Scientists say...

[YoursTrue]

Moses, if existed, wrote nothing. The modern scholarly consensus rejects Mosaic authorship, and affirms that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries. The probable date is between 450–350 BC, although others argue for a Hellenistic dating (333–164 BC) on the basis that the Elephantine papyri, the records of a Jewish colony in Egypt dating from the last quarter of the 5th century BC, make no reference to a written Torah, the Exodus, or to any other biblical event, though it does mention the festival of Passover.

When "scholars" put the books together way back when, their "consensus" was that Moses essentially wrote the books attributed to him.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is outdated and now known to not be correct.

Just as a side note, hopefully to be answered honestly without prevarication -- (or stepping aside) -- might the opinion/estimate change again?

 

[metis]

Just as a side note, hopefully to be answered honestly without prevarication -- (or stepping aside) -- might the opinion/estimate change again?

It's really hard to imagine that as there's just so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But my response would be to some is what's preventing them to at least marginally accept such overwhelming evidence, and my guess is that they are using their semi-religious viewpoints as a set of blinders because the evidence doesn't fit their interpretation of the creation narratives. But the creation narratives, taken as being literal, simply don't make sense at the scientific and logical level-- period.

With the BB and the ToE, these shouldn't question anyone's belief in God and in "God's creation" as there are viable and logical alternatives that make much more sense that don't negate either. I experienced this for myself as I grew up in a church that negated both because of their willingness to not tell me the truth-- intentionally or not. If they won't teach the truth with this, then why should I have confidence in them when dealing with God and Jesus?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's really hard to imagine that as there's just so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But my response would be to some is what's preventing them to at least marginally accept such overwhelming evidence, and my guess is that they are using their semi-religious viewpoints as a set of blinders because the evidence doesn't fit their interpretation of the creation narratives. But the creation narratives, taken as being literal, simply don't make sense at the scientific and logical level-- period.

With the BB and the ToE, these shouldn't question anyone's belief in God and in "God's creation" as there are viable and logical alternatives that make much more sense that don't negate either. I experienced this for myself as I grew up in a church that negated both because of their willingness to not tell me the truth-- intentionally or not. If they won't teach the truth with this, then why should I have confidence in them when dealing with God and Jesus?

I'm not doubting that in reference to your experience with your early church but as I studied the Bible later and see that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, at first I didn't give that much thought to it because it made sense, and it was clear to me that each day was not 24 hours. Not everyone agrees with that but that's another point. I see no reason to believe that life came about by physical forces without God getting involved. Can I explain it all? Obviously not. I realize fossils have been discovered that seem to confirm the process in scientists' minds but it's too far fetched for me to accept it. Rather than the biblical account of each figurative 'day.'
I appreciate the discussion we're having in a reasonable way. Thank you.
P.S. I went to both church and, before I went to college only synagogue, never heard a discussion either place of the wonders of God's creation. It was a progressive synagogue with a well known and respected rabbi, and also a famous large church after I left school. I was afraid to attend a church to explore that might have people foaming at the mouths or rolling on the floor. So I never did.

 

[metis]

Not everyone agrees with that but that's another point. I see no reason to believe that life came about by physical forces without God getting involved.

It is virtually impossible for us today to know exactly when and exactly how life forms first emerged, and God, or even Gods, certainly cannot be ruled out.

Take care as I'm outta here for the rest of the weekend.

 

[Sargonski]

It's really hard to imagine that as there's just so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But my response would be to some is what's preventing them to at least marginally accept such overwhelming evidence, and my guess is that they are using their semi-religious viewpoints as a set of blinders because the evidence doesn't fit their interpretation of the creation narratives. But the creation narratives, taken as being literal, simply don't make sense at the scientific and logical level-- period.

With the BB and the ToE, these shouldn't question anyone's belief in God and in "God's creation" as there are viable and logical alternatives that make much more sense that don't negate either. I experienced this for myself as I grew up in a church that negated both because of their willingness to not tell me the truth-- intentionally or not. If they won't teach the truth with this, then why should I have confidence in them when dealing with God and Jesus?

I'm not doubting that in reference to your experience with your early church but as I studied the Bible later and see that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, at first I didn't give that much thought to it because it made sense, and it was clear to me that each day was not 24 hours. Not everyone agrees with that but that's another point. I see no reason to believe that life came about by physical forces without God getting involved. Can I explain it all? Obviously not. I realize fossils have been discovered that seem to confirm the process in scientists' minds but it's too far fetched for me to accept it. Rather than the biblical account of each figurative 'day.'
I appreciate the discussion we're having in a reasonable way. Thank you.
P.S. I went to both church and, before I went to college only synagogue, never heard a discussion either place of the wonders of God's creation. It was a progressive synagogue with a well known and respected rabbi, and also a famous large church after I left school. I was afraid to attend a church to explore that might have people foaming at the mouths or rolling on the floor. So I never did.

