by D wiltshire 35 Replies latest jw friends
Hillary_Step,
I personally think humans have been on the earth far longer than 6000 years. I haven't done an in depth study on that subject so I may be wrong, but I am not sure the bible limits man to 6000 years. Doesn't the bible count in generations? I will need to re-read the genesis account before I can give a better comment. That is just what pops into my mind at the moment.
Are you referring to the two lineages for Jesus in Luke?
Borgfree
Borgfree,
No I am referring to the inclusion of Cainan ( Kenan )in Luke 3:37, missing in the Genesis genealogies. As I say, this makes a difference of a generation or so in the count back to Adam, but makes little difference to the issues regarding the antiquity of conscious man.
Many creationists believe that the list of generations in Genesis 5 is not to be taken literally but actually falls into a pattern designed for ease of remembrance rather than accuracy. The problem is that even stretching this viewpoint to breaking does not allow for the recent discoveries regarding the antiquity of conscious man ( I use the term ‘conscious’ deliberately ) on earth.
Now I am not decrying the value of the Bible as a book of faith. Though it does contain many statements that are very easy to take issue with, it also contains much valuable information. I happen to think for example, that the Sermon(s) on the Mount are some of the most beautiful expressions of pure love that I have ever seen in writing. I am however suggesting that the Bible is unreliable as a book of science and chronology and at the very least should not be taken literally.
Best regards - HS
Religion and theism are static systems based upon an unchanging book. If new facts are discovered that don't fit the theories, the facts are challanged or they have to make changes in their theories, even though what the theory is based on (the book) is the same.
This is a big difference. Which honestly do you think is a better choice for guiding your life?
If the Creator of everything, gave a book for His creatures to live by, wouldn't you expect it to be unchangeable?
Yes, I’d also expect it to be right. This is easy to determine.
Let us put creation to one side for a moment, as I think we can agree that at this moment no one can satisfactorily demonstrate whether the initial cause was some exotic physics or some exotic entity.
1/ The Genesis account tells us of a Global Flood. There is no evidence for this, and a lot of evidence against it. If the Creator gave us a book to live by, it would avoid error as this would reduce peoples perceptions of its reliability.
2/ The Pentateuch is very clear that monogamy is the way humans should live, although it does make concessions for concubinage. A thorough examination of human sexual biology reveals that we are not designed to be monogamous. Both men and women have either physiological and or behavioural features that indicate humans did not develop as monogamous. If the Creator gave us a book to live by, it would not ask us to act against our natures (well, it might, but it seems unreasonable of god to design us one way and expect us to act another way). It would be like a car company producing a manual that told you to use milk instead of petrol.
There are lots of examples why the Bible is extremely unlikely to be a divinely inspired book. To allow for it to be divinely inspired, you have to drop the bar of accuracy so far that most ancient religious texts then qualify as divinely inspired.
Thus to me, whilst arguments relating to god and creation are very interesting, someone who selects the Bible as their source text does so for reasons other than its content. We cannot pretend that if god could inspire Revelation and wait for people to decode it, he could inspire Genesis and wait for people to decode it;
In the beginning, in the dark of nothingness where even time did not pass dwelt god, infinite and alone. There were no planets, no stars, not even a place for them to be or rules for them to run by. So God crafted great rules and spoke a word. Time became more than an idea in the mind of God. Fire blossomed like a flower, and from the flower of fire grew stars, and God smiled, for he saw they ran according to his rules made a foretime.
Now, if God had wanted, he could have inspired a text that was undeniable proof that he existed. There is no such text. This means;
I think that evolutionists should do the same. I do not think anyone on earth knows everything.
There are all kinds of people claiming to be Christian, some are very hard line in demanding that we believe exactly what has been taught for centuries, others try to be open to testing old beliefs and arriving at the truth.
