Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[randomspot555]

Well, you have to keep in mind that the first Christians/monks/people who copied the Bible were extremely meticulous about copying down the exact text of the source;

It's impossible to make an exact copy when the origin of it is word of mouth.

Ever play a game of "telephone". Person A whispers a sentence to Person B, and that goes on and on until the last person then says out loud what he/she just heard. It almost always ends very distorted, loses meaning, etc...

And that's just one sentence, that stays in the same language.

Now multiply that by a kajillion.

Oral tradition numerous times + written eventually + translated into hundreds of languages (and not always translated from the original written text, but a previously done translation). And then there are words that are basically made up in the Bible, which leads to hotly contested debates among what these words mean.

heheh, you might even say they were religious about it. It was, after all, their whole life. The number of mistakes they made were minimal.

You talk as if it was a group of people who sat around and wrote "The Bible" together. But The Bible isn't a book itself. It's a collection of books. With numerous books that were deemed non canonical for one reason or another. And the books of the Bible rarely have one sole author, if it's even known who wrote them at all. And just because they are the people(s) who wrote it down doesn't mean it originated from them. Considering the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't written down for hundreds of years after Jesus Christ's death, it's impossible that the apostles that they're named after actually wrote them. Especially since it's often implied that Jesus' apostles are largely illiterate.

To say that there aren't contradictions in the Bible, or even biases, is just flat out wrong. They aren't even all "bad" biases, per say. The Gospel of Matthew is written to an audience of Jews, so the explanations of Jewish customs that are found in Luke and Mark (which are written with a Gentile audience in mind) aren't in Matthew. For some reason or another, 2 of the 4 Gospels decided Jesus' birth wasn't important enough to mention. And all 4 gospels decided Jesus' upbrining from like...age 10 to 30 wasn't worth talking about, even though many of the Gnostic Gospels have some great stories of Jesus as an adoloscent.

You're absolutely right. That's why God inspired the biblical authors directly instead of letting them try to write the Scripture on their own.

God inspired. He did not take over someone. It was still written by humans and it still has the flaws of humans all over it.

[Turtlekid2]

It's impossible to make an exact copy when the origin of it is word of mouth.

Its origin is written word.

Ever play a game of "telephone". Person A whispers a sentence to Person B, and that goes on and on until the last person then says out loud what he/she just heard. It almost always ends very distorted, loses meaning, etc...

And that's just one sentence, that stays in the same language.

Now multiply that by a kajillion.

I think whispering something with little to no enunciation is a lot more prone to error than speaking or shouting something aloud, not that it matters (see my above point).

You talk as if it was a group of people who sat around and wrote "The Bible" together. But The Bible isn't a book itself. It's a collection of books. With numerous books that were deemed non canonical for one reason or another. And the books of the Bible rarely have one sole author, if it's even known who wrote them at all. And just because they are the people(s) who wrote it down doesn't mean it originated from them. Considering the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't written down for hundreds of years after Jesus Christ's death, it's impossible that the apostles that they're named after actually wrote them. Especially since it's often implied that Jesus' apostles are largely illiterate.

Uh, the New Testament was most likely finished before A.D. 70 (or else don't you think one of the authors would have mentioned the tiny detail that was the destruction of Jerusalem?), but certainly not after A.D. 100.

To say that there aren't contradictions in the Bible, or even biases, is just flat out wrong. They aren't even all "bad" biases, per say. The Gospel of Matthew is written to an audience of Jews, so the explanations of Jewish customs that are found in Luke and Mark (which are written with a Gentile audience in mind) aren't in Matthew. For some reason or another, 2 of the 4 Gospels decided Jesus' birth wasn't important enough to mention. And all 4 gospels decided Jesus' upbrining from like...age 10 to 30 wasn't worth talking about, even though many of the Gnostic Gospels have some great stories of Jesus as an adoloscent.

The example you gave is more of an assumption than a bias. Also, there would hardly be a need for 4 different gospels if they all recounted the same events (actually, Jesus' birth is recorded in John, in the passage that mentions the Word becoming flesh).

