Originally posted by @kellyjayPrecisely the same could be said about the OT and the NT. There is no unbroken chain of custody for those documents. The most ancient complete Bible is the masoretic text, which is medieval. A few fragments survive from about the first c., some of which match the masoretic text, some of which don't. There is a gap of several centuries, during which we do not know what happened to the books which came to be canonical. We do know that the NT scrolls were redacted several times in that period. This is what I meant when I said that the Book of Mormon was much more reliable as a historical document, because there is an unbroken chain of custody back to its original form from Joe Smith. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
No, I'm saying the longer something is out of sight, out of mind, out of reach, things can
occur we know nothing about that can alter whatever it is we are looking at, that we may
not take into account, allowing us to error thinking we know all we need to know.
Originally posted by @moonbusTrue, but they were kept about as well as could be, and the copies that showed up when
Precisely the same could be said about the OT and the NT. There is no unbroken chain of custody for those documents. The most ancient complete Bible is the masoretic text, which is medieval. A few fragments survive from about the first c., some of which match the masoretic text, some of which don't. There is a gap of several centuries, during which we do no ...[text shortened]... chain of custody back to its original form from Joe Smith. The same cannot be said of the Bible.
they started putting together the Bible did agree with one another. Not bad for thousands
of years of time.
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe oldest existing copies of the Bible date back to between 800 and 1,000 years AFTER Jesus was executed by the Romans. So, I wouldn't place too much store on how their component parts [surprise, surprise] "agree with one another" or how they [surprise, surprise] "fit" with the Jesus story. We can only guess at the degree they were modified, redacted, tinkered with compared to long lost versions and copies.
True, but they were kept about as well as could be, and the copies that showed up when
they started putting together the Bible did agree with one another. Not bad for thousands
of years of time.
The claim that there was once a single continent (Pangaea) and that this explains how kangaroos and raccoons got on the ark, does not work, because of deep time. At the time when the place which is now Australia was attached to what is now the Middle East, at the time when what is now No. America was attached too, there were no kangaroos or raccoons or humans. They had not yet evolved.
The claim that the landscape was once flatter and that therefore a smaller quantity of water would have sufficed to submerge the world also does not salvage the Noah's ark story, because of deep time. The pushing up of mountains, and the drifting apart of continents, are due to tectonic plate activity. These processes take place over periods of time orders of magnitude longer than that envisaged by the story of Noah's ark (or Genesis) and long before mammals (including humans) had appeared on Earth. Deep time again trumps the biblical account.
Such tortuous attempts to make the biblical story compatible with laws of nature indicate a very confused understanding of what science is and how it works. Science is not an alternative "faith" to Christianity. Cherry picking the bits of science which seem to corroborate the biblical story (e.g., there was once only one continent, the landscape was once flatter than it is now), and disregarding the rest (e.g., deep time), won't salvage the Noah's ark story; it merely makes the story more and more an incoherent mess of fairy tale and sacred literature co-mangled.
Moreover, there are still too many loose ends. e.g., why, if the landscape was once flatter, was there any Mt. Ararat for the ark land on? Where the water receded TO has also still not been answered. How plants repopulated the post-flooded Earth when no seeds were taken onto the ark. How the ark stayed upright with a quantity of drinking water sloshing in its hold (I have sailed a boat -- a moving ballast inside capsizes a boat at the first wave). How herbivores survived a carnivorous onslaught in the first weeks after debarking. Etc. etc.
Every time the going gets too tough to find some halfway compatible scientific fact (e.g., Pangaea, or the landscape was flatter) to fill in a gap or plaster over an issue in the story, the biblical literalist backs away from science, decries it as 'just a theory' and declares "ok, a miracle happened here" to smooth over the rough patches of the story. Sorry, but that doesn't cut any mustard. Genesis has no more factual basis than Homer's Odyssey and Iliad. Riveting reading, yes; but factual history, hardly. There were probably some factual elements in both the biblical and ancient Greek stories, but they are fables, the fantastical embellishments far outweigh the facts. And that is, after all, just what makes them interesting reading.
Originally posted by @moonbusMaybe you are talking about something I'm unaware of. What I'm talking about is anything
The motions of tectonic plates requires deep time? Are you aware of this?
Whether deep time helps or hurts we shall see shortly. THAT will not require deep time.
that could happen given enough time. That might be true with somethings, like keep trying
to open a combination lock, others no so much.
