for the "publish or perish" pressure that college professors have.

Therefore scientists have been completely infiltrated with fraudulent scam artists. Most notably corporations who hire scientists with grants. They have a very interesting way of lying. Generally speaking we will analyze results using statistical analysis and the extremes (5% either way) will be dropped. What the corporations do is give the schools grants to do the research, but all of the research belongs to the corporation. Unbeknownst to the researchers they hired a hundred different professors. Then they only release the most favorable results, often the ones that we would have filtered out as being anomalous. Since no one sees 95% of the research these experiments appear to be compelling evidence of some benefit the corporation wanted.

This is only one way they lie and we have seen many others. For example, corporations will become big benefactors to a university so that they can convince the President to kill some research that is going on they don't like.

In its purest form science is an approach to observe the creation so that we can understand the basic laws and principles that are at work. In contrast to that the Bible presents the creator to us with the laws and principles that He has set forth. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that these two would have very good agreement.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a misconception perpetrated by some on this forum that the Bible is a book of mythology and is less reliable than science.

Several issues with this:

1. The definition of science includes being able to reproduce the published experimental results of others. Without this key component science is nothing but smoke and mirrors, the realm of illusionists, liars, and voodoo doctors. However, many scientists have been raising the alarm for the last few years that most scientific experiments are not reproducible. The problem is that no one wants to do this research, checking that others work is accurate. It is a lose lose situation saying someone else is a fraud. It often involves three times as much work and care as the person who published the findings in the first place. If you are right you are hated by many. If you are wrong you won't work again. Even if you are right publishing this research does not qualify for the "publish or perish" pressure that college professors have.

Therefore scientists have been completely infiltrated with fraudulent scam artists. Most notably corporations who hire scientists with grants. They have a very interesting way of lying. Generally speaking we will analyze results using statistical analysis and the extremes (5% either way) will be dropped. What the corporations do is give the schools grants to do the research, but all of the research belongs to the corporation. Unbeknownst to the researchers they hired a hundred different professors. Then they only release the most favorable results, often the ones that we would have filtered out as being anomalous. Since no one sees 95% of the research these experiments appear to be compelling evidence of some benefit the corporation wanted.

This is only one way they lie and we have seen many others. For example, corporations will become big benefactors to a university so that they can convince the President to kill some research that is going on they don't like.

In its purest form science is an approach to observe the creation so that we can understand the basic laws and principles that are at work. In contrast to that the Bible presents the creator to us with the laws and principles that He has set forth. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that these two would have very good agreement.

I hope you're not suggesting replacing scientific research with Bible study because that is an asinine idea.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a misconception perpetrated by some on this forum that the Bible is a book of mythology and is less reliable than science.

So in order to counter that claim you seek to bring science down to the Bible's level, by claiming it's mythology too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I hope you're not suggesting replacing scientific research with Bible study because that is an asinine idea.

I am not suggesting, I am stating clearly that "science" is a vague term that is misused and abused by any and all who would lie and deceive others. We saw this with the cigarette companies and every other corporation looking to manipulate public opinion. The evidence is very clear, liars today use "scientific studies" to promote their lies. The Bible tells you that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Well, today that means he disguises himself as a "scientist" with support of "scientific studies". Most, the majority, of so called scientific research is not replicable. That means the majority of what is published is a lie.

What I am saying is a response to your "big question" -- The big question for Christians is, why after resurrecting did Jesus disappear? Why didn't he "rule and reign"?

Science cannot answer this question because ruling and reigning requires dealing with liars. In the last 2,000 years we have made tremendous scientific advances. Yet have we made any advances at all in our government? According to Awareness human government is simply a totalitarian system of controlling people with food.

That in turn is what "civilization" is. And it's that system, a system that rejects trusting in God for our daily bread, that required the development of civilization, leading to our present day totalitarian system, a system of control of the ever growing masses with more and more food (more food = more population growth = more of what you call eusocialism).

Moreover that system -- of control with food by agriculture -- is what made us humans social creatures, and builders of civilizations.

This "totalitarian system of controlling people with food" uses "science" as a cloak.

The Bible is not versus Truth, but much of what is called "science" is contrary to the truth. The most incredible example in recent days was the mortgage crisis. Yet it is simply the recurring theme of those in power lying to the masses in the guise of "experts".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So in order to counter that claim you seek to bring science down to the Bible's level, by claiming it's mythology too.

In order to counter the lies and falsehood I seek to know the truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This "totalitarian system of controlling people with food" uses "science" as a cloak.

If you want to know more about the birth of totalitarian agriculture read Daniel Quinn.

Originally Posted by Z

The Bible is not versus Truth, but much of what is called "science" is contrary to the truth. The most incredible example in recent days was the mortgage crisis. Yet it is simply the recurring theme of those in power lying to the masses in the guise of "experts".

It's hard to denigrate science on this WWW internet.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's hard to denigrate science on this WWW internet.

It is easy. The mortgage crisis, the Iraq war was fought because they had weapons of mass destruction, cigarette companies denial that cigarettes were a drug, official explanation of 9/11, etc.

Is the www internet solving the problem of governments lying to people to control them?

[zeek]

Amir Aczel, Israeli-born American lecturer in mathematics in Why Science Does Not Disprove God discusses the coevolution of very early science and religion. He cites Max Jammer, an Israeli physicist who traces the genesis of the God of the Old Testament as a synthesis of gods representing different physical forces into a single deity. According to Hammer one of the Hebrew names for God, Shaddai, originates in the Semitic root shadda, which means “to have great force.”

[ZNPaaneah]

Recent news release on google AI being able to predict mortality with much greater accuracy.

This is one of the criteria of science. If you have truly discovered something then it will improve your predictive capability. For example, flipping a switch causes the electric item to turn on and do the work you anticipated. Meteorologists predicting the weather. Climatologists modeling climate change with a high degree of accuracy.

This is also referred to in the Bible, if a prophet makes a prediction that is bogus you need to stone that prophet. It is a process. We make a model based on our existing understanding, the model's prediction is not accurate. This causes us to return to the drawing board, figure out what we are missing, what we are not taking into account, tweeking the value we are placing on our factors, etc. But we do it all the time. Think about the spaghetti models that predict the path of a hurricane, generally the best prediction is the average of all the different models.

However, this is an example of what I would say is agreement between the Bible and science.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Recent news release on google AI being able to predict mortality with much greater accuracy.

This is one of the criteria of science. If you have truly discovered something then it will improve your predictive capability. For example, flipping a switch causes the electric item to turn on and do the work you anticipated. Meteorologists predicting the weather. Climatologists modeling climate change with a high degree of accuracy.

This is also referred to in the Bible, if a prophet makes a prediction that is bogus you need to stone that prophet. It is a process. We make a model based on our existing understanding, the model's prediction is not accurate. This causes us to return to the drawing board, figure out what we are missing, what we are not taking into account, tweeking the value we are placing on our factors, etc. But we do it all the time. Think about the spaghetti models that predict the path of a hurricane, generally the best prediction is the average of all the different models.

However, this is an example of what I would say is agreement between the Bible and science.

It's kind of hard to go back to the drawing board after you've been stoned to death. The prophets were claiming to have gotten their truth from an infallible God. They weren't merely testing a hunch or intuition. There are big differences between modern science and biblical religion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is easy. The mortgage crisis, the Iraq war was fought because they had weapons of mass destruction, cigarette companies denial that cigarettes were a drug, official explanation of 9/11, etc.

Is the www internet solving the problem of governments lying to people to control them?

Bad, bad science. But not as bad as God in the Bible.

Maybe there's a common denominator. They're both a result of humans.

[ZNPaaneah]

According to the Bible the kingdom is built on Righteousness.

Similarly, the fundamental principle for the industrial revolution is "flatness".

You cannot have absolutely precise instruments unless you know they are sitting absolutely flat. Therefore it was the discovery of a technique to accomplish this absolute flatness that allowed us to become precise. The industrial revolution began with the steam engine, which ingeniously, will reveal any imperfection in the design by leaking steam, lots of steam. The real issue with designing the steam engine was not the idea, rather it was being able to make the machine precise enough so that it did not leak steam.

What is interesting is that you cannot achieve precise flatness unless you grind three plates. So then, the Industrial revolution is built on flatness, and it is a 3-1 flatness.

In the Bible the Kingdom is built on righteousness, and it is the righteousness of a 3-1 God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to the Bible the kingdom is built on Righteousness.

Similarly, the fundamental principle for the industrial revolution is "flatness".

You cannot have absolutely precise instruments unless you know they are sitting absolutely flat. Therefore it was the discovery of a technique to accomplish this absolute flatness that allowed us to become precise. The industrial revolution began with the steam engine, which ingeniously, will reveal any imperfection in the design by leaking steam, lots of steam. The real issue with designing the steam engine was not the idea, rather it was being able to make the machine precise enough so that it did not leak steam.

What is interesting is that you cannot achieve precise flatness unless you grind three plates. So then, the Industrial revolution is built on flatness, and it is a 3-1 flatness.

In the Bible the Kingdom is built on righteousness, and it is the righteousness of a 3-1 God.

Amen brother. I think you cook up your own personal Bible related hermeneutic contrivances just for the fun of it.

I have to admit, it's cute.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Amen brother. I think you cook up your own personal Bible related hermeneutic contrivances just for the fun of it.

I have to admit, it's cute.

Just like the scientists are prone to lie and use the pretense of "science" to intimidate the gullible, so also the engineers.

Eli Whitney (inventor of the cotton gin) was notorious for being a charlatan. He conned the US govt into giving him a big contract to make guns for the US military under the false pretense that he had made all the parts interchangeable. It was a lie and his con probably played a major role in the Whitehouse being burned down by the British in 1814.

