51. Comment #10762 by Graham on November 29, 2006 at 5:30 am

Suggestion to saneatheist (49)
May I suggest instead of worrying about Canadians & Mexicans, buy a Hebrew slave. You can keep him for 6 years and if you provide him with a wife you can keep her and the kids. (Exodus 21:2-4)

52. Comment #10768 by Differenceoftwosquares on November 29, 2006 at 5:48 am

Shaunyboy

You are a person and you are claiming the Bible has authority. That is fact.

God has never told me that the Bible has any authority, that too is a fact.

If God is who he is claimed to be he would have no trouble in making himself clear, that is a logical deduction from premises provided by theists, I have no opinion on that one.

Simplest explanation is that "God" doesn't exist; I'll go with that one until a simpler one comes along.

53. Comment #10791 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 8:25 am

The Flying Spagetti Monster is not a myth he is a conscious invention, I think there is a difference but I'm not sure how it is defined.

54. Comment #10848 by Jonathan Cutbill on November 29, 2006 at 12:25 pm

You are all quite wrong to criticise the creationists. They should be congratulated as the first group of people to have disproved Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and, importantly, they have done so using sound scientific methods. Their argument runs as follows: "On Darwin's theory, it is impossible for humans to give birth to turnips. We are living proof that humans can do just that. Therefore Darwin's theory is falsified. QED".
Dr. Haud Nominandum, PhD. Cantab, Witch Doctor.

55. Comment #10849 by DingoDave on November 29, 2006 at 12:28 pm

Shaunyboy has a scientific theory.
It goes something like this;

Donkeys can talk,
People can fly,
And a man named Jesus lives up in the sky.

What evidence does Shaunyboy have to back up his theory?
It is all in an ancient book written by scientific illiterates of course.
To use one of Shaunyboy's favourite lines; Hmmm...

56. Comment #10864 by DingoDave on November 29, 2006 at 1:11 pm

Hi guys,
I found this article on the Isaiah scroll found with the dead sea scrolls.
I thought you might find it interesting.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
Archeology - The Dead Sea Scrolls
Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text
By: Jeff A. Benner

The Great Isaiah scroll was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947 and is known as the Great Isaiah Scroll. It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Great Isaiah scroll is 1100 years older than the Codex Leningrad and provides us with the opportunity to compare the Biblical text over the centries.

The Masoretic text was compiled by the Masorites around 700 AD. This was an attempt at standardizing the text and pronunciation by comparing all of the then known copies of the Hebrew Bible to form one complete text that represented the original writings. The vowel pointings were also added to the text to standardize the pronunciation of the words. The Codex Leningrad is one of the surviving Masoretic texts.
The following is a quote from "A General Introduction to the Bible" concerning this Isaiah Scroll.

"Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage." (Norman Geisler & William Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", Moody Press, Page 263).

I have read the above quote recently and have also heard very similar statements in chat rooms, forums, bulletin boards, web sites and other publications in the past. While I have reviewed several passages of the book of Isaiah to compare the text of the Great Isaiah scroll found in the Dead Sea Caves with the Masoretic text, I decided to put the above quotation to the test. I began with verse 1 of chapter 53 and found that it did not take long to find 17 letters that varied from the Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text. In just the first 3 verses of chapter 53, a total of 23 words in the Masoretic text and 24 words in the Great Isaiah scroll, I found 19 letters that were different between the two texts…….

Below is the King James Version of Isaiah 53:1-3.
[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of
the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as
a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should
desire him.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from
him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Below is the same passage from the Great Isaiah Scroll. Differences between the King James Version and the Great Isaiah Scroll are underlined. While these differences are not severe, at least in these few passages, it clearly demonstrates that more than 17 differences exist in Isaiah 53 between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the King James Version.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of
the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as
a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor he hath
comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that
we should desire ourselves.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men and man of sorrows, and
he knows grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; and
despised him, and we esteemed him not.


Copyright © 2006
Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Please feel free to use, copy or
distribute any material on this site for non-profit
educational purposes only.

57. Comment #10897 by Drew on December 1, 2006 at 7:43 am

Comment #10799 by Joad
Unfortunately, as Bible believers, we are continually bombarded with comments like this.

Why does my face looking different from my father's face prove evolution?

I, nor any other Christians contributing to this thread, deny that change occurs – what has not occurred is the development of single-celled organisms into the diversity of life we see around us today. I agree that natural selection "chooses" the fittest – again, this is clearly seen in the world around us. But I do not believe the evidence is there to show, for example, that a complex eye developed from (presumably) a single photosensitive cell. I agree that Chapter 5 of "Climbing Mount Improbable" makes very entertaining reading, but it provides no proof whatsoever to the evolution of the eye (Nilsson and Pelger's designed computer programme does not provide this proof). Nor does it consider the complexity of the biochemistry behind sight. I have read numerous explanations for the evolution of sight, but they can only be theories, as no one has observed this process occurring in nature.

And just because I believe that God created it, doesn't mean that I believe science should stop investigating the intricacies of the eye, or the mechanisms behind the generation of sight.

58. Comment #10917 by J.C. Samuelson on December 1, 2006 at 12:54 pm

As a late-comer to this apparently active thread, I apologize in advance if what I'm about to say has already been considered or if it seems a bit pedantic or didactic.

Those of you arguing against the ToE are attacking a bogeyman of your own making. Each of you has in his/her own way acknowledged that evolution takes place, perhaps best expressed in this one statement: "I, nor any other Christians on this thread, deny that change occurs." (re:#154) What you seem to have a problem with is speciation; what you would call macroevolution.

