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

[Zohaar818]

Boy Bio, you keep thinking these questions are for you! Interpretation is easy to understand among people who admit to doing it. Its a normal rational process. Its much harder to figure out when someone who says they always insist on literal interpretation all of a sudden says, "oh that's not literal." :hihi: Its always at a time that's so...convenient. I guess that's why they call it deus ex machina :hihi:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

It seems we've gotten from discussing what makes Creationism so hard to believe in to discussing whether the Bible is believable..and I would posit that though they are related they are not the same.

Jewish rabbis will confirm that very little of the Torah is considered by any means to be an accurate history read literally...it is considered to be a metaphoric medium, encoded and encrypted in parts, requiring great study and meditation through which the truth is revealed..and not only by the written word but the oral law.

Then we have a volume of wisdom , a companion text, called the Talmud with all kinds of anecdotes and arcana about the different rulings at different times made by rabbis facing changing times and having to reinterpret the LAW to fit the circumstances.

 

Creationists and ID-ers, although mostly Christian fanatics, do not solely rely on Bible texts to substantiate their claims..and for good reason..they know better than to base their case on such flimsy evidence. Instead they point to archeological anomalies, of which there are many..and attempt to confound the secular [Darwinist] skeptics by pointing out their own inconsistencies.

So far I think both sides have scored enough points off of each other to leave any objective observer with grounds to doubt both 'official ' histories. And that leaves only the tool of comparative legend [like the universality of the flood myth] and the evidence which is in front of our eyes to find a theory which includes or accounts for the anomalies and contradictions both sides point out as their evidence against each other. here are links to flood myth sites which I hope will get some folks wondering about how much of the bible is 'original'....and how much was a rehash of older legend given a new suit.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/floods/mfloods.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm

 

So what is the truth..or as some would have it the Truth? And how do we determine it?

I think we should start to grasp the essentials of what our physicists are determining about the nature of our universe, its many and parallel dimensions. I think we should include the possibility..indeed..the Probability, that our planet has been visited by [and continues to be visited by] off planet entities who not only interfered with our evolution, but our cultural history. You cannot believe in the Bible as the true word of God without believing in off planet entities having sex with our women, abducting our citizens, of wheels within wheels appearing in the sky [ask Ezekiel!]...and that God's messengers carry blinding sticks, like the ones used in the rescue of Lot and his family from Sodom...

You have to believe also that God has an army in the real sense of the word.....that the God of the Old Testament is a military leader with star-troopers at his disposal.

Let us turn to Joshua 5: 13-15. There you will read about the encounter Joshua has with a stranger who introduces himself as the Commander of God's army.

Think about it..Joshua has just taken over from Moses and is about to encounter the first walled city..Jericho..Joshua is the leader of "Gods'chosen people"...and that would make him the commander of the army about to siege Jericho..so where does the stranger come in..why does Joshua take the stranger's word without challenge or question..what must this stranger have looked like, been dressed like, to command the instant and utter respect and fealty that Joshua shows. No symbol of authority or seal of God's approval is asked for or presented. Joshua to not only takes his word at face value, but removes his shoes and prostrates himself on this temporary 'holy ground' . Stranger indeed. But you know, in the original texts we translate 'strangers' to be 'aliens'' meaning those who fall in a category which falls outside of our knowledge base. See, everytime in the bible when a human is being identified it is always by name, tribe/ethnicity..the Benjamite, the Canaanite, Mideonite, Jezubite, Hittite, Egyptian, Samaritan...all acknowledged by their tribal markings and apparell. Any 'stranger' encountered in a world of nomads and tradesmen on a route strectching from subsaharan africa to east of India and north to the caucasus must have been 'strange' indeed..don't you think? That is something to think about when reading Scripture...it is only 'aliens' creatures whose dress, habits or origins fall outside the knowledge base of indigenous humans.who are referred to as 'strangers'.

And note..we are not talking about an angel, but a mortal..maybe not an earthling but certainly something killable..and worried about contamination by human /earthly bacteria and germs to boot.

In fact...I hope this doesn't bore you too much....in fact do you know the meaning of the word 'hosts' that is found in many Bible verses... as in 'Lord of Hosts" ? What is a host, exactly? Well, it is an old English word, used by the King James translators..a word that was old even in their time, almost completely out of use..and it meant literally 'armies'.'

But there was a political agenda at stake in composing this [fatally flawed and inaccurate] translation into the common tongue and no one wanted to point out the military character of the supposedly loving God of whom Jesus was the human incarnation....so they substituted 'armies' with the word 'hosts' knowing full well that no one would really understand the word, and thus the true nature [and true scripture] would be hidden in plain sight...and there you have it...a cover-up in Scripture, proving that "God's" word in this case at least, was actually an invention or a disguise conjured up by men.

