Where did they come from?

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

FWIW Jeff, I'm a gospels guy. Have read the NT twice and firmly believe that only the Gospels are even close to the Word of God(TM) and they are all you need. In fact, I believe that Saul/Paul was actually Satan. That man's Letters are pure evil.

REALLY would like to hear your notes on this. It is a fascinating concept and the fact that you came to it via your own reading and thought (vs. reading someone elses musings) makes it all the more worth reviewing to me.

It is a bit odd though that you managed to come up with this idea yet were just introduced to the story of Babel.

Excellent Q&A though.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Its been pretty well established that there no evidence to support this. Therefore, this is your belief, based on a position in faith. There is no basis in reality for this claim.

I believe in faeries. They talk to me. My position is as valid as yours.

Hooray for you! If you want to believe in fairies then so be it...

Did you have a point?

Shaun:
If the only way you can look at the Bible is as a literal work which is not open to any interpretation, then I guess I can't help you. As Nostatic said, for you to expect that ANY literary work, especially one that is thousands of years old, is not open to interpretation...well, that's honestly just silly. I still maintain you started this thread with a preconceived idea of what you wanted the outcome to be and have set up the discussion within your own framework simply to steer it to your own conclusion. If you aren't interested in hearing other people's opinions and are going to simply cling to your own preconceived notion, why start the thread at all? You might as well stand in the shower and tell yourself how right you are...

[trekkor]

I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God,

There you have it.
Any reference to the Bible, not just the Greek scriptures, carry no weight with you.
So you like the Gospels better. What does that mean?


KT

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by trekkor

There you have it.
Any reference to the Bible, not just the Greek scriptures, carry no weight with you.
So you like the Gospels better. What does that mean?


KT

Why does it matter that the Gospels are the Word of God or not.

Why would you assume that because I don't believe they are the Word of God, that they would carry no weight with me?

What is more important? The author or the message? Which would Jesus would think is more important?

Please explain.

[trekkor]

So you like the Gospels better. What does that mean?

My question gets FOUR questions in return?


If it's 'just the word of man', then you can look at the track record of man and determine it has no real value.

What other ancient works are in near *everyones* home and cited so frequently?

What is more important? The author or the message?

Jesus was interested in directing attention to his God and his name, not himself.
With the Bible, the author is God and the message is from God.

The men that put the words on paper are like a secretary of a powerful company's leader.
The leader takes the credit, never the secretary.

There is no distinction between the 'gospels' or any other book.
All is the word of God.

For example, Genesis mentions the flood. Jesus mentions the flood as a real event in the Gospels.

Which do you believe?


KT

[Rodsrsr]

People often say that the Bible was written by man, as if some old government assigned a single individual to write it. As I said before the bible is made up of 66 books, 40 different authors, over a 1500 year period, yet they all flow in together in a way that is just not possible by human convection. The underlying theme of the Bible is salvation. If one studies the Bible in any detail, you will very quickly realize that the Old Testament is actually the New Testament concealed, whereas the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Jonah died and was in the belly a great fish 3 days, Jesus died and was resurrected in 3 days. God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, telling him his name was "I Am" Jesus said his name was "I AM" The blood of a lamb (saving those who accepted the blood) during the final plague on Egypt. Jesus is the "lamb of God" who's shed his blood saves all who accept him. ect,ect,ect. Now here is a trivia question for all you Bible readers. Although there were over 40 authors, a few of them wrote the majority of it. They are, Moses, King David, Paul and they all have one thing in common. What is it?
Hint; this is an example of the underlying theme.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by trekkor

For example, Genesis mentions the flood. Jesus mentions the flood as a real event in the Gospels.

Which do you believe?


KT

That's easy! Neither! There was no flood.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

Shaun:
If the only way you can look at the Bible is as a literal work which is not open to any interpretation, then I guess I can't help you. As Nostatic said, for you to expect that ANY literary work, especially one that is thousands of years old, is not open to interpretation...well, that's honestly just silly. I still maintain you started this thread with a preconceived idea of what you wanted the outcome to be and have set up the discussion within your own framework simply to steer it to your own conclusion. If you aren't interested in hearing other people's opinions and are going to simply cling to your own preconceived notion, why start the thread at all? You might as well stand in the shower and tell yourself how right you are...

Well, now we know what Karl Rove is doing in retirement. How much does he charge? by the hour or does he have tapes? What chapter is "Attack the Messenger" anyway?

Rick, your persistent and urgent need to make this about Me rather than the issue at hand says only one thing.

[Nathans_Dad]

It's not my persistent nature. I simply question why you would start a thread that you already have a set in stone answer to. You seem unwilling to consider any debate outside the pre-defined rules you have in your own mind, i.e. that that Bible is a literal work and is not subject to any interpretation except for how YOU happen to see it.

Again, I just wonder why you would start a thread on a topic you have an inflexible preconceived answer for...maybe you just like to hear yourself talk, I don't know.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Here's my next question: Why is the habanero-lime salsa I just got as mild as succotash?

because you are in Yankee country, I could send you some KILLER recipes for salsa

Originally Posted by DARISC

I don't think so - but you should change oil religiously.

now that is funny

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

snip...
I know this because the Earth only rotates at one speed, always has, always will.

