100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 03:03 PM
|
|
I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best. Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point. Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind. Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion. No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man How is the historical validity of the bible questionable? What folklore are you referring to? Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included. If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact. This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable. Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early. 2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." (II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts. So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. He writes, “Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”9 This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I’ve promised to say more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman’s hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection—and so would we. that is so far from any kind of fact it's crazy. These are NOT facts, period. There are 0 facts to support a resurrection. in fact the eveidence shows it not happening. The first recorded appearance story (in terms of when it was written, not when it was supposed to have happened) is of the appearance to Paul, and it is clearly a vision. In one account, he does not see Jesus, only a flash of light (9.3-5), and those with him do not see Jesus, but only hear him (Acts 9.7). Paul could have been speaking in another voice, which the others took as Jesus (or which the author of Acts portrays them as taking to be Jesus, since we don't have their account of it, after all). But the fact that no one, not even Paul, saw Jesus in the flesh makes the point well enough. Most importantly, Paul never says in his letters that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh (he even denies it in Galatians 1). Moreover, this particular encounter in Acts has all the earmarks of something like a seizure-induced hallucination: Paul alone sees a flash of light, collapses, hears voices, and goes blind for a short period. An embolism is sufficient to cause or explain all of this. We can add to this the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the earliest gospel, Mark, do not describe any appearances of Jesus. Paul gives other accounts of his vision which claim that others saw it, too. Doesn't this suggest a genuine vision from God? First of all, there is still never any mention of Jesus appearing in the flesh. Rather, all that appears is a light from heaven (phôs ek tou ouranou, 9.3; ek tou ouranou...phôs, 22.6; ouranothen...phôs, 26.13). So even if several saw the light, it can still have a natural explanation, from lightning to a reflection from a distant object, or even a simple ray of sunlight peaking through a cloud, any of which could also have induced a seizure or affected Paul emotionally, causing an hallucination (or inspiration). And since we don't have the story from any of these other observers, the story could be embellished or fabricated at leisure, for whatever reason. In my opinion, Paul may have seen in Christianity a way to save the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Romans by displacing their messianic motives to rebel, and creating a new Judaism more agreeable to the Gentiles, open to all and thus uniting rather than dividing, and more submissive to outside authority by internalizing and spiritualizing religious faith, eliminating messianic (and violent) emphasis on the Temple, and postponing material and social complaints by referring them to an afterlife. This could have been a deliberate or a subconscious motivator for Paul and others leading the movement. In Paul's case, guilt at what he had done to good people, and admiration for their moral program and fortitude, may have also played an emotional role. I happen to be one who is fairly well read on this subject. I will refute all that in one swoop. "Paul's letter to the Corinthians is dated by Christians and skeptics alike at around AD 54 or 58, but Paul must have received the creed before he could have recorded it in his letter. In fact, Paul tells us that he gave this Gospel to them earlier. Christians and skeptics alike agree Paul visited Corinthians and gave them the Gospel orally about AD 51. Paul tells us that about 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19). It's likely that Paul received the creed while in Jerusalem. If Christ was crucified in AD 30, then Paul would have been converted a short while later (perhaps 33-35, though more likely as early as 31 and no later than 33), placing his tript o Jerusalem around 36-38. Obviously Paul would have spoken with the two apostles about the Gospel, an assumption which is strengthened by the specific mention of meeting with Peter, James and the Gospel 14 years after his first journey (Galatians 2). So Paul likely received the creed no later than AD 38 directly from the apostles. It's possible that Paul receied the creed even earlier, perhaps while in Damascus 3 years earlier than his trip to Jerusalem. However, as mentioned above, the creed contains a number of items which indicate Semitic origin, making Jerusalem a more likely location." 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. This creed dates earlier than Mark. And they are facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It dates much earlier than Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no essential conflict between the bible and evolution unless you take the bible literally which results in well just a whole lotta problems. Evolution is the least of your problems when you start taking the bible literally. Genesis shesh that is a cake walk compared to revelations, but hey some people even take that literally. Fred Phelps anyone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is what it is.....and so take it or leave it.....there is much more evidence of Christ and all that took place in the bible then the precious evolution you hold onto for dear life...
