Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward 109 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  rem

  RWC,

  Origins of the Universe: Nobody knows for sure how the universe started. There is no evidence that god created it because there is no evidence for god. If you say something cannot come from nothing, then god is impossible too. I'm not saying god is impossible, but there is simply no evidence. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future. Until then nobody knows how or why it began. Right now all we know is what happened a fraction of a second after it all started.

  Origins of Life: We still don't know how life began. There are various theories. This is Abiogenesis. Life from non-life. Not Evolution. Life did not start from a single cell. It started long before with self-replicating molecules. This is where Evolution steped in and Natural Selection formed these self-replicating molicules into the first single celled organisms that then also evolved into multicellular organisms, etc. DNA came from simpler structures such as RNA which came from simpler structures as well, etc.

  Not only fossils but DNA, geology, lab experiments, computer programs/models, biology, etc. all provide evidence for Evolution. The fossil evidence is clear. Life has changed over time. Do you believe the same creatures/species on earth today existed millions of years ago? If you do, then the fossil evidence does not agree with you. Evolution explains this change of life over time. The fossil evidence is in complete agreement with Evolution. There are gaps and there always will be, but the evidence that we have is very strong. Also, there are many transitional fossils for different animals - especially Human Beings!

  For every incident where you can point to the judgment of God coming into play, you will find messengers being sent telling the people to repent and change their ways

  Every incident? Did the babies that he killed get a chance to repent? How about the Canaanites? I don't believe they had a chance to repent. What about the account where god PURPOSEFULLY hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he could send plagues against the Egyptians?

  Cities are where the Bible says they are, temple exist where people once believed they couldn't. Name for me one find that contradicts the Bible. I would like to hear about it. What I am referring to is a find that puts a city in a totally different place than the Bible says it would be, not just that somethings haven't been found yet.

  You are limiting yourself to quite mundane archeological errors. There are anachronisms where cities were given the wrong names, but I’m not sure of any cities in the wrong place. I’m not sure how that would prove the Bible’s authenticity anyway, as many works of fiction contain correct geography. The archeology finds I’m thinking of have to do with ancient Israel. A couple of examples are the city Jericho and King David and Solomon’s empire. It seems that there was no wall around Jericho at the time it was supposed to be raised by the Israelites. Also it turns out that David and Solomon’s empire was not really much of an empire after all, but more like a small village in the southern area of Judah.

  Of course the Bible also goes against archeology because it says there was a great flood when we have archeological evidence of ancient civilizations thriving at the time this was supposed to have happened. Apparently the Egyptians didn’t realize they were underwater for much of a year!

  Finally, I would rather put my faith and trust in the bible than in science any day. Don't forget that it was science that once told us that the world was flat and hundereds of other scientific facts that since been disproven.

  First of all, that is a very scary thought. Most probably the only reason you are still alive today is because of science. Second of all, science never said the earth was flat. That was what ignorant people thought. The educated, or more scientific ancient people knew the earth was round, and they even measured the circumference of the earth quite accurately! I’m not sure of what you mean by hundreds of scientific facts that have been disproved. Is the fact that religion stays the same even though it is proven wrong somehow better to you?

  Nice talking to you,

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  pomegranate

  >>I am still very troubled you use quotation marks round the word victim,<<

  Don't let puncuation marks get your pants all up in a ball. "Gut feeling" was also punctuated the same way in the same post in the same sentence, doesn't that count as misogynistic too? I was quoting my own prior thought patterns to you, and you turned it into some kind wacked out woman hating perversion. Simple. (By the way, I'm not misogynistic. I'm 42, married over 20 years, have four kids, two boys and two girls. Happy now????)

  >>when talking about people who have been raped, and then refuse to clarify whether of not you are a misogynist, instead concentrating on my spelling.<<

  I thought your assumption of me being misogynistic just because of putting little (") around the word victim was outlandishly assanine, OK? If someone like you can jump to that kind of heinous conclusion from a couple of puctuation marks around a word, how on earth am I ever going to get real words of communication across to you?