Once again, the issue was in recognizing a false prophet, something not even Thomas Jefferson was very skilled at doing. But something the Bible is very explicit in teaching us how to do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just like the scientists are prone to lie and use the pretense of "science" to intimidate the gullible, so also the engineers.

Eli Whitney (inventor of the cotton gin) was notorious for being a charlatan. He conned the US govt into giving him a big contract to make guns for the US military under the false pretense that he had made all the parts interchangeable. It was a lie and his con probably played a major role in the Whitehouse being burned down by the British in 1814.

Once again, the issue was in recognizing a false prophet, something not even Thomas Jefferson was very skilled at doing. But something the Bible is very explicit in teaching us how to do.

Thanks. You convinced me. The Bible is something special.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks. You convinced me. The Bible is something special.

What! Really! I will treasure this post!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What! Really! I will treasure this post!

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Temperature in Jet engine is 1800 degrees C. That is above the melting temperature of the materials that are used to build the engine. The turbine blades are rotating so fast that the force exerted on each one is equivalent to 11,000 lbs. These two facts would appear to make jet engines an impossibility. But as we know they aren’t.

I would not go so far as to say that jet engines are a miracle. But they are surely poetry in motion, a masterpiece of engineering.

In the same way there are things in the Bible that seem to completely defy logic. They aren’t “scientific”, they are impossible. I would argue they are every bit as scientific and impossible as a jet engine.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Temperature in Jet engine is 1800 degrees C. That is above the melting temperature of the materials that are used to build the engine. The turbine blades are rotating so fast that the force exerted on each one is equivalent to 11,000 lbs. These two facts would appear to make jet engines an impossibility. But as we know they aren’t.

I would not go so far as to say that jet engines are a miracle. But they are surely poetry in motion, a masterpiece of engineering.

In the same way there are things in the Bible that seem to completely defy logic. They aren’t “scientific”, they are impossible. I would argue they are every bit as scientific and impossible as a jet engine.

And you would be wrong. The Jet engine is based on science -- the natural -- but the impossible in the Bible is supposedly based on supernatural, not the natural. Like you stated already, correlation is not causation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you would be wrong. The Jet engine is based on science -- the natural -- but the impossible in the Bible is supposedly based on supernatural, not the natural. Like you stated already, correlation is not causation.

Like what? Can you give me an example?

[ZNPaaneah]

The Bible refers to God as light and also to the word of God as a lamp that shines a light.

Science has learned some very interesting things about light as we try to make cameras and telescopes. The precision required is truly amazing. But simply being precise is not good enough. We need our lenses to be made of two different materials with different optical properties. We pair lenses with different refractive index's so that we can minimize flare and other optical aberrations.

I think that applies to the Bible. If you consider that the person interpreting the scripture is the "lens" through which the light is traveling then you need to pair at least two "lens" of contrasting refractive index. This is the major error many make in reading the scripture, they use a "single lens" a "great apostle" to dominate their interpretation. Using WL as an example of this error we see the "lens flare" in his interpretation of Psalms, Proverbs, and the book of James.

On the one hand you need a very precisely ground lens, similar to the Apostle Paul training under Gamaliel, on the other hand you need to pair this lens with others of different refractive index (align Paul with Peter, James and John).

[ZNPaaneah]

Anyone read Pollan's latest book about "changing your mind"? I just started it and it is incredibly relevant to this thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

The movie "The Exodus Decoded" does an excellent job of providing the archaeologic and geologic evidence that confirms the Exodus account in the Bible.

They show various hieroglyphics from Egypt in various museums that identify the Jews migration into Egypt, Joseph, the Pharaoh that was ruling at the time of the Exodus, references to the plagues, reference to the exodus of the Jews, and reference to Moses. They also found a very interesting account of the parting of the "reed sea" in both Egyptian hieroglyphics and Manoan stellas. The Manoan stellas show Egyptian chariots chasing a man with a staff, then he turns to face them, and then the chariots are overturned in the water.

The geologic evidence they provide is compelling in that it ties the ten plagues to the time of the Santorini volcano and they are able to tie the ten plagues described in the Bible to current events in the 1980s that also took place due to seismic activity.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you would be wrong. The Jet engine is based on science -- the natural -- but the impossible in the Bible is supposedly based on supernatural, not the natural. Like you stated already, correlation is not causation.

Still wondering what you are talking about. The account of the flood with Noah is based on Science. The account of the ten plagues and the parting of the Reed Sea is based on science. Even the resurrection of Jesus, as I have pointed out in extensive detail, the shroud of Turin is the most carefully and thoroughly studied artifact on Earth having been examined by every form of forensic science known to man.

You remind me of the German scientists who claimed Einstein wasn't a scientist. In fact, ironic as it is, you remind me of those "scientists" who claimed a jet engine was impossible and only a fanciful imagination, not based on real science.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Still wondering what you are talking about. The account of the flood with Noah is based on Science. The account of the ten plagues and the parting of the Reed Sea is based on science. Even the resurrection of Jesus, as I have pointed out in extensive detail, the shroud of Turin is the most carefully and thoroughly studied artifact on Earth having been examined by every form of forensic science known to man.

You remind me of the German scientists who claimed Einstein wasn't a scientist. In fact, ironic as it is, you remind me of those "scientists" who claimed a jet engine was impossible and only a fanciful imagination, not based on real science.

Thanks for the belly laughs bro ZNP. Cuz you've got to be pulling my leg.

Er, well ... it could just be your fetish acting up again. I can't talk. I've got a Mail Online fetish.

Let me see. Surely I can blend my fetish with yours. I'll search Mail Online, and see if they have gospel on science in the Bible. That should settle this matter once and for all. My fetish trumps yours.

So I go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html. The first thing I notice is that I'm not taking my fetish very seriously. I noticed a "Login" button, and realized that I'm not even a Mail Online cult member. Cuz of the LC, I must be gun shy. Okay. I can always sign up later. Back on my mission, to find the truth of the Bible being science.

So I start my search, in the Science and Tech section of Mail Online. My Bible. My Bible, by the way, has been kicking the behind of your Bible for centuries.

Nope. I don't find anything about the Bible being science. Science has won again.

But thanks bro ZNP. Without you I wouldn't have found out about :

The cluster, known as NGC 6139, has hundreds of thousands of stars within it which are believed to have been formed over 10 billion years ago.

Or the shapeshifting flying dragon robot.

Are those scientific discoveries in the Bible? I can't wait to hear your response.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But thanks bro ZNP. Without you I wouldn't have found out about :

The cluster, known as NGC 6139, has hundreds of thousands of stars within it which are believed to have been formed over 10 billion years ago.

Or the shapeshifting flying dragon robot.

Are those scientific discoveries in the Bible? I can't wait to hear your response.

No idea what you are talking about.

My point is not that the Bible is some kind of scientific treatise or theory, but rather the claims that you and others make that much of the stories in the Bible (creation story, Noah's ark, ten plagues, crossing the Red (Reed) sea, resurrection, etc) are myths and are supernatural events that contradict known science, that this claim is false.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No idea what you are talking about.

You didn't take a look at the link I provided to Mail Online.

Originally Posted by Z

My point is not that the Bible is some kind of scientific treatise or theory, but rather the claims that you and others make that much of the stories in the Bible (creation story, Noah's ark, ten plagues, crossing the Red (Reed) sea, resurrection, etc) are myths and are supernatural events that contradict known science, that this claim is false.

It's not false, however, that the books of the Bible were written 2000 and 3000 years ago, long before the advent of modern science.

So even if we assume that God is the greatest scientist since before the beginning, he was stuck dealing with and speaking thru, their very limited -- absent actually -- knowledge or reference to science.

They didn't explain things using the scientific method. They explained things using imaginings of supernatural causes. They couldn't help it, and shouldn't be faulted for it, cuz they didn't know any better. But you should.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

It.s not false, however, that the books of the Bible were written 2000 and 3000 years ago, long before the advent of modern science.

So even if we assume that God is the greatest scientist since before the beginning, he was stuck dealing with and speaking thru, their very limited -- absent actually -- knowledge or reference to science.

They didn't explain things using the scientific method. They explained things using imaginings of supernatural causes. They couldn't help it, and shouldn't be faulted for it, cuz they didn't know any better. But you should.

This is not accurate. The scientific method is simply a procedure by which we examine a hypothesis. If the observations are accurate and precise they are every bit as valuable as any observations we make today.

For example, saying that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is a very precise observation. It is also extremely useful because it rules out virtually every known natural phenomenon. Saying that the floods "went over the top of the highest mountains" is also a very precise observation that rules out virtually every known phenomenon. Finally, saying that a boat with specific dimensions was used in this flood is also incredible, that would rule out tsunami, or most flash floods. Taken together these three observations can eliminate many possible theories.

The observations in the Bible are precise, accurate and useful.

The Bible also provides theories that are testable. On the one hand it says that Man was formed from the dust of the ground, a very elegant way of stating the theory of evolution, and a theory which we have gathered a tremendous amount of evidence for. On the other hand it says that all creatures were created after their kind, the only exception is man who is made after the image and likeness of a corporate God. This is also something that scientists have come to realize with the work of Dr. E.O. Wilson. Man is unique among all species, the only one to evolve physically from a non eusocial species and yet He became eusocial through God's word, or God's breath.

There are many scientists who present theories first before they provide the experimental evidence to prove them. Darwin is one example, Einstein is another. He predicted gravity waves and bending of space time years, decades before we could prove these things experimentally.

Science has to be replicable. It is the most critical component. This is why the comparison of the 10 plagues in Egypt with the people killed in Camaroon in 1984 is critical.

Now it may appear to be "imaginings" or "supernatural cause" but the reality is we can understand these events scientifically and they are not supernatural.

For example, the miracle is not that the Nile turned red and all the fish died. That is explainable with very basic and reasonable natural phenomena. The miracle is that this took place when Moses put his rod into the water.