And again I ask all that read....1 thing that has evolved just one in the last ok I will give you even 500 years....I have still to wait for this one to be answered... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 02/01/09 07:59 PM
|
|
It is what it is.....and so take it or leave it.....there is much more evidence of Christ and all that took place in the bible then the precious evolution you hold onto for dear life... And again I ask all that read....1 thing that has evolved just one in the last ok I will give you even 500 years....I have still to wait for this one to be answered... You have evolved from our previous generation. I have evolved, no one stops evolving. Now I know what you mean, all creationist have the same old tired arguments. This dance goes like this. You say , "show me a new species that has evolved". Then you will only accept YOUR own definition of what a species is . . . . I can show MANY MANY new species, its pathetically easy to do, any high school evolution class has many such examples. I have done so on these very forums on different threads. ___________________________________ If you didn't read it before let me say that I will be posting a complete Guide to evolution which will cover this with videos and text analysis in the coming weeks. If you are truly interested in understanding how humans can to be what we are today then you will likely be very interested regardless of your beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best. Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point. Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind. Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion. No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man How is the historical validity of the bible questionable? What folklore are you referring to? Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included. If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact. This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable. Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early. 2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." (II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts. So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. He writes, “Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”9 This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I’ve promised to say more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman’s hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection—and so would we. that is so far from any kind of fact it's crazy. These are NOT facts, period. There are 0 facts to support a resurrection. in fact the eveidence shows it not happening. The first recorded appearance story (in terms of when it was written, not when it was supposed to have happened) is of the appearance to Paul, and it is clearly a vision. In one account, he does not see Jesus, only a flash of light (9.3-5), and those with him do not see Jesus, but only hear him (Acts 9.7). Paul could have been speaking in another voice, which the others took as Jesus (or which the author of Acts portrays them as taking to be Jesus, since we don't have their account of it, after all). But the fact that no one, not even Paul, saw Jesus in the flesh makes the point well enough. Most importantly, Paul never says in his letters that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh (he even denies it in Galatians 1). Moreover, this particular encounter in Acts has all the earmarks of something like a seizure-induced hallucination: Paul alone sees a flash of light, collapses, hears voices, and goes blind for a short period. An embolism is sufficient to cause or explain all of this. We can add to this the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the earliest gospel, Mark, do not describe any appearances of Jesus. Paul gives other accounts of his vision which claim that others saw it, too. Doesn't this suggest a genuine vision from God? First of all, there is still never any mention of Jesus appearing in the flesh. Rather, all that appears is a light from heaven (phôs ek tou ouranou, 9.3; ek tou ouranou...phôs, 22.6; ouranothen...phôs, 26.13). So even if several saw the light, it can still have a natural explanation, from lightning to a reflection from a distant object, or even a simple ray of sunlight peaking through a cloud, any of which could also have induced a seizure or affected Paul emotionally, causing an hallucination (or inspiration). And since we don't have the story from any of these other observers, the story could be embellished or fabricated at leisure, for whatever reason. In my opinion, Paul may have seen in Christianity a way to save the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Romans by displacing their messianic motives to rebel, and creating a new Judaism more agreeable to the Gentiles, open to all and thus uniting rather than dividing, and more submissive to outside authority by internalizing and spiritualizing religious faith, eliminating messianic (and violent) emphasis on the Temple, and postponing material and social complaints by referring them to an afterlife. This could have been a deliberate or a subconscious motivator for Paul and others leading the movement. In Paul's case, guilt at what he had done to good people, and admiration for their moral program and fortitude, may have also played an emotional role. I happen to be one who is fairly well read on this subject. I will refute all that in one swoop. "Paul's letter to the Corinthians is dated by Christians and skeptics alike at around AD 54 or 58, but Paul must have received the creed before he could have recorded it in his letter. In fact, Paul tells us that he gave this Gospel to them earlier. Christians and skeptics alike agree Paul visited Corinthians and gave them the Gospel orally about AD 51. Paul tells us that about 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19). It's likely that Paul received the creed while in Jerusalem. If Christ was crucified in AD 30, then Paul would have been converted a short while later (perhaps 33-35, though more likely as early as 31 and no later than 33), placing his tript o Jerusalem around 36-38. Obviously Paul would have spoken with the two apostles about the Gospel, an assumption which is strengthened by the specific mention of meeting with Peter, James and the Gospel 14 years after his first journey (Galatians 2). So Paul likely received the creed no later than AD 38 directly from the apostles. It's possible that Paul receied the creed even earlier, perhaps while in Damascus 3 years earlier than his trip to Jerusalem. However, as mentioned above, the creed contains a number of items which indicate Semitic origin, making Jerusalem a more likely location." 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. This creed dates earlier than Mark. And they are facts. We need to move this to a new thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy Metal-Eating "Superworms" Unearthed in U.K.