  >>In fact if you hadn't been so rude I would have not bothered replying,<<

  I believe the rudeness started here with your big fat intro into this thread no?

  Isn't it wonderful that in all this tap dancing on the head of a pin, pomegranate strains out the gnat and swallows down the camel? ARe you too busy playing with your calculator to actually think about the scriptures you quote;

  Such an unrude way to make yourself known huh? Give me a break will ya? What kind of reaction would you have to the above??

  >>as I see no possible outcome other than you becoming increasingly abusive and hypocritical.<<

  See your intro please. I believe with your intial and continued onslaught of derogatory demeanor, I handled myself rather fairly with what I was being subjected to. Surely not perfect, but fair.

  >>But I'm going to ignore it... I apologise if I have in any way insulted you and caused you to return like for like, I'll try to, what's the saying... turn the other cheek...? and hope you do the same.<<

  Let's try it. If it goes south again, I'll be the one to say "good bye" to this thread as you did previous....only I won't come back. I will try to get to this thread as often as I can...I am self employed and business this time of year explodes. I

  So...more of what I believe. Genesis used to be the most troubling for me. Matter of fact...I thought it was all a big bunch of fairy tale bed time story crap. There was one point in my "search" (oh oh!!!)...I would have to say I even HATED this WHOLE flippin' book...probably for the same reasons many have felt reading this thread. Then, somehow I understood it differently, and it all began making sense...So..here I go;

  Gen 1:3-4
  3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

  There was nothing made or ceated here. Do you see "created" or "made" in the context? Nothing was made here. But something did HAPPEN.

  (I don't need the Hebrew here. But if you can agree with what I have just stated, that the passage really doesn't say "made" or even "created" like Gen 1:1, then we have to find out what happened here.)

  Let's try and stay focused on this, OK? Actually, I would rather start at Gen 1:1, because there is where we would need the Hebrew.

  ***************************

  Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

  >>>???

  King Uzziah is King Amaziah. This man who was king went by and had two names.

  King Uzziah Amaziah
• 

  Abaddon

  RWC:
  

  By the way, why is it that you think we die in the first place?"

  Well, we have these things called telomeres. They 'cap' our chromosomes, just like the hard plastic at the end of the shoe lace. These telomeres get shorter, and eventually allow the genetic material in the chromosomes to be degraded. This carries on, out bodies cease repairing themselves properly, and eventually, we die. Death and evolution are two different things. Evolution is about passing genes on, and the 'fitter' members of a population being more likely to pass these genes on, concentrating beneficial traits (and it's about mutation too, but that's a seperate issue). Death is what hapens, if you're fit or lucky, after you pass your genes on... it's all we're designed for, after that happens, we're done. If you are unfit, then death is a way of stopping you passing your genes on to others

  Second, evolution is not the answer to the creation of the earth. In fact, most scientist who have studied the origions of life have reached the conclusion that there must be a creator.

  {emphasis mine}

  You have either been grossly misinformed, or are attempting to misinform. Please cite some evidence of this statement.

  The odds against a sea of chemicals swirling around in such a manner to form amino acids and than proteins and than single cell organisms and than ultimantly all of the different types of animals and plants we have on earth today are astronomical. In fact, no scientist has been able to answer how it would happen, much less how DNA would be created. Evolution as the origions of life has been completely defeated.

  You seem to be grossly misinformed again. Please look at the information in these URL's;

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html

  Even if you accept the Big Bang theory you must go back far enough in time for the beginning of the explosion and then decide how the materials got there to explode in the first place.

  Even if you accept the god theory you must go back far enough in time and then decide how god got there in the first place.

  Let's do a deal; I'll explain where my singularity came from completely, if you explain where your god came from completely.

  Science has never been able to create something from nothing. Even single cell organisms are so complex that if you are to be intellectually honest you could not say that they were formed by random chance.

