OK maybe I do not. Seems like that is a bit of a red herring seeing as the whole point of this thread is to discuss the historical claims of Islam and to a lesser degree the Bible.
To which what I was saying is relevant.
Also whether a Holy book is historically accurate is important when deciding if you actually want to believe in it.
Is it? Because the Bible is rife with historical errors.
Now, I would say that certain details carry more weight than others. Whether or not Jesus ever existed is WAY more important than whether or not population statistics of armies somewhere at some point might have been exaggerated.
But dude, for real, you're not seriously going to sit there and tell me Genesis is historically accurate, are you? Hang your head in shame if you're going to sit there and tell me that Genesis is historically accurate.
I would be less inclined to believe in a book that is portraying itself as the word of God if it does not get its facts straight.
Yes, which is why the fact that the Bible is rife with errors tells us it's not the infallible Word of God.
Can I get an example Highroller? I would really like to know what lets you say that.
Genesis.
What about the historic accuracy of Genesis, exactly, is so damning for the religious, that the document fails to have value or credibility? Is it really necessary to argue birds and fish?
Can I get an example Highroller? I would really like to know what lets you say that.
Genesis.
What about the historic accuracy of Genesis, exactly, is so damning for the religious, that the document fails to have value or credibility? Is it really necessary to argue birds and fish?
How about the fact that neither of the stories of Creation presented in Genesis correspond with (1) scientific fact, or (2) each other?
Can I get an example Highroller? I would really like to know what lets you say that.
Genesis.
What about the historic accuracy of Genesis, exactly, is so damning for the religious, that the document fails to have value or credibility? Is it really necessary to argue birds and fish?
How about the fact that neither of the stories of Creation presented in Genesis correspond with (1) scientific fact, or (2) each other?
Have you read it?
Sure, I took that Western Literature course in college. The professor tried to make that argument about "conflicting stolen creation myths" too. But you're both missing the point entirely. In fact I give the professor more of a pass, because he wasn't trying to use the valid literary critique as an attack on the faith itself. You have to read more than the first two pages of the Torah before you can question it's validity.
Are you attacking the text because of 7 day literalists, or because you find it unlikely that a snake could talk?
I'm more than a little confused about how we got from "not historically accurate" to "the document fails to have value or credibility" and "an attack on the faith itself". Doesn't seem like a remotely fair reading of what Highroller was saying...
Can I get an example Highroller? I would really like to know what lets you say that.
Genesis.
What about the historic accuracy of Genesis, exactly, is so damning for the religious, that the document fails to have value or credibility? Is it really necessary to argue birds and fish?
How about the fact that neither of the stories of Creation presented in Genesis correspond with (1) scientific fact, or (2) each other?
The irony here is that you want to criticize me for supposedly only reading two pages of the Bible when you apparently couldn't even bother to read two pages of this thread.
chapter 1 is a detailed account of the creation.
chapter 2 is a recap or summary and more on the focus of the creation of man.
Yes, they do.
Quote from Genesis 1-2:3 »
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
Quote from Genesis 2:4-25 »
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.’
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
These contradict each other. In Genesis 1- Genesis 2:3, one story of creation is given. In this story, God creates the heavens and the earth on the first day; the sky on the second day; dry land and vegetation on the third day; the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day; all animals that live in the water and sky on the fifth day; all animals that live on the earth on the sixth day, and afterward God created man and woman together on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2:4-25, a second creation story is given. In it, God creates the heavens and the earth, which appears to already have dry land and waters separated. On the same day God creates man. God then creates plants, then animals, then woman.
So which is it?
not sure why people keep calling it inaccurate when there is proof and evidence that it is anything but.
How's about the part where it says the universe and all life on the earth were created in six days? Did that never ring a bell in your mind that maybe, just maybe, there might be some historical inaccuracies here?
These contradict each other. In Genesis 1- Genesis 2:3, one story of creation is given. In this story, God creates the heavens and the earth on the first day; the sky on the second day; dry land and vegetation on the third day; the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day; all animals that live in the water and sky on the fifth day; all animals that live on the earth on the sixth day, and afterward God created man and woman together on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2:4-25, a second creation story is given. In it, God creates the heavens and the earth, which appears to already have dry land and waters separated. On the same day God creates man. God then creates plants, then animals, then woman.
So which is it?