You are mistaken, it is slowing down. You could look it up or take my word for it

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Rick, I haven't set up any artificial rules. the text is the text is the text. who am I, or you, to decide which parts of the Bible are literal, historical, metaphoric or allegoric or just completely fabricated?

If the Bible is the Word of God, how can you presume to inject your own interpretation into it? How can you say, "I know better. This is what God really meant." When and where and how do you decide that?

It was taken down by men, who are not infallible. What about the stuff that was not included, there is plenty of it?

I sort of doubt that Methuselah lived over 900 years, he would have died of renal failure by 125(that is the upper limit to human life, according to all the nephrologists I have spoken to about it). I do not think that you can take the entire Bible literally, and have studied a fair amount of theology.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Tobra

because you are in Yankee country, I could send you some KILLER recipes for salsa

PM away.

Originally Posted by Tobra

You are mistaken, it is slowing down. You could look it up or take my word for it

OK, a few cm's per year isn't exactly changing the nature of the argument, but I give you points for being up on your physics.

Originally Posted by Tobra

It was taken down by men, who are not infallible. What about the stuff that was not included, there is plenty of it?

So that begs the question, is any of it an honest account of God's Word? Is all the lying, deceit and treachery part of God's Word? Or is it a not-so-subtle manual for control?

Originally Posted by Tobra

I sort of doubt that Methuselah lived over 900 years, he would have died of renal failure by 125(that is the upper limit to human life, according to all the nephrologists I have spoken to about it). I do not think that you can take the entire Bible literally, and have studied a fair amount of theology.

Isn't experiential proof great?

[sammyg2]

LOL, even the evolutionist scientists are saying that all modern men are decendent from one female, who they call EVE. Gotta love that, even though i don't agree with evolutionists some of you do and are gonna be eating words.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.


Geneticist Spencer Wells, here meeting an African village elder, says the study tells "truly an epic drama."
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.

"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence.

"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."

Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.

The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations before the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.

Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"

Today, more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Yeh well 200,000 years is a far cry from the 6000 years some bible proponents claim

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Yeh well 200,000 years is a far cry from the 6000 years some bible proponents claim

It sure is, you'd think they could come up with a more accurate way to measure time by now.

all written language we have found occured in the past 6000 years. all remnants of building happened within the last 6000 years. All signs of intelligence and social behavior occured within the last 6000 years.

Sooooo, people walked around for 194,000 years and didn't leave a trace. No writing, no building, nothing, but they were there. Then all the sudden about 5600 years ago, people all over the world started developing languages and writing all kinds of stuff stuff down and building great big things like pyramids and cities and monuments and temples, all the sudden. Overnight. That makes perfect sense.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

It sure is, you'd think they could come up with a more accurate way to measure time by now.

all written language we have found occured in the past 6000 years. all remnants of building happened within the last 6000 years. All signs of intelligence and social behavior occured within the last 6000 years.

Sooooo, people walked around for 194,000 years and didn't leave a trace. No writing, no building, nothing, but they were there. Then all the sudden about 5600 years ago, people all over the world started developing languages and writing all kinds of stuff stuff down and building great big things like pyramids and cities and monuments and temples, all the sudden. Overnight. That makes perfect sense.

Australian Aboriginals history is recorded on cave walls etc and they have traced them back over 40,000 years. They themselves tell of their history. Just because it's not in a paperback or on parchment does'nt make it any less credible.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Australian Aboriginals history is recorded on cave walls etc and they have traced them back over 40,000 years. They themselves tell of their history. Just because it's not in a paperback or on parchment does'nt make it any less credible.

Their dating method is flawed.
How are they verifying their results? They can't!


KT

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Their dating method is flawed.
How are they verifying their results? They can't!
KT

Ok, so your calling an entire nation of people liars. How can you prove their dating method is flawed. Lets hear it! I actually take great insult to that. The Australian Aboriginals are a great race of people. Your statement is an insult to them. They lived in this country for thousands of years before white man and his god came and f@#ked them up.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Their dating method is flawed.
How are they verifying their results? They can't!


KT

Lets hear you verify all your bible nonsense, not with some contrived garbage answers, or answering questions with questions. You have nothing. Never have, never will. Lets start with how Jonah survived inside a whale shall we.

[trekkor]

Forum rage!

Cave paintings are not reliable history. Sorry.
There's a reason why we don't paint on the walls of caves anymore.

My comments are not against anyone. You should know that by now.
Tell me why you believe the paintings are 40,000 years old.



KT

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Forum rage!

Cave paintings are not reliable history. Sorry.
There's a reason why we don't paint on the walls of caves anymore.

My comments are not against anyone. You should know that by now.
Tell me why you believe the paintings are 40,000 years old.

KT

Now your being a jerk.

No, why don;t you tell me why they aren't reliable. Their history is also spoken and passed down through the generations.
Your such an expert on everything, lets hear your answers.
Where's your answer for Jonah?