PDA

View Full Version : Attention all YECers



RWGR
06-28-2013, 09:51 AM
Tell me how this fits into the 'young earth' theory:

Some of the oldest DNA sequences come from mastodon and polar bear fossils about 50,000 and 110,000 years old, respectively. But a new study published online today in the journal Nature reports the latest in the push for recovering ever more ancient DNA sequences. Samples from a horse leg bone more than 700,000 years old have yielded the oldest full genome known to date.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130626-ancient-dna-oldest-sequenced-horse-paleontology-science/

Bluesky
06-28-2013, 02:46 PM
I am agnostic as to the question of the age of the universe or earth. The Bible does not address that question. But I do believe in special creation. In other words, I do not hold to theistic evolution, but rather that when God created all that we see, he created the the various species. I.e. I do not believe in macro-evolution. That is all.

But I suspect a YECer would respond with the question the reliability of dating techniques .

Hans
06-29-2013, 12:24 PM
So you believe in alien life?

Bluesky
06-29-2013, 10:42 PM
Who are you talking to?

RWGR
06-30-2013, 09:03 AM
K Dawg, where are you??

Hans
06-30-2013, 11:52 AM
I was talking to you, you must believe in alien life, correct?

RWGR
07-01-2013, 09:36 AM
But I suspect a YECer would respond with the question the reliability of dating techniques .

And therein lies the problem: YECers have to basically dismiss solid science(in this case, at least) in order to still maintain the earth is 6,000 years old.

Scientific dating is not foolproof, but it gets us close enough to get a general idea how old something is. Take tree rings, for example.We know the rings give us a general idea how old a tree is.We then can take that info, carbon date the tree, and see that the dating gives us a pretty accurate idea how old the tree is.

So when we find fossils that carbon dating says are 75,000 years old, they may not be exactly 75,000 years old, but I think it is safe to say they are at least 50,000 years old.What they are not, for sure, is only 6,000 years old.

So, when YECers dismiss the dating science, they tend to make all Christians look bad. Too many times all Christians are painted with the YEC brush. Look no further than DQ's comment a few days ago, that he believed most (if not all?) Christians believed the earth is only 6,000 years old. Now, the basis of the problem here is that people like DQ want to believe all Christians believe that, to use as part of their argument against Christianity, so their intellectual laziness is the problem;but nevertheless, perception is reality, and too many people perceive Christians to be anti-sciences rubes that too easily dismiss solid evidence.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 10:48 AM
Okay, calm yourself.... People "like" DQ don't "want" to believe anything in particular, people "like" DQ believe what he has seen and experienced. This perspective is one of them. I have since recanted that understanding in light of being schooled on the matter. I know, I know, it's weird... but when legitimate information tells me something contrary to what I believe I will take the factual info over the non factual info.... and what's weirder, is I am probably the only person on this board who is comfortable admitting when they are wrong...
But that's okay, I value my worth in other measures.

RWGR
07-01-2013, 10:51 AM
Okay, calm yourself.... People "like" DQ don't "want" to believe anything in particular, people "like" DQ believe what he has seen and experienced. This perspective is one of them. I have since recanted that understanding in light of being schooled on the matter. I know, I know, it's weird... but when legitimate information tells me something contrary to what I believe I will take the factual info over the non factual info.... and what's weirder, is I am probably the only person on this board who is comfortable admitting when they are wrong...
But that's okay, I value my worth in other measures.

Well then, you should step outside the limited world of "what you see", and research things for what they are.

Believing most Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old is convenient for people who want ammunition to use against Christianity as a whole.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 10:59 AM
Well don't flatter yourself, there is no shortage of ammunition to be used on religion as a whole... Christianity is just one of many ridiculous fairy tales that get space made for them in our society.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 11:00 AM
On a side note, I do notice KDawg is unusually quiet....

RWGR
07-01-2013, 11:01 AM
On a side note, I do notice KDawg is unusually quiet....

Yes, strange that.

I'm sure he trying to develop an answer that shifts the burden of proof on the Catholic Church,and such an answer is proving difficult to create.

Bluesky
07-01-2013, 12:52 PM
So, when YECers dismiss the dating science, they tend to make all Christians look bad

Well, I find that believing in Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water, and a few other scientific impossibilities make Christians "look bad" as well.
But of course I get your meaning.

