Sorry I have been so late in replying. This has been most intriguing!
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote: Same, although a lot of what I've said has come from personal thinking. Most of what I've said so far was from personal thinking and asking questions.
Exactly. I have gained much from private deduction.
T.S. (myself) wrote:The internal test is used to ensure that there is general consensus within the document. Its main purpose is to search for any contradictions within the historical work. This one is the most straightforward, as it only requires searching throughout the work, and not other pieces and data from the same time frame. The Bible passes this one well, with most inconsistencies –at-a-glance tracing back either to translation or other sources of common error.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Not true at all. The Bible is filled with inconsistencies. It was actually me sitting down and reading the Bible thoroughly that was one of the last things that led to my de-conversion. Here's a couple lists of many inconsistencies. Feel free to go through them and try to explain them if you like:
I looked at all three of the links provided, and I must say I was not generally convicted or impressed by the collections. I would not be able to disprove all of them, but I can use fact and deduction on a good many. I will still hold to what I said, that the Bible passes the test well, and that most of those inconsistencies trace back to identifiable sources. I noticed a lot of the examples stemmed from the differences in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. As Jesus said and did more than what can be expressed in a book, each of the writers included the highlights of His time here on earth according to their personality. We should expect that each book should differ, and even expect gaps between the four, especially considering that they were hardly all in the same room as they wrote the gospels. The different perspectives of Jesus’ life should provide evidence for His time here on earth, not take it away.
More of these inconsistencies trace back to the Jewish method of genealogy, or quirks in the translating. I recognized three or four of these inconsistencies from a basic junior high class I took. Each one was relatively simple to understand. Not as any kind of insult, but from a point of common sense, if the person who assembled this collection included several points that could be cleared up with a couple hours of research, than why should I be inclined to trust the remainder of this collection?
I would be more than happy to share my thoughts on these inconsistencies if you are interested. Here is just one that I noticed at a glance:
Okay. I looked for the inconsistency, and could not find it where I remembered. I thought it was on the site with the manageable table of contents, but it must be somewhere in the mass of 700 verses on the other website. I will post what I believe it said. Basically, it compared corresponding verses from the Bible from three of the gospels, and claimed that the differing wording was a contradiction. They each had to do with the time the women went to go anoint Jesus at the tomb, and whether they went on the Sabbath, at dusk, or whether they waited until the next day. This was easily understood considering the Jewish method of recognizing the Sabbath:
It lasted from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.
When this is considered, the verses should actually be more accurate.
I would also like to point out two specific inconsistencies:
“Those that survive the great tribulation will get to wash their clothes
in the blood of the lamb. Gee, that sounds like fun. But how would
washing robes in blood make them white? 7:14”
“Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”
Please excuse my bluntness, but I would just love to see these people try and read through a poem! Is this how they read all metaphors and figurative speech?
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Bible to have that many inconsistencies if it was written by an all knowing God. It makes perfect sense if it was written by many different people over a long period of time.
Precisely. We don’t believe that the Bible one day appeared and someone discovered it. It was written over thousands of years through many servants of God. As the books were written, they were compiled into the Old and New Testaments. I doubt this is what you mean, though.
But I am trying to get what you are saying here. I would like to point out that, aside from all the supposed inconsistencies, that the books show very different writing styles, and yet share a deep unity in their purpose. This would be evidence for a book written by many, and directed by One. I believe I understand what you are saying, though. I think most of those inconsistencies were created in the translating process.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I don't have a problem with places or people in the Bible being real. Many places and people in the Bible were real, that's not the problem. The problem comes when we get magical claims. Those kinds of claims, like being able to walk on water, turn water into wine, randomly destroy fig trees, and being raised from the dead, need to have extraordinary evidence. Something in a book or someone in a book being real is not enough to verify the magical claims of the documents. Or, for that matter, other documents. For example, say I write a book about W Bush in which he has the ability to fly and use x-ray vision. Now W Bush and Washington, D.C. are real, but the claims of magical abilities are not. Say I write a sequel to that book. So a thousand years from now, archaeologists find my two books about Washington and W Bush's magical powers. They say, well Washington and W Bush were real and these magical powers are confirmed by this other document. They must be real!