I ask you, what is the problem with this? If a species becomes divided, each of them in geographic isolation, undergoes gene mutation, adapts to a new environment, and experiences natural selection (breeding & survival), thereby making one of them sexually incompatible with one another and therefore a separate species of the same genus what is your problem with that? This is basically a round-about way of saying that microevolution (change over time) leads to macroevolution (speciation).

And Drew (re: #154), an argument from personal incredulity does not negate the scientific evidence behind it. You may not think it shows what it purports to show, that's fine. But to extend this and categorically state that because our knowledge is limited God must've created it, is to make a gigantic (and unnecessary) leap from science to theology.

If we continue our scientific investigations as you so generously suggest and develop a cell-by-cell reconstruction of each and every form of eyeball on earth, all based on solid, irrefutable evidence, would you concede then that evolution is a valid theory that can provisionally account for the complexity we see around us? If your answer is no, then I suggest your problem is one of faith, not science. But then, I suspect it is anyway.

There is no one mechanism, no single line of evidence, that proves evolution as a functional explanation (i.e., theory). Its support is garnered from literally thousands of lines of evidence, generated by a wide diversity of scientific disciplines, and it is not the enemy that you have made it out to be. Contrast this to creation "science," which has lots of criticisms for evolution (most of which are unfounded and spurious), but no evidence of its own; it is entirely based on two chapters of your 66 book Bible. That's it, nothing else.

I would hope that in the intervening 3,400 years between the time Genesis was penned through to today, we might've learned something about the world in which we live. According to some on this thread, apparently not.

59. Comment #10968 by Drew on December 2, 2006 at 3:44 am

Brian, in Comment #10903 you suggest that believing in the theory of evolution is analogous to a murder investigation where all the evidence points to the murderer without the murder itself being observed on video (although you do suggest "multiple witnesses").

In a murder investigation, some forms of evidence will carry more weight than others. I would argue that the "evidence" for the evolution of the eye is not comparable to the evidence you suggest in your murder investigation.

As I stated previously, the evidence for eye evolution by darwinian mechanisms does not exist, even circumstantially. Those who do not believe in God have to make the evidence fit their own (non) belief system, but it is clear from the published evidence that this is all about how things "might" have happened. There is not a single scientific paper which provides 100% proof that a complex eye developed even from a simple eye.

Atheists believe that all living things formed by darwinian mechanisms. However, whilst you argue that there are over-riding principles (eg natural selection, genetic mutation), there are multiple theories as to how these principles are applied in practical terms. These theories change and adapt with time, to fit in with the available evidence (as a medical doctor, I see on a pretty regular basis things which are good for us, bad for us, and then good for us again! Opinions change to fit the evidence, but then the evidence "changes", and so do the opinions).

Many (although I agree, a minority) of scientists agree with my opinion, and I suspect that few of us will change those opinions. Ultimately, what I believe is between me and God, and that influences how I live my life, and how I will stand before Christ when he returns to establish God's kingdom.

60. Comment #10980 by J.C. Samuelson on December 2, 2006 at 9:26 am

Drew (#159/10968),

I realize your comments are directed at Brian, and I don't want to distract from your discussion with him, yet I would like to make a few observations.

Essentially, your continued insistence that evolution could not happen in the case of the eye suggests a willful disregard of any evidence that might already exist or be discovered in the future. What you use to back up this assertion amounts to nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. There is no point in discussing what evidence there is or might be because you have a priori determined that none exists.

I'm rather surprised that a medical doctor, presumably with a significant amount of training in the methods of science, would advance the ridiculous demand for 100% certainty. The demand being made more egregious by the request for such proof in a single scientific paper. You surely know better than that.

There are almost certainly scientists who agree with you. Given that, at least in the U.S., upwards of 40% of scientists hold to a belief in a personal god, it's reasonable to concede that some of them at least would agree. Yet if their objections amount to little more than personal incredulity, as seems to be the case here, this really adds nothing to your argument.

In the end, all scientific theories are provisional. As a trained professional you should know that. Arguing against them because you prefer another explanation does nothing to weaken them. If you really want to make an impact, devise a cogent hypothesis of design, make your predictions, test them, and present your results. If they are consistent with the observations, you may succeed in making inroads. Otherwise, this is nothing more than so much hot air.

61. Comment #10982 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 10:55 am

160

"devise a cogent hypothesis of design, make your predictions, test them, and present your results"

Something similar has already been done in The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine which you can get off Amazon secondhand.
Alternatively search for St Paul Science on Yahoo/Google and find info' there.

62. Comment #10983 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 11:00 am

Correction: find it on www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm

63. Comment #10998 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 1:07 pm

164 "Why should anyone believe any random set of unsubstantiated claims".

This is just 'poisoning the well' though isn't it Brian? You really should substantiate such lazy statements.

64. Comment #11027 by J.C. Samuelson on December 2, 2006 at 7:02 pm

@ #161/10981,

Mr. Remine did not do anything of the kind. I'm familiar with this book. Gaps, the Cambrian explosion, the persuasiveness of William Paley - all the usual canards couched in scientific language. He offers nothing in the way of evidence for design.

Please understand that any hypothesis that purports to be scientific must have positive evidence for support, or it will never become a theory. Scientific theories simply are not developed through arbitration.

65. Comment #11028 by J.C. Samuelson on December 2, 2006 at 7:10 pm

Re: #169s Shaunyboy

"...occurred spontaneously by random forces..."

Once again, though natural selection is not "goal oriented" or directed (not teleological), it is completely non-random. Is that really so hard to grasp?

66. Comment #11032 by walter on December 2, 2006 at 7:55 pm

I think a blogger on another thread put it best. This person said: (not exactly word for word)

"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a ten year old who changes the rules whenever he see's that he's losing. When backed into a corner (like our Shaunyboy) they insist that both sides of the debate are 'faith' positions but when no one is looking they grasp at anything that they think might constitute concrete evidence for their side. It's immature."

