Science or Scripture?

[TurkeyOnRye]

But, I would say, a trivial part of the Bible.

Numbers are not trivial. And how can you just claim that it is trivial? Even Liberty University has dinosaur bones which they claim are 3000 years old. To disregard these inconsistencies is a copout, a blatant evasion of the facts. http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/genealogies_of_gen__5_&_10.htm

 

[linwood]

Give me some sources, please.

As soon as you give me a link to the ancient thread you`ve pulled these quotes from.

Then we can continue this discussion there.



Edit:

and/or take their captured monarchs prisoner. I took these as very distinctive customs,

Actually this is how the Spaniards conquered the Inca against unbelievably overwhelming odds.

There`s a little irony

 

[DeepShadow]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25097&page=8

EDIT: That's where the quotes came from, as you asked. Feel free to respond there or on the more specific thread:

"Were the Mulekites Actually Jaredite Descendants?"

 

[linwood]

Apparently not. I appreciate you pointing out the one at BYU. He have a name, TW, so I can look him up and be better informed next time?

Thomas W. Murphy


I was incorrect, he was not excommunicated but was threatened with excommunication until other Mormon intellectuals protested.

He was told to recant his scientific findings or resign his membership in the Church.

This itself is excellent evidence of the OP of this thread.

When confronted with scientific evidence that destroys their dogma the powers that be get nasty.

Edit:
I was also wrong about him being from BYU.
It has been a long time since I was researching this point and many of the players apparently became confused in my small mind.

My apologies.

 

[s2a]

For the record, I have no problem with people believing in things that science does not indicate.

Nor do I, as long as their beliefs reflect peaceful intents, goals, and deeds.

I'm not a materialist myself. My only concern is people not being able to distinguish between religion and science.

And this is where we differ in acceptant perspective. I do not consider (theistic) religion to be a benign or disinterested party, utterly removed from the pursuits of scientific understanding/discovery, especially not in the U.S.

In this country, "science" is inexorably entwined with politics; and politics is (regrettably enough) driven by pandering acquiescence, or outright submission--to groups of "special interests" or empowered monetary influence. The "Religious (Evangelical) Right", or the "Conservative Republican Base", seek to exert their particular religious perspectives as a matter of political will and agenda-driven legislation.

C'mon.

There is an insistent and implacable focused effort amongst activist religious adherents that their "beliefs" be granted "equal time (or deference)" in instruction/discussion of science, and contemporary scientific understanding. From the "debates" regarding evolution theory, stem cell research, cosmological origin theories, global climate changes, assisted suicide, cloning, etc.-- are any of the presented arguments in challenge to flaws in scientific methodology, or simply in dislike/dissatisfaction with dogmatically-challenging proffered conclusions?

[Why is there no challenge as to the religious implications reagrding the ethics/morality of computer chips? The very same science that ensures that a toaster is "smart" enough to deliver a perfectly browned slice of bread to one's own exacting preference, is the vary same science that incorporates scientifically-derived theories of electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and sub-atomic particle physics...which utilize the very same essential components and conclusions that support "controversial" theories like evolution and origin cosmology. Why should it be that applied science in a humble toaster is acceptable, but the very same applied science regarding black holes, quasars, and neutrinos should be so blasphemous and unwelcome?]

Then there's the issue of secular policies/establishments, and maintaining the separation of religion from government. From insistent demands for public displays of the Ten Commandments, to state-sanctioned prayer in public education, to efforts to constitutionally amend an abrogation of inherent civil liberties in banning homosexual unions...ad infinitum.

In my tolerance of religious beliefs, I support the instruction of Jesus when He said in Matt. 6:6-
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Whenever religion is the foundational basis of government, science goes right out the door as righteously expurgated religious heresy. History provides terrible, evidential truth to this assessment.

If people of faith desire to "believe" in some divinely ordained or instigated cause/effect explanation(s) of our natural cosmos, I'll be pleased enough to leave them in their own peaceful contemplations...and long as they never effort or insist that their pious contemplations should (or must) be a matter of societally enforceable policy, justice, and law.

Until that day of pluralistic objectivity arrives, I will lend my paltry efforts to resist any and all religiously-motivated agendas/goals that seek to impart some divine mandate as lone answer to the undiscovered infinite wonders of the cosmos, and as some lone course to abide within the human condition.

 

[lilithu]

And this is where we differ in acceptant perspective. I do not consider (theistic) religion to be a benign or disinterested party, utterly removed from the pursuits of scientific understanding/discovery, especially not in the U.S.