Please read the link i posted which tells you exactly why this isn't contradictory. hence why i posted the link.
again you ignored what i said.
chapter 1 is a detailed example of what happens each day as revealed to moses as he was writing it.
chapter 2 is a summary with more of a focus on the creation of man. again please read the link as it explains it even better.
there are some verbage issues in the hebrew translations which you have to understand once you do it makes sense and shows that it isn't contradictory.
How's about the part where it says the universe and all life on the earth were created in six days? Did that never ring a bell in your mind that maybe, just maybe, there might be some historical inaccuracies here?
To an omnipotent omniscience God this is not out of the question. need to read a book called rethinking Genesis.
Have to remember that it was man that wrote the bible hence a being that is defined by time. God is a being that stands outside of time and space for that matter.
Moses was with God for about 9 days alone as God revealed things. So as moses was writing these things down he would have written as each day he was revealed things.
So the 6 day creation is more of Moses journaling each day on the mountain vs 1 day of creation.
It is hard to say how long because the only reference we have is that 1 day is to a 1000 years but that is more metaphoric than actual.
Basically saying that time is not tracked or paid attention to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The irony here is that you want to criticize me for supposedly only reading two pages of the Bible when you apparently couldn't even bother to read two pages of this thread.
Highroller, my point is that you're trying to invalidate an entire document based on the semantics of the first two pages of Genesis, when the purpose of the document has nothing to do with whether birds or fish came first.
By your own statement, certain details carry more weight. Would the Bible be a more credible document if it read it out the entire process like a science book, with specific dates and a complex history of the development of plankton? What purpose does that serve?
As Mystery45 mentioned, there is actually little evidence that the general ideas the creation story is trying to express are false, but arguing dates is unnecessary. I mentioned the college course to express to you that the ideas you're presenting aren't new or particularly compelling. If you want to argue the accuracy of the Bible you should use something more substantial. The seven day argument is so weak and trite I put it right up there with "God can't make a boulder so heavy he can't lift it woah!"
I'd like to use the Bohr model of the atom as a parallel. It's actually more complicated than that, but schools still teach it (admittedly that was a while ago for me. Can anyone confirm they still do it this way?) because it's a good starting point and expresses the concept quite well. I didn't proclaim the concept of atoms to be a fabrication when I got older and learned that electrons don't actually circle the nucleus in rings.
Please read the link i posted which tells you exactly why this isn't contradictory. hence why i posted the link.
Oh it tries to argue that. But much like you, it's just claiming that it is without actually demonstrating that it is, and how could it? It is attempting to argue that two contradictory stories are exactly the same, even though anyone can see they describe different events in a different order. It's like someone arguing the grass is red instead of green.
Mystery, you need to actually read what the two passages I quoted say. Don't just say you read them, actually read them.
again you ignored what i said.
chapter 1 is a detailed example of what happens each day as revealed to moses as he was writing it.
chapter 2 is a summary with more of a focus on the creation of man. again please read the link as it explains it even better.
Yes, I did ignore it, much as I would ignore anyone telling me the grass is not green, but is instead red. Because that person is attempting to argue what basic sensory information and casual knowledge demonstrates otherwise.
Once again, Genesis 2:4 onward clearly chronicles a creation story in which man is created before plants and animals, which contradicts Genesis 1.
And do not point me to things that argue it doesn't. That's part of your problem. You've allowed people to convince you that the grass is red instead of green, and have surrounded yourself with nothing other than people saying the grass is red. I'm asking you to look at the grass and see it for what it is.
Read the passages I quoted. Actually note down for yourself the order in which things are created. Do not try to force it into whatever mold you want to force it into, do not try to make it say what you want. Read what it actually says.
To an omnipotent omniscience God this is not out of the question.
Of course an omnipotent God could create the world in six days. That wasn't what I was saying.
What I was saying was that omnipotent God clearly did not do so. The universe and the earth and man and everything were not created in six days. It was created over many, many, many days which made up many, many, many years. Over 13 billion years, in fact.
Have to remember that it was man that wrote the bible hence a being that is defined by time. God is a being that stands outside of time and space for that matter.
Moses was with God for about 9 days alone as God revealed things. So as moses was writing these things down he would have written as each day he was revealed things.
So the 6 day creation is more of Moses journaling each day on the mountain vs 1 day of creation.
No, that's unsubstantiated bullcrap. That's an attempt to distort Genesis to say something it isn't actually saying in order to wave away the fact that it's clearly wrong.