67. Comment #11034 by Aussie on December 2, 2006 at 8:05 pm

I suspect that the following applies to a number of the contributers to this thread. If the following is relevant to you then I suggest that you change gear pretty quick while there is still time:

"
Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols, and false gods and say of the infidels: "These are better guided than the believers" (4:50-51)

"Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise" (4:55-56). "You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment.... You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'" (5:80-82) [T]hose that disbelieve, and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell" (5:86).
"

68. Comment #11039 by walter on December 2, 2006 at 9:12 pm

And let's not forget the occasional appeal to force. If all else fails simply threaten them with eternal damnation. That'll teach us smart-ass, godless heathens!

69. Comment #11040 by Aussie on December 2, 2006 at 9:32 pm

No Walter,

You have the golden calf by the horns.

If you read it carefully you will see that this promise is directed specifically to those who are following the wrong god viz Jews, Christians and pagans.

The only thing worse than Northern Hemisphere chauvinism is Christian chauvenism.

70. Comment #11044 by walter on December 2, 2006 at 10:35 pm

to Aussie-

My apology. I guess their is more to such drivel than meets the eye.

Was this, by any chance, taken from the Koran? (or Curon or whatever way it's spelled)

71. Comment #11059 by walter on December 3, 2006 at 1:57 am

The story of Genesis is very fascinating. Wrong, of course, but fascinating.
It is actually a mixture of two separate accounts of creation: a Jehovistic one (because THIS author refers to God as Jehova) AND an older Elohistic account (which refers to God as Elohim 'the god's'). This is why man is actually created twice. Once in chapter 1 "And God said, Let us make man in our image-" and then a second time in chapter 2 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground-"

Also chapter 2 briefly mentions a 'tree of life' along with the 'tree of knowledge'. Why?

Because a much earlier version of the story ran something like this: Their was a tree of life (immortality) and a tree of death (mortality) later to be changed to the tree of knowledge. In ancient times many believed that snakes were immortal because they molt. Makes sense doesn't it? You see this decrepit looking snake shedding it's old skin and underneath is a nice new shiny 'young' looking snake!
Anyway to explain this 'immortality' of serpents the story went that 'the gods' told the snake to go tell the first man to eat from the tree of life so he would be immortal like the gods. BUT the snake reversed the message and instead tricked man into eating from the tree of death! He did and became immortal, Meanwhile the snake helped himself to the tree of life and became immortal.

It's easy to see how the modern Genesis story is 'derived' from this older one. The tree of life is an artifact (much like junk DNA) from an earlier time. Pretty cool huh?

72. Comment #11060 by walter on December 3, 2006 at 2:01 am

Ooops! He did and became mortal not immortal. Sorry.

73. Comment #11070 by walter on December 3, 2006 at 3:12 am

Loren-

You can tell them that evolution is not random until your blue in the face. It simply will NOT phase them. They either do not understand the mechanism OR they don't want to. Possibly a combination. If misunderstanding an idea makes the IDEA sound dumb and they WANT the idea to sound dumb then their is simply no bringing them around.

74. Comment #11082 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 4:31 am

Hey Billy, long time no see.

"The nlt translation of genesis 1 is very clear that man and woman were created together.......creation accounts disagree with other other and [a]re a joke".

Hmmm, surely the joke is on you. Its hard to believe that your using a paraphrase to establish biblical doctrine. Why don't you just refer to Eugene Peterson's The Message??

Regards, Jack

75. Comment #11084 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 4:34 am

Walter 183. That was an interesting theory. Do you actually possess any textual evidence for that earlier account from which Gen 3 derived??

76. Comment #11090 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 4:54 am

I have a theory about you Billy. I think you have a mental block when it comes to people who take the Bible seriously and it inhibits you from being honest with them. For example I've noticed that when arguing with liberal christians your make concessions regarding your arguments. when arguing with one lady you asserted that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat because in Matthew it says that satan showed Christ "all the kingdoms of the world". You then acknowledged that this was a little interpretive on your part. However, when arguing with 'fundamentalists' you dion't seem able to do that. Why?

Regards, Jack

Regards, Jack

77. Comment #11095 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 4:56 am

Sorry about that I need to stop repeating myself

78. Comment #11098 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 5:23 am

But surely even assuming a flat earth nobody could see "all the kingdoms of the earth" apart from some kind of supernatural 'vision' and once you admit a vision the problem is not there.

"Is the NIV a proper Bible then?" Am I expected to take this line of questioning seriously? Besides I don't use the NIV because it isn't as reliable as I would like. I use the NAS cos I'm a REAL Christian (JOKE).

What do you make of this:

TEL AVIV, Israel (UPI) - A five-year long computer study of the Bible strongly indicates that one author - and not three as widely held in modern criticism - wrote the book of Genesis. "The probability of Genesis having been written by one author is enormously high - 82 percent statistically," a member of the research team said in an article published in Wednesday's Jerusalem Post.

Professor Yehuda Radday, a Bible scholar from the Technion, a Haifa university, said more than 20,000 words of Genesis were fed into a computer which conducted a painstaking analysis of its linguistic makeup.

Bible critics widely hold that Genesis had three authors - the Jawhist or "J" author, the Elohist or "E" author and a priestly writer, dubbed "P". "We found the J and E narrative to be linguistically indistinguishable," Radday told a news conference today. But the P sections differ widely from them. "This is only to be expected, since dramatic tales and legal documents must necessarily display different 'behavior,'" he said. "If you compared love letters and a telephone directory written by the same person, linguistic analysis would point to different authors."

