Should we take the bible literal?

[carlosMM]

the wooden artefact was most likely touched with bare hands or stood around in a museum gathering (recent!) dust! Been there, seen that - a friend of mine got into troubles because he wanted to date artefacts from a cave around here and found that it was not possible as they had been in the museum collection for over 80 years and the dates were BS

also, as I said, being Leaky finds they were probably surfcae findss, not burried in hard rock. But even in rock you will have animal burrows - which can contain bones. Imagine a Fenek carrying off a piece of a carcass into his den....... Often, burrow structures get overlook - you ahve to know what to look for to see the difference! So things in the former, now collapsaed burrow get assigned to the same strat as thing that ORIGINALLY were in the rock....

 

[carlosMM]

btw, please give me the title of that book, the authors name etc!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Dunno if you can pin the plague on God.

The plague isn't a natural disaster. It's a disease, it's a living thing, a virus or bacteria or what have you. That means God supposedly created it.

The Bible says that there where 2 of each kind. 2 of each kind and food could have fit on a boat that size.

Do you know how many species of living things there are? Go on, at least guess.

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html

I've often thought that it's a waste of time for you to post links from the ICR, and also for them to make such detailed and BS claims. Why don't they just create one page, with bold red letters in 72-point font reading "PLEASE BELIEVE IN GOD. PRETTY PLEASE?" That way whenever the facts of the argument have defeated you, you can link to that page with no further troubles. I think I'll email them about it

On to the next page!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The Genesis “kind” is undoubtedly a more flexible term than our biological “species.”

Why? Because we NEED a more flexible definition. There ain't room in that ark for 200 different species of the sheep genus!

This kind of speculating after the fact is pure BS. They're altering the requirements to fit what they know they can handle.

ahem, will you accept radiactive dating methods?

Actually, he won't. He thinks they're "inaccurate". I remember one nutcase in a previous thread on Evo vs Creation said that radioactive decay was slowed down in the past. Why? Because he needed it to have slowed down in order to have the facts fit his theory. So he said it had been slowed down. That's some pretty backwards science.

You want to see something really amazing? 2000 years of christianity and christians still waste their time arguing with brick walls

That's what the padded walls are for, my friend so you don't hurt yourself.

 

[Grille]

thanks for the link, Phydeaux

#145: evolution is communism's god...


edited a bit

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Grille
thanks for the link, PP

#145: evolution is communism's god...

asso, aischentlisch......

the link came from Phy.....

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Dunno if you can pin the plague on God.

The plague isn't a natural disaster. It's a disease, it's a living thing, a virus or bacteria or what have you. That means God supposedly created it.

(Finally - a post where i can actually see what's going on )
Well technically i don't think it'd be any different for a natural disaster - he set all that kind of stuff in motion too
Things (replace things with tectonic plates/ bacteria/ etc etc) have been set in place, but everything that happens to them may not be planned.

Anyway I don't claim to know how the plague came about, would require a lot more expertise than i have, or research that i'd have to be bothered doing. (and we wouldn't want to bring EVIDENCE into this thread now, would we? ) What I would say is that you can't say that it was intentionally brought about by God (It may have been, but we can't say with any certainty - especially if you don't believe in God )

I've often thought that it's a waste of time for you to post links from the ICR, and also for them to make such detailed and BS claims. Why don't they just create one page, with bold red letters in 72-point font reading "PLEASE BELIEVE IN GOD. PRETTY PLEASE?" That way whenever the facts of the argument have defeated you, you can link to that page with no further troubles. I think I'll email them about it

this is a great idea. i'll look into it

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The Genesis “kind” is undoubtedly a more flexible term than our biological “species.”

Why? Because we NEED a more flexible definition. There ain't room in that ark for 200 different species of the sheep genus!

I probably don't want to get too caught up in this (i'm staying well away from most of the posts in this thread ), but I've stated before my belief that micro evolution takes place - ie from a base sheep species (genus if that is the term you're using), you can get many sub-species of such. Sheep of one breed can reproduce with other breeds etc. * insert comment about new zealanders here * So that could be used to explain that one.

 

[nihilistic]

Wow, this is simply amazing. Phydeaux, what can I say? I ... , well, I must commend you on your wondrous powers of deduction and your unmatched aptitude in reasoning. For the good of the world, posting on this forum constitutes a gargantuan underuse of your gift as it seems that there clearly exist more fruitful applications of your uniquely perceptive talents.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by bobgote
I probably don't want to get too caught up in this (i'm staying well away from most of the posts in this thread ), but I've stated before my belief that micro evolution takes place - ie from a base sheep species (genus if that is the term you're using), you can get many sub-species of such. Sheep of one breed can reproduce with other breeds etc. * insert comment about new zealanders here * So that could be used to explain that one.

well, can you name the 'base' genera for the following:

Cows
Anteolpes
Pigs
Goats
Deer
.....


if there was only(!) microevolution - why do we find species that are obviously ancestors of several, further back of all of these groups?

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by carlosMM

if there was only(!) microevolution - why do we find species that are obviously ancestors of several, further back of all of these groups?

That is simple. When God created animals he wasn't very creative. He simply modified the same code a little for each species. Why should he invent life several times? That would be a waste of time.

 

[Mescalhead]

Originally posted by Pikachu

That is simple. When God created animals he wasn't very creative. He simply modified the same code a little for each species. Why should he invent life several times? That would be a waste of time.

Time doesn't exist for God.

Bouya-kasha!

 

[Pikachu]

How do you know that time doesn't exist for God?