Likewise the events described during Noah's flood are not supernatural, they also can be explained scientifically. The miracle is that someone named Noah spent years building a boat prior to this meteor/comet striking the Indian ocean.

When the Bible describes Hail mixed with Ice falling in Egypt that is not "imagining" that is a physical phenomenon that can take place after a violent volcanic eruption. Again, what is amazing is not that, it is that Moses went to see Pharaoh and told him prior to it happening.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

As much as false science wants people to read the Bible as a fairy tale, and thus the rest of the Bible with skepticism as if written by fallible men, it is too bad that the skeptics do not apply that same standard to the falliblity of men in the false science that is the evolution theory.

This was from the conclusion in the first post.

I don't disagree with him that there is stuff that is "falsely called science". I have pointed out studies that have proven that the majority of "scientific papers" are not replicable and therefore are falsely called science.

Nor do I disagree that there are two different standards applied to science and the Bible. I have pointed out that the scientists who were brought into study the shroud of Turin concluded that the Shroud would have been deemed to have been authentic were it not for the implication of that conclusion.

But the third point, that these so called "scientists" want you to read the Bible like it is a fairy tale, this is the point of contention now. Yes, the description of the flood at Noah's time is unlike any weather related phenomenon. We do not get 40 days and 40 nights of rain worldwide, under any situations. Likewise it could not have possibly been a tsunami, there is no tsunami that could go over the top of the highest mountains, nor that would be worldwide. But the fact is that is what happened and it shows us what kind of an impact a large comet hitting the Indian Ocean would have at the end of the last ice age, at a time when large ice dams existed at the tops of the mountains, and at a time when sea level had fallen so that the "Black Sea" was an inland lake. These things have been proven scientifically and scientists no longer consider this to be "fairy tales".

Again, someone might think that Moses putting his rod into the Nile and causing it to become blood red and all the fish dying is a fairy tale. But we now know that in the event of seismic activity iron rich soil at the bottom of the river can be mixed with the river, rust, turn blood red, taking up all the oxygen and killing the fish. This has happened recently. We also know that although the river will become putrid with dead fish floating on top the frogs would be able to escape. We would also expect lice and flies to result from all these dead fish and frogs. However, had we not treated this account as a fairy tale but rather paid attention we might have figured out what had taken place. Because the second disturbance of the water released a huge amount of carbon dioxide, which resulted in asphyxiating people low to the ground (the first born who were given beds to sleep on in the ground floor whereas everyone else slept on the roof). This is what happened in Camaroon and we were all warned about this phenomenon but because of these imbeciles who thought it was a fairy tale no one paid attention.

[awareness]

Post left below.

Bro ZNP, it's not that I'm concerned about mythologies in the Bible, I'm more concerned about mythologies today.

And they are ubiquitous. In fact, it's pretty clear that you've developed your own personal mythology, about stories in the Bible. But it just looks like an overlay contrivance, of modern understandings upon ancient understandings.

Why you need to do this is beyond me. It's why I see it as your own personal fetish.

But more power to you ... maybe it's just one of your hobbies ... or a irrational obsession to prove the Bible true. Whatever. You seem to enjoy doing it. And it's harmless, unless it leads to harm to others.

And this Bible, you're obviously obsessed with proving accurate and true, has been used to support harmful mythologies. The Bible is full of 'em. And they can produce harmful mythologies today.

Like using Romans to support separating children from their parents, and putting them in cages. That's the mythology that concerns me.

Bottom line : The Good Book isn't always good ... as it can result in bad harmful mythologies ... as has been proven time and time again historically ... right up to today.

Harold-awareness

===============================

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is not accurate. The scientific method is simply a procedure by which we examine a hypothesis. If the observations are accurate and precise they are every bit as valuable as any observations we make today.

For example, saying that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is a very precise observation. It is also extremely useful because it rules out virtually every known natural phenomenon. Saying that the floods "went over the top of the highest mountains" is also a very precise observation that rules out virtually every known phenomenon. Finally, saying that a boat with specific dimensions was used in this flood is also incredible, that would rule out tsunami, or most flash floods. Taken together these three observations can eliminate many possible theories.

The observations in the Bible are precise, accurate and useful.

The Bible also provides theories that are testable. On the one hand it says that Man was formed from the dust of the ground, a very elegant way of stating the theory of evolution, and a theory which we have gathered a tremendous amount of evidence for. On the other hand it says that all creatures were created after their kind, the only exception is man who is made after the image and likeness of a corporate God. This is also something that scientists have come to realize with the work of Dr. E.O. Wilson. Man is unique among all species, the only one to evolve physically from a non eusocial species and yet He became eusocial through God's word, or God's breath.

There are many scientists who present theories first before they provide the experimental evidence to prove them. Darwin is one example, Einstein is another. He predicted gravity waves and bending of space time years, decades before we could prove these things experimentally.

Science has to be replicable. It is the most critical component. This is why the comparison of the 10 plagues in Egypt with the people killed in Camaroon in 1984 is critical.

Now it may appear to be "imaginings" or "supernatural cause" but the reality is we can understand these events scientifically and they are not supernatural.

For example, the miracle is not that the Nile turned red and all the fish died. That is explainable with very basic and reasonable natural phenomena. The miracle is that this took place when Moses put his rod into the water.

Likewise the events described during Noah's flood are not supernatural, they also can be explained scientifically. The miracle is that someone named Noah spent years building a boat prior to this meteor/comet striking the Indian ocean.

When the Bible describes Hail mixed with Ice falling in Egypt that is not "imagining" that is a physical phenomenon that can take place after a violent volcanic eruption. Again, what is amazing is not that, it is that Moses went to see Pharaoh and told him prior to it happening.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Post left below.

Bro ZNP, it's not that I'm concerned about mythologies in the Bible, I'm more concerned about mythologies today...

And this Bible, you're obviously obsessed with proving accurate and true, has been used to support harmful mythologies. The Bible is full of 'em. And they can produce harmful mythologies today.

Like using Romans to support separating children from their parents, and putting them in cages. That's the mythology that concerns me.

Bottom line : The Good Book isn't always good ... as it can result in bad harmful mythologies ... as has been proven time and time again historically ... right up to today.

Harold-awareness

Just because people use the Bible to justify their actions doesn't mean it actually does. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, what better way to do that then to wrap yourself in the Bible. But that use is bogus.

Take your example of putting kids in cages. I provided the accurate Bible reference relevant to people seeking asylum -- a refuge city. Just because Sessions wants to pretend he knows the Bible and that his actions are justified by the Bible don't make it so.

Einstein was a pacifist, he thought it was a terrible crime when his colleague invented poison gas in WWI to help Germany. Yet his theories were the basis for the atomic bomb. The fact that some people are looking to make bigger and bigger bombs doesn't make Einstein a killer nor does it mean his theory is somehow evil. What it does mean is there is a lot of power in truth and unless you know the truth you will remain enslaved to those who would bring you into subjection. They come in many guises, some falsely calling themselves scientists, others disguised as an angel of light.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just because people use the Bible to justify their actions doesn't mean it actually does. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, what better way to do that then to wrap yourself in the Bible. But that use is bogus.

Take your example of putting kids in cages. I provided the accurate Bible reference relevant to people seeking asylum -- a refuge city. Just because Sessions wants to pretend he knows the Bible and that his actions are justified by the Bible don't make it so.

Einstein was a pacifist, he thought it was a terrible crime when his colleague invented poison gas in WWI to help Germany. Yet his theories were the basis for the atomic bomb. The fact that some people are looking to make bigger and bigger bombs doesn't make Einstein a killer nor does it mean his theory is somehow evil. What it does mean is there is a lot of power in truth and unless you know the truth you will remain enslaved to those who would bring you into subjection. They come in many guises, some falsely calling themselves scientists, others disguised as an angel of light.

So good can be used for bad, and darkness can be light. That's way worse than the serpent in the garden.

That serpent? Is the view that the serpent walked and talked a scientific view? or a mythic view of things?

And can it be scientifically proven that Michael the archangel argued with the devil over the body of Moses? Or is that a supernatural view of things ... perhaps just a mythology?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Anyone read Pollan's latest book about "changing your mind"? I just started it and it is incredibly relevant to this thread.

I think one of the interesting conclusions of various brain research is that the ego is a construct of the mind. They have detected a region of the brain that controls the rest of the brain, gives us our ego, and in a variety of "illnesses" becomes overbearing and even abusive. Addiction being the worst example. Interestingly if you "get rid" of the self you also get rid of the fear of death. It seems that the only thing that is going to die is this construct in the brain. Likewise they are getting their best results treating addiction by "erasing" the self, at least temporarily. Apparently anxiety and depression are also related to the ego.

One thing the ego does is control the amount of information we are able to receive, filtering out a lot. This is why if you see a concave face your mind will instantly convert it to convex. But when the patients are treated with psychedelic drugs they will see the concave face as being concave.

They have had excellent success treating people with terminal illnesses, after one treatment they no longer fear death. Likewise the success treating addiction has been excellent as well. Once people get the treatment they see their addiction in a completely different light and that image is enough for them to change.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think one of the interesting conclusions of various brain research is that the ego is a construct of the mind. They have detected a region of the brain that controls the rest of the brain, gives us our ego, and in a variety of "illnesses" becomes overbearing and even abusive. Addiction being the worst example. Interestingly if you "get rid" of the self you also get rid of the fear of death. It seems that the only thing that is going to die is this construct in the brain. Likewise they are getting their best results treating addiction by "erasing" the self, at least temporarily. Apparently anxiety and depression are also related to the ego.

One thing the ego does is control the amount of information we are able to receive, filtering out a lot. This is why if you see a concave face your mind will instantly convert it to convex. But when the patients are treated with psychedelic drugs they will see the concave face as being concave.