The team combined statistical and linguistic methods with computer science and Bible scholarship to reach their conclusions. They used 54 analysis criteria, including word length, the use of the definite article and the conjunction "and," richness of vocabulary and transition frequencies between word categories. "These criteria are a reliable gauge of authorship because these traits are beyond an author's conscious control and furthermore are countable," Radday said.

A mathematics expert on the team ran a computer check against classical German works by Goethe, Herder, and Kant and found that the statistical probability of their being the sole authors of their own work were on 22 percent, 71 percent and 9 percent respectively. That reinforced their conclusion that the "82 percent identity between the J and E definitions of Genesis make their unity very highly probable," Radday said. Radday would not comment on whether Genesis was written by Moses, or on their apparent conclusion that God speaks the language of humans, beyond saying, "As quoted in Genesis, divine speech and human speech are indistinguishable," according to the findings.

79. Comment #11122 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 7:49 am

197 "I think you proved my point on the NIV. So, what makes you decide what is right?"

I'm not sure of your point concerning the NIV. The NIV translators acknowledge that they have leaned towards a more free translation of the Hebrew and Greek. The NLT even more so eg Gen 3 says the serpent "hissed" which can't be justified by the Hebrew remotely, and The Message even more so eg the use of "skidrow" and "smartmouth college" in Psalm 1. I think what your driving at is the issue as to 'trust' and 'reliability'. However, the translators of these three versions have explicitly stated their methodology and intentions so the public know what their getting. The NAS translators have explicitly stated their intntion is to provide as literal a translation as possible while maintaining readability.

Regards, Jack

80. Comment #11123 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 7:54 am

Billy "Has the program been verified...."

Has the JEPD hypothesis been similarly "verified"? Yet your willing to believe that. You even refer to "several editors" for which there exists not a shred of evidence. Yet your willing to believe that. It would seem that since this test has included similar tests on Kant etc then it is more to be trusted than the JEPD theory.

199. David. I've heard this before. Does anybody have any evidence that George Bush actually determines his foreign policy on the basis of an eschatological belief??

81. Comment #11133 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 9:04 am

Billy 202 "You are putting your trust in someone else".

As we all do, Billy. You cite evolutionists on the I'net in support of the notion that there are fossil transitions but you've never seen them yourself. Most paleontologists have never seen a genuine hiominid fossil but only plaster casts but they still believe evolution and you regard that as acceptable.
Besides as I've asserted previously I don't accept the JEPD theory anyway and I simply cited the Israeli study as further evidence.

"What if it showed a book like Isaiah had more than one author?"

Well, it hasn't has it and I'm not going to engage with let alone answer hypothetical questions.

"Comments Jack?"

"Sit" in Jer 36:30 is yashav and implies to dwell or settle down ie permanence according to my Hebrrew lexicon, and the NAS concordance, and the Hebrew scholar E W Bullinger. 2 Kings 24:8 confirms this "and he reigned in Jerusalem three months".

I'll leave you to elaborate on the Immanuel prophecy.

82. Comment #11173 by Jack Sparrow on December 3, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Billy, comment 205.

I meant Isaiah hasn't been tested.

"I have even handled transitional fossils"

1) that doesn't make you qualified to judge their significance
2) since you regard all organisms as transitions your claim is meaningless isn't it? What did you handle?

"The Greek speaking translators of Hebrew scripture……slipped up and translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin)"

Sorry Billy but that that is bulls*@t. Read the following:


"Almah means 'a virgin', 'a young virgin', a 'virgin of marriageable age.' This word is used seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures and not once is it used to describe a married woman; this point is not debated.

i. Genesis 24:43. In contrast to 24:16 mentioned above, verse 43 requires no additional qualifying remarks since the one word alone is sufficient to mean 'virgin'. Furthermore, it is used of rebekah who was obviously a virgin at the time of her marriage to Isaac.
ii. Exodus 2:8. Used in reference to Moses sister Miriam, who was a virgin.
iii. Psalm 68:25. Used in reference to the royal procession of virgins. Since the King in this context is God Himself, absolute virginity is required; it is unthinkable that God would allow unchaste, unmarried women in His procession.
iv. Song of Songs 1:3. The context here is purity in marriage.
v. Song of Songs 6:8. The word is used here in contrast to wives and concubines who would obviously be non-virgins.
vi. Proverbs 30:18-19. The word is used in verse 19 in contrast to an adulteress in verse 20.
vii. Isaiah 7:14. Since all of the above six verses mean a 'virgin' what reason is there for making Isaiah 7:14 the only exception?

SINCE EVERYONE AGREES THAT ALMAH MEANS AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, IF THE WOMAN IN ISAIAH 7:14 WERE A NON-VIRGIN, THEN GOD WOULD BE PROMISING A SIGN INVOLVING FORNICATION AND ILLEGITIMACY………[FURTHER] WHAT WOULD BE SO UNUSUAL ABOUT AN ILLEGITIMATE BABY THAT COULD POSSIBLY CONSTITUTE A SIGN?"

A Fruchtenbaum - Messianic Christology

Consider just for a moment how desperate sanenatheist (and yourself) must be. In order to justify his belief that almah doesn't refer to a virgin he has to do the following:

1) Ignore the seven occurrences of the word which clearly show that it does.
2) Ignore the fact that it could hardly be a sign if the baby was illegitimate
3) Even worse he accuses the Septuagint translators PRIOR to Christianity of "SLIPPING UP". And what basis does he have for this claim?? None except his own desperate preconceptions which force him to make unsubstantiated charges against Hebrew scholars long before "deceptive" Christians came on the scene to twist the truth.




Yashav???