 

If you take ET's into account and read Genesis it makes even more sense than it does as a 'holy text'..and furthermore it gels with world-wide legends taken as part of the oral history from the Hopis in America to the Dogon in Somalia...to the legend of Gilgamesh in ancient Persia. I mean what is Eve but a clone of Adam. If you had to explain cloning to a 5 year old would it be much different than what we read in genesis?

First you put the man to sleep..remove some tissue from his ribs [stem cells?] then it grows [ into an embryo] and ...poof..a [cloned] female of the original...

 

The Koran says humans were creaetd by Allah from 'mingled sperm'...which to me sounds like a direct reference to our species having been genetically tampered with, manipulated or specially bred using recombinant DNA techniques.....which could explain a lot about why to date no missing link in the human evolutionary chain has been discovered.

[*The missing link would be the closest ape relative in the fossil record with a brain pan showing distinct enlargement from our cousins..the stepping stone to our present cro-magnon sized brain.] And since there are no fossilized candidates to fit the bill, and nothing even close in the archeological record to fill the gap, we have to put up with the literal interpreters of a single [corrupted and revised] text to explain the 'miracle' of our ascendency as a new species.

But you see..my dear ID-ers...the problem with all this is that to believe literally what you read in the Bible you have to simultaneously believe in a God who creates heaven and earth and all the things that creepeth, swimmeth or flyeth using solely the power of his mind and the wishing it to be so...AND a God who has to use lab techniques to create a clone from Adam to mate with..and who has underlings over which he has no control who then mate with the female offspring of his new creations, since they are irresistable..and siring bastard children to boot, contaminating the purity of his new creation to the point where God gets upset....yada yada.

Seems incongruous to me..........

I take it on faith that the Bible, for all its flaws, is still the closest we have to a coherent record of alien interference in our affairs and of our forefathers attempts to survive the encounters, negotiate with them, learn from them. I take it on faith that within the sacred texts [and not only the Abrahamic ones],there are clues to be gleaned about the true nature of our universe, our earth history, and some historical events..as well as the nature of those who played God for a time on our planet. If only those with eyes would see, and those with ears would listen...

 

Finally..I recommend anyone wishing to know more about how the sages and initates were taught to read the Torah and the Holy texts to look up everything they can about Gematria and the Gematria of the Bible...you'd be amazed.

 

:)

[Zohaar818]

How do you pick and choose what is literal and what is not?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Great question Buffy..but then I find most of your posts pithy and well worth the read...

here's an answer I dug up from my bookmarks:

 

The truth and the facts to the matter is very clearly expressed in the words of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, where he warns us that: "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy" -- which orthodoxy was to bring the text of the Bible into conformity with the doctrines and tenets of the Church of the Roman Emperor Constantine. To close our hearts and minds to the facts, and ignore the truth, is from a New Covenant perspective synonymous with relinquishing any claim whatsoever with respect to being a follower of Jesus.

 

With regard to the condition of the Bible we presently use: The surviving Greek texts of the book of Acts are so radically different from each other, that it has been suggested that perhaps there were multiple versions written. In his book The Text of the New Testament, Dr. Vincent Taylor writes that "The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice".

 

To put Dr. Taylor's words in perspective: What Dr. Taylor is stating is that, whatever doctrine Jesus taught which the Church of the Roman Empire did not agree with, there is overwhelming evidence that the church corrupters removed what was objectionable from their perspective. In like manner, whatever doctrines the Church regarded as being true, regardless of whether that belief was supported in the scriptures, the Church inserted this belief into the Bible in an attempt to make it authentic. What Dr. Taylor is warning us is there is good reason to conclude that our scriptures have been rewritten by the Church of Constantine. Now the question that is being posed here is whether you believe the theological tenets of Rome, or the disciples of Christ -- because the two are not the same.

 

In the year 1707, John Mill shattered all faith in the infallibility of the Bible by demonstrating 30,000 various readings which were produced from 80 manuscripts. The findings of, first Mill, and then Wetstein (1751), proved once and for all that the variations in the biblical texts, many of which were quite serious, had existed from the earliest of times.

 

In the Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the bible this notable statement is made regarding the need for a revision of the English translation: "Yet the King James Version has grave defects... was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus".