God inspired. He did not take over someone. It was still written by humans and it still has the flaws of humans all over it.

He told them what to write. By virtue of being himself, God can't give flawed information (I still have yet to see any such flaws).

[randomspot555]

Its origin is written word.

The written word wasn't around thousands of years ago when Genesis happened. And considering that Moses and his followers were poor, largely uneducated, and it's implied Moses himself had some sort of disability, it's impossible that the origin is written word because no one would've recorded it. These stories were passed on via word of mouth much before they were written down.

I think whispering something with little to no enunciation is a lot more prone to error than speaking or shouting something aloud, not that it matters (see my above point).

That's missing the point and you know it.

Uh, the New Testament was most likely finished before A.D. 70

No, the Gospel of Mark is largely believed to be done around 70. The other range from being written soon after to about 140 AD or so.

My original statement was wrong, but still, considering the average life expectancy, it's highly unlikely that the apostles wrote any of the Gospels for numerous reasons.

The example you gave is more of an assumption than a bias.

Those aren't assumptions. The books that make up the Bible were never meant to be read as one, solid book. They are a collection of books all with a different story, different intent, different meanings, and a different audience. It's not an assumption that Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. It's a very credible theory put forth by religious scholars, and reading the Gospel itself, makes sense.

Also, there would hardly be a need for 4 different gospels if they all recounted the same events (actually, Jesus' birth is recorded in John, in the passage that mentions the Word becoming flesh).

Ok...

He told them what to write.

Telling and inspiring aren't the same.

By virtue of being himself, God can't give flawed information (I still have yet to see any such flaws).

By virtue of being human, they make mistakes, regardless of what somebody directed them to do.

If you've "Yet to see any such flaws", just look into the passages of Leviticus that are thrown around for "sexual issues of the day". The same dozen or so passages have been attributed to masturbation, homosexuality, orgasms, and numerous other sexual acts. But because there wasn't really a word for..well, almost all of these, the writers of whatever book essentially made up a word, which makes for horrible translation problems.

You can read here how words from numerous texts have been translated and re-translated to mean different things:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm

As for contradictions in the Bible, one of my favorites is the death of Judas Iscariot. The Gospel of Matthew has him committing suicide, whereas Acts seems to describe spontaneous combustion.

Matthew, Luke, and John all record different last words of Jesus.

Isiah and Deutronomy contradict each other on how a parents sin affects a child:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Of course, none of this destroys the overall meaning of much of the books of the Bible. People who don't believe that THE. BIBLE. IS. LITERAL. WORD. OF. GOD. PERIOD. won't have their belief shaken by this. It's simply human error. But it does pose questions for those who do take a literal stance.

[wraith89]

No, the Gospel of Mark is largely believed to be done around 70. The other range from being written soon after to about 140 AD or so.

My original statement was wrong, but still, considering the average life expectancy, it's highly unlikely that the apostles wrote any of the Gospels for numerous reasons.

Hmmm, it's funny how none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. "

~ Luke 21:5-6

This prediction from Jesus came true at 70 A.D. when the temple in Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. Don't you think the disciples would have written about this prediction coming true if the Gospels were written at that time? With many people against them, they'd need to back their assertion about Christ being the Messiah by affirming that.

Even the book of Acts, which is a sequel to Luke, seems to not mention anything about that either. And Acts is a book filled with historical events regarding the early Christian church. Now why wouldn't something as important as the sacking of the Jewish temple be included then? This suggests the Gospels were written earlier (and we all know the Pauline Epistles came before the Gospels).

"But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound."

Acts 24:27

Festus was not appointed as a procurator until around A.D. 55-59.

And since the Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, and we all know that Mark was the earliest one, you'd think the Gospels were written much earlier than A.D. 70.

The suspect Gospel, John, though, may have been written quite late, but it doesn't mention the sacking of the Jewish temple either.