So I am trying to figure this out. You accept the historical dates and facts of the Bible, but not the supernatural events, right?
T.S. (myself) wrote:The bibliographic test is the most complicated and important test. If we lack the original document (as we virtually always do), then we must use this process. First and foremost, to be considered a reliable source, the historical work must contain eyewitness accounts or second hand accounts of the events described. If the work does contain this, than it goes through a process of comparing the documents alternate copies. Scientists using this test basically take the time between the original document date and the earliest copy we have. The longer the time is between the two dates, than the lesser the assumed accuracy of the document. The last component of this test involves measuring the number of copies made by different authors, and also examining these copies for any alterations. No change between many alternate copies would mean a perfect score in this regard.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:So than if there are changes, how do they decide if it was supposed to be that document or if it's a different one entirely? Just wondering on that one.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of the logistics, but just from common sense, if the similar documents had the same original author, had the same purpose and original dates, then they should be the same document, even with a few minor changes. However, if all the main facts are changed and the document was written for a different reason and by a different author, then they would be different documents.
I assume you mean 500-1000 years older than the original document because that would only take you to the middle ages.
Sorry. I must have missed that phrase when I went to check my statements. My intending meaning was that the earliest copies of most documents are dated to be written 500-1000 years after the original document.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I'm honestly not quite sure what you mean by this. So the more copies of it there are and the closer to the original date someone copied it down than the more accurate it is supposed to be? I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. So if someone wrote a book about a magical flying pink elephant and than someone wrote a copy of it a couple days after he wrote it, it's more accurate because someone copied it down soon?
Again, sorry. I am rusty on this, and have done a poor job trying to convey these tests.
No, this test has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the original document. It has everything to do with the copies of the document. Let us say that I wrote the book on the magical flying pink elephant, and you wrote the copy. My book could be a complete pile of hogwash. That has nothing to do with this test. In this test, we could care less about the actual topic or content of the original document.
Let’s say that you and two other people each wrote a copy in, say, 100 years. Now, 2000 years go by. We have all died, our civilization has passed away, my book was destroyed in a bonfire, and now there are archeologists trying to figure out when we lived. They find your copy of the book, and then the other two copies. They realize that somewhere along the line, a book on pink elephants was written. Here comes the tricky part.
They apply the internal and external tests to the copies, but they have no idea if that actually proves any historical references in my book. Anyone could have added them along the copying process. None of the information in the book can be trusted, because they have to assume that you and the other copiers changed the book when you copied it down. Rather that innocent until proven guilty, it is more of guilty until proven innocent. They only way the archeologists can prove the copies are true to the actual book is if they use the bibliographic test to show that there was no change in the copying process, and all historical references were not stuck in later.
So, they compare the copies. They find that, indeed, the copies by different people all match. They also find that they were written relatively early in the scheme of things. They go on to the rest of the test, and everything looks good. This is a huge step forward. Now the archeologists can assume the data in the copies remain true to the original, and thus go on to taking a look at the data to see what the content actually is.
So the entire purpose of my point with the bibliographic test is that the Bible blows every other historical work out of the water, in that the figures are so amazing that if we discard the copying accuracy of the Bible, than we must do it with every other work of its time too. Let it be known that this has nothing to do with the content of the original books of the Bible, it has everything to do with the books of the Bible we have today.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Just because you don't like it or it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean you can just take it off the table of possibility. It could very well be a legend. The point was that it was a false trilemma, there were more than three options and I listed some others. No one ever does do a good job of discounting the other two (liar and lunatic) either, as I pointed out above. Regardless, the argument is full of holes.
And your brother changing the message on purpose is a good analogy. People have written down false things on purpose before. There's no reason that can't have happened here. And there's no reason it can't have been a matter of changing thanks to many people telling each other things over time.