In this country, "science" is inexorably entwined with politics; and politics is (regrettably enough) driven by pandering acquiescence, or outright submission--to groups of "special interests" or empowered monetary influence. The "Religious (Evangelical) Right", or the "Conservative Republican Base", seek to exert their particular religious perspectives as a matter of political will and agenda-driven legislation.

C'mon.

You misunderstand me Cal. I don't consider religious folk to be a disinterested party. Neither do I expect or want them to be. (which is probably where you and I truly part ways) As a person of faith, I expect that people will bring their beliefs into the public arena. No one who truly believes can leave their beliefs inside their house of worship, or otherwise compartmentalize their lives.

My beef with the Religious Right isn't that they bring their religion into politics with them. It's that they seem unable to recognize that other views have any validity, or even right to exist.

But back to the topic of science versus scripture. What I meant was, in my view, people can believe whatever they want but they have to recognize that even if they believe it to be absolutely true, that doesn't mean it counts as science. I honestly think that a lot of people do not understand how science works. They think that science presents theories about what is "true" and therefore, if they believe something to be true it should be recognized as a scientific theory. Part of this misunderstanding is the fault of the scientific community. Because we have presented science as "truth" instead of as the body of highly useful knowledge gained via empiricism. And we've failed to adequately explain that because science is empirical, "God" cannot be a scientific hypothesis.

People need to understand that leaving God out of science textbooks is not a statement about whether or not it is true that God created the world. Science does not talk about God one way or the other. Science can't talk about God one way or the other.

That's what I meant about people not being able to distinguish between science and religion.

 

[painted wolf]

well my religion doesn't have 'scripture' so I guess I'll go with Science every time.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

People need to understand that leaving God out of science textbooks is not a statement about whether or not it is true that God created the world. Science does not talk about God one way or the other. Science can't talk about God one way or the other.

On this I do agree.

 

[s2a]

Hi lilithu,

You said:

You misunderstand me Cal.

Maybe, but only a little. ;-)

I don't consider religious folk to be a disinterested party. Neither do I expect or want them to be. (which is probably where you and I truly part ways) As a person of faith, I expect that people will bring their beliefs into the public arena. No one who truly believes can leave their beliefs inside their house of worship, or otherwise compartmentalize their lives.

And perhaps this is where you misunderstand me, just a little. I have no expectation that people of faith can set aside their beliefs when espousing their views of socially contentious issues, or civic policy. What I believe is what you state in your quoted paragraph following below. Religious belief or faith presents a singular perspective (even in groups of like-minded individuals); ie, a personalized opinion. To invite, indulge, and endure the diversity of opinions resident within us all, is to celebrate the very epitome of our republic--not just a pluralism of faith-based beliefs, but of contrasting opinions. I'm all about the freedom of expressing one's own opinion without fear of governmental monitoring, persecution, or retribution. Really I am.

My beef with the Religious Right isn't that they bring their religion into politics with them. It's that they seem unable to recognize that other views have any validity, or even right to exist.

I agree...but I would also submit that opinions can be demonstrably subjected to valid criticism, and prospectively exposed to error. Opinions are not inviolate--only the rights to freely express such opinions themselves are protected. This liberty allows for all opinions, no matter they be erudite, informed, insightful, or; ignorant, unenlightening, or painfully (even dangerously) stupid.

"The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction."
--Thomas Jefferson: Statute of Religious Freedom, 1779.

...and...

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to
combat it."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

If the "Religious Right" believes that homosexuality is a "sin", then I would recommend that they themselves--as pious adherents of their own faith (ie, opinion)--should avoid indulging such a sinful act to preserve themselves from the promised wrath or punishments from their god. But as you are well aware, they act so that their opinions should be a matter of universally applicable social policy and enforceable law. I have a problem with that...

But back to the topic of science versus scripture. What I meant was, in my view, people can believe whatever they want but they have to recognize that even if they believe it to be absolutely true, that doesn't mean it counts as science.

Is there an echo in here? ;-)

I honestly think that a lot of people do not understand how science works.

I am convinced that most people "do not understand how science works."

They think that science presents theories about what is "true" and therefore, if they believe something to be true it should be recognized as a scientific theory.

Hmmmm. This is where perceptions, semantics, and popularly-held religious colloquialisms tend to get confused.

"God is Love". A religious "truth"; which may or may not be "true", because god-belief is a testament of faith, not ascertainable "fact". There is no valid testable hypothesis for God.

