Millions of years ago ! ?

[Pumicestone]

WHOOPS ..... try again

Aside from translational issues that is precisely what I am saying. I do not really care which translation you consider, the original language texts are the standard against which ALL translations must be measured.

Not one book, one paragraph, one sentence, one word of "original text" - Old Testament or New - exists.

Much was carried by word-of-mouth for ages.
Even then, you rely on man-made copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of translations.
Additions, omissions, errors, religious and political influences - all have played their part.

Nobody has the slightest idea what any 'original text' said.
But even if they did, it would have no more credibility than the Book of Mormon, WatchTower or Awake, Science and Health - or even the Koran.

They all claim "divine inspiration".

 

[Tintin]

Not one book, one paragraph, one sentence, one word of "original text" - Old Testament or New - exists.

M
You rely on man-made copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of translations.
Additions, omissions,

So, thousands of existing copies isn't enough for you? Gee, you are a hard sell!

 

[JackH]

I guess this is where you take a choice. Faith in God and his word, or faith in man and scientific theories. You cannot have two contradicting beliefs at the same time. There are problems in the scientific theories too, but you wont believe it. praying for you.

What part of there is no conflict between science and the bible don't you understand?

Young earth creationists blatantly misrepresent science to further their agenda.

In your post above I quoted, you quoted from the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover who said:

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

 

[JackH]

WHOOPS ..... try again



Not one book, one paragraph, one sentence, one word of "original text" - Old Testament or New - exists.

Much was carried by word-of-mouth for ages.
Even then, you rely on man-made copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of translations.
Additions, omissions, errors, religious and political influences - all have played their part.

Nobody has the slightest idea what any 'original text' said.
But even if they did, it would have no more credibility than the Book of Mormon, WatchTower or Awake, Science and Health - or even the Koran.

They all claim "divine inspiration".

There is no original text (discovered to date) mostly because what the text was written on deteriorated. The lack of original text is mostly irrelevant if the original was copied accurately.

There are over 5,000 NT manuscripts and they are in 99% agreement. The Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to before Christ, matches the Masoretic Text almost 100%. Rather obvious the text was copied accurately. The purpose of the discipline of textual criticism is to determine what the original text said as closely as possible. I conclude that what is found in bibles today is a very accurate representation of the original text.

If there was anything in your post that might make me think you are smarter than a fifth grader, you totally blew it when you compared the bible to the Book of Mormon.

The golden plates you eat off of must be made of fool's gold.

 

[Bowman]

Yes, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. It was the most well-known, easily read book that His audiences would've known. He wasn't always talking to the learned religious leaders. I think the ages of people in early Genesis (in the Septuagint) is one big knock against it being better than the Masoretic text. It seems to me that the Greeks were influenced by Greek mythology. That's worrisome.

For the YEC, the difficulty comes in the form of which version to use, since they are greatly concerned over the formulation of an exact creation date to begin with...OEC's are not concerned with this...

 

[JimmieD]

Not one book, one paragraph, one sentence, one word of "original text" - Old Testament or New - exists.

Nobody has the slightest idea what any 'original text' said.

So for example, at least in the case of the New Testament, we have literally thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, but "nobody has the slightest idea what the original text said?" I find that difficult to believe. It seems to me that the more manuscripts you have, the more confident you are on what the original text really said. If you only had 1 manuscript labeled "original," how could you ever really be sure that it was really the original?

There's an entire academic field dedicated to this sort of thing.

Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: Home Page
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criti...F8&qid=1429710837&sr=8-1&keywords=emanuel+tov

I guess if you mean something like, we don't have a hard copy of Paul's letter that he penned himself, then no, we don't have such a thing. We don't have the originals in that sense, but it's a non sequitur to say that we therefore can't know what the originals said (and so 'have' the original words). And why is there a requirement to have a hard copy of the original? Who made this rule?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Not one book, one paragraph, one sentence, one word of "original text" - Old Testament or New - exists.

M
You rely on man-made copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of translations.
Additions, omissions,

You give God to little credit...

 

[kodiak]

What part of there is no conflict between science and the bible don't you understand?

Young earth creationists blatantly misrepresent science to further their agenda.

In your post above I quoted, you quoted from the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover who said:

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

yeah, that is where you infer something that they did not say.....evolution may not be against "religion in general" or a "supreme being" but it goes against Christianity.
What part of evolution and 6 day creation contradict, don't you understand? Science supports evolution...that is man has slowly evolved from animals.....the Bible in Genesis states that we were created by God and did not come from animals.....How is that saying science supports Christianity? It isn't, you are changing what was said.
Evolution scientists even admit there is problems in their theory....
Are you saying these scientists are right, because a judge heard all of the evidence? This would lead to circular reasoning evolution is right because science proves it. science is correct because a judge confirms it. a judge confirms it because this science is correct.......

 

[JackH]

yeah, that is where you infer something that they did not say.....evolution may not be against "religion in general" or a "supreme being" but it goes against Christianity.

Billy Graham doesn't think so:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

You don't agree with Billy Graham?

 

[JackH]

For the YEC, the difficulty comes in the form of which version to use, since they are greatly concerned over the formulation of an exact creation date to begin with...OEC's are not concerned with this...

It appears the YECs are speechless.