  Great quote... see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html before you bandy around terms like 'intellectually honest' as though creationists by definition ARE honest and as though evolutionist by definition are dishonest. As I say above, read up on the subject. The use of the word 'random' in this context seems to indicate you've got your information from someone who looked at the chemicals and compunds involved as if they were different colour lego bricks, that all could slot together, and were equally likely or unlikely to slot together. This is incorrect. It also ignores the existence of catalysts.

  Your discussion of Natural selection does not solve the problem. Unless you say that life in all its various forms began to emerge at once than the first cell had to form at some time. Did all life come from that first cell and than ultimately evolve or did multiple different types of cells form over time and create all of the different life forms we have today? Either way, the first cell of any type of life form had to exist. The question becomes how did it get there and what caused it to have DNA that was necessary for life?

  Please do not be taken in by arguments that make it sound like the 'first cell' had to pop into being in a way similar to the goddess Athene sprining fullt-grown and clothed from Zeus' brow. They didn't. The first cell was the result of evolution too; the URL's above should answer some of your questions in this area, if not, ask me what you need clarified. As an opener, there are proteins that duplicate themselves... and these proteins are no more 'alive' than the ones in your steak, they've just develeped a freaky ability.

  As for fossil evidence, you are mistaken when you say that fossils prove the validity of evolution. Even Darwin recognized the lack of fossil evidence for his theory and speculated that it would come over time. The truth is it hasn't. Do we have fossils of giraffes with short necks slowly getting longer, no. Do we have hippos suddenly turning into whales? no. There is a sparcity of transitional fossils which are needed to prove evolution. The truth is that giant leaps in faith are made to support the theory of evolution.

  You are basing your entire arguement on material taken from creationist websites. No problem there; I'm taking mine from evolutionist websites. Difference is, your arguements are out of date and incorrect;

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  Finally, I would rather put my faith and trust in the bible than in science any day. Don't forget that it was science that once told us that the world was flat and hundereds of other scientific facts that since been disproven.

  No, what you had was the Roman Catholic church saying the Bible said the Earth was flat... this was about a thousand years AFTER a Greek scientist measured the diameter of the Earth, as it was quite obvious to him it was a globe. And it was the Roman Catholic church who wanted to burn the scientist who dared point out that they were worng, and the Earth orbited the sun, not the other way round. Funnily enough, the Roman Catholic church don't argue with scientists anymore... it's only adherants to more fundamentlistic, literalistic interpretations of the Bible that damage whatever message there MAY be in the Bible, by hooking it up to their determination to take a Bronze ages goatherd's worldview as their own.

  You do realise you can believe in God, and Jesus, and Heaven, and Law, and not take the Bible literally?

  Pom; I have already said "I apologise if I have in any way insulted you and caused you to return like for like". I was in fact very offended by your apparent interpretation, and over reacted. I felt it represented god, if there is one, in an appalling light. You might not agree with that opinion, but your reaction to what you perceived as blasphemy on my part hopefully will let you understand the emotion I felt when a saw a literalistic interpretation of the Bible conflict with my understanding of what god might be. So I apologise again, and am glad we can have a constructive conversation.

  I am sorry I failed to make it clear I was trying to determine whether your use of quotation marks indicated you thought that there was a degree of qualification required when using the word victim and applying it to someone who had been raped. If you think people who are raped are 'victims' (as in, well, they probably are to blame in some way) instead of victims (people who have something they don't want to happen forced upon them), then I really think I disagree with you in a massive fashion. It might just be your use of punctuation differs from mine, but hopefully (having daughters as I do) you can understand why I wanted to be sure I understood what you meant. Us atheists can tap dance on the head of a pin too, provided there is enough room, what with the angels and everything.

  It's fine to start at Genesis 1:1, but if you check my post where I went through Genesis 1, you'll see a lot doesn't give me pause, only some, so feel free to go directly to them, or start at the begining, as you feel is best.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  pomegranate

  Before I dissect Genesis 1:1, I would first need to explain what I believe to have happened before Genesis 1:1.