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Pikachu

That is simple. When God created animals he wasn't very creative. He simply modified the same code a little for each species. Why should he invent life several times? That would be a waste of time.

that is not a logical answer to what you quoted!

if God did 'simply modified the same code a little for each species' - hwy then do we find 'trees', one ancestor and many different species stemming from it today? Or, do you say God modifies each generation a little? how is that different from evolution then?

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Pikachu

That is simple. When God created animals he wasn't very creative. He simply modified the same code a little for each species. Why should he invent life several times? That would be a waste of time.

You've got to be kidding me!!! have you ever taken a good look at what is out in the world?
Do you know that there are more different species of insect on this planet then there are people?

Have you looked at at least one specific family/genera and gotten to know the individual differences from one species to another?
Look at spiders (a favourite of mine), Here in Australia there are 70 families of different spiders. within this family there are 430 genera whch consist of almost 2,000 differnt species. Each one slightly differnt from the other!
Not to mention Marsupials, we are the ONLY country in the world that has all 3 sub-class' of living mammals!.
We also have over 86,000 different species of insect here and are discovering new one even today!

Does this sound like a there is not much differnce inbetween species?
Each one of those different creatures is a specilist in one way or another, hardly a by-product of a lazy God as implied by yourself.

I think perhaps you need to appreciate nature a bit more.
Much thought has gone into it whether you believe that God created it or it evolved, our planet is a truly amazing place.

 

[Sickman]

This thread has little bit wandered of it's course...
(READ: creation vs. evolution part zillion)

To the original question:
Of course...
Bible should be taken as literal as great work from Lewis Carrol: Alice in Wonderland or as it should be:
What did you see last time when you ate, drank, inhaled, injected or smoked something?

 

[zippy]

I think this site has everything I want to say on the subject

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc

As to the original question, given the translations, political intrigues and poetic licence that will all have been involved in shaping the Bible, I cannot see how anyone can justify it as a literal truth.

Jesus himself summed up his message as two commandments.

1) Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul etc

2) Love thy neighbour as thy self

Anything else is window dressing.

 

[carlosMM]

zippy, thank you for the link!

 

[Stapel]

A great link indeed. A well-documented website it is!

It proves that taking the bible literal is nonsense. But that won't convince people. Faith can be stronger than facts!

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by carlosMM


that is not a logical answer to what you quoted!

if God did 'simply modified the same code a little for each species' - hwy then do we find 'trees', one ancestor and many different species stemming from it today? Or, do you say God modifies each generation a little? how is that different from evolution then?

Sorry, I misunderstood it a little. Maybe God made some ancestor animals first? Then he could use them to create their descendents. He could have made whole threes of ancestors in this process. Maybe he didn't have time to destroy them, so he just left them behind. He was on a schedule, you know.

But if you need to accept scientific facts, it seems more likely that God did this creation thing over a very long time, much like ToE describes. Why should creation and evolution contradict? The biblical creation story is not much detailed on how God created the world. It says that God created the first living beings, but from then on it indicates that ToE must be true. Noah could not have millions of creatures in his little boat so, if you take the bible literally, the rest must come from somewhere else, like evolution.

I don't see much harm in taking the creation story literally, but I think it is more likely that it is meant as parable. The fact that it contradicts itself should make it obvious that it is not literally a true story. Anyway, a story that begins with "Once upon a time God created the heavens and the earth", sounds much like a fairy tale to me.

For the topic of this thread, I would say that the entire bible should be treated as parables. Many of the stories are probably true, but most of them describe actions in societies that don't exist anymore. When the premises changes, the literal interpretation of the stories become invalid. Jesus often used parables in his preaching. If Jesus is God that must imply that God likes to use parables when talking to humans. Then we must expect that he use lots of parables in the Old Testament too. As the parables in the Old Testament are not explained, it can get confusing. The simplest solution is of course to ignore the Old Testament and concentrate on the Gospels. They are much easier to understand, and they tell us everything we need to know about God anyway.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Pikachu

Sorry, I misunderstood it a little. Maybe God made some ancestor animals first? Then he could use them to create their descendents. He could have made whole threes of ancestors in this process. Maybe he didn't have time to destroy them, so he just left them behind. He was on a schedule, you know.

But if you need to accept scientific facts, it seems more likely that God did this creation thing over a very long time, much like ToE describes. Why should creation and evolution contradict? The biblical creation story is not much detailed on how God created the world. It says that God created the first living beings, but from then on it indicates that ToE must be true. Noah could not have millions of creatures in his little boat so, if you take the bible literally, the rest must come from somewhere else, like evolution.

I don't see much harm in taking the creation story literally, but I think it is more likely that it is meant as parable. The fact that it contradicts itself should make it obvious that it is not literally a true story. Anyway, a story that begins with "Once upon a time God created the heavens and the earth", sounds much like a fairy tale to me.

For the topic of this thread, I would say that the entire bible should be treated as parables. Many of the stories are probably true, but most of them describe actions in societies that don't exist anymore. When the premises changes, the literal interpretation of the stories become invalid. Jesus often used parables in his preaching. If Jesus is God that must imply that God likes to use parables when talking to humans. Then we must expect that he use lots of parables in the Old Testament too. As the parables in the Old Testament are not explained, it can get confusing. The simplest solution is of course to ignore the Old Testament and concentrate on the Gospels. They are much easier to understand, and they tell us everything we need to know about God anyway.

well, if you go down to the level of how quarks and light quants interact, then you may be approaching the only possible definition of creation that makes sense: God made the rules for the tiniest particles and everything else stems from that. But then, why argue about 'God made the animals' at all? Science tries to be right, creationists are stubborn but usually wrong. End of story.