As for me I think the Gospels must have been written earlier, MUCH earlier than A.D. 140 (where did you get THAT number from?)

[Turtlekid2]

The written word wasn't around thousands of years ago when Genesis happened. And considering that Moses and his followers were poor, largely uneducated, and it's implied Moses himself had some sort of disability, it's impossible that the origin is written word because no one would've recorded it. These stories were passed on via word of mouth much before they were written down.

They were only passed down by God's mouth to the biblical authors. The stories about creation can't have been passed down by humans because no humans were there at the time.

No, the Gospel of Mark is largely believed to be done around 70. The other range from being written soon after to about 140 AD or so.

My original statement was wrong, but still, considering the average life expectancy, it's highly unlikely that the apostles wrote any of the Gospels for numerous reasons.

I'm stilll extremely skeptical that they could have been written after A.D. 70; again, they would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome.

Telling and inspiring aren't the same.

By virtue of being human, they make mistakes, regardless of what somebody directed them to do.

I think I've failed in making my point clear in the matter. God put in their minds what was later to be written on paper. "Inspired, told," are terms I use interchangeably here.

If you've "Yet to see any such flaws", just look into the passages of Leviticus that are thrown around for "sexual issues of the day". The same dozen or so passages have been attributed to masturbation, homosexuality, orgasms, and numerous other sexual acts.

The same dozen or so paassages are thrown around because they directly deal with those issues.

As for contradictions in the Bible, one of my favorites is the death of Judas Iscariot. The Gospel of Matthew has him committing suicide, whereas Acts seems to describe spontaneous combustion.

It doesn't seem like Acts touches on how he died at all.

Matthew, Luke, and John all record different last words of Jesus.

Because Jesus could have only said one of those phrases before he died?

Isiah and Deutronomy contradict each other on how a parents sin affects a child:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

The passage in Isaiah refers to the fact that the consequences of sin will often be visited upon the children. The passage in Deuteronomy is saying that children shouldn't be held responsible for their parents' actions.

For example, if a man commits murder, his son should not have to be put to death, but if a man sells his son into slavery, his son is going to suffer because of the man's sin.

Of course, none of this destroys the overall meaning of much of the books of the Bible. People who don't believe that THE. BIBLE. IS. LITERAL. WORD. OF. GOD. PERIOD. won't have their belief shaken by this. It's simply human error. But it does pose questions for those who do take a literal stance.

I just...

I guess I just don't see the point of the Bible if it's not literally the Word of God. If it isn't, then what gives it influence over any other book that simply relates "good principles"?

[randomspot555]

As for me I think the Gospels must have been written earlier, MUCH earlier than A.D. 140 (where did you get THAT number from?)

Reviewing the 4 pages of Gospel of [whatever] on Wikipedia +12 years of Catholic schooling. We could go on forever debating when the Gospels exactly were written, but Mark is largely believed to be the first, Matthew and Luke were inspired by Mark, and John is the one Gnostic gospel included in the canon of the Bible.

They were only passed down by God's mouth to the biblical authors. The stories about creation can't have been passed down by humans because no humans were there at the time.

If that's what you want to believe, go for it. But that doesn't account for the hundreds of stories in the Old Testament that do involve humans.

I'm stilll extremely skeptical that they could have been written after A.D. 70; again, they would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome.

Just because they are written in a certain year doesn't mean they have to cover everything until those years. Remember, the Gospels only deal with the life of Jesus and the aftermath of his death. It wouldn't make sense to deal with something that would happen +30 years later.

I think I've failed in making my point clear in the matter. God put in their minds what was later to be written on paper. "Inspired, told," are terms I use interchangeably here.

Humans are bound to make errors. This is basic human nature. No matter how much inspiration or direction someone gets from God/their boss/the voices in their head/instruction manual, humans screw up.

The same dozen or so paassages are thrown around because they directly deal with those issues.

They don't deal with all of those issues. They are interchangably used for all of them. They can't have simultaneous meanings. Read the link to Religious Tolerance's page on masturbation. It'll provide some insight.

