19 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguinwhat are you saying, the universe didn't have a beginning? that the main components of humans are not found in the earth's crust, that Tyre was not destroyed, that Herod was not a cruel and vindictive ruler capable of killing infants, that Jerusalem was not surrounded by Cetsius Gallas, who retreated and then destroyed by Titus some time later, I mean each and every instance is corroborated with known science, history and archaeology, so which one is it? That Babylon was not destroyed and remains uninhabited to this day? That Pontuis Pilate was not a real person? That Tyre was not destroyed by Alexander who built a causeway from the stones of the old city? Which one is it Penguin, i want to hear you say it, which one? If you cannot nor will not then you shall publicly admit that yes indeed the Bible in these instances is corroborated by science, history and archaeology.
[b]how about you understand that what is contained in the bible is spiritual and that all i claim is that inferences may be made, do you understand the difference between inference and proof, i doubt it, for if you, Noobster or anyone else had, you would not have asked for proof.
I don't recall us ever throughout this thread asking for proof. W , archeaology and 'true' science.
Start a new thread for it if you like.
--- Penguin.[/b]
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow do you rectify the apparent discrepancies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with regard to when Jesus was born.
what are you saying, the universe didn't have a beginning? that the main components of humans are not found in the earth's crust, that Tyre was not destroyed, that Herod was not a cruel and vindictive ruler capable of killing infants, that Jerusalem was not surrounded by Cetsius Gallas, who retreated and then destroyed by Titus some time later, I me ...[text shortened]... t yes indeed the Bible in these instances is corroborated by science, history and archaeology.
The Gospel tells the story of Jesus and Herod, Herod died in 4 BC. The Gospel of luke tells the story of Jesus birth in relation to the Census of Quirinius which was 6 AD.
Which is right, and which is wrong?
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will quote myself...
what are you saying, the universe didn't have a beginning? that the main components of humans are not found in the earth's crust, that Tyre was not destroyed, that Herod was not a cruel and vindictive ruler capable of killing infants, that Jerusalem was not surrounded by Cetsius Gallas, who retreated and then destroyed by Titus some time later, I me ...[text shortened]... t yes indeed the Bible in these instances is corroborated by science, history and archaeology.
How about you provide a list to us of biblical stories for which you can provide corroborating evidence outside of scripture. We will then pick one out of your shortlist to discuss. One of the aspects we will look very closely at will be whether any such evidence relates to extra-ordinary aspects of the story for that is the only way the bible could be shown to be distinct from other texts such as the Book of Mormon or the writings of any other religion.
Now, I'll admit here that we have a bit of a quandary. Yes, many events told of in the Bible are corroborated by history and archeaology, as you say. The trouble is, they are all events that could be clearly apparent to anyone at the time. There is plenty of evidence that Herod was cruel and vindictive and quite possibly could have ordered a slaughter of innocents. But there is no evidence that he actually did. There is no evidence that the Bible is more accurate than any otherbook of the time.
I think you can't win because any evidence you provide, we will just brush of (as I have above) as 'nothing special, any other religious text has events of a similar nature we need non-scripture evidence of supernatural events' which, by definition, can't be provided.
I don't think it is logically possible to find evidence supporting biblical events that is 'better' than that supporting any other religion. but I think that your words that sparked off this whole sorry thread implied that such evidence did actually exist.
I can see your frustration with us. I hope that you can see our frustration with you. Both sides seem to be moving the goalposts.
--- Penguin.
19 Nov 10
I suppose our criteria for the evidence that would support the Bible above, say, the book of Mormon would be something that was not known untill a significant time after the bible was written but that is also unambiguous.
So prophesies of the fall of Tyre are too close to the actual event: The prophesy could have been added afterwards. Or the prophesy is too vague: many cities are conquered over the years. I don't actually know the bible story and the historial evidence to properly discuss this.