"Evolution of species happens.". Scientifically "true", as established by mountains of ascertainable facts. Not a religious "truth", for it is not a testament of faith.

Just as the word "theory" has both a colloquial application, and a scientific meaning...so does the meaning, use, and implication/implementation of the word "truth" within a religious context; versus a more common colloquial expression of earnest confession or unquestionable fact..

Claim--"I did not kill that man, and that's the truth".
Colloquially, a "truth" can be tested, and may either verified or falsified.

Claim--"God is Truth".
In religion, a "truth" is a claim presented as fact beyond contest, or means of any empirical disproof.

Part of this misunderstanding is the fault of the scientific community. Because we have presented science as "truth" instead of as the body of highly useful knowledge gained via empiricism.

"We"?
I've never heard (or heard of) any scientist presenting an empirical conclusion as "truth". "True" perhaps, or estimably factual, but never as [a] "truth".

And we've failed to adequately explain that because science is empirical, "God" cannot be a scientific hypothesis.

Not my fault. I've been holding that torch aloft for years. ;-)

People need to understand that leaving God out of science textbooks is not a statement about whether or not it is true that God created the world. Science does not talk about God one way or the other. Science can't talk about God one way or the other.

Agreed, and amen. ;-)

That's what I meant about people not being able to distinguish between science and religion.

Well, alrighty then.

We really do kinda understand one another after all. ;-)

 

[Quiddity]

If the "Religious Right" believes that homosexuality is a "sin", then I would recommend that they themselves--as pious adherents of their own faith (ie, opinion)--should avoid indulging such a sinful act to preserve themselves from the promised wrath or punishments from their god. But as you are well aware, they act so that their opinions should be a matter of universally applicable social policy and enforceable law. I have a problem with that...

Is this something others outside of the Religious Right are immune to? I'm with you on disagreeing with the Religious Right on this one but to have a problem with them attempting to do so baffles me.

Surely there is certain things you agree should be universally applicable social policy?
What's the difference?

You are either irritated at their attempt to do so (which I don't get) or for actually succeeding (which I do get). It's just the way our system works.

 

[gnomon]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

The scientific community.

That one was easy!:cupcake:

 

[s2a]

Hello Victor,

You quoted me selectively when I said:
If the "Religious Right" believes that homosexuality is a "sin", then I would recommend that they themselves--as pious adherents of their own faith (ie, opinion)--should avoid indulging such a sinful act to preserve themselves from the promised wrath or punishments from their god. But as you are well aware, they act so that their opinions should be a matter of universally applicable social policy and enforceable law. I have a problem with that...

Is this something others outside of the Religious Right are immune to?

Perhaps not immune, but neither especially motivated nor predisposed to alter in adherence to (or for the sake of) religious opinions alone. The "Religious Right" is motivated to see "God's Will"--as they claim to understand/interpret such--imposed (legally) whenever, wherever, and however they see fit. Theirs is an exercise in (righteous) obedience to religious dogma, not in efforts to promote or preserve constitutional principles and establishments. To the "Religious Right", the US Constitution is an obstacle to overcome, not a shield to defend against tyranny and opression.

A truly secular society does not favor or promote (or persecute and limit) one religious "opinion" (or "value") over another. The "right" to a personally held religious opinion (and the dictates/demands it places amongst it's faithful) are not, and should not be the concern or prevailing/intervening interest of secular self-government.

I'll provide another example.

A person of religious faith may ardently adhere to their particularly proscribed dogma that drinking alcohol is a "sin [against their god wishes]". That person (and like-minded adherents) is most welcome to "preach" or "testify" against the "evils" of booze, or attempt to compellingly persuade others that personal alcohol consumption infuriates their god, and is "bad". Secular government has no (and should not express any biased) opinion regarding the "sinfulness" of alcohol consumption. "Sin" is a religious concept, and a qualified "opinion".

When people offer their personalized objections predicated on religious beliefs (opinions) alone, secular government must (and should) remain neutral. Government allows people of that religious opinion to abstain from alcohol consumption (and remain adherent to their faith), free from governmental mandate or law that imposes requisite minimums of alcoholic consumption upon all citizens, under penalty of prosecutorial law. Secular government allows (and even vigorously defends) one's right to not consume alcohol, especially if it conflicts with one's own exercise of religious liberties. Ain't it cool? If you think that drinking booze is a "sin", a truly secular government won't make you have a drink. You retain the rightful choice to say, "No, thank you".