Yes, but the bibliographic test shows that the Bible is completely safe in this regard. If you say that for the Bible, then we have to assume every other work was changed drastically too.
If that's the case, that's a better cause for him not to have written this. Don't you think that if Jesus really had come back from the dead that since Josephus was trying to get sympathy from the Romans he would have fudged the records a little bit and tried to cover it up. It's a bit more likely that he didn't actually write that, that it was added later to make it more Christian friendly. Once you scratch the surface of Josephus, things start to fall apart:
Agreed. That quote looks very sketchy based on your websites. I will have to do some research on it, if I can find the time.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I don't take a position on the matter because I'm not a geologist and I really don't want to have to talk about geology because it's just so boring. Geology has to be the most boringist boring science ever. But I will if you really want to. It's just so boring. >_>
Well, no offense to your views or your person, but I think that your opinion would be because most evolutionists have a very long time scheme and a lot less excitement in it. I find most geology quite fascinating because of its root in the Flood.
T.S. (myself) wrote:It has been a while since biology, but I believe that it is not so much an adaption as a storage of information regarding the virus or synthetic virus. If I remember correctly, it is a process involving B-memory cells to store the knowledge gained about the virus.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Ya, I'm not a biologist, but what you're describing sounds like evolution to me.
Well, I’d have to disagree. It’s not really alteration of the DNA, it’s simply ‘remembering’ what the virus was like.
I am aware of the basic requirements for fossilization. As a note, we have discovered fossilized jelly-fish, animals that are around 95% water and that disintegrate in a matter of hours. If these delicate creatures could fossilize, we should have some legitimate links somewhere along the line.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I would like to quote myself on this again because it was a very good question, in my opinion, and a very valid one, but you didn't answer it:
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I would also like to ask this before this conversation gets started: If evolution is so obviously not real and the evidence for it not being real is clearly right there, than why do you think scientists still keep it as a theory? And I should clarify, a theory in science is different from the word theory in everyday use. When scientists use the word theory, they mean an explanation to explain a large body of evidence and experiments. There's gravitational theory, quantum theory, atomic theory, germ theory, and many others. When non-scientists use the word, they generally mean "just a guess."
I think there are three main reasons for this. I should have acknowledged your question earlier, but I rather chose to focus on your other questions and arguments.
1- Because they want to. Scientists may try to become un-biased, but there is always bias in human work whether we admit it or not. It is also the biggest theory to explain away God, and there are people out there that like that. (please see last point before any conclusion-drawing)
2- There are also people out there that either hide true science or promote bad science in a vain attempt to prove their view. I suppose that, arguably, these individuals may not be true scientists, but the damage has already been done. Public view can tend to sway quickly, and there are big political motivations for the belief in and promotion of evolution. There have been plenty of hoaxes designed simply to trick the public. As truly unbiased people, evolutionary scientists should be the first ones to strike down false ideas and theories that non-scientists scheme up.
3- Lastly, there is evidence that points to evolution. Any scientific theory has to have something going for it to make it this far. A completely empty theory would have been shot down long ago, I would hope. If we dig down deep (really deep), there is evidence for evolution, although I am reluctant to say this. However, I would like to point out that much of the framework is built off of examples of micro-evolution and natural selection.
So, I think that they believe because they want to, there are motivations for such beliefs, and there is some evidence for evolution.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:You know that game where you have a bunch of cups with a rock under one and someone moves them all around and than you have to choose which one has the rock? Well this is basically like that. Only there are hundreds of thousands, probably more, of cups and only one has the rock under it, according to the Christian world view. Thus you have to choose carefully which one is the right one, only if you choose the wrong one you get really bad things happening to you. This is even worse because most people who are religious belong to the religion of their parents. They were born into that group. Thus most people are going to have bad things happen to them simply because they happen to have born in the wrong place. That's definitely not a loving way to run a universe. Jealousy much?