It doesn't seem like Acts touches on how he died at all.

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

That's like the first chapter of Acts. Even if you haven't read the Bible, it's like 20 seconds on Google.

Because Jesus could have only said one of those phrases before he died?

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

All specifiy words he said then he dies. They don't say "He said this and then something then died" they say "He said this, then died"

I guess I just don't see the point of the Bible if it's not literally the Word of God. If it isn't, then what gives it influence over any other book that simply relates "good principles"?

If accepting that humans make errors shakes your belief that much (and thus, anything of human creation, including the books of the Bible, are flawed), then you probably didn't have a solid ground of faith to begin with.

[Turtlekid2]

Just because they are written in a certain year doesn't mean they have to cover everything until those years. Remember, the Gospels only deal with the life of Jesus and the aftermath of his death. It wouldn't make sense to deal with something that would happen +30 years later.

As Wraith89 pointed out, the authors would have made sure to mention it as proof that Jesus' prediction had been accurate.

Humans are bound to make errors. This is basic human nature. No matter how much inspiration or direction someone gets from God/their boss/the voices in their head/instruction manual, humans screw up.

Not if God is directing them.

They don't deal with all of those issues. They are interchangably used for all of them. They can't have simultaneous meanings. Read the link to Religious Tolerance's page on masturbation. It'll provide some insight.

Why can't they have simultaneous meaning?

Personally, I think if a Bible verse talks about lust, it's dealing just as much with masturbation as with adultery.

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

Where do you think he fell from? It sounds to me like no one bothered to cut him down from the rope he hung himself on, and as the rope and his body rotted, the rope broke and when he hit the ground, his... insides fell out (lovely line of thought to be having, no?).

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

All specifiy words he said then he dies. They don't say "He said this and then something then died" they say "He said this, then died"

But the Bible also doesn't specify "these were his last words." He could very well have said more than one thing. Again, that's why there are four different gospels, so things that stood out to some are included as well as things that stood out to others.

If accepting that humans make errors shakes your belief that much (and thus, anything of human creation, including the books of the Bible, are flawed), then you probably didn't have a solid ground of faith to begin with.

This isn't about whether humans make errors. It's about whether God can make errors. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or God had no part in its conception.

[Okami]

The verses given by Spotty are of when Judas Iscariot committed suicide >.>;

I fail to see the connection, unless I missed something.

[randomspot555]

Look at the Gospel of Luke verse again:

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

If the Bible is 100% correct and the literal Word of God, that makes it very clea that Jesus' last words are "Fahter, unto thy hands I commend my spirit. And Luke doesn't mention anything about the vinegar he drank. Whereas John does, and closely associates that with the final moments of Jesus' life.

They can't BOTH be right.

As Wraith89 pointed out, the authors would have made sure to mention it as proof that Jesus' prediction had been accurate.

Is there a single instance of this in the Gospels at all? Covering an event that happened beyond Jesus death and resurrection? Otherwise, that's just pure speculation, because the Gospels are meant to be about Jesus' life, not what happened afterwards.

Not if God is directing them.

I don't see how God directing makes humans become temporarily perfect beings.

Did you even read the religious tolerance page on masturbation? I'm not trying to be a prude. But these passages have been used to mean multiple things usually depending on whatever sexual issue is getting Christians all hot and bothered about at the moment. You even say yourself "Personally...blah blah blah" which seems to mean that the passages are less than clear, that the literal word of God isn't very clear, and it's all up to personal interpretation anyway.

Either the Bible is the Word of God, or God had no part in its conception.

Is it that hard to think a reasonable middle ground that, despite humans best intention, there are flaws in it? Would it shake your faith that much if you were to find out the Bible isn't perfect?

I'll concede the Judas' suicide, since hanging in the Middle East means being essentially throwing yourself on top of a sword. But everything else I stand by, and there's much more.