No, days are clearly defined in Genesis 1. A day is night coming and day coming again.
Basically saying that time is not tracked or paid attention to.
No, time WAS tracked and paid attention to. We know this because someone was counting the days. Indeed, the amount of time creation took is VERY important, because it establishes the basis for the Sabbath.
So no, you cannot possibly argue that time wasn't tracked, or that time wasn't paid attention to, or that time didn't matter. All three are antithetical to what is written.
Highroller, my point is that you're trying to invalidate an entire document based on the semantics of the first two pages of Genesis, when the purpose of the document has nothing to do with whether birds or fish came first.
So when I asked you to go back to read the thread, so you would know what exactly bakgat and I were discussing, you instead chose not to?
No, a purpose of a chronology, which is what Genesis is, is to tell you what things happened in the past and the order in which they did. Telling whether birds or fish came first most certainly is a part of that. Note how two books were dedicated to where such things came from.
Moreover, what it says about the order in which things were created is absolutely relevant and important to note when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
By your own statement, certain details carry more weight. Would the Bible be a more credible document if it read it out the entire process like a science book, with specific dates and a complex history of the development of plankton? What purpose does that serve?
Of course it would be more accurate! That way, it would display accurate facts as opposed to things that blatantly are not true, which is entirely relevant when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
As Mystery45 mentioned, there is actually little evidence that the general ideas the creation story is trying to express are false,
... There's little evidence that the Earth wasn't created before the sun?
... There's little evidence that all plants that existed upon the Earth when Genesis was written weren't all created at once and before any animal ever existed?
... There's little evidence that the moon and the sun weren't created within the same day?
... There's little evidence that the universe wasn't created in six days?
... There's little evidence that man wasn't created after every animal that existed at the time of Genesis' composition walked the Earth?
What is wrong with you?
but arguing dates is unnecessary.
Not if we're arguing dates when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
No, it's really quite necessary, actually.
I mentioned the college course to express to you that the ideas you're presenting aren't new
Which is why the fact that people would argue that the Bible is 100% historically accurate is all the more absurd and frustrating.
If you want to argue the accuracy of the Bible you should use something more substantial.
I could, but I don't actually need to. If someone's going to argue that the Bible's 100% historically accurate, and there's glaring, blatant historical errors on the very first page of the Bible, then no, I only need to point out one error when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
The seven day argument is so weak and trite
Insults are often the last refuge for those who have no idea what they're talking about.
I'd like to use the Bohr model of the atom as a parallel.
No. No. Absolutely not. You don't get to bring physics in this and pretend like you have any comprehension of it if you're going to sit there and try to argue that Genesis is a historical account of how the universe was created in six days. You are NOT going to argue something so completely and entirely against what physics tells us and then claim that physics somehow vindicates you when you say the general ideas of Genesis 1 are somehow correct.
Guys... the original topic of this thread is the Islamic view on Jesus, which is actually something new and original in this forum. So do you think maybe you could take the old historical-accuracy-of-the-Bible thing to a different thread?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Guys... the original topic of this thread is the Islamic view on Jesus, which is actually something new and original in this forum. So do you think maybe you could take the old historical-accuracy-of-the-Bible thing to a different thread?
Thing is, bakgat specifically did so to advance the idea that Islam went against history and was therefore the inferior religion to Christianity, which he claimed did not. So, this whole thing is actually relevant to the purpose behind the OP. Indeed, bakgat himself said exactly this.
That being said, I wouldn't mind shifting attention back to the Quran. Although, since it doesn't seem the Quran actually did disagree with Tacitus, I'm not sure where else the discussion is supposed to go.
This explanation that was given to me by a local pastor doesn't make much sense, but here it goes:
God exists outside of time. The earth was created in billions of years to us, but to him it was six days. I'm not sure how this makes sense if he exists outside of time. Maybe it's all relative. Like several years to us is one second to him. But this doesn't make sense with "God exists outside of time". Because if he did then it wouldn't have been six days to him because he is a multidimensional being and time has no bearing on him.
I don't trust Genesis. God is supposed to be omnipotent but he had to rest on the seventh day? If he was all-powerful then he wouldn't need to rest. I think whoever wrote Genesis came up with the seven days thing because there were seven days in a week, and they had to come up with a reason for why people should have a day off. This seems too convenient. Also, we were not created out of dust. We evolved from apes. I don't get how creationists can ignore all of this evidence and claim there is a missing link. Oh, by the way, sorry for not believing in evolution several months ago. I don't know what was wrong with me. Maybe I was just being overzealous.