They have had excellent success treating people with terminal illnesses, after one treatment they no longer fear death. Likewise the success treating addiction has been excellent as well. Once people get the treatment they see their addiction in a completely different light and that image is enough for them to change.

Right. That's Pollan's thesis in a nutshell.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. That's Pollan's thesis in a nutshell.

I have a Christian friend that told me that there'd be no "I" in heaven. Cuz there'd only be one "I," God. That makes sense, but then I won't be going to heaven.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have a Christian friend that told me that there'd be no "I" in heaven. Cuz there'd only be one "I," God. That makes sense, but then I won't be going to heaven.

After reading that book it seems that it is the "I" that will be judged at the coming judgement. It is our "I" that fears death, not the rest of us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

After reading that book it seems that it is the "I" that will be judged at the coming judgement. It is our "I" that fears death, not the rest of us.

How can the "I" be judged if it is merely an illusion in the ultimate scheme of things?

[zeek]

We former LCM members have first-hand experience in an authoritarian group. Here is scientific evidence connecting white American's intolerance with support for authoritarian rule. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ism-ncna877886

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

We former LCM members have first hand experience in an authoritarian group. Here is scientific evidence connecting white American's intolerance with support for authoritarian rule. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ism-ncna877886

Certainly my LCM experience turned me off to authoritarian rule. Did it also turn me off from white anxiety? I don't know.

But it's pretty clear, right now there's a lot of white anxiety out there in America. Thank God I don't suffer from it. Prolly one reason I don't like Trump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

We former LCM members have first hand experience in an authoritarian group. Here is scientific evidence connecting white American's intolerance with support for authoritarian rule. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ism-ncna877886

This is the kind of biased conclusions and reporting that causes conservatives of all color to question the motives of the liberal Press. The opening caption reads, "The main threat to our democracy may be the hardening of one particular political ideology."

Why are conservative views called "hardened political ideology" when they have been around far longer than progressive views?

Are not progressive views also a "hardened political ideology?" Not to mention hypocritical, e.g. separating children from illegal immigrants, mandated by law, practiced under Obama, yet now used to condemn Trump.

Isn't the "main threat to our democracy" the rejection of a democratically elected President?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can the "I" be judged if it is merely an illusion in the ultimate scheme of things?

The I is not an illusion, it is a creation. The "I" exercises dominion over your life. It can become abusive or it can cede dominion to the Lord. Confessing that it is not capable to rule alone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Isn't the "main threat to our democracy" the rejection of a democratically elected President?

I think the main threat to any government is unrighteousness.

That is the fundamental problem with trying to right the wrongs of the past by balancing out past unrighteousness with present unrighteousness. I am referring to Affirmative Action. How do you expect people to react? Obviously if you get into the school you wanted to get into regardless of affirmative action you might not care, but if you are one of the ones who lost out because of it, then one would think you would care.

A second example is the favorable trade deals we made in the past to help bolster the economy of some countries so that they would stay in our sphere of influence.

A third example is the Supreme court deciding that abortion is the law of the entire US.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the main threat to any government is unrighteousness.

That is the fundamental problem with trying to right the wrongs of the past by balancing out past unrighteousness with present unrighteousness. I am referring to Affirmative Action. How do you expect people to react? Obviously if you get into the school you wanted to get into regardless of affirmative action you might not care, but if you are one of the ones who lost out because of it, then one would think you would care.

A second example is the favorable trade deals we made in the past to help bolster the economy of some countries so that they would stay in our sphere of influence.

A third example is the Supreme court deciding that abortion is the law of the entire US.

The first law of Government Unrighteousness is once they turn on the spigot, they can never shut it off.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The I is not an illusion, it is a creation. The "I" exercises dominion over your life. It can become abusive or it can cede dominion to the Lord. Confessing that it is not capable to rule alone.

Oh okay I thought we were talking about Michael Pollan's thesis. This sounds like your theory not his.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh okay I thought we were talking about Michael Pollan's thesis. This sounds like your theory not his.

PSYCHEDELICS! There's theories out there that surmise religion was born from them. That maybe they gave birth to the Big I in the sky, sorta thing.

That being wildly said. The Eastern holy books certainly reveal that their religions were birthed with The Sacred Soma.

Not sure how this relates to Pollen's new book. I haven't read it. Being a free love hippie before coming in the LC, I'm no stranger to psychedelics. And over the years I've read much on them, including research into their uses and benefits. It's not new with Pollen.

Taking them, changes the user, the 'subject' if you will. I've lost the sense of "I". I know what it's like. I suppose that's why reading "not I but Christ" stuck with me.

I think at The Bema the question will perchance be, "Can you let go of that "I"? If not, "Go suffer with it. No "I's" allowed in here."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

PSYCHEDELICS! There's theories out there that surmise religion was born from them. That maybe they gave birth to the Big I in the sky, sorta thing.

That being wildly said. The Eastern holy books certainly reveal that their religions were birthed with The Sacred Soma.

Not sure how this relates to Pollen's new book. I haven't read it. Being a free love hippie before coming in the LC, I'm no stranger to psychedelics. And over the years I've read much on them, including research into their uses and benefits. It's not new with Pollen.

Taking them, changes the user, the 'subject' if you will. I've lost the sense of "I". I know what it's like. I suppose that's why reading "not I but Christ" stuck with me.

I think at The Bema the question will perchance be, "Can you let go of that "I"? If not, "Go suffer with it. No "I's" allowed in here."

I haven't read Pollan's book either. I heard him discuss it with Terry Gross on Fresh Air. In fairness the ego is not entirely an illusion since it's locus has been found in the brain according to neuroscientists. It serves an adaptive function as Freud theorized earlier. Nevertheless Pollan said that he saw his ego spread over the landscape like paint after he ingested psychedelic mushrooms. Hey maybe not only Soma but Mana was a psychedelic mushroom. Perhaps the children of Israel didn't wander in the wilderness for 40 years, they were just tripping and it felt like it. A trip on LSD or mescaline can seem like a lifetime.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

PSYCHEDELICS! There's theories out there that surmise religion was born from them. That maybe they gave birth to the Big I in the sky, sorta thing.

That being wildly said. The Eastern holy books certainly reveal that their religions were birthed with The Sacred Soma.

Not sure how this relates to Pollen's new book. I haven't read it. Being a free love hippie before coming in the LC, I'm no stranger to psychedelics. And over the years I've read much on them, including research into their uses and benefits. It's not new with Pollen.

Taking them, changes the user, the 'subject' if you will. I've lost the sense of "I". I know what it's like. I suppose that's why reading "not I but Christ" stuck with me.

I think at The Bema the question will perchance be, "Can you let go of that "I"? If not, "Go suffer with it. No "I's" allowed in here."

Doesn't really relate to Pollan's book. He goes to great lengths not to include religions. He does refer to these "guides" as having an eclectic collection from a variety of religions in their office. He also refers to most experiences as being "spiritual".

The description of his own experiences describes being one with all of life.

Likewise the Bible says that Jesus is the way and that no one comes to the Father apart from Him.

So Pollan's book doesn't get into the Bible at all. However, it does get into science. They feel they can see where the sense of self and the ego is located in the brain. The drugs turn this portion of the brain off. Imagine a welder using welding glasses, they block out most of the incoming light. That is how he describes the self. So then when you take these "glasses" off you see things in a very different way, but it would be difficult to operate and function in life without these glasses. Hence these drugs are not addictive. On the one hand many people describe their experience with these drugs as one of the most significant of their life. Also, the experiences seem to have a lasting positive effect on people in many ways, yet there is no sense that those who tried these need to take the drugs again and again.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Doesn't really relate to Pollan's book. He goes to great lengths not to include religions. He does refer to these "guides" as having an eclectic collection from a variety of religions in their office. He also refers to most experiences as being "spiritual".

The description of his own experiences describes being one with all of life.

Likewise the Bible says that Jesus is the way and that no one comes to the Father apart from Him.

So Pollan's book doesn't get into the Bible at all. However, it does get into science. They feel they can see where the sense of self and the ego is located in the brain. The drugs turn this portion of the brain off. Imagine a welder using welding glasses, they block out most of the incoming light. That is how he describes the self. So then when you take these "glasses" off you see things in a very different way, but it would be difficult to operate and function in life without these glasses. Hence these drugs are not addictive. On the one hand many people describe their experience with these drugs as one of the most significant of their life. Also, the experiences seem to have a lasting positive effect on people in many ways, yet there is no sense that those who tried these need to take the drugs again and again.

People today are going to Ayahuasca retreat's, looking for lasting positive effects. Ayahuasca is a entheogen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Doesn't really relate to Pollan's book. He goes to great lengths not to include religions. He does refer to these "guides" as having an eclectic collection from a variety of religions in their office. He also refers to most experiences as being "spiritual".

So are you saying that spirituality is unrelated to religion and it's origins?

The description of his own experiences describes being one with all of life. Likewise the Bible says that Jesus is the way and that no one comes to the Father apart from Him.

Are you saying that being one with all life is coming to the Father through Jesus?

So Pollan's book doesn't get into the Bible at all. However, it does get into science. They feel they can see where the sense of self and the ego is located in the brain. The drugs turn this portion of the brain off. Imagine a welder using welding glasses, they block out most of the incoming light. That is how he describes the self. So then when you take these "glasses" off you see things in a very different way, but it would be difficult to operate and function in life without these glasses. Hence these drugs are not addictive. On the one hand many people describe their experience with these drugs as one of the most significant of their life. Also, the experiences seem to have a lasting positive effect on people in many ways, yet there is no sense that those who tried these need to take the drugs again and again.

Who said anything about psychedelics being addictive?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

People today are going to Ayahuasca retreat's, looking for lasting positive effects. Ayahuasca is a entheogen.

The US government has decided that the use of Ayahuasca is a matter of freedom of religion (I agree with them) and as a result there are recognized "churches" where you can go to try this drug.