Newly evolved "superworms" that feast on toxic waste could help cleanse polluted industrial land, a new study says. These hardcore heavy metal fans, unearthed at disused mining sites in Britain and Wales, devour lead, zinc, arsenic, and copper. The earthworms excrete a slightly different version of the metals, making them easier for plants to suck up. Harvesting the plants would leave cleaner soil behind. "These worms seem to be able to tolerate incredibly high concentrations of heavy metals, and the metals seem to be driving their evolution," said lead researcher Mark Hodson of the University of Reading in England. "If you took an earthworm from the back of your garden and put it in these soils, it would die," Hodson said. DNA analysis of lead-tolerant worms living at Cwmystwyth, Wales, show they belong to a newly evolved species that has yet to be named, he said. Two other superworms, including an arsenic-munching population from southwest England, are also likely new to science, Hodson said. "It's a good bet they are also different species, but we haven't categorically proved that," he said. The findings were announced in September at the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool. Source Evolution in action http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/77867-newly-evolved-superworms.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no essential conflict between the bible and evolution unless you take the bible literally which results in well just a whole lotta problems. actually the bible is not compatible with evolution unless you throw aout the adam and eve story the flood story the ages of the people in the bible and a whole lot of other stuff. So you either believe in this fairy tale or you believe in facts and science you can not have both. Evolution is not proof of no god but it is proof that the bible is false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 02/01/09 08:26 PM
|
|
There is no essential conflict between the bible and evolution unless you take the bible literally which results in well just a whole lotta problems. actually the bible is not compatible with evolution unless you throw aout the adam and eve story the flood story the ages of the people in the bible and a whole lot of other stuff. So you either believe in this fairy tale or you believe in facts and science you can not have both. Evolution is not proof of no god but it is proof that the bible is false. Heavy Metal-Eating "Superworms" Unearthed in U.K. Newly evolved "superworms" that feast on toxic waste could help cleanse polluted industrial land, a new study says. These hardcore heavy metal fans, unearthed at disused mining sites in Britain and Wales, devour lead, zinc, arsenic, and copper. The earthworms excrete a slightly different version of the metals, making them easier for plants to suck up. Harvesting the plants would leave cleaner soil behind. "These worms seem to be able to tolerate incredibly high concentrations of heavy metals, and the metals seem to be driving their evolution," said lead researcher Mark Hodson of the University of Reading in England. "If you took an earthworm from the back of your garden and put it in these soils, it would die," Hodson said. DNA analysis of lead-tolerant worms living at Cwmystwyth, Wales, show they belong to a newly evolved species that has yet to be named, he said. Two other superworms, including an arsenic-munching population from southwest England, are also likely new to science, Hodson said. "It's a good bet they are also different species, but we haven't categorically proved that," he said. The findings were announced in September at the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool. Source Evolution in action http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/77867-newly-evolved-superworms.html Nylon being man made its 100% fact that these critters did not exist prior to modern synthetic materials. This is the tip of the ice burg, like I said EVERYTHING is evolving. Things that live, reproduce and die fast will mutate at greater rates. Small short lived highly reproducing critters will show the effects of evolution over shorter time periods. Long lived critters that do not have the same selection pressure on them will evolve much slower. Beautiful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no essential conflict between the bible and evolution unless you take the bible literally which results in well just a whole lotta problems. actually the bible is not compatible with evolution unless you throw aout the adam and eve story the flood story the ages of the people in the bible and a whole lot of other stuff. So you either believe in this fairy tale or you believe in facts and science you can not have both. Evolution is not proof of no god but it is proof that the bible is false. Well, and I look at some of the stories in the bible as true at the level of understanding at the time. If a person were flooded out in his area of the world and all he could see is water, to him the world flooded, right? If a couple lived in a secluded part of the country and only saw themselves and their family, they are the only ones on the earth, right? The bible is folk tales, personal experience with lessons in the mix. They are not historically correct but still have some value. The dangerous part is when people take it literally and allow no proof of the later to enter their minds and then they force it on others with fear and guilt. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Mon 02/02/09 07:24 AM