 

[popeye]

Billy Graham doesn't think so:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

You don't agree with Billy Graham?

If you are making precident over defectors,then neither side has any argument at all

 

[maxwel]

Billy Graham doesn't think so:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

You don't agree with Billy Graham?

I'm not really interested in getting into this debate, but you DID ask a really flawed question.

Not only is it a logical fallacy to use an argument from authority, but Billy Graham isn't even considered much of an authority.


If you bother looking around...
you'll find a WHOLE LOT of Christians who disagree with Billy Graham about a WHOLE LOT of things.


Billy Graham may, or may not, be respected by someone as an evangelist...
but he's never been considered a serious theologian.

 

[popeye]

It appears the YECs are speechless.

Your problem is in your teachers that planted a seed establishing your prohibition af evidence .

The evidence of "yec" is there. Your acceptance and open ness isn't

Seems funny how the fossil evidence is in favor of creation 100%. And yet ya'll act like it is the opposite and teach little children lies about this FACT.

face it ,the evo fairy tale is 100% made up and is a OBVIOUS band aid, covering a Huge God shaped hole, due to the rebellion of the humanoid soul.

Mans consciience will never be soothed by such a farce.

 

[kodiak]

Billy Graham doesn't think so:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

You don't agree with Billy Graham?

I see what he just said as a false statement.....
Evolution: beings were formed over many years and came from animals
Bible: God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. He made man, man was not made from animals.....
Billy Graham: "of course I accept the Creation story... I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man."

He accepts that God created the earth in 6 days and created man from dust of the earth, not from animals.....yet he believes science that humans came from animals over many years, not 6 days......How can one hold both beliefs? They are contradicting........Are you really saying God, the almighty, was wrong and Human, who is prone to error, is correct?

 

[JackH]

I'm not really interested in getting into this debate, but you DID ask a really flawed question.

Not only is it a logical fallacy to use an argument from authority, but Billy Graham isn't even considered much of an authority.


If you bother looking around...
you'll find a WHOLE LOT of Christians who disagree with Billy Graham about a WHOLE LOT of things.


Billy Graham may, or may not, be respected by someone as an evangelist...
but he's never been considered a serious theologian.

If you are not interested in getting into this debate, then why make controversial statements? If you don't want to get wet, do you go out into a downpour without an umbrella?

That is absolutely hilarious, that a YEC would make an issue of logical fallacy-argument from authority.

Go back and count all the times YECs have done exactly that on this thread.

If you don't like Billy Graham, what religious leaders of today do you think have the right take on scientific matters?

 

[JackH]

Seems funny how the fossil evidence is in favor of creation 100%.

I assume, from what else you have said, you mean the fossil evidence is in favor of a young earth, as in around 6,000 years old.

If so, what fossil evidence, exactly, are you talking about?

 

[JackH]

God created the earth in 6 days

It is a logical fallacy to use an argument from authority.

What else you got?

What evidence do you have that animals and humans were created at the same time?

What evidence do you have that dinosaurs and humans coexisted?

 

[kodiak]

It is a logical fallacy to use an argument from authority.

I don't understand this statement.....all these people you have been quoting are what you consider an authority on science....

I was saying the Bible disagrees with evolution, therefore, they can't both be right.....no matter what humans say......if you can't see what I was saying, reread Genesis

 

[JackH]

I was saying the Bible disagrees with evolution, therefore, they can't both be right.....no matter what humans say......if you can't see what I was saying, reread Genesis

Without relying on your YEC interpretation of Genesis . . .

What evidence do you have that animals and humans were created at the same time?

What evidence do you have that dinosaurs and humans coexisted?

I am asking you to answer these questions without saying, "Because God says so."

 

[maxwel]

If you are not interested in getting into this debate, then why make controversial statements? If you don't want to get wet, do you go out into a downpour without an umbrella?

That is absolutely hilarious, that a YEC would make an issue of logical fallacy-argument from authority.

Go back and count all the times YECs have done exactly that on this thread.

If you don't like Billy Graham, what religious leaders of today do you think have the right take on scientific matters?

1. I never claimed to be YEC... this means you jump to conclusions without either THINKING or READING.

2. Point #1 above almost excludes you entirely from any serious discussion about anything at all.

3. Pointing out something ridiculous you said has nothing to do with "entering into this debate".
I often point out ridiculous presumptions around here; whether or not it supports my own personal beliefs.
Doing this is to ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO HONEST AND LOGICAL DISCUSSION.

4. In support of point #3 above:
anyone can make any statement they like, in any thread they like, at any time they like.
This is a public forum, which makes you the final arbiter of absolutely nothing.

5. I don't think it's controversial to state Billy Graham is not a heavy-weight theologian.
I also don't think he ever claimed to be.

6. Accusing the opposite side in a debate of logical fallacies in order justify your own...
IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

7. If we want to add another logical fallacy, you were using a statement by Billy Graham SOLELY in order to create a "straw man" for the opposite side.

8. Asking ME questions about other religious leaders has NOTHING to do with the simple point I first made; it's misdirection.

9. Since your profile says you're 98 years old... maybe you need to retire from the rigors of debate.
Well, I suppose you could either retire or...
simply admit you lied right on your profile while having the audacity to expect us take you seriously, as if you're honest.