Descriptions of the begining of the universe are not unique to the Bible. Many religions have these, even the Lord of the Rings and Watership Down have their creation myths. The bible story is not specific enough to fit with the known facts than many other creation stories.
What we need is something like "And Jesus said, verily I say unto you that light behaveth not only as a wave as those in the sea but also as a particle as those of the sand of the desert. Truly the meaning of this is obscure but record it yea must for it will save much confusion in later ages".
That would truly place the Bible above the book of Mormon.
--- Penguin.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh my dear Noobster how it warms my heart that after all my patience and loving concern you should eventually take an interest in the sacred text,
How do you rectify the apparent discrepancies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke with regard to when Jesus was born.
The Gospel tells the story of Jesus and Herod, Herod died in 4 BC. The Gospel of luke tells the story of Jesus birth in relation to the Census of Quirinius which was 6 AD.
Which is right, and which is wrong?
here is the answer that you seeketh, little apparent discrepancies are always readily rectified, indeed, i have yet to come across and apparent inconsistency which has not been, we are after all talking of a book that is god-breathed, (theopneustos)
Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).
So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.
🙂
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by Penguini shall address these concerns in a wee while dear Penguin, i apologise for my tone 🙂
I suppose our criteria for the evidence that would support the Bible above, say, the book of Mormon would be something that was not known untill a significant time after the bible was written but that is also unambiguous.
So prophesies of the fall of Tyre are too close to the actual event: The prophesy could have been added afterwards. Or the prophesy is ...[text shortened]... in later ages".
That would truly place the Bible above the book of Mormon.
--- Penguin.
19 Nov 10
I could be way off on this but I was thinking about language and the tower of babel story and all. How old is the oldest written language? 4500-5500 years old? Why is it if man has been around for 10's of thousands of years? the sudden explosion in language written and verbal in just the last 4000-6000 years? Something just does not add up if you take the evolutionary stance on millions of years. My hypothesis is that language is programmed or pre-programmed in us already. After having a kid who is 2 years now looking at the speed in which he is picking up language I just don't buy it took millions of years.
Manny
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71Nope neither do i Manfred!
I could be way off on this but I was thinking about language and the tower of babel story and all. How old is the oldest written language? 4500-5500 years old? Why is it if man has been around for 10's of thousands of years? the sudden explosion in language written and verbal in just the last 4000-6000 years? Something just does not add up if you take the e ...[text shortened]... peed in which he is picking up language I just don't buy it took millions of years.
Manny
19 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71I think you are way off.
I could be way off on this but I was thinking about language and the tower of babel story and all. How old is the oldest written language? 4500-5500 years old? Why is it if man has been around for 10's of thousands of years? the sudden explosion in language written and verbal in just the last 4000-6000 years? Something just does not add up if you take the e ...[text shortened]... peed in which he is picking up language I just don't buy it took millions of years.
Manny
Language and written language are not the same thing at all. I think language is a lot older than 5000 years. As far as I know, writing developed in different parts of the world, and took a long time in development.
I would agree that we are more or less programmed to learn to talk, but I disagree that we are programmed to learn to write. We are programmed to learn in general.
But what does all this have to do with your comment regarding millions of years? What took millions of years, and what about it don't you 'buy' and why?
I must also point out that until very recently, the vast majority of adults were illiterate. Though the majority are now literate, there are still parts of the world where that is only just the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Literacy_rate_world.svg
Of course I am not certain what definition of literacy they are using, but it remains a fact that many people grow to adulthood without learning to read and write.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't buy that it took millions of years for man to communicate verbally or in written form is what I'm saying. I do see your point on there is a difference between written language and spoken but I just don't buy that it developed over eons of time. This can be a valid argument for creationist is all.
I think you are way off.
Language and written language are not the same thing at all. I think language is a lot older than 5000 years. As far as I know, writing developed in different parts of the world, and took a long time in development.