Then Solomon…..said, "My wife shall not DWELL in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy where the house of the LORD has entered"
2 Chron 8:11

and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the INHABITANTS of the cities..
Gen 19:25

"You have brought trouble on me by making me odious among the INHABITANTS of the land"
Gen 34:30

NOTE THAT YASHAV IS RENDERED INHABITANTS 202 TIMES, LIVE 118, REMAINED 27, SETTLED 23 COMPARED TO SIT 68, SITTING 48, SITTING STILL 1 IN THE NAS.
I suspect that you'll find similar results in the KJV.

83. Comment #11224 by walter on December 3, 2006 at 8:59 pm

to Billy-

Does all this imply that Mary may have originally been made a virgin to compete with Artemis? It would make sense. Perhaps their was some assimilation. If so then perhaps Mary shares some characteristics with Artemis. And could THAT have something to do with the assumption of Mary thing? After all, weren't greek gods known for flying around like Superman?

to Shaunyboy-

If I'm not mistaken you acknowledged microevolution (moth populations changing color etc.)somewhere at the start of this debate and I explained that macroevolution was just the logical result of microevolution going on for hundreds of millions of years. It is unfortunate, for both of us, that none of us can live long enough to see any of the 'major' changes happening. I personally would be thrilled to be able to look say a hundred million years into the future and see what all changes have occured!

If you choose to call such logical extrapolation 'faith' then I can't stop you.

People have ALWAYS had a problem with evolution and it really has nothing to do with God. Their are plenty of people who believe in God AND evolution. (my mother and sisters for example)

The REAL problem is those repulsive apes! Nobody want's to claim kin with them and who can really blame them? BUT that is no reason for people to invest HUGE amounts of time and resources on things like creation 'science'. As if reality could actually be changed if enough people denied what is self evident to anyone who has seen an ape in a zoo.

Us people of reason are confronted only with narcissism.

84. Comment #11243 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 12:03 am

These words are not from crazy Bible believers, but men of rational thought, as you might perhaps describe them.

Rubbish. These are not "quotes" you have sourced yourself, or conclusions you have personally come to. They are crass misquotes of people whose intent was the opposite of what is being claimed, there is a perfect avalanche of similar crap posted on creationists sites. We've caught you at this before, on this very thread ... tsk, tsk .... BAD christian:-)

I see none of you religious types can explain why the creator of the universe has so singularly failed to make his case? Yeah, it's a tough one:-)

85. Comment #11244 by walter on December 4, 2006 at 12:33 am

Interesting thing about Newton. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he took up a good deal of 'crackpot' things like alchemy in his old age.
Even if Newton, Einstein, etc. DID believe in a creator so what?

Most of us atheists like to believe that believers are stupid. While it may be flattering to think so it is nearly as dishonest as what THEY are doing.

People of ALL calibre of intellect can come to dumb conclusions if they want to bad enough.

Take for example the dinosaurian origin of birds theory. On the surface it seems to make sense. But if you look into this whole deplorable situation more carefully, as I did about a year ago, you find problems. (The best candidate for bird ancestors was most likely an arboreal archosaur NOT a terrestrial dinosaur.)

So why are so many dinosaur paleontologists so hot for birds to be dinosaur descendants? Because these are guys who have devoted their lives to dinosaurs. AND the dinosaur to bird theory tells them EXACTLY what they want to hear! That dinosaurs are still alive.

Likewise the story of creation tells creationists exactly what THEY want to here. That they didn't come from apes, that they are going to live forever, and that they are more important than they actually are.

86. Comment #11260 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:35 am

Shaunboy. The main trinitarian verse in the bible is actually a late insert. All other verses are triadic

87. Comment #11384 by Jack Sparrow on December 4, 2006 at 11:30 am

"How does the fact that everything can be considered translational invalidate my claims"

I said it makes them "meaningless" and the reason should be clear. If everything: rabbits, rats, rhinos, rattlesnakes are to be considered "transitions" then clearly there is no weight to your claim to have handled "transitions". By this definition so have I.

Anyway your claim that supraspecific groups are "transitions" only serves to demonstrate how weak the case for evolution is.

Darwin wrote, "In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. ONE, NAMELY THE DISTINCTNESS OF SPECIFIC FORMS, AND THEIR NOT BEING BLENDED TOGETHER BY INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL LINKS, IS A VERY OBVIOUS DIFFICULTY"
-C Darwin, On the Origin of Species, p 291 (or first page of chapter 9 in my copy) my emphasis

Clearly Darwin wouldn't have agreed with your explanation. The fact is the living world shows clear divisions between invertebrates and vertebrates - fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds. Similarly there are clear divisions between penguins, peacocks, pigeons, and parakeets. The transitions, the lineages that would demonstrate evolution are absent. Why? BECAUSE THEY NEVER EXISTED – A PERFECT FIT WITH THE FACTS.

"Is that everyone except the Tanakh…"

I have a copy of the JPS translation of the tanakh 'The Jewish Study Bible'. It is true that they render almah as "young woman". However, it is also true that they render Gen 3:15 "HE shall strike at your head" as "THEY shall strike at your head" DESPITE the fact that the Hebrew is very definitely the third person masculine singular 'HVA' (hoo) "hoo is he" as my rabbi used to say. Judaism has developed in opposition to Christianity and this is why we see such liberty taken with the text. Fruchtenbaum points out that every Jewish scholar prior to RASHI asserted that Isaiah 53 refers to King Messiah and that when RASHI first proposed that it referred to the nation he was opposed by non other than Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) who said RASHI was quite wrong to go against the ancients.
Rabbi Saadyah Ibn Danan in c.1500 stated "One of these, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah….gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus. May God, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth". You see? Rabbi Joseph is stating that at least one rabbi argued that it shouldn't be understood of Messiah BECAUSE that would support the Christian understanding.