[Turtlekid2]

Look at the Gospel of Luke verse again:

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

If the Bible is 100% correct and the literal Word of God, that makes it very clea that Jesus' last words are "Fahter, unto thy hands I commend my spirit. And Luke doesn't mention anything about the vinegar he drank. Whereas John does, and closely associates that with the final moments of Jesus' life.

They can't BOTH be right.

When he says "Unto thy hands I commend my spirit," he's doing just that. He said "It is finished" and then the Bible says he "gave up his spirit." I see no contradiction.

Is there a single instance of this in the Gospels at all? Covering an event that happened beyond Jesus death and resurrection? Otherwise, that's just pure speculation, because the Gospels are meant to be about Jesus' life, not what happened afterwards.

Exactly, and to mention this would, rather than focusing on what happened afterwards, would give credibility to his prediction.

I don't see how God directing makes humans become temporarily perfect beings.

Because he allowed them to write down his words without error or mistake.

Did you even read the religious tolerance page on masturbation? I'm not trying to be a prude. But these passages have been used to mean multiple things usually depending on whatever sexual issue is getting Christians all hot and bothered about at the moment. You even say yourself "Personally...blah blah blah" which seems to mean that the passages are less than clear, that the literal word of God isn't very clear, and it's all up to personal interpretation anyway.

Yes, that's what I, personally, believe, meaning I can't speak for other beliefs nor do I advocate incorrect ones. But I never said the Bible is open to personal interpretation.

Is it that hard to think a reasonable middle ground that, despite humans best intention, there are flaws in it? Would it shake your faith that much if you were to find out the Bible isn't perfect?

There is no middle ground here. Either the Bible is completely accurate or nothing else it says can be trusted.

[kevin19980609]

I don't think the Bible is entirely truthful cuz it actually says that the Earth was created only a few thousands of years ago. Scientists have proven it untrue, but I still beleive in the other stuff

[wraith89]

I don't think the Bible is entirely truthful cuz it actually says that the Earth was created only a few thousands of years ago. Scientists have proven it untrue, but I still beleive in the other stuff

Please elaborate on how. Don't say Carbon Dating, because that stuff only works for a couple of thousands of years.

[Turtlekid2]

Even if it were accurate, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be too much trouble for a Being that created the entire universe and all living creatures to make a planet look older than it is. He didn't create Adam as a baby, what's to say he didn't create the earth as "mature" too?

[Gin]

This will probably sound illformed and trollish, but anyway...

*Raises flame shield*

1.

There is no middle ground here. Either the Bible is completely accurate or nothing else it says can be trusted.

I have a question here: Why is there no middle ground?

2. To my understanding,

[Please, Please enlighten me here. I am not Christian, and I do not really "know" the bible]

much of the time, God punished the children and/or the descendants of the original wrongdoer. Is attacking innocent children really "compassionate"?

Also, in the Jewish escape from Egypt, why is the Pharaoh named Pharaoh?

Also, the "Magicians"? Are they the priests? Priests are supposed to connect people with God, right? Why would God's book demonize[spelling check pl0x]

the people who are "God's men"? Is it because they serve a different God? Doesn't the Bible say there is only one God? If so, then who do they serve? If they serve a God, And there is one God, do they not serve The God?

[With God's help Moses confronted Pharaoh and his magicians and led the Israelites out of Egypt, "and it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the Land of Egypt" at the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 12:41 in the Masoretic Text)]

3. Once more, I raise my flame shield. I do not believe that the creator is flawless. If he/she was, would he/she have made such flawed beings? Also, If being in heaven i s such bliss, then why have an Earth? Why do we not get created in Heaven? Is Earth merely a testing ground, an illlusion, as the Hindu religion says? [Note, I was raised Hindu, so my insights about Hinduism may be different then those of other people]

Or is it something more?

TBC

[Enzo]

Darwin did NOT hypothesize on the creation of the universe, first off. The Big Bang is a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. We find more evidence that a singularity occurred quite often - a massive explosion simply lends itself to the observable facts about the universe and the galaxies in it: why do galaxies all rocket away from a central point? Until there is undeniable evidence turned up against this idea, it's the best lead humans have. You can think that maybe a God of some kind created the singularity, but that is in direct opposition to the story outlined in Genesis, so if there is a God he probably isn't the God of the bible.

Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the diverse but similar branches of the animal kingdom. Micro-evolution happens quite often: for instance, did you know that people are on average taller than they were during the colonial era of America? This is evident in the buildings from back then having shorter doorways, and bone records from back then. People have longer, more slender fingers than back then, too, and there is evidence that suggests that we men grow facial hair faster than they did at the beginnings of written history. Man-kind has already evolved past himself in different ways since Darwin hypothesized that evolution occurred in all living things.

The Bible is full of information that is in direct conflict with scientific fact, the most famous of which is Noah's Flood. If a massive flood occurred like the bible says it did, we would see it in the records left by the layers in different types of rocks and in the fossil record in general. And where is Noah's ark? The thing must have been massive, and all living things should have ancestry from animals and people that survived the great flood by riding on that ark, so why can't we trace the heritage of people and animals to the location the Ark came to rest after the flood?

If a God exists and created the universe, it is not the God of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic religions.

[randomspot555]

The Bible is full of information that is in direct conflict with scientific fact, the most famous of which is Noah's Flood. If a massive flood occurred like the bible says it did, we would see it in the records left by the layers in different types of rocks and in the fossil record in general. And where is Noah's ark? The thing must have been massive, and all living things should have ancestry from animals and people that survived the great flood by riding on that ark, so why can't we trace the heritage of people and animals to the location the Ark came to rest after the flood?

I wouldn't call it misinformation. It's just the Abrahamic take on a fairly common cultural story. There's no shortage of ancient cultures and stories of a great flood, the most famous being of Atlantis. First recorded by Plato, who originally claimed it as a parable but students of his (and arguably other cultures, particularly Egyptian) have it as recorded history.

Many of the great flood stories usually involve an angry god or gods causing the flood, the purpose of which is to destroy an unruly populous.

There are actually many paralells between the Biblical account and the story of Atlantis. Both were floods created by the respective god(s) to destroy the unruly civilization

There's been a handful of expeditions to various mountain tops to find remains of Noah's Ark, but any information obtained from them is at best, dubious.

[Enzo]

I wouldn't call it misinformation. It's just the Abrahamic take on a fairly common cultural story. There's no shortage of ancient cultures and stories of a great flood, the most famous being of Atlantis. First recorded by Plato, who originally claimed it as a parable but students of his (and arguably other cultures, particularly Egyptian) have it as recorded history.

Just like there are parallels between the story of Jesus Christ and other "sons of god" throughout history. I was not unaware of the similarities. If it IS based on a fairy tale, perhaps it should not be presented in a book labeled as the word of god. The Bible is taken by millions as an accurate history of the Earth, and that is a very. Scary. Thought.

[wraith89]

Just like there are parallels between the story of Jesus Christ and other "sons of god" throughout history. I was not unaware of the similarities. If it IS based on a fairy tale, perhaps it should not be presented in a book labeled as the word of god. The Bible is taken by millions as an accurate history of the Earth, and that is a very. Scary. Thought.

Don't tell me you believe in that Zeitgeist the Movie Part 1 Hogwash... it is filled with holes and was a propaganda to promote the New Age movement.

Just name me any similarities. I've read many myths... and I do not see any aspects that blatantly states "the Bible is based off fairy tales".

[Turtlekid2]

The Bible is full of information that is in direct conflict with scientific fact, the most famous of which is Noah's Flood. If a massive flood occurred like the bible says it did, we would see it in the records left by the layers in different types of rocks and in the fossil record in general. And where is Noah's ark? The thing must have been massive, and all living things should have ancestry from animals and people that survived the great flood by riding on that ark, so why can't we trace the heritage of people and animals to the location the Ark came to rest after the flood?