The flood never happened. It's literally impossible. If that much water came down from the sky, where did it all go when it evaporated? It would have to come back down as rain again. But it didn't. It just disappeared.
The Exodus never happened. The Jews were Canaanites all along. If there was ever a huge departure of people from Egypt, there would be historical accounts of it. Not to mention the plagues. And God killing the first born sons of Egyptians? That contradicts Jesus's teachings. He said "Let the little children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of God". If Jesus truly existed in the beginning as John says he did, I don't think God would have done this.
Then there's the problem of hell. If God is omnibenevolent, then hell cannot exist. So if hell does exist, then God is not all loving. And from reading the Old Testament, I don't think he is.
Then there's the problem of hell. If God is omnibenevolent, then hell cannot exist. So if hell does exist, then God is not all loving. And from reading the Old Testament, I don't think he is.
He isn't omni-benevolent. He never said he was, and he never acted in that way.
I'm pretty sure that's a severe misinterpretation made by people based on Jesus's actions and sayings.
Loving your children=/=being omni-benevolent.
If you mean perfect moral goodness with omni-benevolent, that still doesn't actually preclude you from creating hell and sending people to the place.
This explanation that was given to me by a local pastor doesn't make much sense, but here it goes:
God exists outside of time. The earth was created in billions of years to us, but to him it was six days. I'm not sure how this makes sense if he exists outside of time.
The reason you're confused is because the answer doesn't make any sense.
Maybe it's all relative. Like several years to us is one second to him.
Nope! The Bible specifically says that the days are actual days. As in, evening and morning. (Judaism counts the beginning of day as when night falls.) We're dealing with solar days. Genesis 1 makes that very clear.
The reason why your pastor is giving you an explanation that doesn't make sense is because he's trying to reconcile what we know scientifically about the creation of the universe with a narrative that says that it happened in six days. So, no, nothing he says along that vein would ever make sense.
But this doesn't make sense with "God exists outside of time".
Correct. See? You're more astute than your pastor is.
The central premise of Christianity is that God is good; indeed, that "none is good save God alone."
Merriam-Webster definition of benevolence-
Definition of BENEVOLENCE
1
: disposition to do good
2
a : an act of kindness
b : a generous gift
Good morality is not included into it.
It is in "disposition to do good," which a being of unlimited benevolence would have unlimited amounts of. So yes, moral perfection = omnibenevolence.
Why?
Why is torturing people for eternity not benevolent?
Because it's torturing them. And then continuing to torture them for infinity amount of days.
You even posted a definition of the word "benevolent" right there. Can you see any possible way that eternal damnation can match that definition? Are you actually thinking about what you're saying while you're typing it?
My question to many religious individuals on the thread that have cast stones at Islam for being historically innacurate is this.
How can you throw such harsh judgements on Islam while still holding onto notions with little to no more support than their own?
Islam used violence to convert people. Christianity killed far more people in the middle ages for conversion.
Islam is historically/scientifically innacurate. And christianity is any better?
Is Judaism any better? Is Hinduism any better on scientific accuracy? No. They are religions.
First of all, the discussion was on whether or not Islam was claiming things that were historically inaccurate. It was not on the quality of the behavior of Islam's followers, or the followers of any religion.
Second, we actually did touch upon the historical accuracy of the claims of other religions. There was, in fact, an entire side discussion on how historically inaccurate the Bible is.
My question to many religious individuals on the thread that have cast stones at Islam for being historically innacurate is this.
How can you throw such harsh judgements on Islam while still holding onto notions with little to no more support than their own?
Islam used violence to convert people. Christianity killed far more people in the middle ages for conversion.
Islam is historically/scientifically innacurate. And christianity is any better?
Is Judaism any better? Is Hinduism any better on scientific accuracy? No. They are religions.
First of all, the discussion was on whether or not Islam was claiming things that were historically inaccurate. It was not on the quality of the behavior of Islam's followers, or the followers of any religion.
Second, we actually did touch upon the historical accuracy of the claims of other religions. There was, in fact, an entire side discussion on how historically inaccurate the Bible is.
1) I was adding that on to the original point as a question. And the question is still unanswered.
2) I didn't state that it wasn't talked about. Simply asking the question to those arguing against Islam that still wear a cross and go to church every sunday.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To which what I was saying is relevant.