|
|
There is no essential conflict between the bible and evolution unless you take the bible literally which results in well just a whole lotta problems. actually the bible is not compatible with evolution unless you throw aout the adam and eve story the flood story the ages of the people in the bible and a whole lot of other stuff. So you either believe in this fairy tale or you believe in facts and science you can not have both. Evolution is not proof of no god but it is proof that the bible is false. one man write about all man and women being cast from a higher realm to a lower realm, telling a story of one male and female, to represent all, coming from a place of no sight of existence of good and bad, from a place with only good, to tell of the plight of all human footprints upon the sands of earth??? another man many moons later find discovery of the atom, a thing able to have immense power, and within all human flesh, and see not the correlation??? and then one tell a story of a flood of the earth, and it is read thru FIRST a thinking that A CREATOR IS DISPLEASED, so then demand of many things, as some uni sumpreme in the sky in big sling back chair for back pain, as the interpretations give act out in word and essence as if greater intelligence, be no different than man??? when within the pages of the text, the flood was a GREAT THING OF GOODNESS, as speaking of the flooding of MAN WITH POWER??? power enough to leave the human body, which is just exactely what the great flood of noah was all about??? each getting within their own ark, the love of their own families??? what would happen if all families, took into their love and care all of their own offspring??? who would be left out??? the story of noah be just this, and only say a greater good came then and showed why and how and what was needed to know, to allow the want of the peoples to be freed to making this happen??? water is as power and spirit of god, or just greater awareness, and no matter but to you and due respect for what you believe, but all such things you mention as bad, are NOT JUST ABLE TO BE READ AS THIS??? and again, the ages of the people??? saying man lived for a thousand year period??? also within text, another place tell of a millenium, where all live a thousand years as gods upon the earth, as paradise, learning new skills using a higher realm or quickened body, or just one that has the greater power to be much faster than all things presently, even to travel as a thought to any place wished??? if one take the entire things once heard, and first believe they are ALL MOST GOOD, and see if things heard can be as well maxiumum good, it beocme apparent??? in other words, IF A STORY IS DEFINED AS A MAXIUMUM NEGATIVE, MUST THERE NOT BE A MAXIMUM POISTIVE FEFINITION AS WELL, for there to have been a bad one??? THERE COULD BE NO BAD DEFINITION WITHOUT A GOOD ONE??? the very first premise, of "all are as god", ALL HUMANS, HAST TO BE MAINTAINED OR ALL IS CORRUPTED AS ANY WORDS WOULD BE APPLIED TO ONE THING ALONE??? this in itself has made for many interpretation that come from believing in an "image" of god, and not making gods as each human thing, and this VERY FIRST THING HIDE HOW EACH STORY IS MAXIMUM GOOD??? these things written here are just "other possibilities", but indeed, text say that if one read the text, and have any FEAR of god, or think GOD IS A TYRANT OR DICTATORSHIP, when all things of god say ALL ARE ONE, and any true knwoing of god will see how it is all maximum good, then interpretations of things being defined thru anything but this sight, come FIRST FROM THE THINKING OF THE READER, AND MANY THINGS BEING MISALIGNED THEN TO "MANY" OTHER THINGS WITHIN THE SAME BOOK, AND SO NOT HOLDING UP TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE BOOK ITSELF, SHOWING SUCH THINGS ARE NOT THE "MOST TRUE MEANINGS"??? how and why does each religion of the world speak of a story of some equal proportions, to that of genisis, and many religions also as well many things of aliens, and of intelligence from a higher realm, and indeed, text say all shall soon find that those others realms are no where else but right here, and many things within the book transcribed