[And the afforded liberties extend outward from there...
Don't want to smoke? You are free not to smoke!
Morally opposed to abortion? The state won't choose for you!
You feel that homosexual marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by your religion? You can say so!
Your opinion is such that you deem assisted suicide/euthanasia is a "sin"? You're free to suffer in languishing pain and misery for months on end!]

The right and privilege of personal choice (either to drink, or choose not to) is the proper compass to follow, not some prevailing wind of public sentiment, or loud and/or fiscally empowered majority opinion. This "difference" is what separates a constitutional Republic from a "pure democracy". It ain't about "majority opinion". We "democratically" elect our representatives to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States (and/or the Constitution of their own State)--not to promote or legislate the opinions of religious majorities within a pluralistic society.

I'm with you on disagreeing with the Religious Right on this one but to have a problem with them attempting to do so baffles me.

I sincerely doubt that you are "baffled" by my objections to their efforts. Opinions alone (especially those dictated by religious mandate) are poor foundation for any societally imposed law.

Slavery, religious persecution ("Burn the witch!"), gender discrimination, segregation, sexual gender preferences, abortion, et al; have all be "rationalized" into enforceable law (or defended as "just" when challenged) as a matter of religious [majority] "opinion". Proponents of these societal limitations of civil/human rights have almost always exclusively argued from a distinctly opinionated "moral" perspective (or subservient dogmatic imperative). Tough to argue today in favor of any of those religiously-biased positions.

Fortunately, some folks had "problems" with such "moral" laws...

Surely there is certain things you agree should be universally applicable social policy?

Surely. ;-)

What's the difference?

If yet unclear to you, the "difference" is marked and simple.

One perspective seeks to limit and define the parameters of personal liberties (often enough within the limitations and parameters established in sectarian dogma).
The other seeks to expand and ensure personal liberties for all.

You are either irritated at their attempt to do so (which I don't get) or for actually succeeding (which I do get). It's just the way our system works.

I would submit that it's "their" way of "working the system", but not how "the system" was intended to work or serve the entirety of, "We the people...".

The measure of personal liberty in a free society is defined by the limitations of governmental power, not in the governmentally-imposed limitations of personal conscience and choice upon it's citizens.

I hope you get that...

 

[Heckler]

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Many sciencists do not like the idea of not being able to answer every questions that arrises (Stephen Hawking once commented on this) therefore they keep pushing new theorys.

And yet the many facts that science has been forced to agree with over the years in the bible have been there for thousands of years.

 

[wizanda]

I think it is a science to understand the scriptures; especially when globally and most books, it is like a refining process and takes careful analyzing and experimentation to understand the way 100%.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Here's the thing. People can correct me if i'm wrong.

There will always be some who will always lean towards science.
ones that lean toward religion
and the ones that are in the middle anccepting both.

For me it will always be science. Now we are using science in the broad turn. I would assume you mean theory of evolution. a lage percentage of theist accept science... the many different flavors of science such as agriculture, medicine etc.

My experience, now i can only speak for me, is that i have basic and sometimes complex questions and science helps me to answer these questions. Religion has not.

Now i have always said this in other forums. Science is not here to intentionally prove religion wrong.

Now some one said that "God's" word will stand true for ever but that may not be the case becase like science religion can be devided. we see this with the many different sects of christianity, islam and judaism. Just as these religoious scholars believe their way of life to be the truth there are always others out there to interpret the information in a different way.

Again, i assume we are talking about evolution vs. creationism. It is my experience that the scriptures seem to be silent or not able to answer hard hitting questions surrounding dinosaurs, prehistoric aquatic life or ancient man.

look, to constantly say "God" did it or "The lord moves in mysterious ways" seems to be ignorant statements.

I don't mean that in a derogetory way. just simply ingnoring certain facts. i think that sometimes people need something to rely-on (religion) in oder to explain that which they lack the ability to explain.

It is a fact there were dinosaurs, ancient aquatic life, ancient man. NOW, were are looking for religion to help us out here to explain, WITH PROOF, as to how these animals (creatures) lived and died. We want to know from a religious stand point how these creatures were related because from a scientific stand point we can see how they lived and what creatures share common ancestors. We can look at fossils and determine how an animal of yesteryear is similar to an animal of today.

Take the saber-tooth tiger. Check this link. You'll be able to see that this animal has an extensive evolutionary tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber-tooth_tiger

This is why i lean toward the science. Religion does not seem to provide the answers I need. Addtionally some religions seem to be conflicted amongst themselves as to their own ideals and way of life.