I do not disagree that this can be viewed as a "spiritual" experience, and also an enlightening experience. Pollan describes hearing a YoYo Ma song while on one of his "trips" and it is certainly a "spiritual" experience. But these don't lead you to God the Father.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So are you saying that spirituality is unrelated to religion and it's origins?



Are you saying that being one with all life is coming to the Father through Jesus?



Who said anything about psychedelics being addictive?

I think the experience can be a positive one for most people (Let's exclude schizophrenics for the moment). I think it is definitely something that should be investigated scientifically for use in treating a variety of illnesses, especially addiction and PTSD. I think the experiences that people have had are real and genuine, and that the serenity and peace they have prior to death due to this experience should be seen as evidence of the value of spiritual experiences.

However, since this thread is on the Bible and the context of this forum is of born again Christians I think it is important to note that I am not aware of any evidence that it would help someone with their relationship with Jesus or walk with the Lord. I could be mistaken, there was one very famous study done that might suggest it could, but it was done by Timothy Leary who for the most part has been discredited.

What I found fascinating by the book and extremely relevant to this thread is that they have come to the realization that having a positive "trip" when using these drugs is very much dependent on the guide and that these guides have become more and more like Shamans and Priests. Even the best hospitals in the country where the research is being done adopt this approach.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The US government has decided that the use of Ayahuasca is a matter of freedom of religion (I agree with them) and as a result there are recognized "churches" where you can go to try this drug.

I do not disagree that this can be viewed as a "spiritual" experience, and also an enlightening experience. Pollan describes hearing a YoYo Ma song while on one of his "trips" and it is certainly a "spiritual" experience. But these don't lead you to God the Father.

It became a cliche that people have found God on psychedelics. But ya gotta be careful. It was a heroic dose, where I was convinced I was in the very presence of God, that eventually led me to the local church. So danger, danger. Be careful.

Studies have been going on a long time. You might like to catch the movie "Mad to be Normal" a biopic of renowned Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing, known as the "Acid-Marxist," and the Scottish Timothy Leary, and his treatment of schizophrenia. Bro zeek prolly knows about this leader of anti-psychiatry.

[zeek]

Here's a bit of what Pollan said to Terry Gross:

"So there is an openness that you might not have seen 20 or 30 years ago to look for new ideas. And one of those ideas was very alive in the '50s and early '60s, and that thread of research was dropped after the moral panic about LSD in the early '70s. Research shut down, but it was actually very promising. There - I didn't realize, but there had been a thousand peer-reviewed studies of psychedelics before the mid-'60s, 40,000 research subjects, six international conferences on LSD conducted by psychiatrists and psychologists.

So there's an effort beginning in the '90s - a renaissance, really - to pick up that thread and see how these drugs might help. The way they're being used is in a very kind of controlled or guided setting."

So, I'm happy to see you open to the evidence that these substances may have therapeutic value, ZNP. I tripped six times on LSD and mescaline before I turned 20. The insights that I had led me to accepting Christ as my personal savior and committing my life to Christ. But, I'm not suggesting that everyone would have that result. They were powerful experiences and I think the practice of taking the drugs in a controlled environment with a therapist is wise. In a way it seems to parallel the ancient practice of ingesting Ayahuasca in the presence of an experienced shaman. I know folks who feel they have been helped immensely dong that.

The book by R.D. Laing that I found most illuminating wasn't about psychedelic experience though I read several of those books too. It was The Divided Self in which he presents a persuasive phenomenological description of what it must be like to be a certain kind of individual which would now corresponds with schizotypal personality disorder in the DSM. Upon reading it years ago, I thought it showed remarkable empathy for the patient but, it's possible it could have been based largely on his analysis of himself.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a bit of what Pollan said to Terry Gross:

"So there is an openness that you might not have seen 20 or 30 years ago to look for new ideas. And one of those ideas was very alive in the '50s and early '60s, and that thread of research was dropped after the moral panic about LSD in the early '70s. Research shut down, but it was actually very promising. There - I didn't realize, but there had been a thousand peer-reviewed studies of psychedelics before the mid-'60s, 40,000 research subjects, six international conferences on LSD conducted by psychiatrists and psychologists.

So there's an effort beginning in the '90s - a renaissance, really - to pick up that thread and see how these drugs might help. The way they're being used is in a very kind of controlled or guided setting."

So, I'm happy to see you open to the evidence that these substances may have therapeutic value, ZNP. I tripped six times on LSD and mescaline before I turned 20. The insights that I had led me to accepting Christ as my personal savior and committing my life to Christ. But, I'm not suggesting that everyone would have that result. They were powerful experiences and I think the practice of taking the drugs in a controlled environment with a therapist is wise. In a way it seems to parallel the ancient practice of ingesting Ayahuasca in the presence of an experienced shaman. I know folks who feel they have been helped immensely dong that.

The book by R.D. Laing that I found most illuminating wasn't about psychedelic experience though I read several of those books too. It was The Divided Self in which he presents a persuasive phenomenological description of what it must be like to be a certain kind of individual which would now corresponds with schizotypal personality disorder in the DSM. Upon reading it years ago, I thought it showed remarkable empathy for the patient but, it's possible it could have been based largely on his analysis of himself.

So you and Awareness have first hand experiences, you both saw these as spiritual experiences, and in both of your cases it led you to the Lord. That said I doubt Ohio would see that as much of a certification.

One thing I found interesting is that the so called "moral panic" was based on Nixon realizing that people who tried these drugs no longer supported the war in Vietnam. I also think it is outrageous for someone like Nixon to decide to outlaw mushrooms which have been around since before Man was here.

What I don't understand is the purpose for these mushrooms to produce these drugs. What benefit does it confer on the mushroom?

As for me I would be happy if we could do some rigorous tests to see if these things can truly be beneficial for PTSD, various forms of addiction, and the terminally ill. I was convinced by his book that these things are truly worth investigating. I was less convinced of their benefit to the healthy, though not opposed. I thought the discussion about micro dosing to improve creativity was worth further study. But the evidence he provided was only anecdotal, so it was hardly compelling.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you and Awareness have first hand experiences, you both saw these as spiritual experiences, and in both of your cases it led you to the Lord. That said I doubt Ohio would see that as much of a certification.

One thing I found interesting is that the so called "moral panic" was based on Nixon realizing that people who tried these drugs no longer supported the war in Vietnam. I also think it is outrageous for someone like Nixon to decide to outlaw mushrooms which have been around since before Man was here.

What I don't understand is the purpose for these mushrooms to produce these drugs. What benefit does it confer on the mushroom?

As for me I would be happy if we could do some rigorous tests to see if these things can truly be beneficial for PTSD, various forms of addiction, and the terminally ill. I was convinced by his book that these things are truly worth investigating. I was less convinced of their benefit to the healthy, though not opposed. I thought the discussion about micro dosing to improve creativity was worth further study. But the evidence he provided was only anecdotal, so it was hardly compelling.

This site focuses on the scientific research on the subject: http://www.maps.org

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

This site focuses on the scientific research on the subject: http://www.maps.org

A couple of years ago I was reading about consciousness while waiting to see my neurologist. So since I thought he might know something about it I brought it up to the Doc.

He told me that the University of Arizona was a leader in the study and research of consciousness --

-- 'awareness' btw --

So I looked into the UofA and consciousness, and lo and behold I ran into :

Consciousness Studies
The study of consciousness has
remained a difficult topic in the sciences
and humanities. Anthropology's
biocultural approach and
neurophenomenological approaches,
provide great benefits in superseding
the paradigm bound constraints of
science. A significant application of
anthropological methods in the study of
consciousness has involved the
study of the "sacred plants," also known
as the hallucinogens,_
psychedelics and entheogens. These
substances provide special
perspectives on the nature of
consciousness and the spirit world.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~atmxw/constud.html

The next time I saw my neurologist I said, "So Doc, are you trying to turn me on ... to hallucinogenic entheogens?" He got a kick out of it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

A couple of years ago I was reading about consciousness while waiting to see my neurologist. So since I thought he might know something about it I brought it up to the Doc.

He told me that the University of Arizona was a leader in the study and research of consciousness --

-- 'awareness' btw --

Was your "heroic" dose of hallucinogens related to your name of choice -- Awareness? If so, would you say that this was a very important experience in your life? I know you said it led you to the LC, but that kind of muddies the water.

[zeek]

Hey ZNP, I floated your hypothesis that human language is an evolutionary process that began when a hominid was infected by an alien life form that generated the language meme on a philosophy forum here http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic...04738#p2704738

That hypothesis is not unlike Terrance McKenna's proposal that the transformation from humans' early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in its diet, an event that according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BCE (which is when he believed that the species diverged from the Homo genus). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terenc...uman_evolution

I think McKenna's speculated that the mushroom somehow are of alien origin as well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hey ZNP, I floated your hypothesis that human language is an evolutionary process that began when a hominid was infected by an alien life form that generated the language meme on a philosophy forum here http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic...04738#p2704738

I had no idea I had hypothesized this. Can you point me to the post that is the basis for this conclusion?

Originally Posted by zeek

That hypothesis is not unlike Terrance McKenna's proposal that the transformation from humans' early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in its diet, an event that according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BCE (which is when he believed that the species diverged from the Homo genus). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terenc...uman_evolution

I think McKenna's speculated that the mushroom somehow are of alien origin as well.

I do think that it is a valid scientific question concerning mushrooms, how does the hallucinogenic drugs in the mushroom make it more fit for survival?

I do not see any basis to tie these mushrooms into the development of human language, not that I have studied mushrooms that much other than what was in Pollan's book (and he never suggested this link).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I had no idea I had hypothesized this. Can you point me to the post that is the basis for this conclusion?