I won’t get too deep into this. The pea game example you gave was a good one, but it was also very sad. Christians should not leave others to be confused. We should stand out better than we do.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Well historically, creationists were first. They were the main opposition to the brand new idea of evolution and continued to be until people told them they couldn't teach it in public schools because it's not science. It also violated the constitution's ban on the establishment of religion because the public schools are funded by the government. Thus they changed the name to ID and tried to gut all the religious aspects out of it in an attempt to teach it in public schools. But really they're the same thing only under different names.
Ya, the argument against evolution is just a misunderstanding. Once creationists/IDers realize that arguing against evolution is pretty hard given the evidence, they'll change it around and start arguing against ideas on how life comes from non-life, especially when scientists develop a theory on it.
What precisely is not science? The Creation is not observable or repeatable, so it cannot be tested according to our definition of science, or the scientific method. However, the evolutionary life to non-life is hardly observable or repeatable either. Please don’t come back with the amino-acid argument. Even if we could somehow construct a single cell, which would take a lot more than some amino-acids, how could we give it the spark of life? The other problem with your point is that many evolutionistic ideas are taught in schools as if they were pure fact when they are not. I could give you a couple examples of arguments that were used in schools long after they had been dismissed in the scientific world.
T.S. (myself) wrote:I have two more questions for you:
Do you believe in a worldwide Flood?
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:As far as we can tell, the evidence points away from a flood. Again, I'm not a scientists so I'm going to have to defer to someone else whenever that argument starts.
This is a very fascinating topic for me, and one of my favorites.
T.S. (myself) wrote:What would you say about the faith of the early French people? When my family visited Paris, we toured the Notre Dame. This cathedral was built over a span of several hundred years. This mean that the peasants and workmen building this church knew that neither they, nor their children, or even their grandchildren, would see the finished result. Let me also mention that they worked without steady, or even existent pay, but worked on and off on this magnificent creation for generations. Would you say that these people were crazy or misled (or something else)?
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:I would ask you the same question about the numerous large or hard to build religious buildings that people have created over the years. Here are just some:
http://www.decodedstuff.com/10-breathta ... the-world/
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/fe ... ries/17786
The ancient Egyptians considered their pharaohs to be gods and the pyramids were meant to be burial places for the pharaohs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwedagon_Pagoda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_wat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf ... =apostolic palace&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=697&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=5Wk1UPuxApC-9gSS6YDwCA
(this is the apostolic palace, the place where the Pope lives)
http://www.rohama.org/en/news/2360/7-wo ... orldphotos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal
You gave a lot of examples!
Alright, I am not as impressed with the works of the Egyptians. They laborers were given fair wages, and the pyramids were basically passageways for the pharohs from this world into the spirit one. They considered proper preparation crucially important this. So, the laborers were building because it was a way to feed their family, and the pharoh had it built so he could pass into the next life. In both cases, there is plenty of personal gain in store.
Now, I am not as sure about the Taj Mahal. I have read two conflicting theories about this, one from a history book I trust, and another from a zany fact book that I have found to be rather untrustworthy. So, I believe my statement below is correct, but I am not absolutely positive. I just wanted to let you know that I have found contradictions to the below sentences.
The Taj Mahal was built by an Indian king for his deceased wife as a tomb. He mourned her loss greatly, and planned to have a similar building constructed as a tomb for himself. Again, this is more for personal reasons than religious ones.
As for the others, I am really not well studied in those areas. I would say most of them were built by:
a) Motivation for pay
b) Personal payoffs
c) Faith
So, what do you believe about the faith of the builders of the Notre Dame
and the other religious people who built the monuments I do not know about? Blind faith? Misguidedness?
Since you have been so kind as to share your many links with me, I will give you this one, a link to Dr. Shormann’s blog. Unfortunately, I know nothing about technology or computers, so you will have to type in the link manually. You will see several options for his Creation/Evolution collection. Please read one or two and give me your opinion on the articles.
http://drshormann.com/category/creationevolution/