I would agree that we are more or less programmed to learn to talk, but I disagree that we are programmed to learn ...[text shortened]... but it remains a fact that many people grow to adulthood without learning to read and write.
Manny
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71First of all, man hasn't been around for millions of years. Your origional post more or less admited that you knew that where you say "10's of thousands of years?". Then later you changed it to 'millions of years' for dramatic effect. So what is it that you don't buy developed over a long period, language or writing? Why don't you buy it?
I don't buy that it took millions of years for man to communicate verbally or in written form is what I'm saying. I do see your point on there is a difference between written language and spoken but I just don't buy that it developed over eons of time. This can be a valid argument for creationist is all.
Manny
Merely saying "I don't buy it" is not a valid argument for anything.
20 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71Quite likely. The first hit I get on google is:
Apparently Sumerian is one of the oldest known written languages at about 5000 years.
Manny
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
Supposedly 5,500 year old writing from Egypt.
However, I believe that writing developed separately in Asia and the Americas.
As far as I know, people in Zambia did not write until the Europeans showed up. So this implies that either they forgot how to, or that for the last 5000 years or so they failed to develop it independently. This makes any argument that writing 'comes naturally' rather null and void.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71Even in current linguistics, it is hardly agreed that language is pre-programmed. Chomsky is perhaps the eminent proponent for LLD (the language learning device). He too argued that first language acquisition of children suggests an innate language faculty. Linguists however have not identified any cross-linguistic principles. Linguistic typology has uncovered a number of patterns but nothing so ingrained to suggest that the human mind has a shared internal grammar. Some such as Piaget argued that language is more just a general mental ability.
I could be way off on this but I was thinking about language and the tower of babel story and all. How old is the oldest written language? 4500-5500 years old? Why is it if man has been around for 10's of thousands of years? the sudden explosion in language written and verbal in just the last 4000-6000 years? Something just does not add up if you take the e ...[text shortened]... peed in which he is picking up language I just don't buy it took millions of years.
Manny
I would also dispute that there has been an explosion in verbal languages. In fact, when we look outside the Western world, we can find an extraordinary richness of languages. Australia and Papua New Guinea, for example, boasts hundreds of indigenous languages. Based on historical linguistics and reconstruction research, we can guess that these languages actually originated much further than 4000-6000 years ago.
As for the explosion of written language, this is more easily explained by technology. Perhaps only in the past few thousands of years has mankind developed the necessary writing implements. Perhaps also it is only in the past few thousands of years that written language has served any functional purpose -- why, for example, would nomadic Aborigines in the Australian outback need to write? I think it would take millions of years to have a use for writing and the implements to use it.
20 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kthe point about technology has been made previously, that writing was not needed until commerce took place or laws were established to protect certain interests growing from the establishment of large cities. I find this a little unsatisfactory for clearly there are instances of writing having been committed for other purposes, for example the rosetta stone in the British museum, essentially detailing religious worship.
Even in current linguistics, it is hardly agreed that language is pre-programmed. Chomsky is perhaps the eminent proponent for LLD (the language learning device). He too argued that first language acquisition of children suggests an innate language faculty. Linguists however have not identified any cross-linguistic principles. Linguistic typology has uncove ...[text shortened]... I think it would take millions of years to have a use for writing and the implements to use it.
The real gripe here is that according to the evolutionary hypothesis we have a period of several million years and then the explanation that humans have only as recently as eighty thousand years (apparently before this we were not really human) developed these ideas, thus we are asked to believe that four thousand years ago we were writing things down for specific purposes , but that 10, 20, 30, 40 or fifty thousand years ago we did not. Thus we are being asked not only to believe in physical evolution but in correlation to this, a technological one as well. Well ok, the argument has been given that we have seen similar things on our own time, that being the case why have we seen no physical evolution? If we take the premise that we have been around for six thousand years, how long shall we wait, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 80 thousand before we evolve into something else? yes people may argue that we are getting taller, living for longer, but we are still essentially human.