KDawg
07-01-2013, 07:46 PM
I am agnostic as to the question of the age of the universe or earth. The Bible does not address that question.
The Bible doesn't specifically address a lot of things. However, I do believe that it's spelled out in Genesis 1,


Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.That's a clear description of a day, ie. one 24 hour period. This is where you can believe or not that the earth was created in six literal days. The rest of Genesis goes on to describe what God created on days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.



And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Again, God uses the word day, and describes a real day and night. Even if you don't believe Genesis describes real, one day, 24 hour periods, Genesis does imply that humans were there at the beginning of creation (six days into it). Currently we're told that humans appeared at the END of a millions-of-years-old evolutionary timeline.

To me, that's a major contradiction.

dancingqueen
07-01-2013, 11:52 PM
The Bible doesn't specifically address a lot of things. However, I do believe that it's spelled out in Genesis 1,

That's a clear description of a day, ie. one 24 hour period. This is where you can believe or not that the earth was created in six literal days. The rest of Genesis goes on to describe what God created on days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Again, God uses the word day, and describes a real day and night. Even if you don't believe Genesis describes real, one day, 24 hour periods, Genesis does imply that humans were there at the beginning of creation (six days into it). Currently we're told that humans appeared at the END of a millions-of-years-old evolutionary timeline.

To me, that's a major contradiction.

So what about all that "sciency" nonsense?

Hans
07-02-2013, 06:09 AM
Night and day, duration of a day, are created by a well known process. Not a divine creation.

RWGR
07-02-2013, 09:33 AM
The Bible doesn't specifically address a lot of things.

Oh, boy...but that is for another thread...


Again, God uses the word day, and describes a real day and night. Even if you don't believe Genesis describes real, one day, 24 hour periods, Genesis does imply that humans were there at the beginning of creation (six days into it). Currently we're told that humans appeared at the END of a millions-of-years-old evolutionary timeline.

To me, that's a major contradiction

Again, you totally dismiss what "6" and "7" mean in the Bible. They are not to be taken literally, they are figurative, in that they represent incompleteness (6) and completeness (7). It's why 7 has represented God, and 6 the Devil. It was not uncommon for ancient cultures to use numbers as representative, and they were not to be taken literally.

In the OT, "40 days" did not mean literally forty days, it meant "a long time". In the NT we see the number "3" a lot. 3 means actions of God (Three Wise Men, "...on the third day He rose", the Holy Trinity).

Moses spent "40 days" on Sinai; the second time he goes up there he spends another "40 days"; the Flood last "40 days and nights"; Jesus appeared to his disciples for "40 days" before ascending into heaven; The Israelites look for the promised land for "40 days", but because of their infidelity to God, they wander for "40 years"; Numerous Israeli kings ruled over the people for "40 years"; Jonah preaches that Nineveh will be overthrown in "40 days"; Ezekiel promises the Egyptians they will be punished for "40 years".

There are many more examples. To think all of those examples above are talking about a true 40 days or 40 years is to be lacking sorely in even a basic understanding of ancient writing. You cannot read the Bible without even a simplistic awareness of the writing style of the time.

The number 40. It's also why Lent is 40 days.The sacrifices people make in that time are good, but in the end the forty days of Lent means we should try and live our lives everyday as we tried to do for those forty days.

Bluesky
07-02-2013, 03:30 PM
Winger, where do you get that one must always interpret those numbers metaphorically? You need to actually demonstrate from Scriptures that 40 doesn't mean 40. Did the Jews wander in the desert for 40 years or not? Did Jesus fast for 40 days before starting his ministry or not? D we believe that God exists as 3 persons or not? Wen does a person reach for a metaphorical interpretation?

Bluesky
07-02-2013, 03:32 PM
On another note... You really should get to know the Scriptures better than to say there were three wise men... ;)

Bluesky
07-02-2013, 03:38 PM
And on yet another note.. Instead of focusing on whether The numbers 6 & 7 are to be taken literally, one should focus on the question whether the word day was meant to be taken as a 24 hour day, an indefinite period of time, as in "the day of The Lord"

Or the problem of, How is a day to be measured when the sun ( by which we measure 24 hours) was not created until Day 4.

RWGR
07-02-2013, 03:50 PM
Winger, where do you get that one must always interpret those numbers metaphorically? You need to actually demonstrate from Scriptures that 40 doesn't mean 40. Did the Jews wander in the desert for 40 years or not? Did Jesus fast for 40 days before starting his ministry or not? D we believe that God exists as 3 persons or not? Wen does a person reach for a metaphorical interpretation?

People who specialize in ancient writings. One cannot dismiss out of hand what they say, and it seems clear to me just the sheer number of times "40" is used shows it is not to be taken literally in all cases.