"god blessed Abraham's bastard (of adultery) Ishmael…"

To which the response is the same as that of the vineyard owner in Jesus' parable, "Is your eye envious because I am generous". I presume you would rather have had God throw Ishmael out on the street.

"so your argument from moral purity is not valid…"

Course it is. As Jesus' said to the Pharisees concerning divorce in the Law, "because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives…"
God makes concessions to peoples ignorance/inherent sinfulness etc (and so forth). Besides my Bible says that Abraham took Hagar as his "wife" (16:3).

"you are assuming [G]od is real"

Too right I am, your perception overwhelms me. Not only that but the 'God theory' has a long and honourable tradition: Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Newton, Locke, Pascal, Maxwell, Edwards, Lewis, Damadian….

However, I'm not sure that such a charge is strictly relevant here. It would be better made in relation to the debate over yashav where I am making an assumption that the Bible is unified and that one text provides a legitimate commentary on another whereas you see a contradiction. Now I can't prove my assumption is valid but it works fine for me.
Not only that but such assumptions are used in science Stephen Hawking writes, "we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology [eg] the Copernican principle".

"People in harems generally are not virgins".

Yes, but I can't find harem in the text. "Queens, concubines, almah". In 1 Kings 11:1-3 it says, "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women………he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away". In Ecclesiates 2:8 it reads "I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men - many concubines". Now the scripture doesn't shy away from its subject's faults but neither does it indicate that Solomon had a habit of just sleeping with young women outside of any socially recognised relationship.

Further this still fails to explain why the Jewish scholars 200 years before Christ rendered almah as 'parthenos' which definitely means 'virgin'. Oh, I'm sorry you did explain – they "slipped up".

"try Psalm 22:16 if you want a real separate Christian mistranslation"

As opposed to the 'unreal' one in Isaiah 7 you mean?

"I had a bet that you would not challenge the context of this verse, and I was right"

As I recall I asked you to elaborate on the Immanuel prophecy which you refrained from doing because you couldn't be bothered. Instead, you quoted Sanenthingummymewhatsit which was to do with the alleged mistranslation of almah to which I did respond. I'm not going to "challenge" a context that you don't mention though.

In regard to Ahaz I'm inclined to agree with you. In a sense. I don't believe that the OT prophecies can be used as proof texts for the Messiahship of Jesus. Its noticeable that the gospels record that the disciples were completely ignorant and shocked about the crucifixion and the necessity for it. I think theres a principle at work which is to do with the interrelationship between the sovereignty of God and mans responsibility. Jesus said to the disciples that "if you are willing to accept - John is Elijah who was to come". In Acts 3:19 Peter says, "repent and return, so that….he may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you". Had they accepted, John would have been Elijah. Had Israel repented (Matt 23:39) then Christ would have returned. But they didn't and He didn't.
I think this principle extends throughout prophecy including the Immanuel prophecy ("if you will not believe, you surely shall not last" 7:9). I don't think prophecies were given to be fulfilled regardless of what we do as if we are just robots.
The Messiah could have come at that time just as he could have come during the Acts period but the people were not ready.

Regards, Jack

I can't promise a response to your next one before the weekend by the way.

88. Comment #11425 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:09 pm

Or should I say, is a bacterium a plant or an animal!

89. Comment #11440 by Steve on December 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Shaunyboy writes (215. Comment #11236):

'Well, there's the all important lack of a verifiable mechanism for a start...

...The assumption that because a virus mutates, or a bacteria develops resistance, or a human breeds dogs, that this somehow provide evidence to support the notion that one species can evolve into another'

A response:

The molecular mechanism underlying all of these events is the same. It is all based around DNA (and RNA) replication. When organisms replicate, their DNA needs to replicate. If DNA replication was perfect, then all species would remain unchanged. However, DNA replication is less than perfect. I, like thousands of other researchers, have witnessed the mistakes that occur in DNA replication –this is a fact. This same mechanism accounts for cancer formation and changes over time in infection diseases such as MSRA and flu.

And it is because we understand this mechanism that we can develop vaccines and anti-cancer drugs. It is why we can genetically modify crops, can clone sheep, know smoking gives you cancer… the list is very long.

And surprise, it is also the underlying molecular mechanism that allows evolution to take place.

But it sounds from your posts that you already know this. You seem to be happy with the idea of 'microevolution', whereby Influenza evolves over time or tumours become metastatic. It seems that you are unwilling to accept anything other than proof that a new species can develop?

Well there are many instances of novel species formation occurring on short time scales that we can observe. The best-documented generation of novel species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the flies which came out set apart to breed in their respective isolated groups. After thirty-five generations, the groups (and their offspring) would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.

Similarly, Diane Dodd was also able to show speciation by reproductive isolation in fruit flies using different food types, starch and maltose. After only eight generations, the maltose flies were only able to breed with other maltose flies and not with the different species of starch flies. Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.

Both groups of fly are sexually viable, but they can't interbreed. Hence, they are different species.

