The creator did it.

[sooda]

Those books were assembled into the Bible by people with political and theological goals in mind. There were even other 'Christians' that advocated other books as authoritative. They lost the political battle and are now called heretics by those who won.

So, yes, using the Bible to support the Bible is circular: all the books were chosen to support a particular viewpoint, which was far from being the only one at the time of that choice.

And, a *huge* difference is that science doesn't use faith in even the best scientists as the rule by which they judge a statement. Even the best scientists can be (and often are) wrong. Instead, science uses actual observations and *tests* all of its ideas before being accepted by the community. Any new evidence can overthrow previous views *if* they prove them to be wrong. And this happens, showing that science isn't a monolith of tradition, but an actively growing field attempting to understand the universe.

Many of the books had multiple authors over time who added to and/or redacted the story. That would account for the anachronisms and errors in geography.

The Pentateuch had as many as 40 authors and was written 800 years after Moses supposedly lived. Further, the stories are borrowed from surrounding cultures,

 

[Truly Enlightened]

PART 2



Quick question, how does this matter know what is necessary or not? Without self-aware consciousness, nothing knows anything as to its's needs. A dog sees a car coming, it gets out of the way because it is aware of its environment but doesn't know why. It doesn't know its alive or dead. So how can biological matter know what is necessary or not?



Well, I dont know if you have had kids,but, my experience with three boys is they no longer depended on my wife and I for everything. They are able to play more on their own, and develop a greater sense of self. They can get things out of the refrigerator themselves. This is my experience with knowing the exact transition between baby and toddler, adolescent and adult, same kind of thing.

From a creation standpoint, the fossil record is clear, all of the species that are found have no evolutionary ancestors. They were created fully formed and with the ability to procreate. That is what we see in these layers. So I do expect the fossil record to reveal exactly what it does reveal, a huge variety of fully formed creatures.



FinallyI wasn't aware of this, yuo mean like fish becoming land animals?

Whats interesting about this statement is that you said above "These random mutated genes ARE passed onto the next generations, but are usually not expressed(recessive). So think of it as Nature adjusting genes to fit a changing environment, over vast periods of time, through trial and error. Sometimes it works, but 99.99% of the time it doesn't." So how are these millions of small changes over millions of years from the first simple cells able to survive? You see, entropy and vast time periods work against you, not for you, can you understand this?



Right, well, your first sentence is absolutely true, however, there were 8 people who survived this world wide deluge. So the human race was not wiped out. Ever wonder why written language only goes back about 4,500 years?



Well, no offence, but I refuse to believe this because it is not true. I'd like for you to think about something here. I will give you something, and that is the presupposition that fish were the only things in existence at one point in time. I'll ignore the possibility they could exist and procreate. Okay, so we have fish in the sea. What do you think was the first mutation that started this process of coming out of the water and surviving on dry land. If a fish comes out of its environment, what happens? It dies. Do you realize what genetic changes that would have to take place in order for a fish to become a land animal? And it doesnt matter how much time you throw at it. How would it have babies? What would it need to change first to survive out of water? What would it eat? How would its internal organ break down its food for nutrition to survive? How would its eyes be of any purpose? How would its body adapt? How would the environment affect its body? When you start critically thinking about this, you eventually come to the conclusion that this kind of evolution is absolutely absurd.



Bro, think about this, you are describing things that cannot happen and assuming they could if the environmental conditions were just right. Here is another perspective. A transcendent creator, created the universe, this planet and all life on this planet exactly the perfect distance from our Star, on the perfect axis and rotation and gravity along with all the other laws the universe and we abide by, with the perfect environment for all varieties of life in the perfect eco-systems for them to survive. He provided the same for human beings and all the air breathing animals so that they could survive and procreate. I guess the question is, which one of these perspective, evolution or creation make more sense.



When God created man according to the biblical scriptures, he was perfect. God only creates perfect because he is perfect. So yes, I believe man was created to be eternal and perfect. There is also something that is never discussed. Everyone wants to blame God for all the bad things that happen. "If he is so loving, why doesn't he stop evil in the world?" This is brought up all the time. What is never brought up is the perpetrator of evil. The perpetrator is Satan himself. Let me just say this because this issue is a whole other thread, but, Satan hates God. He also hates the pinnacle of Gods creation, Human Beings meaning you. Why, because never in the creation account did God personalize any of his creation. He just spoke, let there be this and it was. But when he spoke to the trinity as Genesis chapter 1 verse 26-29 states, God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Now, before any of you try to condemn me and charge me for proselytism, I'm just telling you what the text says in response to "Truly Enlightened's" question. I'm not trying to covert you.