 

One of the oldest copies of the Bible which dates back to the fifth century is the Codex Bezae, of which the Britannica writes: "Codex Bezae… has a text that is very different from other witnesses. Codex Bezae has many distinctive longer and shorter readings and seems almost to be a separate edition. Its 'Acts, for example, is one-tenth longer than usual’". How can we have a Bible that is said to be "almost… a separate edition"? If this is true, it is important for us to know which edition is the correct one? And in answering this question, we must also determine the criteria we should employ in our effort to choose which of these separate editions we should use in our Bible translations? The traditional answer to this question is very simple -- i.e., we choose the biblical texts that support our doctrines of belief, and reject the texts that do not -- but is this the means by which we are able to be certain that we have chosen the correct edition?"

 

Historically speaking..yes. there is plenty of evidence to document the fact that the Bible was subject to periodic recodification and massive re-editing , especially in modern times when translations of old were placed against more recent discoveries and more accurate

models of transcription and context. The King James Bible to which most americans still turn tto back up the cases, pro and con, is probably the worst of the bunch with glaring omissions and [sometimes deliberate]mistranslations. And then, of course, there is the Apocrypha as i mentioned that contains books that used to be included in the canon..but were later discarded for temporal reasons...

If anyone takes issue with these comments or wishes me to substantiate what you feel to be invalid claims I will glady post the links..to which I hope you will agree are fairly credible, academic or authorative sources.

 

In the meantime,

Bless you, Buffy

;-)

[C1ay]

This is one of those issues where I'm "damned if I do, and damned if I don't". If I say yes, that's what I believe, then you will say how self righteous I am and what a holier than though creep I must be and totally oblivious to the fact that there are so many different belief systems throughout the world and are they all destined for hell since they dont believe like me, and yadda, yadda yadda. And if I say No I don't believe that, then I must believe that the entire bible isn't true anyway so what am I clinging to my faith so strongly for since it's just another part of a book that is filled with lies and deceptive stories.

 

To try and summarize what I believe about hell in as few words as possible; hell is eternal sepparation from God for those who didn't have time for him in this life. I believe that God knows the heart of every man; and those who are sincearly decieved, but desire the truth will find it. But the truth of God is not a thing to be obtained like buying a ticket to somewhere. It starts with humility, not with pride. I do believe there are many people who have never understood that it's Jesus they are seeking, caught in any number of alternative belief systems. But as the bible says: "every knee will bow and very tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords to the glory of God the Father". and in the end there is no alternative path.

 

I could certainly go into greater detail but suffice it to say that Jesus will stand alone before all the world on judgement day, and many who call themselves christians will sadly discover that they never really knew who He was; and likewise many who were called by some other name will have to come to grips with the fact that Jesus is the only way.

Yep, you stepped in it alright. I can smell it all the way over here. At least you're honest about the fact that either we agree with you or we are damned. What arrogance!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hey Beaker, you must feel somewhat beseiged. So forgive me, in advance, for jumping on the pile. Perhaps you believe that pain purifies the soul? I like you Beaker. You've got some cahones in the Quixotic sense.

 

You said,

But the truth of God is not a thing to be obtained like buying a ticket to somewhere. It starts with humility, not with pride.

Isn't humility the price of the ticket?

 

And why would God require humility?

 

One of the strangest observations I've ever made was the fact that if we ran across anyone that required that others bow down in submission, that person would probably be locked up and behind bars. He'd be categorized as a sociopath. And we also ascribe to him the ability to put us in eternal pain? Jesus Christ, why would he want to? Doesn't that bother you just a little?

 

And yet, that is our idea of God - the ideal lifeform, our creator. I'm sorry, but anyone with the ability to design the universe the way it is designed wouldn't be standing around rubbing his hands waiting for judgement day so that he could inflict pain. It's absurd.

 

That's why creationism is so hard to accept. The identity behind the scenes would be a raving lunatic.

 

If we need to fill the void with a creator, why not make it a Rational one? And while you're at it, toss in a little kindness and pinch of gentle. No flames, no thunderbolts, NO PAIN! And, let's make the search for truth the search for the identify of God. Let virtue be tied to non-contradictory identification. Now THAT I could get behind. And if God exists, I think he'd be right there beside me.

[Biochemist]

Boy Bio, you keep thinking these questions are for you!

Well, it is all about me, isn't it?

[Biochemist]

...The findings of, first Mill, and then Wetstein (1751), proved once and for all that the variations in the biblical texts, many of which were quite serious, had existed from the earliest of times....

 

In the Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the bible this notable statement is made regarding the need for a revision of the English translation: "Yet the King James Version has grave defects... was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.......