Let's look at the case of the flood: is it even conceivable that a flood that massive simply cleared up within forty days? I bet the people of New Orleans would like to know what kind of technology Moses and Co had!

As for asking if the Jews wandered for forty days or not, in this instance the exact number really doesn't matter, because believing it really is forty or just a representation of "a long period" does not have anywhere near the importance of believing if the Trinity is truly Three. We believe the Trinity is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; as Christians our souls may be imperiled if we do not. But such is not the case with believing Moses was on a mountain for forty days, or Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days. Two very distinct issues: how long Ezekiel said Egypt would suffer versus believing in the Trinity

My issue is with taking every number in the Bible literally. Look what it created: YECers, and Christianity is all the worse for it.

RWGR
07-02-2013, 03:52 PM
On another note... You really should get to know the Scriptures better than to say there were three wise men... ;)

I was going off the old Little Drummer Boy Rankin Bass special that's out every Christmas time. Those three characters have been embedded in my imagination since I was a wee little boy...the power of television :)

KDawg
07-02-2013, 07:29 PM
Again, God uses the word day, and describes a real day and night. Even if you don't believe Genesis describes real, one day, 24 hour periods, Genesis does imply that humans were there at the beginning of creation (six days into it). Currently we're told that humans appeared at the END of a millions-of-years-old evolutionary timeline.

To me, that's a major contradiction

Again, you totally dismiss what "6" and "7" mean in the Bible. They are not to be taken literally, they are figurative, in that they represent incompleteness (6) and completeness (7). It's why 7 has represented God, and 6 the Devil. It was not uncommon for ancient cultures to use numbers as representative, and they were not to be taken literally.
Genesis 1 says nothing about what 6 or 7 means, but if you think the word "day" in that chapter shouldn't be taken as a literal 24 hour period, the onus is on you to show that -- what are the literary signals in that chapter that tell you a day is not the literal day that we know today?


My issue is with taking every number in the Bible literally. Look what it created: YECers, and Christianity is all the worse for it.

Who's taking every number the Bible literally?

RWGR
07-02-2013, 07:36 PM
Genesis 1 says nothing about what 6 or 7 means,

But it was you who just said the Bible doesn't address many issues. But now the default meaning of 6 and 7 is that they are to be taken literally, because the Bible doesn't address what they mean?

Why would writers in the apocalyptic vernacular, in which the Bible was written, have to explain the apocalyptic vernacular?



Who's taking every number the Bible literally?

If you believe the earth was made in six days it is difficult to see how you would not take every other numerical reference in the Bible literally.

KDawg
07-02-2013, 07:45 PM
Genesis 1 says nothing about what 6 or 7 means,

But it was you who just said the Bible doesn't address many issues. But now the default meaning of 6 and 7 is that they are to be taken literally, because the Bible doesn't address what they mean?

Why would writers in the apocalyptic vernacular, in which the Bible was written, have to explain the apocalyptic vernacular?
I said the word "day" is to be taken literally because based on what's written, there's nothing in the chapter to think otherwise. Genesis 1 is written in the apocalyptic vernacular? Where's your proof of that?

KDawg
07-02-2013, 07:48 PM
Who's taking every number the Bible literally?

If you believe the earth was made in six days it is difficult to see how you would not take every other numerical reference in the Bible literally.
That's your opinion...there are plenty of examples in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 that show numbers in the Bible are not literal...read the books of Daniel and Revelation.

RWGR
07-02-2013, 08:11 PM
That's your opinion...there are plenty of examples in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 that show numbers in the Bible are not literal...read the books of Daniel and Revelation.

Then why choose to believe Genesis is literal when explaining creation when the fossil evidence so clearly proves the earth is much older than 6,000 years old?

And thanks for the invitation to read Revelation and Daniel. I can assure you, I have read both, Revelation probably ten times over the years.

RWGR
07-02-2013, 08:30 PM
I said the word "day" is to be taken literally because based on what's written, there's nothing in the chapter to think otherwise. Genesis 1 is written in the apocalyptic vernacular? Where's your proof of that?

While Moses wouldn't have written in the apocalyptic manner, it is not hard to conceive the oral traditions passed down generation to generation were eventually wrote in this tradition. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Moses wrote Genesis, let alone The Pentateuch, As a "Bible Only" person, I feel this would make it problematic for you to argue that Genesis could not contain some apocalyptic writings, seeing we are not sure who wrote Genesis.