"Evolution will continue to occur, with or without your understanding."

Finally, I do understand evolution as all of you have described it, I've always understood it. And don't come back with I'm confused between evolution and abiogenesis, I'm not. Evolution will only continue to occur in your own mind with or without your own understanding. I understand that as well.

I'm afraid there is a massive disconnect in what you are rote parroting, and what you think you are saying. Your post is far too disjunctive for me to understand. There is just far to many Godly assumptions, and Biblical quote-mining throughout your entire post. You do realize that you need to prove these Godly assumptions first, before you can claim them as fact? I feel that you are just sermonizing, and ignoring anything I'm saying. Your question about the self-awareness of matter, ended any hope of a rational discussion.

I would strongly suggest that you leave the understanding of science to scientist, and scientist will gladly leave the world of make-believe and biblical fantasies to you. Good luck.

 

[He has Risen!]

Many of the books had multiple authors over time who added to and/or redacted the story. That would account for the anachronisms and errors in geography.

The Pentateuch had as many as 40 authors and was written 800 years after Moses supposedly lived. Further, the stories are borrowed from surrounding cultures,

What you and many others have posted in contrast to my primary source references is wrong. Put up the information that I can check out from primary sources and not just modern academic say so.

 

[He has Risen!]

Religion undermined heliocentricity.
Religion undermined stem cell research.
Pushing Creationism undermines science.

wrong
wrong
and
wrong
3 strikes and your out!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you and many others have posted in contrast to my primary source references is wrong. Put up the information that I can check out from primary sources and not just modern academic say so.

Wikipedia can be a good place to start. They tend to name and link their sources:

Torah - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

wrong
wrong
and
wrong
3 strikes and your out!

Simply shouting wrong is not convincing at all. How is he wrong? What sources show that he is wrong?

 

[He has Risen!]

It doesn't matter what people say or believe.
What matters is what the actual data supports.

Bravo, Bravo, you get an A for this part of your post...I only wish that it was true all the time, especially when we try to understand human origins.

 

[He has Risen!]

Wikipedia can be a good place to start. They tend to name and link their sources:

Torah - Wikipedia

Try telling that to a university professor and see what he says about your wiki suggestion.

 

[sooda]

What you and many others have posted in contrast to my primary source references is wrong. Put up the information that I can check out from primary sources and not just modern academic say so.

Early Jewish Writings

Early Jewish Writings: Old Testament, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and More

 

[He has Risen!]

Every new born human (that includes you) has some 50-ish mutations in his/her DNA.

You want examples of mutations in humans that didn't cause that human harm?
There are 7 billion people on this planet.
Let's be extremely pessimistic and say that 2 billion of them are in perfect health.

That right there, are 100-billion-ish examples. Since each of those 2 billion people has some 50-ish mutations that clearly didn't harm them in any mentionable way.

just because mutations have not harmed this generation, it says nothing about not harming the next few generations down the line.

 

[sooda]

Try telling that to a university professor and see what he says about your wiki suggestion.

It depends on how much work and sources the wiki writer uses. Some of it is very well done.

But this may be helpful to you.
Early Jewish Writings: Old Testament, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and More

 

[He has Risen!]

It depends on how much work and sources the wiki writer uses. Some of it is very well done.

But this may be helpful to you.
Early Jewish Writings: Old Testament, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and More

Thank you sooda for this link, can you be more specific and reference where in that site you would like me to go to and see. I think it looks legit, but I need your help in determining where you want me to go in the site.
PS thank you again for this site...it is wonderful.
I gave you a "Informative" button on both of your posts that you have this link on...it is that good. Although it has the dead sea scrolls in the title of the link, they do not have it as of yet.
A site like this brings a big to my face because this is what I am talking about when I say primary source material...sooda gets an A plus.

Now you can check this out on that site...
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV

(AD 120-202) Irenaeus of lyons Against Heresies book 3 chap. XI section 8 confirms that there were only 4 gospels written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as well as in chap. XIV

 

[sooda]

Thank you sooda for this link, can you be more specific and reference where in that site you would like me to go to and see. I think it looks legit, but I need your help in determining where you want me go in the site.
PS thank you again for this site...it is wonderful.
I gave you a "Informative" button on both of your posts that you have this link on...it is that good. Although it has the dead sea scrolls in the title of the link, they do not have it as of yet.
A site like this brings a big to my face because this is what I am talking about when I say primary source material...sooda gets an A plus.