Originally posted by @moonbusScience doesn't do well with God, we cannot study Him, take His abilities into account,
The claim that there was once a single continent (Pangaea) and that this explains how kangaroos and raccoons got on the ark, does not work, because of deep time. At the time when the place which is now Australia was attached to what is now the Middle East, at the time when what is now No. America was attached too, there were no kangaroos or raccoons or huma ...[text shortened]... hments far outweigh the facts. And that is, after all, just what makes them interesting reading.
or use our natural minds to comprehend Him. That said, none of that matters to His being
real or not, just as the natural world was created by the spiritual, the natural world is blind
to the spiritual. So if He moves the land masses, He moves the land masses, our ability
to grasp a God who is eternal in time and space, all powerful, all knowing, who is a
spiritual being no bound by time as we are bound by the tiny sliver of time called now is
quite beyond our natural abilities to comprehend him.
I don't backway from science, I just think it has built in blinders to God, and due to that it
misses Him. Somethings science is quite perfect to use and gives us clean answers to
some very complex questions, but others people use and abuse it coming up with things
that rely on heavily that they cannot know is true, but believe them to be facts nonetheless
which what happened millions or billions of years ago, or how life started and formed.
Looking at all the things required, there are a very large number of (ducks in a row) that
had to fall into place for their beliefs to be justified.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
Originally posted by @moonbusNice post!
The claim that there was once a single continent (Pangaea) and that this explains how kangaroos and raccoons got on the ark, does not work, because of deep time. At the time when the place which is now Australia was attached to what is now the Middle East, at the time when what is now No. America was attached too, there were no kangaroos or raccoons or huma ...[text shortened]... hments far outweigh the facts. And that is, after all, just what makes them interesting reading.
Originally posted by @kellyjayEqually, the Bible doesn't do well with with geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, or basically with anything which requires a knowledge of how things work. It is a lot easier to sell miracle stories to people who are ignorant of basic physical and physiological processes.
Science doesn't do well with God, we cannot study Him, take His abilities into account,
or use our natural minds to comprehend Him. That said, none of that matters to His being
real or not, just as the natural world was created by the spiritual, the natural world is blind
to the spiritual. So if He moves the land masses, He moves the land masses, our ab ...[text shortened]... large number of (ducks in a row) that
had to fall into place for their beliefs to be justified.
You apparently believe that we cannot know things which happened in the very distant past, presumably because you think that witnessing something firsthand is the only way to really know something. But this is simply not true. If we see a pregnant woman and measure the size and development of the fetus, we can know to a fair degree of accuracy when conception occurred, even if we were not present at the moment of conception. Similarly when we find a dead body: depending on the state of the tissues, a forensic specialist can know to a fair degree of accuracy when the person died and what caused it, even if he was not present at the time of death, and even if the person lived quite a long time ago (e.g., the ice man recovered from the alps some years ago). The same applies to myriad other facts and processes; we can indeed know things which we were not present to witness as they happened.
The reason is that laws of nature do not change over time; if they had, there would be a trace of that change, something like a sonic boom, left over from the transition. For example, if the speed of light had ever been faster or slower than at present, there would be a photonic boom left over from that transition and we would be able to see it now.
Originally posted by @moonbusYou know about the distant past and are sure you are not in error?
Equally, the Bible doesn't do well with with geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, or basically with anything which requires a knowledge of how things work. It is a lot easier to sell miracle stories to people who are ignorant of basic physical and physiological processes.
You apparently believe that we cannot know things which happened in the very dist ...[text shortened]... here would be a photonic boom left over from that transition and we would be able to see it now.
Originally posted by @moonbusAs I pointed out to someone else, science self corrects, it has to, because we don't always get things right. An old story if true will remain so no matter how old it is.
Equally, the Bible doesn't do well with with geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, or basically with anything which requires a knowledge of how things work. It is a lot easier to sell miracle stories to people who are ignorant of basic physical and physiological processes.
You apparently believe that we cannot know things which happened in the very dist ...[text shortened]... here would be a photonic boom left over from that transition and we would be able to see it now.
Originally posted by @kellyjayPredate? People advocated creator gods LONG before abraham showed up.
What makes you say that?
Kelly, haven't you ever wondered why the important message from your god was delivered only to a minor mid-eastern tribe when the world was full of people?
Never mind. I know logic and reason cannot battle faith, unless you let it.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI'm gonna object to this. Truth is an ideal we attempt to approach.
Science doesn't claim truth, people do. The thing about evidence and reason, they are
always changing and adjusting, always. The thing about truth, no matter how old it is,
it remains truth.
Do you think that your eyes tell you what the world actually looks like? Do you think your ears tell you what the world sounds like?
They really don't, kelly. Go research. Your brain sends more signals to your ears than your ears send to your brain. Why would that be?