It seems to me both sides could discuss the subject without either side saying "you are stupid", "you don't know what you are talking about", "first study all of the material on the subject before you comment" I think this example is what I am talking about:
Here you set an unreasonable requirement; you are not 'very knowledgeable in the field of science and evolution', but you say you 'do not believe there exists any technology that proves that "fact" no matter how sure the scientists are that it is a piece of Mars'.
Well borgfee, you’re free to think that. But I’m NOT saying you are stupid. I do think its unreasonable for you to say you aren’t very knowledgeable about science, and then to decide you are in a position to judge whether its possible for scientists to determine if a rock came from Mars. How can you reasonably make such a judgement if you yourself say you’re not very knowledgeable about it?
What if I decided that it was impossible to determine if Genesis was written by several authors without knowing a lot about textual analysis? Would that be reasonable?
What if I decided that it was impossible to determine by DNA analysis whether someone had sickle-cell trait without knowing a lot about genetics analysis? Would that be reasonable?
We all know there are billions of planets, asteroids, comets, and other objects in the universe. Am I to believe the scientists can prove, that rock, came from Mars, rather than from earth, or any one of those billions of orbiting objects? Can the scientists prove that the minerals in that rock are found only on Mars? I think common sense would tell us they cannot, whether we have read all of the science books or not.
Look here; http://www.solarviews.com/eng/meteor.htm . Hopefully, that information will answer your question.
Please note that the terms used in the popular press and in most scientific articles differ; this might actually be what you react to. The popular press will not say;
‘Analysis of the minerals and gas contained within bubbles within the meteorite match common Martian minerals and the Martian atmosphere. It is highly that the meteorite is therefore of Martian origin, probably being ejected in a debris plume following the impact of a meteorite.’
The popular press WILL say;
‘Martian Meteorite’
Of course they aren't. But you don't have the knowledge to evaluate their arguments, and rather than seeking to get the tools to evaluate their arguments...I agree, I still think there are areas where we can just use logic to determine whether something is believable or not.
I SO agree with you borgfree. This is what I believe I do early in this post where I point out the logical contradiction of an inaccurate book being held above other inaccurate books as the one that god inspired.
... you cling to your old beliefs even though you admit you can't evaluate the truth of what scientists say. Is that reasonable? You have basically, without knowing about it, decided science is wrongI was raised from birth on the teachings of the bible. Yes, I cling to them, and have faith in the God of the bible. I have never had an interest in studying evolution, however I will remain open to change, if the facts prove that I should change. You are wrong about my opinion of science. As a JW student in school I loved science, and in fact, had a desire to be a scientist. Of course that did not meet with the approval of the WT org.
It’s great you try to keep an open mind;
Yes, I cling to them, and have faith in the God of the bible.
Remember where it says faith without works is dead? It works both ways. If what is in the Bible DOESN’T work, then faith in the Bible is DEAD, no matter how nice an idea it may present.
Of course, the Bible being true and there being a god are two different discussions…
Too many Preachers open themselves up for ridicule by treating the first 3 chapters of Genesis as some kind of scientific and chronological description of the creation of man.
They look at these first 3 chapters as if written in the 20 th century writing style of today. They fail to see the real value of Genesis; they fail to see that God is communicating to a people that do not have the concepts that we in the western world have. They fail to see that Genesis is of a certain literary genre, which is full rich poetical story telling, the story is just the packaging, and it is the vehicle for telling a very very important "truth".
Hillary_Step and Abaddon,
You have given me a lot of information that I will have to consider and research. I will admit I have had problems with some of the writings in the Old Testiment.
Borgfree
No, I do not think I am the first to think of those questions, but, scientists sometimes act like absent minded professors, the hubble for example. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars to send it into space. Someone could have asked the dumb question,"are you sure the lenses are correct" but it took another shuttle mission to actually correct the lenses before the hubble worked properly.
To be fair, it was the engineers who designed the thing that goofed, not the scientists. But yes, everyone makes mistakes. The neat thing about the scientific method is that it is a self correcting process so that mistakes are found relatively quickly.
rem