  I believe Satan was in defiance of YWHW before Genesis 1:1. I believe a heavenly creation of spirit creatures that was once united (before defiance), had now become divided because of Satan's newly created defiance.

  I support this understanding with three chapters in Ezekial. Chapters 26, 27 and 28. I believe this all to be an image and likeness of the heavenly dispute and it's root cause.

  I'll go one small step at a time.

  Now, what can happen is this, you can either accept this (not as total truth, but as a good start) and we can go on, or we can get embrittled in details and never get to the full picture.

  Just to overview some in the chapters in Ezekial as I see it, so you can at least see my angle:

  26 - God speaking destruction to Satan and his domain, through Tyre.

  27 - An image and likeness of what happened in heaven between Satan and the other defiant demons. The relationship between Satan and the other defiant angels is pictured as big business. The last half depicting the smashing of this "business."

  28 - More details on this first defiant one, and his imminent demise.

  Again, the heavens are in turmoil BEFORE Genesis 1:1. Satan is on his tangent.

  So, shall we go on? Or shall we get stuck in the muck and mire of dispute and my understanding will never come out?

  Back to you.
• 

  Abaddon

  Pom, you know my arguement regarding the illogicity of obscurity. What you are arguing is very obscure. I don't conceive a caring god would make his message that obscure. That's not neccesarily an arguement against exlusivity, but is an arguement against elitism and, for want of a better word, theological disenfranchisement of those not exposed to the Bible.

  Having said that, I'm more than happy to listen to further details of your understanding, but I might not get back to you before Monday, as it's 3.30pm where I am and I'm probably not going to be online this weekend.

  So, carry on by all means, I want a complete picture, oh, and have a good weekend...

  (see, I can be nice sometimes)

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  dubla

  pom-

  you did not answer my question, although it appears you believe you did. heres my question:

  Isn't it amazing how Mr. Joe doesn't know that "Azariah" is the same individual as "Uzziah?"

  Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

  so, you say hes the king with two names, fine, but apparently he has three? in these two quotes you claim he is "uzziah", "azariah" AND "amaziah". thats what my ???? was for.

  aa
• 

  RWC

  Rem and Abaddon,

  Thank you for your responses. Rem you are correct when you say that science hasn't figured out yet where or how life originated. Even those who believe in abiogenesis must admit that there are as yet undiscovered simple organisms that must have bridged the gap between the complex structures we see today and the unliving chemical soup. Abiogenesis has tried for years since it was first theorized to come up explanations to overcome the statisitcal improbability of life springing from non living matter. The truth is they must explain how hundreds of amino acids can bind together in the right order to form one protein molecule without the guiding force of DNA and RNA to help them line up. Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick said, "the origin of life appearsto be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going." Life Itself, Simon Schuster, 1981.

  Klaus Dose said " More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." "The Origin of Life:More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review13 348 (1998).

  The most reasonable inference from the evidence is that there had to be an intelligent designer to get this started. Since it can't be explained through Natural science, that involves a supernatural act. That means God.

  By Lab experiments I assume you mean Miller's experiment. If so, that has been disputed. Miller used a combination of chemicals that did not exist in significant quantites in the early earth at the time (ammonia, methane. Had he used what was present, water, carbon dioxide and nitogen, you don't get the same results.

  As for scientists who have turned to God, I may have been too far reaching in saying most. However two prominent examples are Walter Bradley and James Tour frm Rice University. What has been said is that it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist and an atheist.

  The point is that science can't explain the origin of life so the explanation must be supernatural. Is the story of creation in the Bible literal as in seven days including the rest, I don't know and I agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you attempt to take God out of the equation you make a huge difference.

  As for proving God exists I agree that can't be done through science. However when you reach the end of science's rope you have to have faith that science will eventually give us the answer. I chose to put my faith elsewhere.