OK, you didn't hypothesize that exactly. But, you partly inspired it with your idea that the human language was the result of Yahweh breathing the breath of life into a hominid. I'd have to dig for the post. It was on this thread, I think.

I do think that it is a valid scientific question concerning mushrooms, how does the hallucinogenic drugs in the mushroom make it more fit for survival?

My initial thought was the meme would survive and propagate symbiotically with the host species. But, obviously, language has played a role in the dominance of the human species. So, the symbiosis, if that's what it is, has had survival for the hominid that became homo lingua as well.

I do not see any basis to tie these mushrooms into the development of human language, not that I have studied mushrooms that much other than what was in Pollan's book (and he never suggested this link).

The connection I made was to this idea:

In a more radical version of biophysicist Francis Crick's hypothesis of directed panspermia, McKenna speculated on the idea that psilocybin mushrooms may be a species of high intelligence,[3] which may have arrived on this planet as spores migrating through space[8][63] and which are attempting to establish a symbiotic relationship with human beings. He postulated that "intelligence, not life, but intelligence may have come here [to Earth] in this spore-bearing life form".

and

At these higher doses, McKenna also argued that psilocybin would be triggering activity in the "language-forming region of the brain", manifesting as music and visions,[3] thus catalyzing the emergence of language in early hominids by expanding "their arboreally evolved repertoire of troop signals."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, you didn't hypothesize that exactly. But, you partly inspired it with your idea that the human language was the result of Yahweh breathing the breath of life into a hominid. I'd have to dig for the post. It was on this thread, I think.

My initial thought was the meme would survive and propagate symbiotically with the host species. But, obviously, language has played a role in the dominance of the human species. So, the symbiosis, if that's what it is, has had survival for the hominid that became homo lingua as well.

The connection I made was to this idea:

In a more radical version of biophysicist Francis Crick's hypothesis of directed panspermia, McKenna speculated on the idea that psilocybin mushrooms may be a species of high intelligence,[3] which may have arrived on this planet as spores migrating through space[8][63] and which are attempting to establish a symbiotic relationship with human beings. He postulated that "intelligence, not life, but intelligence may have come here [to Earth] in this spore-bearing life form".

and

At these higher doses, McKenna also argued that psilocybin would be triggering activity in the "language-forming region of the brain", manifesting as music and visions,[3] thus catalyzing the emergence of language in early hominids by expanding "their arboreally evolved repertoire of troop signals."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna

There is a guy on Ted Talks who was referenced in Pollan's book that talks about how mushrooms can save the world, and he isn't talking about magic mushrooms per se. It is a very impressive talk and was a great way to begin the book as it powerfully demonstrated to me that there was a whole lot here I had never heard about before.

I think quantum physics is very similar to the visions Pollan describes. We know that light can "act" like a particle, and that it can "act" like a wave. What some are hypothesizing is that on the quantum level it is no longer particle or wave, but rather "field". So if you put in a detector to detect particles it will respond, likewise with waves, but in fact it is neither, it is a field. That reminds me of the vision where the individual melts into this one great unifying entity. I would compare this to the Spirit. The Spirit can sometimes act like a wave going through many people, and at other times it can act like a particle (Antipas, against all).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a guy on Ted Talks who was referenced in Pollan's book that talks about how mushrooms can save the world, and he isn't talking about magic mushrooms per se. It is a very impressive talk and was a great way to begin the book as it powerfully demonstrated to me that there was a whole lot here I had never heard about before.

I think quantum physics is very similar to the visions Pollan describes. We know that light can "act" like a particle, and that it can "act" like a wave. What some are hypothesizing is that on the quantum level it is no longer particle or wave, but rather "field". So if you put in a detector to detect particles it will respond, likewise with waves, but in fact it is neither, it is a field. That reminds me of the vision where the individual melts into this one great unifying entity. I would compare this to the Spirit. The Spirit can sometimes act like a wave going through many people, and at other times it can act like a particle (Antipas, against all).

The quantum particle-wave duality is a metaphor for the body-spirit duality. Body and spirit are not two different things. There is only one reality which can be viewed in different ways under different conditions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The quantum particle-wave duality is a metaphor for the body-spirit duality. Body and spirit are not two different things. There is only one reality which can be viewed in different ways under different conditions.

I disagree. The Bible says "God is Spirit". Now that spirit can be expressed in an individual like Jesus Christ, or it can be expressed corporately like the church, the Body of Christ. Both are expressions of the one reality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I disagree. The Bible says "God is Spirit". Now that spirit can be expressed in an individual like Jesus Christ, or it can be expressed corporately like the church, the Body of Christ. Both are expressions of the one reality.

To continue the metaphor, to state God is Spirit it's like saying light is a particle or light is wave. Contrary to common sense, that light is a particle does not contradict that it is a wave and vice versa. Therefore, that God is Spirit does not imply that God is not a body or physical as well. Your conclusion that both are an expression of one reality confirms what I already stated.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Was your "heroic" dose of hallucinogens related to your name of choice -- Awareness? If so, would you say that this was a very important experience in your life? I know you said it led you to the LC, but that kind of muddies the water.

Sorry to be so far behind on this thread.

I don't want to ignore this question. Or don't mean to.

It's been a long time since I did hallucinogenics. I never made the connection until you mentioned it, but I'd say yes, decades later the name awareness jumped out to me. I use it everywhere. Been using it for 20 yrs at least. (How long have I been on these local church forums? Long before that.) But now that I think about it, I see a connection.

It's not just my name of choice. It's my fascination. I read every thing I can get my hands on on it, even reputed author(s) that claim awareness doesn't exist (that one cracks me up - they use awareness to deny it ... lol).

The awareness reading these words is deep, and really large. Just like the experience on psychedelics. I see zeek has brought up Terence Mckenna, a ethnobotanist that made hallucinogenics his life study. It's been awhile since I read "Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution" Terence speaks of the Spirit of Awareness. (There's plenty on him on the web, and by him on YouTube.)

Awareness is our involvement with everything. It's our center. It's even aware of that which we aren't particularly aware of -- as revealed in the details in our dreams.

And yes my hallucinogenic experiences were important in ways I can't really explain. Besides the "I found God experience," it opens you up to an oceanic experience of the universe, like that of the mystics I've read about.

How it led to the local church is a convoluted story. Let me just say it made me decide I had to get serious about the Bible, and about finding God without artificial means (still have that problem ... if it's a means it's artificial).

I'd say it would be an important experience except not for everyone. In those days I became quite a guru about who and who shouldn't take it. And I was right every time. Those that shouldn't became huge problems. In one case, it took me weeks to nurse him back to reality. In another case a girl's parents had to put her into therapy.

I don't know you bro ZNP, and how your are wrapped, so I can't say if you should try it or not. I'd say the safest way to try it the first time would be powdered mescaline. And then there's "Set and Setting." My best setting was in my house alone. My best Set was reading the Bible while waiting for it to come on, with music playing ... something like The Moody Blues, or It's a Beautiful Day.

I've heard Ayahuasca retreats are pretty safe, and one helluva experience, I've been told.

Hey, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". It's been going on since before writing, and may have played a role in it's invention. Terence says that outer space aliens reduced themselves down to spores and spewed themselves into space, where some of them found earth, to grow a mycelium network (where mushrooms grow from), to share their advanced knowledge. That sounds fanciful.

Oh gosh, I could go on and on. Like mentioning the witch hunts in the 15th century, that were nothing but millions of women rubbing ointments on their sensitive areas (riding a broomstick applicator), told about in Marvin Harris's book "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches - The Riddles of Culture."

[awareness]

This is interesting. Does Tibet have lots of earthquakes because of those Godless Buddhists? Just kidding. Rhetorical.

These days few believe God controls the weather. True, during dry times, believers come together to pray for rain. It rarely works. Satellites and radar reveal the natural processes, that can be predictive.

But earthquakes? The Bible is riddled with references to God causing earthquakes. Did the prophesiers know about this rip in the earth's mantel?

Or ... are we discovering that they are just natural processes, that can be predictive.

Just wondering ...
Researchers reveal the four massive rips in Earth's mantle under Tibet causing the planet's deadliest earthquakes

Feeding my obsession fetish :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...tle-Tibet.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is interesting. Does Tibet have lots of earthquakes because of those Godless Buddhists? Just kidding. Rhetorical.

These days few believe God controls the weather. True, during dry times, believers come together to pray for rain. It rarely works. Satellites and radar reveal the natural processes, that can be predictive.

But earthquakes? The Bible is riddled with references to God causing earthquakes. Did the prophesiers know about this rip in the earth's mantel?

Or ... are we discovering that they are just natural processes, that can be predictive.

Just wondering ...
Researchers reveal the four massive rips in Earth's mantle under Tibet causing the planet's deadliest earthquakes

Feeding my obsession fetish :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...tle-Tibet.html

Tibet is the location where two plates are colliding, hence the Himalayan mountains. Anyone who has lived on the Himalayas knows that it is "tectonically active", the mountain is rising by 1-2 cm each year. You should also be aware that without Plate Tectonics, mountains and these earthquakes there would be no life on Earth. (BTW is "mountain" a noun or a verb? English says it is a noun, but in the Iroquois language it is a verb).

[ZNPaaneah]

3d printed guns out of plastic

I think this is a very interesting case. If a 3d printer is legal in the US and it would be outrageous if it wasn't, then there is no point in trying to make plans for a gun illegal. Anyone who can afford a 3d printer can afford to go to Mexico, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, or whatever country in the world where these plans would be legal. Is the US government going to then search a persons computer when they return to the US? So much for free speech.