 

[Sunstone]

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Welcome to the Forum!

This sounds like selective perception, Heckler. I mean, anyone can say that the facts of science are in harmony with the Bible if they are willing to discount any fact of science that isn't by saying it's actually a theory that cannot be proved.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I personally don't see any way for science to contradict scripture.

It all depends on what particular field of science and what particular areas of the scripture we're talking about.

But as I've said before. Science is not out to prove religion wrong. Christianity with its MANY, MANY, MANY sects has enough to deal with. The same goes for Islam and Judaism.

I do not believe that scripture was ever intended to be taken as factual, but rather was always intended to be taken symbolically/metaphorically.

Well that definately makes it hard to believe ANYTHING the scriptures tell us. We wouldn't know what is factual, by your assertion, or what is speculation/interpertation. Now do you see why people have a problem with the scriptures? If it's not meant to be taken as fact then what's the point in dealing with it at all if they're all open to any ones' interpertation?

And don't you you say "Faith".... !!!!!

So scripture is not making any kind of assertion that science could possibly contradict. And the kinds of assertions that scripture is making, are not concepts that science has the capacity to even address, let alone contradict.

I believe that back then if you were to use science to contradict religion you were deemned as evil or a witch. History tells us this. I personally believe that put to the test, science could show some inaccuracies in the scriptures, but again that is not the goal of science. this has always been an area that science does not like to get into.

So for me, they're not in contention. In fact, I personally tend to view them as complimentary.

Agree on the first part. I disagree on the second. Science has NO Problem Standing on its own.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Tha't not saying very much. To say that you would have to admit it is in harmony with the qur'an and most other religious scriptures. But i don't gather that you are a muslim (soley)...christians...(soley)...jewish...(soley)...buddist...(soley).....etc....

Science stands on its own and has no need to include scriptures to teach us of the life that existed on the planet billions of years ago.

Many sciencists do not like the idea of not being able to answer every questions that arrises (Stephen Hawking once commented on this) therefore they keep pushing new theorys.

Are you speaking for all scientist now?

No more blindly believing. I assume we are talking about evolution and crationism. A lot of the religious community has benefitted from the discoveries of science. Now we have dinosaur bones annd eggs from millions of years ago as well as fossilzed aquatic life from millions of years ago and bones from prehistoric man and the religious community can not answer the questions that are put forth to them about this.

Does the bible agree that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, if noth then why?

Can the bible explain the many different types of ancient animals that existed millions of years ago?

Can the scriptures explain why the dna of ancient man is close to present man?

and these are just basic questions.

And yet the many facts that science has been forced to agree with over the years in the bible have been there for thousands of years.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. science is not forced to agree with anything the bible says.

 

[gnomon]

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Many sciencists do not like the idea of not being able to answer every questions that arrises (Stephen Hawking once commented on this) therefore they keep pushing new theorys.

And yet the many facts that science has been forced to agree with over the years in the bible have been there for thousands of years.

I would say that science has discounted much of the Bible's miraculous claims. There has been a general trend since the mid 19th century with the combined inception of industrialism and evolutionary theory for religious dogma to try and reconcile outdated views with new models of the world.

Hardly surprising since the enlightenment up through industrialization pretty much did away with the Platonic view of the universe which was a major foundation of the Western world's religious views.

 

[TehuTi]

Where Does The Bible Fit In All This Scientific Data , , Which Is Dis-Proing Its ?Where does the bible fit in all this scientific data, Which is Dis-Proving It's Validity ? If you look at the construction of the bible . You can see that it was written by four different authors . You have the '' J '' text '' which is the '' Jehovah Torah where the name '' Jehovah '' is always mentioned . You have the '' P '' text ''which is the '' Priest '' Torah with opinions in support of Abiathar and Nathan , The two Priest . You have the '' E '' text '' which is the Eloheem Torah and you have the '' D '' text ''
which is the Deuteronomy . Moses '' Version of theTorah . All these are different stories of the same events in the bible .

Yet written in different ways. Sometimes different languages . Which was intertwined and woven in each other , Placed above each other , and made to appear Authentic as if it is The Holy Halios Book Papyrus Of God . This Book continually tell you that these different versions andtext , Which if you begin to read with an open eye or TheEye Of Ra .

You will see that they were taken from the Babylonian Stories . The Curse Seed Of The Canaanites Stories , and the Egiptian stories . Showing you that these were the major influence of the Israelites . Which was organized by the 46 Nicean Council , And formed their Holy Book which is called today the bible . Whether it be The Torah , The Gospels , The Evangel -- Revelation , The New Testament , And The Old Testament .