  I understand your explanation about the Roman Catholic church. I happen to belong there. But you missed the point. Scientist first told us that the world was flat. The fact that other scientists proved them wrong only shows that scientists learn more and more as time goes on and what was thought at first to be true is later proven not to be.

  Religion too has changed over the years in how man has interpreted the Bible and sometimes used its teachings in a perverted way to justify their actions. None of that can be condoned. However, if you get to the root of what the Bible teaches without the differences that divide us, the message is beautiful and very simple.

  Alot of people say that God is not merciful because innocent children die, or what his judgment did to the Cannanites or others in the bible that did not follow him. God did harden Pharaoh's heart so that his plan could be carried out. But we are only looking at God from our perspective. We are here only for a moment. He is eternal. We have no idea how all of the pieces fit together, but he does. For example, if you have a child that wants to touch the stove and you repeatly warn her that it is hot don't do it but she refuses to listen. She will touch the stove and get burned. As a parent you knew that could happen and you tried to warn her, but she felt pain. Now she learned and should listen to you more and follow what you say because she knows its for her good out of love. Don;t read from that that all instructions parents give are out of love,but the Bible is clear that God's instructions are based in that premise.
  Finally, as for the Cannanties, they had four hundered years to repent before the judgment was upon them. I would call that plenty of time.
• 

  Abaddon

  The most reasonable inference from the evidence is that there had to be an intelligent designer to get this started

  Please tell me you don't think that is a scientific statement!!?? We can't supply a closed definative explaination (just like you), so this means, as it's 'all so wonderful', that there must be an intelligent designer? The arguement from incredulity is not a sound one for me. It might be for you.

  But the reasoning is along the lines of a five year-old, who has suspicions that Santa doesn't exist, but decides he must exist as there is so much evidence that it's impossible to understand any explaination for Christmas, as it's 'all so wonderful'.

  I have to say I intensely dislike the fact in two succesive posts you have attacked the moral integrity of the entire scientifc community, without giving any foundation for this;

  What has been said is that it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist and an atheist

  Does that make your arguement stronger? I think not. You've already had to partially retract one statement. Now you imply by quotation that either scientists base their beliefs on faith (the assured expectation of things not yet perceived), or are dishonest. Shame on you. SOME scientific beliefs are very theoretical, and possibly can be termed 'faith'. The vast majority is as provable as you are.

  As for saying;

  I understand your explanation about the Roman Catholic church. I happen to belong there. But you missed the point. Scientist first told us that the world was flat.

  ... sorry, it is you who missed the point.

  It was a religious person who first said the world was flat; religious people have been 'round' (haha) far longer than scientists! In fact, religious people used to be the ad-hoc scientists of the ancient world, which was a bitch when you found your religious beliefs contradicited your own common sense, and got burnt for the trouble.

  At some point, a religious person was scared by lightning, and wondered what lightning was. The 'most obvious explaination' was a bloke in the sky. This is not science.

  At some point some religous person or the other wrote in one of a number of creation myths or holy books that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, as it was the 'most obvious explaination'. This is not science.

  Then some scientist came along and proved what lightning was.

  At some point, a brave scientist avoided being burnt as he could PROVE the Earth rotated round the sun, and wasn't going to let a priest make him lie (well, he did lie eventually, but I'd lie about the Universe's structure to avoid burning, and the Greek scientific knowledge was known by religious people and ignored as it didn't fit their religion).

  At some point, it seemed obvious that, as men make things, men must be made, as it was the 'most obvious explaination'. That's why it says it happened that way in all the religious books. This is not science. Then a scientist came along and proved that things were not made as a man makes a pot.

  Now, we don't have cinefilm of the first DNA strand. You don't have video of god. Stop trying to make it sound like we are making silly assumptions, you make them yourself by doing so. Did you read any of the URL's I posted? I think you would find it interestesting. Look at what the Pope say about evolution http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html Basically, it's accepted, apart from the special nature of man.