KDawg
07-02-2013, 08:32 PM
Then why choose to believe Genesis is literal when explaining creation when the fossil evidence so clearly proves the earth is much older than 6,000 years old?
Fossil evidence in the very early 1900's said Piltdown Man was evidence of early humans.

I believe what is written in the Bible above all else. What is it in Genesis 1 that makes YOU think a day is not a 24 hour period?

RWGR
07-02-2013, 08:45 PM
Fossil evidence in the very early 1900's said Piltdown Man was evidence of early humans.

Okay, but you are ignoring kind of a big deal: since then, we have carbon dating. What about that? Has every carbon dating project been wrong?

I believe what is written in the Bible above all else.

Well, as the Bible says, it is "useful", and should be believed. But, the Bible NEVER says "Bible alone"

What is it in Genesis 1 that makes YOU think a day is not a 24 hour period?

Because if it did, the earth would be approximately 6,000 years old. We know it is much, much older. Therefore, Genesis gives us a synopsis of creation as it occurred over tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years.

There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution if you believe it was God, and not some fortunate luck with pond scum, that got us here. And as Blue said earlier, it is not Macroev I believe in; a fish didn't become a horse or a tadpole became Tom Cruise.

KDawg
07-02-2013, 09:19 PM
Fossil evidence in the very early 1900's said Piltdown Man was evidence of early humans.

Okay, but you are ignoring kind of a big deal: since then, we have carbon dating. What about that? Has every carbon dating project been wrong?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out the fact that man's knowledge changes. The Bible does not.


I believe what is written in the Bible above all else.

Well, as the Bible says, it is "useful", and should be believed. But, the Bible NEVER says "Bible alone"
That's a different thread.


What is it in Genesis 1 that makes YOU think a day is not a 24 hour period?

Because if it did, the earth would be approximately 6,000 years old. We know it is much, much older. Therefore, Genesis gives us a synopsis of creation as it occurred over tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years.
Now you're just begging the question. I already told you why I believe Genesis 1 describes a literal day.

RWGR
07-03-2013, 09:40 AM
You have not told me what you think of today's modern technology, that tells us things are way more than 6,000 years old.

Bluesky
07-03-2013, 10:33 AM
People who specialize in ancient writings. One cannot dismiss out of hand what they say, and it seems clear to me just the sheer number of times "40" is used shows it is not to be taken literally in all cases.

Let's look at the case of the flood: is it even conceivable that a flood that massive simply cleared up within forty days? I bet the people of New Orleans would like to know what kind of technology Moses and Co had!

This is what I mean about not knowing your Bible. It took a lot longer than 40 days for the flood to clear up. It did however, rain for 40 days.

dancingqueen
07-03-2013, 10:40 AM
This is what I mean about not knowing your Bible. It took a lot longer than 40 days for the flood to clear up. It did however, rain for 40 days.

Let's check theweathernetwork.ca's archive for that before we proceed.
What where the dates in question?

RWGR
07-03-2013, 11:00 AM
This is what I mean about not knowing your Bible. It took a lot longer than 40 days for the flood to clear up. It did however, rain for 40 days.

Please, spare me the "not knowing your Bible" routine. But if you insist, start another thread on that issue. I don't find your knowledge of it very convincing at times,either.

You know for sure it rained for "forty days"? How? You really think forty days of rain could raise the water levels high enough to push the ark to (possibly) Mt. Ararat?

Bluesky
07-03-2013, 02:27 PM
I am not going to argue with you about the verity of a text. Perhaps you need to go read the acct of Noah's flood before commenting on it. I am only telling you what the text says, and will call you on your interpretation of it. And no, I won't spare you when you are obviously wrong in your attempts to school someone else on what the Bible says.

KDawg
07-03-2013, 06:57 PM
You have not told me what you think of today's modern technology, that tells us things are way more than 6,000 years old.

Fossil evidence in the very early 1900's said Piltdown Man was evidence of early humans.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out the fact that man's knowledge changes. The Bible does not.I think I did.

dancingqueen
07-03-2013, 08:35 PM
I think I did.

Isn't the Bible man's interpretation of the word of God?
or was Jesus the publisher?

Bluesky
07-03-2013, 09:39 PM
The Bible itself is the Christian sacred text. The Bible is not an interpretation. If I quote a verse, it is not an interpretation. If I attempt to explain what it means, that is an interpretation.

dancingqueen
07-03-2013, 10:42 PM
If it's not interpretation, what would you call it?