So when you're trying to explain that there is no Validity in The Bible , You have to do your ReSearch and cross examine each story in the bible , And cross examine each name in the bible . For some names were mentioned Twice , Or they were mentioned out of place , or the stories contradict each other , As in the story of Mizraim and the migration of the sons of Noah because they would not be able to explain certain things , They purposely leave out the fact that the family of Noah were in Aftica first .

Then landed in the Mountains of Ararat , Not one Mountain , But Mountains as the Bible states Genesis 8;4 . Then migrated back to Egipt again . With the exception of one son named Japheth . Who lived in the Tents of Shem Genesis 9;27 , Which is why you find Nimrod in Genesis 10;8 . As being a mighty hunter . A Ghibbore '' Mighty One ''. Building Towers Such As The Tower Of Babel .

When in itself is '' Bab '' Door '' And El '' The Doorway To El '' . To reach heaven . However . The God , Be He Yahweh Or Adonai of the Hebrew , Didn't Approve of this so he came down and confounded their tongue , In that part of The Planet Earth of Babylon , Not The Whole Earth .

So these people were all one big family who separated after the flood of the noah story . and if you look in Psalms 78;51 You can see that they place Egipt , which is Mizraim The Son Of Ham And Ham As Being The Same , Egiptians Psalms 78; 51 , Again , this quote makes Mizraim and Ham Both Egiptians along with Psalms 105; 23 . Also read Jeremaih 46;9 .

Mentions Libya , originally called Tehnu as Phut , Who is the son of Ham Genesis 10;6 along side of Ethiopia as Cush . Then the Egiptian term Kemite or Khemet predates the bible or hebraic name Ham as mentioned above thus the original Hamites , Cu****es , and Mizraimites had to have been according to their own Bible . In North East Africa's Libya Extending from what is called Egipt today , down past Sudan , called Ham Genesis 10;6 , And on into Ethiopia called Cush Genesis 2;13 in the bible .

Aren't These The Acestors Of Abraham ?
Being these are The Ancestors of The Patriarch of Montheism , Namely A Chaldean Born Syrian Name Abram ( Genesis 11;27 ) . Who became Abraham ( 2078-1903 B.C.E. ) . ( Genesis 17;5 ) . The founder of what became known as the Hebrew Religion who birthed Isaac ( Genesis 17;19 . Who birthed Jacob ( Genesis 25;26 ) . Who became Israel and fathered Judah ( Genesis29;35 ) . We get the Hebrew Religion . The Israelite AndThe Judaic Which broke off in time to become known as Nazarites , Meccabeans , Essenes , Who became Christian And Later Muslims

Hummmm Wouldn't That Make The Origin Of Religion Stem From Egipt ?
The origin of Monotheism would have to be from '' Ham '' . The father of '' Cush and Mizraim '' and being '' Mizraim is the Biblical name for '' Egipt Genesis 10;6 , Then '' Ham and Cush would be describing Pre-Dynastic Egipt in Cush and Neolithic Egipt in Ham . From Ham back is Neolithic
( Nile + ithic ) , People Who dwell around The Nile or The Rivers as In Genesis 2;13 , And because Cush was the son of Ham .

Cush's reign and the people of his time would be Pre-Dynastic , And Mizraim Whose name is written in Plural . When its singled out becomes Mizr ( Egipt ) + Ra ( rosh or reah , the 20th letter of the hebrew alphabet for '' head or leader '' ) + Im ( A Plural Ending ) . Mizr '' Matsour '' Which is the same as Menes . is The Initator , the first , the head or leader of The First Dynasty , Which would be the Starting of the 46 Dynastic Period .

As I mentioned earlier , The Sons of Noah migrated back to Egipt after the flood , Which means that was not their first migration , Thus The Scientific Finding Of Man Evolving Out Of Africa First And Spreading Throughout The World Out Dates The VAalidity Of The Bible .

L.A. Times . 11/30/00 . By Time Medical Writer . Thomas H . Maugh ll . '' 2.6- Billion - Years - Old Carbon May Be Oldest Remains Of Life On Land . States ; Remnants of organic matter in soil collected in south africa indicate that microorganisms had moved from the earth's oceans onto land at least 2.6 billion years ago , according to Re-searchers from pennsylvania state university . Although life has been known to exist in the oceans for at least 3.8 billion years