  Look at history. Religious beliefs have, at every turn, been defeated by scientific beliefs. There is no definative theory of god. You'd think one would of come up by now... the lack of definativeness is a huge problem for any theist claiming god 'cares' or is 'personified' in any way, as these claims would logically result in god making its way DEFINATIVELY manifest, which it is NOT.

  Evolution's been a part of science, what, 150 years? We're doing far better in explaining our origins that way than religion has ever done.

  Oh, and sorry, I think my concept of god (as it would be if it were) is more loving than yours. God logically cannot be known through a literal interpretation of the Bible, so stop trying to defend the indefensable; you don't need to, your belief in the Bible is not equivalent to your belief in God, and in fact are more logical when treated in this fashion.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  rem

  RWC,

  Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

  I was not thinking of the Miller experiments. I was thinking of everyday lab experiments that are done in Universities that show that organisms evolve. Typical experiments where bacteria are irradiated with ultraviolet light and are then killed off with antibacterial solution. Some survive and they breed more resistant antibacteria. Natural Selection (actually unnatural selection in this case) in action. Abiogenesis is a totally different matter. There has been a lot of interesting work, but there is no answer yet.

  I think the difference between us is that I am fine with unanswered questions, whereas to you there really are no unanswered questions - everything we are ignorant of was done by god.

  I am not comfortable positing that an intelligent being is responsible just because of our own ignorance in the matter. If there were any evidence of an intelligent being, then it could be a possibility. But so far there is no evidence, and any evidence that is brought up is circular. Why posit an even more complex cause when you can't even explain what caused us properly? It just pushes the question back one step.

  The point is that science can't explain the origin of life so the explanation must be supernatural.

  History shows that everytime a god of the gaps argument was used, science has found a naturalistic explanation after the fact. Every time. I don't see why the question of origins is going to be any different. The question of our origins is a tough problem to solve. It happened billions of years ago. We don't have all of the evidence just laying around for us to observe. Why do you think science should be able to explain this question now after only a few decades of research? Does every question that science can't answer now have a supernatural explanation? Do you see how this line of reasoning is reminiscent of the dark ages?

  Also, as you pointed out, it was scientists who found out the earth was round. Not religion. Even if scientists do get things wrong in the beginning, science is self correcting. What great breakthroughs have religions made in curing disease, providing more food, and understanding the universe? When is the last time religion actually corrected science? Religion is self preserving and only grudgingly follows along with science when it can no longer keep to it's old tired superstitions. I'm sure you are aware that even the Catholic Church agrees that Evolution happened.

  As far as the god of the bible's personality, I'm satisfied that we can have different views. To me, if we don't understand his ways, it's just because he didn't do a good enough job explaining them. If he is god, then he should be able to make it all make sense. But it doesn't. Even you admit that. There are things we just don't understand. To me, that's not a loving father. That's just my view and that's why I can't believe in the god of the bible. In my view, his personality is contradictory in various places in the bible.

  Also, did people live for 400 years back in ancient Canaan? Were the same Canaanites who were slaughtered the ones who were 'warned'? I may be ignorant of this, but where exactly were they warned? Do you think the Canaanites even knew who Abraham was after 400 years? I just don't see the justice in that, but like you said, we just can't understand god's ways sometimes.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  pomegranate

  >>pom-
  you did not answer my question, although it appears you believe you did. heres my question:

  Isn't it amazing how Mr. Joe doesn't know that "Azariah" is the same individual as "Uzziah?"

  Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

  so, you say hes the king with two names, fine, but apparently he has three? in these two quotes you claim he is "uzziah", "azariah" AND "amaziah". thats what my ???? was for.<<

  You are correct dub. I made a mistake and did not understand the contradiction you were pointing out.

  The king with two names is Uzziah/Azariah NOT Amaziah as you have correctly pointed out my error. Amaziah is the FATHER of King Uzziah Azariah.

  Uzziah is Azariah, Amaziah is his father.

  Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for seeing that.