Bluesky
07-04-2013, 10:43 AM
From my faith-perspective? It is viewed as God's Word. Revelation.
What a preacher or a Sunday School teacher or RWGR does with it is called interpretation.

If I quote the Bible as in "You must be born again", that is the word of God, translated from the koine Greek language out of John 3.
If i then explain to you what it means, THAT is interpretation.

But I am trying to understand your motive for the question. Are you implying with your question that all interpretations are fallacious? Or that no one can know for sure what a text means?

RWGR
07-04-2013, 11:18 AM
This is what I mean about not knowing your Bible. It took a lot longer than 40 days for the flood to clear up. It did however, rain for 40 days.

Yes it did, but how important is it to know / remember that?

It's not, and it is you doing what you normally do when a fellow Prot gets caught in a conundrum: you throw up a smokescreen ,and hope to deflect attention away from the hypocrisy that is Protestantism.

dancingqueen
07-04-2013, 01:47 PM
From my faith-perspective? It is viewed as God's Word. Revelation.
What a preacher or a Sunday School teacher or RWGR does with it is called interpretation.

If I quote the Bible as in "You must be born again", that is the word of God, translated from the koine Greek language out of John 3.
If i then explain to you what it means, THAT is interpretation.

But I am trying to understand your motive for the question. Are you implying with your question that all interpretations are fallacious? Or that no one can know for sure what a text means?

So who wrote the accord of Genisis? If we looked at the original transcript, would we find God's handwriting, or would it be someone else's?
As for the motive, there really is none, I am asking quite black and white questions, Kdawg claims that man's knowledge changes, yet God's does not. Isn't our understanding of God's knowledge ultimately dependent off of man's knowledge of God's word?

Of course I find Kdawg's implication that changing knowledge is a bad thing disturbing, but I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

RWGR
07-04-2013, 03:00 PM
So who wrote the accord of Genisis? If we looked at the original transcript, would we find God's handwriting, or would it be someone else's?
As for the motive, there really is none, I am asking quite black and white questions, Kdawg claims that man's knowledge changes, yet God's does not. Isn't our understanding of God's knowledge ultimately dependent off of man's knowledge of God's word?

Of course I find Kdawg's implication that changing knowledge is a bad thing disturbing, but I suppose that is a topic for another thread.

The Bible came down to us through mostly oral tradition. Eventually those stories were written down. The Roman Catholic Church created the Bible.

Protestants don't believe in Oral Tradition. Protestants don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church.

Go figure

hobo
07-04-2013, 03:13 PM
I checked the weather network but there wasn't much to be found regarding the biblical flood only what might be called an interpretation of what the flood may have looked like.
http://past.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=flooding_of_biblical_proport_010111


For a biblical account of the flood, well it's in the Bible.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-7/


For a brief description of the origins of the Bible. (ya, I know it's Wikipedia) (and God only wrote one thing and Jesus wrote two things)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

As for what interpretation and perhaps over interpretation and extrapolation looks like in this instance regarding the flood.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

To get back on topic as per the age of the earth and YEC
http://www.reasons.org/articles/comments-on-the-rate-project

Bluesky
07-04-2013, 05:34 PM
umm RW's post has little explanatory power. I expect him to turn this into a Protestant vs Catholic thread. Perhaps he can start another thread on those questions. I may or may not join him.

Who wrote the book of Genesis? We believe in something called inspiration. There is a verse in the Bible "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"..

2 Ti 3:16

The word for inspiration literally means "breathed by God"

Here is another verse:"21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21

Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) believe that God ensured that His will would be recorded reliably through the instrumentality of human beings, fallible as they are, such that his Word was accurately recorded, written down. It did not happen through dictation, or a form of "autowriting". God simply used certain ones (whether they were conscious of being used or not) to write down his revelation.

As to who wrote the first five books, we believe it was Moses.

Hans
07-04-2013, 06:55 PM
What is the earliest known writing on earth?

dancingqueen
07-04-2013, 09:12 PM
Who wrote the book of Genesis? We believe in something called inspiration. There is a verse in the Bible "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"..

2 Ti 3:16
What is meant by "God breathed?



Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) believe that God ensured that His will would be recorded reliably through the instrumentality of human beings, fallible as they are, such that his Word was accurately recorded, written down. It did not happen through dictation, or a form of "autowriting". God simply used certain ones (whether they were conscious of being used or not) to write down his revelation.