I would suggest Daniel.

 

[He has Risen!]

I would suggest Daniel.

Ok
Daniel
and then under Online Resources for Daniel it has...
Daniel Wallace's Outline of Daniel
Highly recommended...thank you sooda

 

[He has Risen!]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


Now you can check out research list on this site...
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV


Below are three tests that are used in scholarly research of ancient manuscripts,
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/




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

 

[joelr]

What you are saying is not true in regards to what I am posting. I am not posting my own made up stories as many are doing here (including you) that just want to post wiki articles and you tube videos. I have at my disposal many books that include the early church writing as well as the gnostic gospels and gnostic writings of that time. The apostles and NT writers were themselves contending with those who were trying to pervert their message.
Titus 1:9
Philippians 3:1
2 Peter 1:12-13, 2:1
1 John 2:26
Jude 1:3-5

You are either delusional or lying, not sure which?
I've sourced all my posts.
Anything on the Gnostic gospels comes from the expert Elaine Pagels (Elaine Pagels, is an American religious historian who writes on the Gnostic Gospels. She is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Pagels has conducted extensive research into Early Christianity and Gnosticism.) and from her book The Lost Gospels.
The Gnostic sects believed that some of the gospels we now call canon were heretical and false teachings.

The youtube videos are lectures by the most current PhD in Jesus historicity studies Rischard Carrier.
So saying I "made them up" is completely delusional or lying/pretending as if the information isn't true.

Old books on the subject are not as revalent, Pagels work on the Gnostic gospels is as good as it gets as she's devoted much of her career to studying the texts. Carrier has spent all of his career on Jesus historicity and had broken down many assumptions held in the field that were based on false information.

Wiki pages on historicity basically sum up the consensus in the field and represent the vast majority of historical opinions among biblical PhD scholars.
The consensus is "not historically reliable".

That is what scholarship says. Apologetics desperately tries to change these facts by whatever means they can come up with but it's usually easy to debunk.

 

[ecco]

What you and many others have posted in contrast to my primary source references is wrong. Put up the information that I can check out from primary sources and not just modern academic say so.

Research Marcion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From F.F. Bruce,
The late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make
pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

'The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.'

From N.T. Wright,
Fred Bruce (F.F. Bruce) was a legend in his own lifetime...those who had studied with him spoke of him with awe and affection in equal measure. He began his his life as a classicist. He built on this foundation an extraordinary range of scholarly expertise about Judaism and Christianity, not only - though this was his primary field - the New Testament and the world that surrounded it, but all kinds of subjects.

As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222


Now you can check out research list on this site...
Early Christian Writings
Church Fathers
Church Fathers: Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies, Book III
Chapter XI
see also
Chapter XIV


Below are three tests that are used in scholarly research of ancient manuscripts,
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/




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

Why do you keep posting dates that are no accepted by any serious scholars these days? You have to add 10 years at a minimum to the high end of your dates to get the modern dates for the Gospels. You keep failing to find any eyewitness writings that speak of the miracles of Jesus.

 

[ecco]

↑ecco
Religion undermined heliocentricity.
Religion undermined stem cell research.
Pushing Creationism undermines science.

wrong
wrong
and
wrong
3 strikes and your out!

Can you explain why you think I'm wrong?





NB: Regarding language evolution. With so many people incorrectly using "YOUR" instead of "YOU'RE", we may find that "YOUR" will soon become the accepted way of contracting "YOU ARE".

 

[joelr]

SIMPLY WRONG!

Interesting. This is basic Bible history 101?

In the 2nd century someone collected and named the gospels. They are all in Greek and all start with Kata before each name. This is how (in ancient Greek historical writing) you say you got this information from some one else. "As told to me by", or naming a source.
The fact that all 4 have this shows us that someone assigned the names all at the same time.
Kata shows they were not the author. All biblical scholars understand this.
Your "simply wrong" response betrays a serious lack of knowledge on the actual history off the bible. Which explains much.

At 4:20 a PhD historian explains this:

This is why if you look up say the gospel of Matthew in Wiki it will say:

"The Gospel According to Matthew.....Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[5][6] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time"


"anonymous author".....