I think we have a bit of a black vs white paradigm / false dichotomy here -- of which I will try to make sense .. Scientific explanation for creation does not discount God - and in such conversation - at this juncture, one must define God .. even if it be something very basic .. and that definition must be something other than blurting out Everything .. God is Everything .. which is treated as a special case if one wishes to Go with Gaia .. but then you really need to know what talking about. .. anyhow.

When we say "God Created Something" -- I can point the the blooming flower .. and then point to the sun and say that is the God that created that blooming flower .. .. and it is a scientific fact that the Sun created most life on the planet .. is this not a powerful God ? the power of creation .. this is the everything God .. which is not exactly what those claiming God is Everything have in mind. .. so define God as something less than that .. ha ha ha ... and if you can't do that .. your brain will not allow it .. then we have found a poison lizard that needs extraction ...

Now when Bible say ... Primordial one created heavens and earth .. this is the same "Everything God" the forces of the universe .. themselves the God of Creation ... the natural forces create the backdrop for the story .. in particular is the parting of the fresh -water from the Salt Water .. separation of the land from the Sea .. evolution doing its thing .. This separation is the creation of Separate Gods .. separation from the Chaos from the Order .. the Gods of Nature are the forces of evolution .. the only question there is if there is a ghost in the machine .. that question for another day .. (my answer is Yes if wondering)

Now when the story comes to the creation of Man - the Primordial God is not present .. and we hae a number of Gods. When it comes to the interaction of "The Gods" with man .. there are not one but many. Not only are there many Gods involved .. but they create a creature "Like us, in our image" and the US .. and the OUR .. is not referring to the Trinity .. one telling you this you will know henceforth as the wolf in sheeps clothing .. there was not a single person reading the story of Genesis -- back in 1000 BC for example - who would not understand that the WE .. and US is referring to the Gods of Creation .. and they know the gods names EL - Enki - and so on. The entire Bible History to the end of the Israelites at the hand of the Assyrians in ~720 BC -- is one of belief in many Gods .. mostly Polytheism .. with occasional bouts of monolateralism -- belief in many but worship of only one.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is virtually impossible for us today to know exactly when and exactly how life forms first emerged, and God, or even Gods, certainly cannot be ruled out.

Take care as I'm outta here for the rest of the weekend.

Hope you have a good rest of the weekend.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's really hard to imagine that as there's just so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But my response would be to some is what's preventing them to at least marginally accept such overwhelming evidence, and my guess is that they are using their semi-religious viewpoints as a set of blinders because the evidence doesn't fit their interpretation of the creation narratives. But the creation narratives, taken as being literal, simply don't make sense at the scientific and logical level-- period.

With the BB and the ToE, these shouldn't question anyone's belief in God and in "God's creation" as there are viable and logical alternatives that make much more sense that don't negate either. I experienced this for myself as I grew up in a church that negated both because of their willingness to not tell me the truth-- intentionally or not. If they won't teach the truth with this, then why should I have confidence in them when dealing with God and Jesus?

Regarding the BB, the projections by scientists such as Stephen Hawking should enable someone to question whatever made him change his mind on things, except that he figured that gravity could have done it. In other words, something came from nothing basically, and frankly that doesn't make sense to me that "gravity did it, therefore something could have come from nothing. In other words, bye-bye BB according to Dr. Hawking. Meantime, the more I examine what cosmologists are saying about the universe, the more I realize they do not know but make projections. This in fact doesn't make them real bright in my mind, but -- here's where others will take over and that[s ok, because what will happen will happen. I'm speaking of prophecy now. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientists say that, eh?

Maybe some scientists say that (and others say "steady-state model" of the universe).

The guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory about a century ago (Georges Lemaître) was a scientist, but he was also a priest, which means there's possibly a bias towards the religious belief of a beginning.

There is not any bias in the discovery, but the bias of course came after, The reality is the view of physivs and cosmology since id the expansion of our universe is not the beginning of our physical existence. Also, the title 'Big Bang' is from a sarcastic remark concerning the theory In reality there never was a 'Big Bang.'

I think this idea that the universe has a beginning is nonsense, at least in the sense of time as we know it in a scientific context (as one of the most fundamental dimensions in physics along with mass and length).

Two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation about half a century ago, and they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for it; they also used their discovery to endorse the Big Bang Theory. However, there are at least two problems with this; the first is that people apparently associate the Nobel Prize that they were awarded with both the discovery and the endorsement (from what I understand, it was only for the discovery, not the endorsement) and use this perception to grant credibility to the Big Bang Theory; the second is that, in general, being awarded a prize (such as the Nobel Prize) is not science, just essentially something like a bribe.

Your acrid biased fant against the various versions of the expansion of the universe is not an objective perspective, Yes I am willing to consider alternatives, but nothing like the extreme argument you present

To me, the reason the Big Bang Theory somewhat appears to be scientifically sound or reasonable is because there may be at least two possible explanations for cosmic microwave background radiation redshift; one of them can sort of be interpreted as a "big bang" & a beginning to the universe (which I think is wrong), and the other may involve redshift simply being the result of energy loss (of photons traveling their limits in distance through space across many galaxies); this paper seems to support the latter: Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift - Ling Jun Wang

Yes this is an alternative to yet unresolved problem. Gtw if no scientists in physics and cosmology believe our physical existence that contains our universe had a beginning.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't think so, heh?

It is not a matter of what I think. It is a fact that that there is no evidence that he changed anything latter in life as far as his physics and cosmology, and religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

When "scholars" put the books together way back when, their "consensus" was that Moses essentially wrote the books attributed to him.

Scholars 'way back than . . . ' did not have the historical, archaeological knowledge we have today.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just saw a comedy show and it reminded me of the jargon and arguments tossed around here in reference to posits offered by scientists and those citing scientific viewpoints In terms that are virtually impossible to understand. Not because it's impossible to understand, but because it's impossible. To understand. And, as some here rightly say, simply to utter words of science does not mean they understand them. That's how it goes. Thanks, guy and gals, for offering your stuff. Much appreciated because it helped me to understand that even those offering sure enough viewpoints do not know what they're talking about but utter phrases as if they do. So thanks again, guys (and gals)!

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not a matter of what I think. It is a fact that that there is no evidence that he changed anything latter in life as far as his physics and cosmology, and religious beliefs.

Please read my last comment before this. You have helped me immeasurably to ascertain things. Thanks!

 

[anotherneil]

There is not any bias in the discovery, but the bias of course came after, The reality is the view of physivs and cosmology since id the expansion of our universe is not the beginning of our physical existence. Also, the title 'Big Bang' is from a sarcastic remark concerning the theory In reality there never was a 'Big Bang.'

Your acrid biased fant against the various versions of the expansion of the universe is not an objective perspective, Yes I am willing to consider alternatives, but nothing like the extreme argument you present

Yes this is an alternative to yet unresolved problem. Gtw if no scientists in physics and cosmology believe our physical existence that contains our universe had a beginning.

You're welcome.

 

[Ajax]

When "scholars" put the books together way back when, their "consensus" was that Moses essentially wrote the books attributed to him.

See what happens when science tries to unveil the truth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Scholars 'way back than . . . ' did not have the historical, archaeological knowledge we have today.

So far nobody that I have heard about has reformed the Bible and made changes that historians agree upon as ascertained by people like yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

See what happens when science tries to unveil the truth?

So have they proven and revised the accounts or simply said, no, they're not true. But dare not, or cannot, revise them as they, the scholars, see fit. We have you here for that, don't we. Meantime, what "Bible" has the real truth in it? Dr. Hawking's papers, which say something could come out of nothing and God is not needed? Poor guy is in the grave. Maybe when he "wakes up," he'll see where he was -- wrong. I hope so.

 

[shunyadragon]

So far nobody that I have heard about has reformed the Bible and made changes that historians agree upon as ascertained by people like yourself.

Many have made an attempt to "reform" the Bible or parts of the Bible over the Millennia. King James reworked the Bible, Thomas Jefferson gave it shot. The JW rewrote it and gave it their own infallible translation, That is only a partial list.

Second, academic historians simply research and study the Bible in terms of ancient literature. They will study the history of the scripture, and the sources that compiled, edited and redacted scripture.

The Christian historians that take an apologetic perspective defending scripture often do not agree.
Like myself? I research and study the Bible as it is from an academic perspective, and then from perspective of different churches and religions. My own personal interpretation I do not consider it in absolute terms,

 

[Ajax]

So have they proven and revised the accounts or simply said, no, they're not true. But dare not, or cannot, revise them as they, the scholars, see fit. We have you here for that, don't we. Meantime, what "Bible" has the real truth in it? Dr. Hawking's papers, which say something could come out of nothing and God is not needed? Poor guy is in the grave. Maybe when he "wakes up," he'll see where he was -- wrong. I hope so.

It depends on how you define real truth. The short answer is none. The Bible is not inerrant. Firstly, no matter how hard one tries to avoid it, there is no way that 66-81 books, written by different authors about one subject (God), in a span of 600 years, will not contain falsehoods and contradictions between them. Secondly, since the world evolves, the ideas of people change. You can not expect ancient tribal people to hold the same views about God, morality and other matters as the people at Jesus time, let alone in our times. The problem therefore with the Bible is that it represents ancient thoughts, contains fairy tales and unfortunately it can not change. Therefore it is bound to become obsolete sooner or later.

 

[metis]

Scientific explanation for creation does not discount God

Exactly, which is why it is moot within our scientific community.