Good post, Z-

 

Although rarely stated, the "normal" view of conservatives that hold to inerrenacy of scripture is that the scriptures were inerrant in their original writings. That is, I don't know anyone that thinks the current Bible is inerrant now in any of our more advanced translations. And we do not have any of the original manuscripts. The study of ancient documents to resolve variances in interpretation/translation has been going on for a long time. This field of study is called textual criticism. One of the strongest, early textual critics is probably Origen, who tried to reconcile several versions of the greek tranlsation of the old testament (the "Septuagint") with a number of Hebrew translations. That was in the third century. It is fair to suggest he was a little closer to the original languages than we are. We have, unfortunately, lost most of his original work. A description of that effort is here:

 

http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

 

I agree the King James verison is weak, but it doesn't matter much because most folks can't read 1611 English anyway. The more technically accurate versions (like the NASB) are still hard to read, and there is active discussion about the various text sources for various translations.

 

Most of the variability between texts is explained by variances in language source. There are undoubtedly some cases where text was altered to clarify a specific intent, but those instances pale in complexity to the multilanguage/multi era translation prolems. Many of the new testament Greek texts are translating Christ's speech from Aramaic, the contemporaneous Hebrew dialect that He spoke. Even Greek was used unevenly across the Mediterranean lands, so it would be reasonable for authors to translate between regional Greek usages. Our job is to figure it out.

[Fishteacher73]

Aside from deciding what scriptures in the Bible mean, you also have the apocrypha (sp?) and a number of books that , if I recall, the Counsel of Nicea decided were not part of the holy bible. Many of these books as to my understanding were conteporary accounts of the early Christian movement. Has there been any support or vocalization to reconcile these books into "The" Bible?

[Biochemist]

Aside from deciding what scriptures in the Bible mean, you also have the apocrypha (sp?) and a number of books that , if I recall, the Counsel of Nicea decided were not part of the holy bible. Many of these books as to my understanding were conteporary accounts of the early Christian movement. Has there been any support or vocalization to reconcile these books into "The" Bible?

They are still around. They have similar textual transcription problems, but they are still often used for corroboration/translation assistance, just like any other contemporaneous text. They are not "hidden" in any way. The council had to make a quasi political decision about which texts were suitable for teaching and they made one.

[niviene]

I like you Beaker. You've got some cahones in the Quixotic sense.

 

This is one of my favorite quotes ever!!

[Fishteacher73]

Is there a current unified body that decides what version of the bible is "correct", or is all individual denominations as wellas individual churches that decide which text to use? (Obviously there are some variations, such as LDS that have Smith's books).

[Buffy]

I like you Beaker. You've got some cahones in the Quixotic sense.

This is one of my favorite quotes ever!!

Maybe if he whacked them against the side of the windmill a few times it would clear out his head...or not....

 

We-girls-don't-need-no-steeking-cojones,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

They are still around. They have similar textual transcription problems, but they are still often used for corroboration/translation assistance, just like any other contemporaneous text. They are not "hiedden" in any way. The council had to make a quasi political decision about which texts were suitable for teaching and they made one.

 

 

Is theer argument for re-integration of some of these texts?

[Biochemist]

...If we need to fill the void with a creator, why not make it a Rational one? And while you're at it, toss in a little kindness and pinch of gentle. No flames, no thunderbolts, NO PAIN! And, let's make the search for truth the search for the identify of God. ....

Hmmmmmm. A couple of points:

 

1) It is reasonable that our Creator would be at least as complicated as His creation. His creation is certainly not simple. I suspect He is not either. Defining "rational" in an environment this complex is a little problematic. Quantum mechanics does not, on its face, appear rational. But it seems to be a real state of nature.

2) If we allow for the possibility that our Creator has some sort of personal interest in us, He actually might have revealed something about Himself to us. What kinds of things might He have done to get our attention?

[Fishteacher73]

I'm just trying to have a nice civilized discussion on bible history, and here comes buffy barging in and busting balls....sheesh...women. :hihi:

[niviene]

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

 

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

 

bumab... an off topic question, out of curiosity - does the manner in which the texts of the bible are interpreted constitute different religions? Or are certain religions simply more free to interpret as they wish?

[Buffy]

Is theer argument for re-integration of some of these texts?

Sure "just convert to *my* religion/sect!". No you could never get them to agree. There are many who'd like to throw out Revelations or conversely add text to it of suspicious provenance that supports specific sects dogma.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[niviene]

I'm just trying to have a nice civilized discussion on bible history, and here comes buffy barging in and busting balls....sheesh...women. :hihi:

 

That's what religion is all about! :hihi: