The creator did it.

[sooda]

sooda...what you posted is wrong, very wrong. The bible has 3 areas that scholars look at to verify the reliability of ancient texts...they are
1. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
2. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
3. external witness-are there sources daring close to the original authors that support the documents

The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/

The Bible is full of contradictions, anachronisms and geographic errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sooda...what you posted is wrong, very wrong. The bible has 3 areas that scholars look at to verify the reliability of its ancient texts...they are
1. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
2. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
3. external witness-are there sources dating close to the original authors that support the documents

The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/

Quite a bit of circular arguments and cherry picking.

Very little of the New Testament consists of "eyewitness testimony". None of the Gospels, none of the work of Paul, what eyewitness testimony do you think exists in the New Testament?

 

[He has Risen!]

The Bible is full of contradictions, anachronisms and geographic errors.

soda..."Pretty Please"...I beg you...just go to the site I posted and that you copied in your reply to get a better grasp of what I am trying to say.

 

[He has Risen!]

Quite a bit of circular arguments and cherry picking.

Very little of the New Testament consists of "eyewitness testimony". None of the Gospels, none of the work of Paul, what eyewitness testimony do you think exists in the New Testament?

Luke 1:2
2 Peter 1:16
John 1:14
....to name a few

 

[Subduction Zone]

soda..."Pretty Please"...I beg you...just go to the site I posted and that you copied in your reply to get a better grasp of what I am trying to say.

What makes you think that CRI is a reliable source?

 

[sooda]

What makes you think that CRI is a reliable source?

Christian Research Institute - Wikipedia

The CRI logo. The Christian Research Institute (CRI) is an evangelical Christian apologetics ministry. It was established in October 1960 in the state of New Jersey by Walter Martin (1928–1989). In 1974 Martin relocated the ministry to San Juan Capistrano, California. The ministry's office was relocated in the 1990s near Rancho Santa Margarita.

Christian Research Institute - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke 1:2
2 Peter 1:16
John 1:14
....to name a few

Nope, the author of Luke specifically states there that he is not an eyewitness, nor does that author claim to be an eyewitness. Modern scholars do not think that John was the author of John, you would need to give evidence that it was written by an eyewitness. Nor is 2 Peter thought to be the work of Peter:
Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia

If you want to claim "eyewitnesses" you put a rather large burden of proof upon yourself. I can quote and link all sorts of modern sources that will refute almost all of your claims. These were written by people that understand the language and the history of the time. Many of the epistles are psuedegpigrapha, that means they were written by someone other than who the Bible says that wrote it.


Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christian Research Institute - Wikipedia

The CRI logo. The Christian Research Institute (CRI) is an evangelical Christian apologetics ministry. It was established in October 1960 in the state of New Jersey by Walter Martin (1928–1989). In 1974 Martin relocated the ministry to San Juan Capistrano, California. The ministry's office was relocated in the 1990s near Rancho Santa Margarita.

Christian Research Institute - Wikipedia

Exactly, it is an apologetics site. That means that regardless of whether the Bible is right or wrong that they will defend it. You need to find a reliable source.

EDIT: My bad. I thought that I was replying to @He has Risen! . But my claim stands nonetheless. I knew that this was an apologetics site before I asked my question.

 

[sooda]

Exactly, it is an apologetics site. That means that regardless of whether the Bible is right or wrong that they will defend it. You need to find a reliable source.

Evangelical theology is poor... and its deeply tied to Dallas Theological Seminary and the writings of Cyrus Scofield.

It wasn't mainstream, but began gaining momentum during the Dust Bowl years and the Great Depression. It got another boost with Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey and writers like Tim LaHaye.

Theology just can't be anti-science and education..

 

[Rapture Era]

I've read all of your posts. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to every point but, by your responses so far it would matter anyway. I came upon this article by accident because I was looking for something else, but it was very interesting concerning the human body. Both male and female must be full functioning to reproduce. All of the systems in the body must work together as one unit to survive. In an evolutionary process from simple to almost incomprehensible complexity, a reasonable question would be, can you justify how all of these bodily systems, organs, blood, brain, skeletal structure, joints, nerves, blood vessels, muscle structures, the sensing organs associated with each sense, sending information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us is remotely possible by an unguided, information-less random process like evolution? Which parts of the body developed first? How did that random mutation survive to develop into the next and so on? What did kept it alive? Where are the billions of transitional morphological monstrosities prior to the current vast life forms of fish, birds, insects, and crawling things, the animals and human beings?
This is why the creation of Genesis makes more sense to me. All of the living creatures were created male and female with all the necessary organs and chemical structures to reproduce, sustain and survive after their own kind just as expected, and, just as revealed in Genesis. This article in my opinion, displays the immense intelligent mind behind all of creation from an omnipotent transcendent creator. What are your thoughts after reading this?
How Your Body Heals Itself - Center for Nutrition Studies

 

[sooda]

I've read all of your posts. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to every point but, by your responses so far it would matter anyway. I came upon this article by accident because I was looking for something else, but it was very interesting concerning the human body. Both male and female must be full functioning to reproduce. All of the systems in the body must work together as one unit to survive. In an evolutionary process from simple to almost incomprehensible complexity, a reasonable question would be, can you justify how all of these bodily systems, organs, blood, brain, skeletal structure, joints, nerves, blood vessels, muscle structures, the sensing organs associated with each sense, sending information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us is remotely possible by an unguided, information-less random process like evolution? Which parts of the body developed first? How did that random mutation survive to develop into the next and so on? What did kept it alive? Where are the billions of transitional morphological monstrosities prior to the current vast life forms of fish, birds, insects, and crawling things, the animals and human beings?
This is why the creation of Genesis makes more sense to me. All of the living creatures were created male and female with all the necessary organs and chemical structures to reproduce, sustain and survive after their own kind just as expected, and, just as revealed in Genesis. This article in my opinion, displays the immense intelligent mind behind all of creation from an omnipotent transcendent creator. What are your thoughts after reading this?
How Your Body Heals Itself - Center for Nutrition Studies

The creation story in Genesis is strictly Jewish history.. Its their creation myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read all of your posts. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to every point but, by your responses so far it would matter anyway. I came upon this article by accident because I was looking for something else, but it was very interesting concerning the human body. Both male and female must be full functioning to reproduce. All of the systems in the body must work together as one unit to survive. In an evolutionary process from simple to almost incomprehensible complexity, a reasonable question would be, can you justify how all of these bodily systems, organs, blood, brain, skeletal structure, joints, nerves, blood vessels, muscle structures, the sensing organs associated with each sense, sending information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us is remotely possible by an unguided, information-less random process like evolution? Which parts of the body developed first? How did that random mutation survive to develop into the next and so on? What did kept it alive? Where are the billions of transitional morphological monstrosities prior to the current vast life forms of fish, birds, insects, and crawling things, the animals and human beings?
This is why the creation of Genesis makes more sense to me. All of the living creatures were created male and female with all the necessary organs and chemical structures to reproduce, sustain and survive after their own kind just as expected, and, just as revealed in Genesis. This article in my opinion, displays the immense intelligent mind behind all of creation from an omnipotent transcendent creator. What are your thoughts after reading this?
How Your Body Heals Itself - Center for Nutrition Studies

Yes, it can be justified. For details you will probably have to ask a biologist. But I can tell you what is wrong with your current argument. You are merely making an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy. You still have no evidence that your God did it.

 

[He has Risen!]

Nope, the author of Luke specifically states there that he is not an eyewitness, nor does that author claim to be an eyewitness. Modern scholars do not think that John was the author of John, you would need to give evidence that it was written by an eyewitness. Nor is 2 Peter thought to be the work of Peter:
Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia

If you want to claim "eyewitnesses" you put a rather large burden of proof upon yourself. I can quote and link all sorts of modern sources that will refute almost all of your claims. These were written by people that understand the language and the history of the time. Many of the epistles are psuedegpigrapha, that means they were written by someone other than who the Bible says that wrote it.


Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia

Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.

 

[Polymath257]

I've read all of your posts. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond to every point but, by your responses so far it would matter anyway. I came upon this article by accident because I was looking for something else, but it was very interesting concerning the human body. Both male and female must be full functioning to reproduce. All of the systems in the body must work together as one unit to survive. In an evolutionary process from simple to almost incomprehensible complexity, a reasonable question would be, can you justify how all of these bodily systems, organs, blood, brain, skeletal structure, joints, nerves, blood vessels, muscle structures, the sensing organs associated with each sense, sending information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us is remotely possible by an unguided, information-less random process like evolution? Which parts of the body developed first? How did that random mutation survive to develop into the next and so on? What did kept it alive? Where are the billions of transitional morphological monstrosities prior to the current vast life forms of fish, birds, insects, and crawling things, the animals and human beings?
This is why the creation of Genesis makes more sense to me. All of the living creatures were created male and female with all the necessary organs and chemical structures to reproduce, sustain and survive after their own kind just as expected, and, just as revealed in Genesis. This article in my opinion, displays the immense intelligent mind behind all of creation from an omnipotent transcendent creator. What are your thoughts after reading this?
How Your Body Heals Itself - Center for Nutrition Studies

Well, we can look at the fossil record and at *living* species to determine the order in which things appeared. So, for example, jellyfish do not have most of the systems that you listed. Some types of worms have more. Etc.

Did you know that many species do not have a gender determined genetically? For example, many fish species change gender during their lives based on temperature or the number of other fish around.

Most of the systems you mention started in species that used them only as an addition to other processes. For example, while we use blood to carry food and oxygen to our tissues, many species of amphibians can get enough oxygen through their *skin* to serve basic needs. The oxygen delivered through breathing is a *supplement* and is not necessary for the amphibian to survive.

Next, your misunderstanding of the process of evolution is, unfortunately, common. Monstrosities are NOT what we expect. In fact, we expect small changes from generation to generation, but with those changes accumulating over many such generations. Each stage is a 'fully formed species' with all systems functioning. otherwise they wouldn't survive to reproduce. But small changes can, and do, add up to be large ones over many generations.

One analogy that is good is the changes in languages over time. French, Spanish, and English simply didn't exist 2000 years ago. They all developed gradually over many generations, with each generation able to speak a full language. None the less, Latin is no longer used except in special situations and even different languages derived from Latin are no longer mutually comprehensible.

Next, evolution is NOT an information-less system. That is part of the point. Mutations are random, but survival to reproduce is NOT. And it is natural selection that is the crucial stage to find optimal solutions to many of the problems faced by living things. Mutation only gives variation. it is natural selection that gives adaptation and, ultimately, change.

 

[sooda]

Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.

But Luke was an apostle of Paul.

 

[He has Risen!]

But Luke was an apostle of Paul.

Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul, not his apostle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Acts 16:2
Luke, who is the author of Acts, starts to use the "we and us" in his account of the Acts of the apostles, because he now joins the apostle Paul in ministering the gospel. This is a valid attestation of Luke being an eyewitness to his account.
John 19:35
John the apostle, who is the author of this gospel, states that he is witnessing the crucifixion and the death of Jesus before his very eyes. He also is the one in verse 19:26-27 who took Jesus' mother into his home after the death of Jesus.
1John 1:1-4
John the apostle, who is the author of this letter, claims to have "heard", "looked at" and touched Jesus.

It is not a very well warranted assumption that Luke was the author. And whoever the author was he admitted to not being an eyewitness. Did you not read the intro to Luke?

And very few scholars think that John was the author of John. That is merely church tradition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul, not his apostle.

He was a follower of Paul. Guess what that would make him? You cannot have it both ways.

 

[sooda]

Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul, not his apostle.

You're right. Luke was the disciple of Paul.

Luke, was born in Antioch, by profession, was a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. He died at the age of 84 years.

Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right. Luke was the disciple of Paul.

Luke, was born in Antioch, by profession, was a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. He died at the age of 84 years.

Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia

And one thing that article shows is that like Paul he was not an eyewitness.