only thru ancient fears, actually hide the way to access things as these, that actually releive man of many of his troubles??? many say christ BORE THE WEIGHT of mankinds sins??? the same as many say christ was a sacrificial lamb, and indeed this essence in one degree be true, but all things have many pieces of truth within one saying, and the belief of the "one hearing and defining" decide which "piece" is taken as true??? does not any human that die because it will not agree to what it know is not all true, become as a martyr of greater truth, but as well, it was also written of the "weight of sin" christ bore??? text itself say this is gravity, literal scientific gravity, that pull man "low" to the ground, and that "jesus" was referring to a new higher realm mas pass into in later days, not as some being destroyed, and others not, when saying greater than "himself" would come, as "he" had gone to "prepare" a greater place for ALL??? a place where the be no gravity??? we have not even begun to access the impact of gravity upon the emotions and actions of human man with the most data possible, and many thing shave yet to be included in small minded ideas past along as largest truth??? anything that say it has most truth, be in itself a huge tell of the place of the mind alone, as anything know that each day within humanity, what was once as sci-fi, become more reality everyday??? biblical text is sci-fi in it's highest degree and form, and only speak of awareness of mankind, so great it was called "all knowings angels"??? text say there is no single god, and that none have seen the face of god, saying all humansa re the only gods, and making gods single gods in the skies, is actually what ALL WITHIN WERE AGAINST??? it was been interpreted thru such things, but living proof must verify what is real, and such notions as previously defined will never stand the scrutiny of real time, as it march forward??? mankind indeed finish the quandary of einstein's gravity laid down 100 years ago, just as text mention happen with each thing passed down from greater kmowing, being fulfiled and added to each 100 years??? that make 2005, and indeed, we shall find that the human vessel called the body DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO GRAVITY??? this in itself was then relieving of the weight upon mans shoulders christ was said to die for, and the only thing that restrict a human to gravity, is collective negative thoughts, that create anti-force within the collective energy fields of the earth??? all thoughts are within a frequency of thought, that travel around the earth, and these ALL HUMANS TAP INTO, and draw from, and all thoghts on the internet made as voices put more into the collective pile of "negative energy within the realm", and without greater possibility being made publicly known to the peoples, by what is foretold in text, and all other religions as well, we would indeed destroy the earth as we know it in short order, as a manic state of fear is foretold, that make for trigger happy "state of minds", that exist within the streets and towns, as well as within the high places of power, and only ONE BAD DAY FOR ONE IN SUCH PLACES, CAN CHANGE IT ALL, LOL??? if the things in text and all religions were not as true, and there be no grander wisdom and force of power for man to tap into and use, then indeed we would be doomed, as we have funneled ourself into a dead end point, with no way out except going all the way back to square one, as the systems built and in place are uilt on faulty principles, that had indeed no chioce but to fail given due time....... any human thing can reach up and tap into a higher realm of energy, this greater place simply be other higher realms, and the only bad thing, ONE MUST PASS THRU THE REALM OF ALL THOUGHT, AND THERE IS A LOT OF SCARY THOUGHTS OUT THERE, LOL..... BUT AFTER PASSING THRU THIS INTO A REALM ABOVE, IT IS AS BREAKING THRU THE CLOUDS OF WAR INTO THE SUNLIGHT, OF GREATER AWANRESS, HIGHER, where all AWARENESS is not trapped by human body, just as what many scientific minds also believe exist as well??? these things here are only written as other possibilities of greater and grand excellent good, that can be read within the book as well, and only written for the sake of hearing such horrid things said for them to mean, and thatn have become as believed by many things as some most good truth, lol??? just one cent worth of other ideas..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again talk the mighty talk but show me one species that has gone from one species to another separate and complete species....Not going to happen because it just is not so. If we evolved from chimps or apes or whatever they would no longer be here.....Otherwise what would be the purpose of evolving into a sub species....Sorry but just to many holes in this theory folks.