Now they claim that "the plastic guns would be untraceable" that is a misleading statement. The plastic gun, although we wouldn't have a "fingerprint" for it on record, the fact is that it has always been legal for someone to manufacture / assemble their own gun. Second, although the gun can be made out of plastic the firing pin and the bullets would not be plastic. Therefore it would still be quite difficult to get it past metal detectors. Third, I would much rather have some wacko use one of these plastic guns than an AK 47. There is a reason we use metal and precise manufacturing techniques, although these plastic guns might provide very limited capabilities, they would be virtually useless for anything other than delivering a single point blank shot. I doubt criminals would have any use for this thing. Also, this doesn't make guns much more accessible. 3d printers are very expensive. Also, I doubt this plastic gun would be difficult to trace -- we can trace the fact that someone downloaded the plans to their computer, that they own a 3d printer, and you can see that the 3d printer was used to make one of these guns. A lot of hot air over nothing.

[zeek]

Isn't it ironic that the people who want to bring you space force are the same people who don't believe in science?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Isn't it ironic that the people who want to bring you space force are the same people who don't believe in science?

Yes. Climate change no. Space Balls yes. They pick their science like they pick their Bible verses ... if at all ... based on delusion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Isn't it ironic that the people who want to bring you space force are the same people who don't believe in science?

Those people are politicians, hence this should be on the thread "politics and the church".

[ZNPaaneah]

According to Le Chatelier’s principle, the more MAGA supporters that are dumped into the US political system the more ANTIFA protesters will be produced. Basic chemistry.

[ZNPaaneah]

There was a very surprising study done, but which has been confirmed numerous times. They took the DNA for making an eye on a mouse and put it into the DNA for a fruit fly. Amazingly it made an eye for the fruit fly, not some kind of weird deformed eye, but a fruit fly eye. Since then they have proven many, many times they can take DNA from one animal and put it into another, that can include mammals to insects or even plants or fungi.

What they have proven is that we have "one creation" which of course is what Paul said in his epistles. It is essentially an item of the faith.

A second very amazing thing is that if you take a troop of 20+ chimpanzees there will be more genetic diversity among them than the diversity among all 6.5 billion people on this planet. Once again, they have confirmed that all human beings have a common mother who lived about 100,000 years ago, again, just as the Bible said when it called Eve "the mother of all living".

[ZNPaaneah]

I read (in I Contain Multitudes) that the cells in the body will only live as long as the body tells them to, take that command away and they die. Reminded me of those that marveled that the Lord would speak the word, or command that demons and sickness would leave.

[zeek]

"There is no opposition between spirit and matter."

"Our self-understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ should incorporate insights from neurophysiology."

http://churchlife.nd.edu/2018/09/04/...ical-horizons/

[zeek]

DISPROVING THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT?
The Canaanites weren’t annihilated, they just ‘moved’ to Lebanon
A UK-based study of ancient genomes finds Canaanites form over 90% of modern Lebanese ancestry, a trait they share with ancient Israelites.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-ca...ed-to-lebanon/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

DISPROVING THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT?
The Canaanites weren’t annihilated, they just ‘moved’ to Lebanon
A UK-based study of ancient genomes finds Canaanites form over 90% of modern Lebanese ancestry, a trait they share with ancient Israelites.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-ca...ed-to-lebanon/

So the record in the Bible, about the Canaanites, turns out to be just ordinary tribal mythology. Surprise, surprise.

However, those mythologies are still having a profound influence on the world today. Let's just hope that Israel isn't following those mythologies so tightly that, now that they know where the Canaanites went, they don't follow God's commandment in Deut. 20:16, and start killing all life in Lebanon that takes breath. They can certainly do it.

They have the weapons, and nukes. Should we allow people of such mythology to have nukes? Sounds like madness to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the record in the Bible, about the Canaanites, turns out to be just ordinary tribal mythology. Surprise, surprise.

A horribly unscientific conclusion from one who claims to be totally governed by science.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A horribly unscientific conclusion from one who claims to be totally governed by science.

The only science that matters is the science that proves the Canaanites were not wiped out. Any claim that they were is clearly a myth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The only science that matters is the science that proves the Canaanites were not wiped out. Any claim that they were is clearly a myth.

The only thing that is clearly a myth is everything that comes out of your mouth.

And they drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell in the midst of Ephraim unto this day, and are become servants to do taskwork. Joshua 16:10

Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out. Joshua 17:12-13

but the hill-country shall be thine; for though it is a forest, thou shalt cut it down, and the goings out thereof shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong. Joshua 17:18

And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and its towns; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it came to pass, when Israel was waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not utterly drive them out. Judges 1:27-28

The Bible is very clear -- many of the Canaanites were "driven out" of Israel, but not all. Nowhere does it say they were exterminated. During WWII we killed many Germans, that doesn't mean we exterminated them. Saying that 10,000 men were killed doesn't mean that every Canaanite was killed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The only science that matters is the science that proves the Canaanites were not wiped out. Any claim that they were is clearly a myth.

So the story proves the Biblical record. You call that science?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So the story proves the Biblical record. You call that science?

Bro Ohio, you seem to be trying not to get it. In Deut 20:16 God commands that the Israelite's kill everything that takes breath. And in the same chapter God tells them not to fear for He is with them.

Yet DNA proves that the Canaanites weren't wiped out, even with God's help.

So even with God's help they couldn't kill them all.

Now I agree, that they may not have been able to keep God's commandment, and weren't able to do it, even with God's help. Cuz according to Judges 1:19 God can't defeat chariots of iron :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

The easy answer to this problem is that, it's just tribal mythology. And that's why we still have the Canaanites today ... in Lebanon ... right next door to Israel.

So if Israel is living their Torah tribal law today, they need to kill everyone in Lebanon that breaths. Bibi has stated that God gave them the land in the Bible ... and God says:

"But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes"

Bibi is clearly following the Torah, so look for that to happen. And if it happens it's because Israel is following their ancient self fulfilling mythology.

And God has nothing to do with it. Cuz in truth the Jews wrote God into their story to make genocide right because God supported it. It's their tribal mythology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, you seem to be trying not to get it. In Deut 20:16 God commands that the Israelite's kill everything that takes breath. And in the same chapter God tells them not to fear for He is with them.

So even with God's help they couldn't kill them all.

Now I agree, that they may not have been able to keep God's commandment, and weren't able to do it, even with God's help. Cuz according to Judges 1:19 God can't defeat chariots of iron :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

The easy answer to this problem is that, it's just tribal mythology. And that's why we still have the Canaanites today ... in Lebanon ... right next door to Israel.

So if Israel is living their Torah tribal law today, they need to kill everyone in Lebanon that breaths. Bibi has stated that God gave them the land in the Bible ... and God says:

And God has nothing to do with it. Cuz in truth the Jews wrote God into their story to make genocide right because God supported it. It's their tribal mythology.

There you go advocating for murder.

I think it's you who "don't get it."

Did you not read ZNP's post with references to the Canaanites?

But I get that you do hate Israel and all white men.

But I'm sympathetic towards you, having come from Kentucky.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There you go advocating for murder.

I think it's you who "don't get it."

Did you not read ZNP's post with references to the Canaanites?

But I get that you do hate Israel and all white men.

But I'm sympathetic towards you, having come from Kentucky.

True that. I don't get it. I don't get following ancient mythology today.

And ... You're a peach ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

True that. I don't get it. I don't get following ancient mythology today.

And ... You're a peach ...

That's offensive! Take it back. I'm not from Georgia!

NYC is an apple, and Cleveland, btw, is known as a "plum."

I agree that we should never follow ancient mythology today. Then why do you read Greek mythology?

And why do you consider the Bible to be ancient mythology when people attempt to live by it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's offensive! Take it back. I'm not from Georgia!

NYC is an apple, and Cleveland, btw, is known as a "plum."

And Murryville is known as Haymaker Gas Well. So you're a gas brother.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree that we should never follow ancient mythology today.

Amen. Then Israel shouldn't follow their ancient mythology. There ain't no holy land, no promised land. Or conversely, no land is any holier than another.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why do you read Greek mythology?

Same reason I read comic books growing up. Mythology is adult cartoons, with a moral, sometimes. And they are ingenious. The gods are funnier than all-get-out ... very human like, like Yahweh.

The Greeks had/have Mt. Olympus, the Jews had/have Jerusalem. Is one holier than the other? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Ohio

And why do you consider the Bible to be ancient mythology when people attempt to live by it?

That's a very big subject. In short, yes people get benefit from the Bible, and it helps them live better kinder happier lives.

But if followed to the tee, can justify great atrocities, even genocides ... like expressed in Deut. 20:16.

You don't really believe that God is today commanding Israel to do that to Lebanon, do you? to take all the Promised Land, that God 'gave them for an inheritance?'

No one following those kinds of mythologies should be allowed with WMD's, like nuke's and ICBM's ; Jew, Muslim, or Christian.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Amen. Then Israel shouldn't follow their ancient mythology. There ain't no holy land, no promised land. Or conversely, no land is any holier than another.

You can believe what you want, but tell them Muslims to get their mosques off Israeli lands.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You can believe what you want, but tell them Muslims to get their mosques off Israeli lands.

The Haram esh-Sharif, or Dome of the Rock, has been there since the 7th c. It was built on the site of the Roman temple of Jupiter. I hardly think that it belongs to the Israeli's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Haram esh-Sharif, or Dome of the Rock, has been there since the 7th c. It was built on the site of the Roman temple of Jupiter. I hardly think that it belongs to the Israeli's.

Which is why Jesus is the peacemaker, He broke down the middle wall of partition. Both Jews and Muslims can be one once they received Jesus. Our kingdom is not of this earth. We believe all things are of the Lord and works together for good to those that love God. That includes the Dome of the Rock Mosque.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which is why Jesus is the peacemaker, He broke down the middle wall of partition. Both Jews and Muslims can be one once they received Jesus. Our kingdom is not of this earth. We believe all things are of the Lord and works together for good to those that love God. That includes the Dome of the Rock Mosque.