1. We wouldn't se it in the fossil record because there is no fossil record anywhere except in textbooks.

2. I believe the Bible clearly states where the ark came to rest.

[randomspot555]

1. We wouldn't se it in the fossil record because there is no fossil record anywhere except in textbooks.

That...doesn't make any sense?

2. I believe the Bible clearly states where the ark came to rest.

"mountain of Ararat" There is a Mt. Ararat in modern day Turkey, but it's part of a wide mountain range and the biblical names of the mountain that the Arc is said to have landed on don't match up with the names of the mountain range.

That and no evidence of the Arc has ever, ever been found.

[Enzo]

Don't tell me you believe in that Zeitgeist the Movie Part 1 Hogwash... it is filled with holes and was a propaganda to promote the New Age movement.

Just name me any similarities. I've read many myths... and I do not see any aspects that blatantly states "the Bible is based off fairy tales".

I never claimed it was based off of fairy tales (such as the story of noah), only suggesting that if it was (as randomspot555 suggested) then it should not be presented as fact.

As for Zeitgeist, I have never seen the movie as I tend to dismiss works created by crazy highschool dropouts like the director of Zeitgeist. (I think I might start a debate thread just to discuss conspiracy docus)

[Turtlekid2]

"mountain of Ararat" There is a Mt. Ararat in modern day Turkey, but it's part of a wide mountain range and the biblical names of the mountain that the Arc is said to have landed on don't match up with the names of the mountain range.

That and no evidence of the Arc has ever, ever been found.

Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it hasn't been discovered. Think about it; Mt. Ararat is in the middle of a Muslim country, and they're not going to let something like that, that would serve as evidence for the Christianity, become front page news. For that matter, neither would the liberal media.

[randomspot555]

Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it hasn't been discovered.

Actually, it means exactly that.

Do you have evidence that it has been discovered?

A lack of evidence is not an indication of evidence.

You do know there have been numerous expeditions to find the ark, right? None of them have ever turned up any evidence.

There have been numerous expeditions to find the Arc. Many of them are surrounded in controversy because a few have turned out to be publicity stunts at best, scams at worse.

Maybe what you meant to say was "Just because it hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it doesn't exist". But that still leads back to "a lack of evidence!=evidence"

Think about it; Mt. Ararat is in the middle of a Muslim country,

Ironically, this statement works against you: the story of the arc is in the Qu'ran too. As are many other stories from the Old Testament. Evidence for Christianity and Judaism would in many cases be evidence for Islam too. There's a reason these 3 religions are collectively called the Abrahamic religions, because their origins are largely the same.

For that matter, neither would the liberal media.

*eye roll smiley here*

[Enzo]

Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it hasn't been discovered. Think about it; Mt. Ararat is in the middle of a Muslim country, and they're not going to let something like that, that would serve as evidence for the Christianity, become front page news. For that matter, neither would the liberal media.

Do you have any idea what Islam is about? Do you know what the Qu'ran is? Did you know there are accounts of Jesus in the Qu'ran? Did you know the Qu'ran and the stories in it are exceedingly similar to the bible and the torah?

A lot of christians think that islam is so much different from their own belief, but the truth is that they most definitely believe in the same "god".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27ran#The_Torah_and_the_Bible

[wraith89]

Do you have any idea what Islam is about? Do you know what the Qu'ran is? Did you know there are accounts of Jesus in the Qu'ran? Did you know the Qu'ran and the stories in it are exceedingly similar to the bible and the torah?

A lot of christians think that islam is so much different from their own belief, but the truth is that they most definitely believe in the same "god".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27ran#The_Torah_and_the_Bible

Not exactly... although the Muslims claim their belief is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian beliefs (it is), there are many differences to account for between the Judeo-Christian Yeshua and the Islamic Isa. Allah and Yahweh seem similar but they have many differences.

The God of Christianity loves all apparently:

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:43-48

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

1 John 4:16

The God of Islam:

"Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith," (2:98, Trans. Yusuf Ali)

"Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers," 3:32, Trans. Shakir)

Clearly something's different here...