It is what it is.....and so take it or leave it.....there is much more evidence of Christ and all that took place in the bible then the precious evolution you hold onto for dear life... And again I ask all that read....1 thing that has evolved just one in the last ok I will give you even 500 years....I have still to wait for this one to be answered... You have evolved from our previous generation. I have evolved, no one stops evolving. Now I know what you mean, all creationist have the same old tired arguments. This dance goes like this. You say , "show me a new species that has evolved". Then you will only accept YOUR own definition of what a species is . . . . I can show MANY MANY new species, its pathetically easy to do, any high school evolution class has many such examples. I have done so on these very forums on different threads. ___________________________________ If you didn't read it before let me say that I will be posting a complete Guide to evolution which will cover this with videos and text analysis in the coming weeks. If you are truly interested in understanding how humans can to be what we are today then you will likely be very interested regardless of your beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 02/02/09 07:28 AM
|
|
Again talk the mighty talk but show me one species that has gone from one species to another separate and complete species....Not going to happen because it just is not so. If we evolved from chimps or apes or whatever they would no longer be here.....Otherwise what would be the purpose of evolving into a sub species....Sorry but just to many holes in this theory folks. We have, look up a few posts and really read. Dragoness posed a great example. You have no desire to learn how evolution works, you have clearly already made up your mind. You think we evolved from chimps and apes and you wonder why they are still here since supposedly in your own concept of evolution we must have evolved from them, which is incorrect. First thing, we are apes. We are a member of the greats ape family, right now . . . so we didn't evolve from apes, we ARE primates. (Christian scientist made this very astute observation before Darwin) Chimps are a very close cousin, but we didn't evolve from them either. Evolution happens, what creationist fail to do once they acknowledge that change takes place is to say that this change is restricted to like "kinds" but they fail to realize that such a restriction would require a mechanism to keep change from appearing in large morphological alterations. I am sure you will fail to understand this. FCL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 02/02/09 09:17 AM
|
|
Every period will have its share of 'flatearthers'.
'period-flatearthers' refuse reality, and find comforting refuge in fairy tales which constitute for them, an essential 'known' and 'unchangeable' way of viewing life, and the world around them. '... It's the way it is...', because that's what the fairy tale says, and the fairy is the only explanation for the way 'things are' in the eyes of 'period-flatearthers: '... it is what the book says it is, and only what the book says it is, IS !!!... ' The collective human experience, and its 'slow' move onward, will always hold its share of 'period- flatearters' and their unnegotiable resistance to anything 'outside-of-their-book'!!! It is a fact of being human as a race. The bottom line for 'period-flatearthers', is that the 'unknwon' will always constitute a form of disturbance to 'their' estalished order. Of course, the flatearther's sole mission is to maintain the 'order' (of course there is such a thing as 'order' according to them, and it is always their kind of 'order'). The human beings that we all are, will always instinctively seek the orderly way of things, ... the 'known', ... the non-threatening; given the unconsciously reigning 'flight or flight' impulse of our good old 'reptilian brain'!!! The fact that there is a possibility for humans to 'mind-over-matter' this primitive instinct when it is delusionally pushing 'change' on us as though it were some sort of a mortal danger, ... totally escapes 'period-flatearthers'. Obstinate and stubborn resistance of the .period-flatearhter' against the (delusional) treath of the 'unknown', is the only phenomenon explains the transformation of what is otherwise an unbelievable biblical 'fairy-horror tale', ... into 'the word of god' and 'the source of eveything that 'IS'!!! If it is not in the book - according to one 'period-flatearther' at a time (only those whom take the writings litterally) - then it is 'unknown', 'threatening' and therefore must be 'attacked', and 'destroyed' to restore 'order' of the 'known biblical order'. However vocal they may be, persistant 'period-flatearthers' (not JUST resisting, but FANATICALLY resisting to their HOLY death) are a small minority of the population of the planet. No amount of one-on-one dialogue, debate, exchange, or facts will ever change the mind of a true 'period-flatearther'. Their 'order' is strong in the delusional kingdom!!! In the end, much like the 'wisdom' of water against the rock, it is not one drop that will get through the seemingly unpenetrable RESISTANCE of the 'period-flatearther' rock, IT IS TIME!!! In that I trust!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Mon 02/02/09 10:19 AM
|
|
Well see there ya go....some say apes some say chimps so maybe you guys need to get it straight before you preach it. And/or the branch of either. And please don't assume I know nothing of evolution because that is just not true.
Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Now within a species I would totally agree.....but if you people are saying that one species turned into a complete other one or even a branch that is utter crap....and not once have I seen an answer that backs this up. It's not that I am not open to it...I just haven't seen an answer that is anything but laughable. I think the alien stories are more credible. We have always been man imo and if I say we all evolved from 1 man....does that mean that we haven't evolved. Well of course not. I think eventually we will have no little toe either, but I am not going to see a human being anything other then a human being. I have enough proof but hey bring it on and we will take it from there...but then remember that works both ways...to really understand where I am coming from and the evidence I also have. Darwin's theory of evolution is what we are taught. How pathetic is that....that school systems would just let it be and teach kids this insane theory...And sorry but this is what most people will go by because that is what has been taught. And just FYI they have blown this out of the water 10 days to Sunday. And again don't assume that I fail to understand anything.....Who died and left you MR. IQ anyway. And again FYI I did understand it. So again there is no way that I believe any of the theories that you people are feeding others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution states that each species alive today is the end result of its own evolution. Where the issue arises, I believe is in branches, for example, it is no longer felt that Neaderthal is within the evolution chain of homo sapien, but an off-shoot which died out. I am sure that Krimsa will correct any errors in my statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well see there ya go....some say apes some say chimps so maybe you guys need to get it straight before you preach it. And/or the branch of either. And please don't assume I know nothing of evolution because that is just not true. Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Now within a species I would totally agree.....but if you people are saying that one species turned into a complete other one or even a branch that is utter crap....and not once have I seen an answer that backs this up. It's not that I am not open to it...I just haven't seen an answer that is anything but laughable. I think the alien stories are more credible. We have always been man imo and if I say we all evolved from 1 man....does that mean that we haven't evolved. Well of course not. I think eventually we will have no little toe either, but I am not going to see a human being anything other then a human being. I have enough proof but hey bring it on and we will take it from there...but then remember that works both ways...to really understand where I am coming from and the evidence I also have. Darwin's theory of evolution is what we are taught. How pathetic is that....that school systems would just let it be and teach kids this insane theory...And sorry but this is what most people will go by because that is what has been taught. And just FYI they have blown this out of the water 10 days to Sunday. And again don't assume that I fail to understand anything.....Who died and left you MR. IQ anyway. And again FYI I did understand it. So again there is no way that I believe any of the theories that you people are feeding others. Theories are not to be believed, they are to be considered. A theory is a theory. It comes with supportive evidence and is taught AS A THEORY. It is not taught as fact... until such time as it becomes a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly and no where ever has it said that God, Christ or the Bible are a theory.....thank you very much.
Well see there ya go....some say apes some say chimps so maybe you guys need to get it straight before you preach it. And/or the branch of either. And please don't assume I know nothing of evolution because that is just not true. Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Now within a species I would totally agree.....but if you people are saying that one species turned into a complete other one or even a branch that is utter crap....and not once have I seen an answer that backs this up. It's not that I am not open to it...I just haven't seen an answer that is anything but laughable. I think the alien stories are more credible. We have always been man imo and if I say we all evolved from 1 man....does that mean that we haven't evolved. Well of course not. I think eventually we will have no little toe either, but I am not going to see a human being anything other then a human being. I have enough proof but hey bring it on and we will take it from there...but then remember that works both ways...to really understand where I am coming from and the evidence I also have. Darwin's theory of evolution is what we are taught. How pathetic is that....that school systems would just let it be and teach kids this insane theory...And sorry but this is what most people will go by because that is what has been taught. And just FYI they have blown this out of the water 10 days to Sunday. And again don't assume that I fail to understand anything.....Who died and left you MR. IQ anyway. And again FYI I did understand it. So again there is no way that I believe any of the theories that you people are feeding others. Theories are not to be believed, they are to be considered. A theory is a theory. It comes with supportive evidence and is taught AS A THEORY. It is not taught as fact... until such time as it becomes a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chimps being part of the Great Apes (wasn't that a TV show, oh that was the Great Grape Ape); King Prefer Champagne Others Find Gin Sufficient, wait its coming back to me.... no no I forget most of my Paleotology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible reveals how such teachings as evolution become popular. It says: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man’s affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people’s ears.
|
|
|
|
|