Jesus broke down one wall and Christians have been building more ever since. "Build That Wall! Build That Wall! Build That Wall!" they chant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus broke down one wall and Christians have been building more ever since. "Build That Wall! Build That Wall! Build That Wall!" they chant.

Jesus is the open Door, and you have been locking your doors every day and night.

Be a "real" Christian zeek and leave your keys in the car, and your front door open.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus broke down one wall and Christians have been building more ever since. "Build That Wall! Build That Wall! Build That Wall!" they chant.

First person I have ever heard describing Trump and his rallies as Christian rallies.

It is a bogus argument to say that since some Christian somewhere voted for Trump, given the choice between him and Clinton, that this makes Trump a Christian, or that the reason they voted this way was because of his "christian" faith.

Unless Jesus is on the ballot this is false claim on your part.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

First person I have ever heard describing Trump and his rallies as Christian rallies.

It is a bogus argument to say that since some Christian somewhere voted for Trump, given the choice between him and Clinton, that this makes Trump a Christian, or that the reason they voted this way was because of his "christian" faith.

Unless Jesus is on the ballot this is false claim on your part.

They play Rolling Stones afterward Trump's rallies. Perhaps zeek thought the Stones were "Christians" when they wrote "Sympathy for the Devil."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which is why Jesus is the peacemaker, He broke down the middle wall of partition. Both Jews and Muslims can be one once they received Jesus. Our kingdom is not of this earth. We believe all things are of the Lord and works together for good to those that love God. That includes the Dome of the Rock Mosque.

A Republican congressional candidate in a competitive race in North Carolina said in a sermon that there would be no peace in Israel unless Jews and Muslims converted to Christianity,

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/gop-...nity-1.6618083

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Be a "real" Christian zeek and leave your keys in the car, and your front door open.

I do that. I've never taken the key out of my truck ... and my front door, and back door, are never locked.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I do that. I've never taken the key out of my truck ... and my front door, and back door, are never locked.

I suppose that discharging a few rounds from your shotgun every night will suffice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I suppose that discharging a few rounds from your shotgun every night will suffice.

Word might get out round here, but not at Walmart.

[awareness]

The Bible makes people do crazy things :

Preparing for the end? Plans to sail reconstructed NOAH’S ARK to Israel

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...-biblical-news

[awareness]

Bible Ark FOUND: End of Days relic 'smuggled by Jews to Africa' and hidden HERE

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...rael-jerusalem

[awareness]

The Bible doesn't say anything about God creating all this :

The Earth is far more alive than previously thought, according to “deep life” studies that reveal a rich ecosystem beneath our feet that is almost twice the size of that found in all the world’s oceans.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...icro-organisms

[awareness]

Russian Patriarch Warns ‘Antichrist’ Will Control Humans Through Gadgets

“The Antichrist is a personality that will be at the head of the world wide web controlling the entire human race. Thus, the structure itself presents a danger,” he said.

The church leader stressed that “if we don’t want to bring the apocalypse closer, there should be no single [control and access] center.”

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russ...-gadgets-64060

[Ohio]

The Sugar Conspiracy

Great, well-written article exposing the operations of modern "science." It specifically addresses the disastrous dietary recommendations of the 20th century going back to President Eisenhower's famous heart attack in office, but reading between the lines, it exposes how politics and group think have completely manipulated the scientific community concerning other hot-topic issues like climate, evolution, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Sugar Conspiracy

Great, well-written article exposing the operations of modern "science." It specifically addresses the disastrous dietary recommendations of the 20th century going back to President Eisenhower's famous heart attack in office, but reading between the lines, it exposes how politics and group think have completely manipulated the scientific community concerning other hot-topic issues like climate, evolution, etc.

I had a different takeaway. When there is a financial motive involved (the sugar industry which is a by product of much of our agriculture, particularly corn) then you get a lot of bogus science. I have previously explained one of the ways in which corporations use scientists to unwittingly aid in their lies. If you do 20 studies one will represent the most extreme case. If the sugar industry finances a number of scientific studies but only publishes the most extreme examples which support the product they are selling while suppressing the other 95% it will give a very biased and erroneous view. Each individual scientist involved in the research could be (though not always) clueless. 19 do studies that never get published, but since they don't see or know about the others they might simply think their results were the extreme. This is lying by omission. In this case it isn't the scientist who is lying but the corporation who is knowingly going to cherry pick the research they want and bury the rest.

Big Business can afford to do this. The cigarette companies were masters at this. They were very deceitful in getting legislation passed blaming fires not on cigarettes but on furniture. As a result we have all of our mattresses and padding filled with flame retardant chemicals which are quite toxic to people.

Big Pharma, big agriculture and of course Oil have also played quite a role in this as well.

If you saw the movie on CTE you realize how ugly big business like the NFL can be at distorting, slandering and trying to bury good research.

[ZNPaaneah]

https://www.businessinsider.com/chin...plained-2018-4

China is creating a social credit score for all its citizens, those with bad scores get punished in a variety of ways (the article lists them).

We in the US already have a credit score and an insurance score. Social media is being monitored very closely and no doubt the offshoot of this Mueller investigation will be a much more closely monitored social media.

I wonder if the Bible talked about something like this happening. Think, think, think.

Imagine what Rome would have been like if Nero had this power.

[awareness]

Where's Moses?

SPEAK OF THE BIBLE: LOCUST SWARMS IMMINENT IN EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Sp...-Arabia-581377

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where's Moses?

SPEAK OF THE BIBLE: LOCUST SWARMS IMMINENT IN EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Sp...-Arabia-581377

Why view it as an infestation? Why not view it as a gift? Put out nets, catch them, cook them, and you just got a lot of food to some very poor areas.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why view it as an infestation? Why not view it as a gift? Put out nets, catch them, cook them, and you just got a lot of food to some very poor areas.

You almost make it sound like manna from heaven.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You almost make it sound like manna from heaven.

Covered in dark chocolate they make a healthy snack. Bags of them could be sold at Wallyworld and Amazon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Covered in dark chocolate they make a healthy snack. Bags of them could be sold at Wallyworld and Amazon.

In Taiwan they put barbecue sauce on them and serve them at roadside grills.

[awareness]

'Science does not kill God': Physicist Marcelo Gleiser is awarded $1.4 MILLION prize for his work blending science and spirituality

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-kill-God.html

[awareness]

Here's where the Bible is taken literally, and is a science book :

Journey to the edge of the earth! It’s as crazy as it sounds, an expedition by the Flat Earth Society to prove the world ISN’T round.

What becomes apparent when perusing flat-earthers’ numerous websites and YouTube videos is that many are, indeed, motivated by the Bible, in which they claim ‘evidence’ for the world’s flatness can be found.

Scriptural references to the ‘four corners’ of the Earth are highlighted, as are passages in Psalms, Chronicles and Isaiah that claim the Earth is ‘fixed’ and ‘immovable’ — as if the quality of being static necessitates flatness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Y-WALTERS.html

[awareness]

Israel's first resistance: Ancient Jewish settlement from 2,000 years ago reveals hidden tunnels used to hide food and arms during rebellions against the Romans

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ed-Israel.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Israel's first resistance: Ancient Jewish settlement from 2,000 years ago reveals hidden tunnels used to hide food and arms during rebellions against the Romans

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ed-Israel.html

I'm trying to figure out how this fits into the "Bible Versus Science" debate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm trying to figure out how this fits into the "Bible Versus Science" debate.

I didn't know where to put it. Where would you prefer?

[awareness]

I don't know if this fits here. This morning I saw our very first photo of a black hole. So like in my past, I thought, the Bible knows everything so it must speak of black holes. And that's why this post might not fit on B v S thread. There aren't any black holes in the Bible -- but I'm sure bro ZNP can pull one out of his hole.

Speaking of holes. I'll be darn. Black holes are ... wait for it ... holes.

But I can perchance squeeze this post into this thread. Cuz obviously God made holes that suck everything into oblivion. Why? What are they doing? Maybe they're evil. In which case this post belongs on the POE thread.

Enjoy :

Black hole picture captured for first time in space ‘breakthrough’

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...e-breakthrough

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if this fits here. This morning I saw our very first photo of a black hole. So like in my past, I thought, the Bible knows everything so it must speak of black holes. And that's why this post might not fit on B v S thread. There aren't any black holes in the Bible -- but I'm sure bro ZNP can pull one out of his hole.

Speaking of holes. I'll be darn. Black holes are ... wait for it ... holes.

But I can perchance squeeze this post into this thread. Cuz obviously God made holes that suck everything into oblivion. Why? What are they doing? Maybe they're evil. In which case this post belongs on the POE thread.

The Bible is on a "need to know" basis. Everything you need to know is there. Obviously you want to know what you don't need to know. Think about the "serpent in every garden" adage.

Stop reading those British Rags!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible is on a "need to know" basis. Everything you need to know is there. Obviously you want to know what you don't need to know. Think about the "serpent in every garden" adage.

Stop reading those British Rags!

You and your prejudice against the Brits.

Here it is on the infallible, inerrant, and inspired, Fox News :

https://www.foxnews.com/science/firs...image-revealed

[awareness]

The earth is not flat, not the center of the universe, and way more than 6000 years old :

Jawbone reveals ancient human Denisovan ancestor lived 11,000 feet high in oxygen-starved Himalayas - and later interbred with modern humans

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ria-found.html

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

There aren't any black holes in the Bible

...

Cuz obviously God made holes that suck everything into oblivion. Why?

Au contraire:

"Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them."

One of them black holes is headed this way

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Au contraire:

"Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them."

One of them black holes is headed this way

Not only so, but the Big Bang theory is also in the Bible:

hast forgotten Jehovah thy Maker, that stretched forth the heavens

by his understanding hath he stretched out the heavens.

that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain

The doppler effect and realizing that the entire universe was expanding, being stretched out like a curtain, was the observation that led to the theory of the Big Bang.