Is it? Because the Bible is rife with historical errors.
Now, I would say that certain details carry more weight than others. Whether or not Jesus ever existed is WAY more important than whether or not population statistics of armies somewhere at some point might have been exaggerated.
But dude, for real, you're not seriously going to sit there and tell me Genesis is historically accurate, are you? Hang your head in shame if you're going to sit there and tell me that Genesis is historically accurate.
Yes, which is why the fact that the Bible is rife with errors tells us it's not the infallible Word of God.
He meant to say the opposite: Whether you believe in it is important when deciding if it's historically accurate.
Yes. Never let history interfere with what you think happened.
Genesis.
What about the historic accuracy of Genesis, exactly, is so damning for the religious, that the document fails to have value or credibility? Is it really necessary to argue birds and fish?
How about the fact that neither of the stories of Creation presented in Genesis correspond with (1) scientific fact, or (2) each other?
Have you read it?
Sure, I took that Western Literature course in college. The professor tried to make that argument about "conflicting stolen creation myths" too. But you're both missing the point entirely. In fact I give the professor more of a pass, because he wasn't trying to use the valid literary critique as an attack on the faith itself. You have to read more than the first two pages of the Torah before you can question it's validity.
Are you attacking the text because of 7 day literalists, or because you find it unlikely that a snake could talk?
http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions
they don't contradict each other at all.
chapter 1 is a detailed account of the creation.
chapter 2 is a recap or summary and more on the focus of the creation of man.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
and before the source of the article is questioned.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=29
this wasn't a lackey that wrote the article above. he is a very decorated and honored biologist with ample awards and other honors.
as for not historically accurate yet another city has been found.
http://news.yahoo.com/biblical-era-town-discovered-along-sea-galilee-105742071.html
hundreds of dig have been done and cities discovered due to the bible.
not sure why people keep calling it inaccurate when there is proof and evidence that it is anything but.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Maybe you should read it again.
No, I really don't. The first page pretty much gives away that the Bible is not historically accurate.
I'm attacking it on the grounds that it is not historically accurate. You would know this had you read the thread before responding.
The irony here is that you want to criticize me for supposedly only reading two pages of the Bible when you apparently couldn't even bother to read two pages of this thread.
Yes, they do.
These contradict each other. In Genesis 1- Genesis 2:3, one story of creation is given. In this story, God creates the heavens and the earth on the first day; the sky on the second day; dry land and vegetation on the third day; the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day; all animals that live in the water and sky on the fifth day; all animals that live on the earth on the sixth day, and afterward God created man and woman together on the sixth day.
In Genesis 2:4-25, a second creation story is given. In it, God creates the heavens and the earth, which appears to already have dry land and waters separated. On the same day God creates man. God then creates plants, then animals, then woman.
So which is it?
How's about the part where it says the universe and all life on the earth were created in six days? Did that never ring a bell in your mind that maybe, just maybe, there might be some historical inaccuracies here?
Please read the link i posted which tells you exactly why this isn't contradictory. hence why i posted the link.
again you ignored what i said.
chapter 1 is a detailed example of what happens each day as revealed to moses as he was writing it.
chapter 2 is a summary with more of a focus on the creation of man. again please read the link as it explains it even better.
there are some verbage issues in the hebrew translations which you have to understand once you do it makes sense and shows that it isn't contradictory.
To an omnipotent omniscience God this is not out of the question. need to read a book called rethinking Genesis.
Have to remember that it was man that wrote the bible hence a being that is defined by time. God is a being that stands outside of time and space for that matter.
Moses was with God for about 9 days alone as God revealed things. So as moses was writing these things down he would have written as each day he was revealed things.
So the 6 day creation is more of Moses journaling each day on the mountain vs 1 day of creation.
It is hard to say how long because the only reference we have is that 1 day is to a 1000 years but that is more metaphoric than actual.
Basically saying that time is not tracked or paid attention to.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Highroller, my point is that you're trying to invalidate an entire document based on the semantics of the first two pages of Genesis, when the purpose of the document has nothing to do with whether birds or fish came first.
By your own statement, certain details carry more weight. Would the Bible be a more credible document if it read it out the entire process like a science book, with specific dates and a complex history of the development of plankton? What purpose does that serve?