90. Comment #11681 by Tom Bennett on December 6, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Hi Im a 16 year old Christadelphian from Dudley in England and Im no expert in Science or Hebrew but I do believe 100% that God does exist and is the reason we are all here.
Perhaps people should read the entire Bible in context and make sure they understand the meanings in it before they start knocking it.
What I do know is that Bible prophecy is accurate, to such extensive deatail in places that experts have simply had to say "it must have been written after the event" this was all very well until the dead sea scrolls were discovered and proved at least that most of the old testament is in fact as old as it says.
One example of incredible accuracy in Bible prophecy is the account of how Tyre and Sidon was destroyed by The Babylonians and causing the inhabitants to flee the city to an island off the coast, where they lived until Alexander the Great came along a couple of hundred years later and built a causeway to the island with the debris from the old city. This causeway is till there today. This is all prophecied in the Bible (dont have the exact passage to hand but could get it if anyone wanted it) to such an amazing degree of accuracy it even talks about fisherman spreading their nets on the causeway which is of course what happens today.
What other book predicted all the world empires in order??
Another thing that really does prove God exists is that he said that Israel are witnesses to this fact.
No other nation in the entire history of the world has been battered and persecuted anywhere near as much as Israel, attempts to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth have been going for the past 2000 years, and yet they are still here in their own country! This really is nothing short of a miracle if you think about it carefully. The bible says that the generation that sees the fig tree blossom (Israels return to the land) that happened in 1948 will see the return of Jesus.
This gives me great senses of hope and happiness, if I dont have to be scared of death then there is nothing to be afraid of.
What have atheists got to look forward to?
Can you honestly say you are happy and have a hope?
Surely believeing the entire universe came about by accident takes even more blind faith than believing in a God? But it really is not stupid or dumb to have a hope.

Other Comments by Tom Bennett

91. Comment #11685 by Tom Bennett on December 6, 2006 at 2:23 pm

What genetic mutation is beneficial?
Why havent all monkeys evolved into human like crreatures?
How can an a living thing evolve from inorganic chemicals?
Does organic substances such as alcohols have the potential to become alive?
Who set off the big bang?
If we have all evolved from amoeba at as slow a rate as evolution appears to take place in creatures today how long would it have to take for the billions and billions of small steps that would have to have to be taken to create a human?

If you could help me here that would be great

Whos happier???
The Christian who believes he is going to live forever??
Or the atheist who believes he is going to be dead forever?
Ask yourselves what is important
:)

Other Comments by Tom Bennett

92. Comment #11690 by goddogit on December 6, 2006 at 2:37 pm

Tom Bennett is ample enough reason for any reasonable. reasoning human being to decide that "God" - at least the Biblical God imagined by Tom B. - is perhaps the most absurd idea ever to have gained even modest popularity.
I would generously assume that Tom B. is a parody, but, to quote Howard in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" he "ain't a good enough actor for this kind of a trick."

Tom, you, more than anybody, needs to read the entire TGD and force your faith-encrusted brain to think while your eyes scan the words. Note that the title fits your bizarro world to the absolute "T"!

Oh, and I HAVE read the entire bible at different times in my life, and each time have been further bored by all but the most slender flashes of ancient poetry while ever more horrified at the nutty idea that it provides "moral" instruction.

In conclusion, you and your type are entirely free to believe in teapots or pasta or even Jehovah, but don't expect others not to call you when you spout lies and horseshit, which constitute 100% of what you wrote here. And I mean 100%.

Other Comments by goddogit

93. Comment #11692 by Tom Bennett on December 6, 2006 at 2:54 pm

just because you read the bible doesnt mean you understood it.
Answer my questions i politely asked earlier instead of getting so cross please.

Other Comments by Tom Bennett

94. Comment #11696 by S on December 6, 2006 at 3:15 pm

Tom, welcome to the site – thank you for your honest post. I'm sorry to say, but you have been indoctrinated by people close to you (most likely your parents). I too believed in god at your age (indoctrinated by my parents), but I questioned the world around me and God didn't make sense. I read many books on evolution, became a scientist and realised that we have a much better explanation of how life arose. Stories from a book (and from people you love and care about) are not real piece of evidence that people can test. Evolution has been tested and does occur.

Your comment regarding not being scared of death remind me of how suicide bombers, with their blind unquestioning faith, see life. Life is full of wonderful things – believing in a god doesn't make it any better – though it can make it worse.

Atheists are just as happy and hopeful as anyone else. I'll admit that when I did realise, for the first time, that god didn't exist it was a scary thought, but that soon passed.

People are currently trying to petition the UK government to prevent indoctrination of young people see: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/

You should read some science books to answer some of your questions. Wikipedia is a decent starting place. Perhaps you could do A level biology.

Other Comments by S

95. Comment #11697 by hopeful on December 6, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Tom B writes "Whos happier???
The Christian who believes he is going to live forever??
Or the atheist who believes he is going to be dead forever?
Ask yourselves what is important"

You've hit upon a key reason for the success of religion which is that it gives people something they want to hear - which is the belief that they will live forever.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in god, religion is a delusion - and most importantly it's a comfortable delusion. It provides quick and easy answers and hope.

You might be happier believing paradise awaits you after you die, but I would rather know the truth (or as much truth as I can obtain) about the reality I find myself in.

I strongly suspect that when I die my consciousness will end. Am I looking foward to it? - definitely not. I love life and I don't want it to end for lots of reasons. I console myself with the belief that I will not be aware of the ending of my consciousness. It will not hurt, I will not be sad, I will not miss anything, i will not be bored. All of time will pass, yet no time will pass.

That tells me I should make the best use I can of my consciousness, not waste it in a delusion or dreaming about what is going to happen to me after I die.

Other Comments by hopeful

96. Comment #11698 by Tom Bennett on December 6, 2006 at 3:25 pm

Thanks for replying
I am doing A level Bilogy at the moment and the more i look into how life works the more I believe in God because to me the fact that something so complex could come about by chance does not make sense. I am not totally denying evolution, probably me being a bit too eager in my 1st post but I do not understand how it could happen on such a large scale without some sort of divine help.
Can you please tell me where you believe that the cause of the big bang came from?
Thanks

Other Comments by Tom Bennett

97. Comment #11700 by RBH on December 6, 2006 at 3:31 pm

Tom B: "What genetic mutation is beneficial?"
The Milano mutation (see http://tinyurl.com/ylsnd2) is but one of millions of examples.