As to who wrote the first five books, we believe it was Moses.
So you believe that the word would be recorded reliably?
Does it specifically say so, or is it just a belief based off of faith?
Do you believe God would have corrected an author if he got it wrong? If so, how would he have done it?

hobo
07-04-2013, 09:54 PM
What is the earliest known writing on earth?

http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/time/explore/frame_sum.html

Hans
07-05-2013, 06:10 AM
According to that link, the oldest one dates back to 3,500 BC, written by a civilization that worshipped a female goddess. Mostly pictographic language.
So what does that mean for this discussion?

Bluesky
07-05-2013, 07:11 AM
What is the earliest known writing on earth?

Years ago skeptics maintained that Moses could not have authored those books because writing had not yet been invented. They are not saying that anymore. Like many others it is an outdated objection.

Bluesky
07-05-2013, 07:14 AM
What is meant by "God breathed?



So you believe that the word would be recorded reliably?
Does it specifically say so, or is it just a belief based off of faith?
Do you believe God would have corrected an author if he got it wrong? If so, how would he have done it?

Yes, we do believe that the Scriptures were recorded reliably. This is based on what the church has always believed, and secondly because the Scriptures themselves say so. In fact it was what Jesus had said in the Gospels. The rabbis during Jesus time would never question the truth of the Old Testament. Did you want me to quote chapter and verse? There are tons.

, This is not to be confused with transcribing the Scriptures. We do not believe that as copies were made by scribes that each copy was transcribed accurately there were mistakes in the copies no doubt.

dancingqueen
07-05-2013, 07:37 AM
Yes, we do believe that the Scriptures were recorded reliably. This is based on what the church has always believed, and secondly because the Scriptures themselves say so. In fact it was what Jesus had said in the Gospels. The rabbis during Jesus time would never question the truth of the Old Testament. Did you want me to quote chapter and verse? There are tons.

Surely you see the logical conundrum with trusting the accuracy of the text because the text in question says so.

Bluesky
07-05-2013, 09:22 AM
Aside from what the text has claimed for itself, there are numerous other streams of evidence which helps me to have the confidence that what I am reading is true.
1. Historical corroboration
2. Internal agreement between 66 books written over 1500 years by over 40 authors
3. It speaks accurately to the human condition

But of course, ultimately it is a faith article. I cannot prove with scientific certainty that every word is true. But because of the broader streams that do exist, I put my faith in it.

hobo
07-05-2013, 10:56 AM
According to that link, the oldest one dates back to 3,500 BC, written by a civilization that worshipped a female goddess. Mostly pictographic language.
So what does that mean for this discussion?

Some of the ancient writings that have survived include ancient laws which I would imagine were of significant regional importance at the time of their implementation and only a handful of examples have been found dating to the time of their implementation. There was no continuatinued transcription of these laws nor the worship of the gods purported to be at the root of these laws and so there is no debating the accuracy of the transcription of these laws over a lengthy period of time.
Cuneiform law (2,350-1,400 BC)
Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC)
Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC)
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC).[2]
Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).
Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1790 BC)
Code of the Nesilim (c. 1650-1500 BC)
Hittite laws (ca. 16501100 BCE).

The accuracy of the transcription of the bible over time is matter of debate aside from the question of the validity of the contents. One of the most important discoveries that gives credence to the accuracy of transcription of the bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#66:1

Bluesky
07-05-2013, 01:43 PM
The science of textual criticism is so developed that the earliest m****cripts we have have been combed over and through so thoroughly and so repeatedly that we can know with a satisfactory degree of accuracy what the original texts said.

The Left Sock
07-05-2013, 02:10 PM
Did the Hebrews have shorthand, back in biblical times? I mean, Jesus rolls up into a town, starts making a speech, and there just happens to be a dude there, with parchment, ink, and quills, who can write down everything that was said, with complete accuracy.

Or were they granted photographic memories, through Divine Intervention?

dancingqueen
07-05-2013, 03:13 PM
Aside from what the text has claimed for itself, there are numerous other streams of evidence which helps me to have the confidence that what I am reading is true.
1. Historical corroboration
2. Internal agreement between 66 books written over 1500 years by over 40 authors
3. It speaks accurately to the human condition

But of course, ultimately it is a faith article. I cannot prove with scientific certainty that every word is true. But because of the broader streams that do exist, I put my faith in it.

Please don't misunderstand my position here, I am not trying to say the Bible is unreliable and thus should not be used (Not for the sake of this argument anyways)
I am suggesting that to accept the Bible is flawless in it's writings because it says it is, is not exactly an unbiased and trustworthy source for that particular aspect.