As Mystery45 mentioned, there is actually little evidence that the general ideas the creation story is trying to express are false, but arguing dates is unnecessary. I mentioned the college course to express to you that the ideas you're presenting aren't new or particularly compelling. If you want to argue the accuracy of the Bible you should use something more substantial. The seven day argument is so weak and trite I put it right up there with "God can't make a boulder so heavy he can't lift it woah!"
I'd like to use the Bohr model of the atom as a parallel. It's actually more complicated than that, but schools still teach it (admittedly that was a while ago for me. Can anyone confirm they still do it this way?) because it's a good starting point and expresses the concept quite well. I didn't proclaim the concept of atoms to be a fabrication when I got older and learned that electrons don't actually circle the nucleus in rings.
Oh it tries to argue that. But much like you, it's just claiming that it is without actually demonstrating that it is, and how could it? It is attempting to argue that two contradictory stories are exactly the same, even though anyone can see they describe different events in a different order. It's like someone arguing the grass is red instead of green.
Mystery, you need to actually read what the two passages I quoted say. Don't just say you read them, actually read them.
Yes, I did ignore it, much as I would ignore anyone telling me the grass is not green, but is instead red. Because that person is attempting to argue what basic sensory information and casual knowledge demonstrates otherwise.
Once again, Genesis 2:4 onward clearly chronicles a creation story in which man is created before plants and animals, which contradicts Genesis 1.
And do not point me to things that argue it doesn't. That's part of your problem. You've allowed people to convince you that the grass is red instead of green, and have surrounded yourself with nothing other than people saying the grass is red. I'm asking you to look at the grass and see it for what it is.
Read the passages I quoted. Actually note down for yourself the order in which things are created. Do not try to force it into whatever mold you want to force it into, do not try to make it say what you want. Read what it actually says.
Of course an omnipotent God could create the world in six days. That wasn't what I was saying.
What I was saying was that omnipotent God clearly did not do so. The universe and the earth and man and everything were not created in six days. It was created over many, many, many days which made up many, many, many years. Over 13 billion years, in fact.
No, that's unsubstantiated bullcrap. That's an attempt to distort Genesis to say something it isn't actually saying in order to wave away the fact that it's clearly wrong.
No, days are clearly defined in Genesis 1. A day is night coming and day coming again.
No, time WAS tracked and paid attention to. We know this because someone was counting the days. Indeed, the amount of time creation took is VERY important, because it establishes the basis for the Sabbath.
So no, you cannot possibly argue that time wasn't tracked, or that time wasn't paid attention to, or that time didn't matter. All three are antithetical to what is written.
So when I asked you to go back to read the thread, so you would know what exactly bakgat and I were discussing, you instead chose not to?
No, a purpose of a chronology, which is what Genesis is, is to tell you what things happened in the past and the order in which they did. Telling whether birds or fish came first most certainly is a part of that. Note how two books were dedicated to where such things came from.
Moreover, what it says about the order in which things were created is absolutely relevant and important to note when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
Of course it would be more accurate! That way, it would display accurate facts as opposed to things that blatantly are not true, which is entirely relevant when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
... There's little evidence that the Earth wasn't created before the sun?
... There's little evidence that all plants that existed upon the Earth when Genesis was written weren't all created at once and before any animal ever existed?
... There's little evidence that the moon and the sun weren't created within the same day?
... There's little evidence that the universe wasn't created in six days?
... There's little evidence that man wasn't created after every animal that existed at the time of Genesis' composition walked the Earth?
What is wrong with you?
Not if we're arguing dates when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
No, it's really quite necessary, actually.
Which is why the fact that people would argue that the Bible is 100% historically accurate is all the more absurd and frustrating.
I could, but I don't actually need to. If someone's going to argue that the Bible's 100% historically accurate, and there's glaring, blatant historical errors on the very first page of the Bible, then no, I only need to point out one error when determining whether or not the book is 100% historically accurate, which is what we are talking about, and which you would have known had you read the thread.
Insults are often the last refuge for those who have no idea what they're talking about.
No. No. Absolutely not. You don't get to bring physics in this and pretend like you have any comprehension of it if you're going to sit there and try to argue that Genesis is a historical account of how the universe was created in six days. You are NOT going to argue something so completely and entirely against what physics tells us and then claim that physics somehow vindicates you when you say the general ideas of Genesis 1 are somehow correct.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Thing is, bakgat specifically did so to advance the idea that Islam went against history and was therefore the inferior religion to Christianity, which he claimed did not. So, this whole thing is actually relevant to the purpose behind the OP. Indeed, bakgat himself said exactly this.
That being said, I wouldn't mind shifting attention back to the Quran. Although, since it doesn't seem the Quran actually did disagree with Tacitus, I'm not sure where else the discussion is supposed to go.
God exists outside of time. The earth was created in billions of years to us, but to him it was six days. I'm not sure how this makes sense if he exists outside of time. Maybe it's all relative. Like several years to us is one second to him. But this doesn't make sense with "God exists outside of time". Because if he did then it wouldn't have been six days to him because he is a multidimensional being and time has no bearing on him.
I don't trust Genesis. God is supposed to be omnipotent but he had to rest on the seventh day? If he was all-powerful then he wouldn't need to rest. I think whoever wrote Genesis came up with the seven days thing because there were seven days in a week, and they had to come up with a reason for why people should have a day off. This seems too convenient. Also, we were not created out of dust. We evolved from apes. I don't get how creationists can ignore all of this evidence and claim there is a missing link. Oh, by the way, sorry for not believing in evolution several months ago. I don't know what was wrong with me. Maybe I was just being overzealous.
The flood never happened. It's literally impossible. If that much water came down from the sky, where did it all go when it evaporated? It would have to come back down as rain again. But it didn't. It just disappeared.
The Exodus never happened. The Jews were Canaanites all along. If there was ever a huge departure of people from Egypt, there would be historical accounts of it. Not to mention the plagues. And God killing the first born sons of Egyptians? That contradicts Jesus's teachings. He said "Let the little children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of God". If Jesus truly existed in the beginning as John says he did, I don't think God would have done this.
Then there's the problem of hell. If God is omnibenevolent, then hell cannot exist. So if hell does exist, then God is not all loving. And from reading the Old Testament, I don't think he is.
He isn't omni-benevolent. He never said he was, and he never acted in that way.
I'm pretty sure that's a severe misinterpretation made by people based on Jesus's actions and sayings.
Loving your children=/=being omni-benevolent.
If you mean perfect moral goodness with omni-benevolent, that still doesn't actually preclude you from creating hell and sending people to the place.
People who built torture chambers for their children if they don't behave don't love their children.
The reason you're confused is because the answer doesn't make any sense.
Nope! The Bible specifically says that the days are actual days. As in, evening and morning. (Judaism counts the beginning of day as when night falls.) We're dealing with solar days. Genesis 1 makes that very clear.
The reason why your pastor is giving you an explanation that doesn't make sense is because he's trying to reconcile what we know scientifically about the creation of the universe with a narrative that says that it happened in six days. So, no, nothing he says along that vein would ever make sense.
Correct. See? You're more astute than your pastor is.
God is omnibenevolent. To claim that God is not omni-benevolent is to claim God is not God.
Can you think of any such reason why we wouldn't equate these two terms?
Of ****ing course it does.
Why? Why does God have to be omnibenevolent?
Merriam-Webster definition of benevolence-
Definition of BENEVOLENCE
1
: disposition to do good
2
a : an act of kindness
b : a generous gift
Good morality is not included into it.
Of ****ing course it does.[/QUOTE]
Why?
The central premise of Christianity is that God is good; indeed, that "none is good save God alone."
It is in "disposition to do good," which a being of unlimited benevolence would have unlimited amounts of. So yes, moral perfection = omnibenevolence.
Why is torturing people for eternity not benevolent?
Because it's torturing them. And then continuing to torture them for infinity amount of days.
You even posted a definition of the word "benevolent" right there. Can you see any possible way that eternal damnation can match that definition? Are you actually thinking about what you're saying while you're typing it?
How can you throw such harsh judgements on Islam while still holding onto notions with little to no more support than their own?
Islam used violence to convert people. Christianity killed far more people in the middle ages for conversion.
Islam is historically/scientifically innacurate. And christianity is any better?
Is Judaism any better? Is Hinduism any better on scientific accuracy? No. They are religions.
First of all, the discussion was on whether or not Islam was claiming things that were historically inaccurate. It was not on the quality of the behavior of Islam's followers, or the followers of any religion.
Second, we actually did touch upon the historical accuracy of the claims of other religions. There was, in fact, an entire side discussion on how historically inaccurate the Bible is.
1) I was adding that on to the original point as a question. And the question is still unanswered.
2) I didn't state that it wasn't talked about. Simply asking the question to those arguing against Islam that still wear a cross and go to church every sunday.