Tom B: "Why havent all monkeys evolved into human like crreatures?"
Because they're well adapted to their current selective environment as they are (or at least as their selective environment was before we humans have been screwing up their habitat). And since we humans already occupy the selective niche for allegedly intelligent primates, we'd slaughter them in a heartbeat as we have slaughtered most of the top-of-the-line predators.

Tom B: "How can an a living thing evolve from inorganic chemicals?"
That's not a question in evolutionary biology, but in geochemistry and biochemistry. Go hassle the chemists.

Tom B: Does organic substances such as alcohols have the potential to become alive?
No. Not all carbon-centric ("organic") chemicals are capable of self-replication with heritable variation.

Tom B: "Who set off the big bang?"
No one.

Tom B: "If we have all evolved from amoeba at as slow a rate as evolution appears to take place in creatures today how long would it have to take for the billions and billions of small steps that would have to have to be taken to create a human?"
About 3.5 billion years.

Other Comments by RBH

98. Comment #11701 by goddogit on December 6, 2006 at 3:37 pm

How very tiring, the "honest and sincere" Xian is! - their incredible vanity being combined with an incredibly ignorant, and lazy, desire to "know" without effort.
Everything must flatter spoiled Xian babies, like Tom and Ben, or they will become peevish and hold their breathe until you complement their stupidity! Maybe they will someday reach the mental age of four, and begin asking questions to adults who know the real answers to some, and inspire interest in learning the answers to the many they can only speculate upon.

How easy it is to understands Dawkins' "crankiness" when not on the podium, given the shallow, stubborn and endlessly repeated stupidity that he is sincerely asked again and again and again and again!

Your type of believer is frankly utterly dishonest, however "sincere," since you insist that your filthy sty of an imagination is a paradise all should admire and desire, and your mud pies of "evidence" are an ambrosia all should beg to savor.

At the simple, ordinary human level, your kind really do deserve to be despised, but I only have pity for you, and my contempt is for your illusions and the lies you are willing to use to maintain them (and any abuse of others that you may make based upon those illusions.)

Other Comments by goddogit

99. Comment #11710 by JonG on December 6, 2006 at 6:11 pm

243. Comment #11696 by S on December 6, 2006 at 3:15 pm

It's interesting how many statements have been made regarding apparent contradictions in the Bible. How ironic then that the 'free thinkers' of this world are starting petitions against 'free thinking'..?!

Are you against education all-together or just religious education?

I have plenty of friends who were bought up in similar backgrounds to my own and *they* chose not to pursue it in later life just as i'm sure other kids don't grow up with the same political, social or scientific beliefs as the families they grew up in.

Having said that, if I were you, i'd change my tactics a little - you're going about this all wrong...
I think you may be drawing a bit *too* much attention, and maybe even sympathy towards the religious types...

Here's an example of what I mean...

In the New Testament (the Bible, I know, but bear with me...), in the book of Acts, a wise Pharasee, who was against the teaching of Christ, got up during a council meeting to *prevent* the disciples of Christ being killed for what they believed in. He knew it would only create a bunch of martyrs and he was smarter than that; this is what he said:


Acts 5
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.



So, it's the same now really - and I know 2000 years later there are still a few knocking about, but if the earth is a squillion years old anyway, 2000 years is nothing. I reckon you should hold back a bit - it'll fizzle out in a few years for sure.

Other Comments by JonG

100. Comment #11723 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 6, 2006 at 10:42 pm

I sincerely hope these are not misquotes. I have put the full reference including the page number so that you can check up on me if you like. I have these books in my personal library and they are well thumbed I assure you.

Rubbish, I've seen the same pap 10 different ways, you are about as sincere as the "give it to me baby" of a $10 whore:-) I challenge you to publish the paragraph either side of your quotes, I'm not your research assistant!!!

The influence of Greek and other philosophy on mainstream, (and even small sect!) Christianity is pretty well documented. I certainly don't believe I have any special revelation or any sole ownership of truth.

So what you beleive as a Christian is not absolute? You just think it might be true? You muddle along hoping you've got it right, and everyone else can do whatever they think is best as regards salvation and so forth? Pull the other one:-)

While you are floundering on that question, how about the "why is god such a poor communicator?" question. I have yet to hear from any of the religious types on this. It's simple question, 2000 years after christ, and 1300 after big M., we still have utter confusion and disagreement about the properties of god.

How can you consider such an incompetent worthy of respect, let alone "god"?

However, my point has never been to lecture you about God, the only time I have ever discussed God with you is when you have asked a question that relates to Him or His purpose.

What on earth could you know about this stuff? What could anyone? You don't consider your arrogant, condescending "relates to Him or His purpose" lecturing? You have a bit of a tin ear there guy:-)

There is no verifiable evidence to support an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing the diversity, complexity and interdepence we see in the natural world, and the cosmos.

Once again your staggering, towering arrogance shines through. Who are you? What have you published? Why should I consider your comments more reliable than an established scientist like Dawkins, or any scientist at all?

I am not an expert on evolution, in point of fact there is tons of stuff that I am not an expert on. So I take my lead on complex subjects from people who are experts in the relevant field. The bible has been ripped to shreds as an authorative source on anything, including history! Arguably it's strongest suit. So please ..... I'd be mad to base my life on something so wrong, on so many fronts.

Shaunyboy, you have it exactly ass backwards. You base your life on the bible, and then try and crowbar the available evidence into that impoverished framework.

It is pathetic and sad, not least because a cursory glance at the rampant injustice in our world invalidates the claim of any god whatever to omnipotence and omnibenevolence at a single stroke. Evolution is not your problem, really. Your whole premise is flawed.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen