|
Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: FOTD on January 15, 2008, 09:35:58 pm Now I'm really confused.....I'm betting the devil is in the details.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Iranian film version of 'Islamic Jesus' made enough of a splash to spawn television spin-off Director of 'Jesus, the Spirit of God' says aim is 'to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam' By Agence France Presse (AFP) Farhad Pouladi Agence France Presse TEHRAN: A director who shares the ideas of Iran's hard-line president has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the "common ground" between Muslims and Christians. Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, "Jesus, the Spirit of God," as an Islamic answer to Western productions such as Mel Gibson's 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ," which he praised as admirable but "wrong." "Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie. But the story is wrong - it was not like that," says Talebzadeh, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified. Talebzadeh says he even went to Gibson's mansion in Malibu, California, to show the Hollywood heavyweight his film. "But it was Sunday," he recalls. "The security at the gate received the film and the brochure and promised to deliver it." Talebzadeh never heard back. Even in Iran, "Jesus, the Spirit of God" had a low-key reception, playing to moderate audiences in five Tehran cinemas in October, during the month of Ramadan. The film, funded by state broadcasting, faded off the billboards but is far from dead. It is about to be recycled into a major 20-episode spin-off to be broadcast over state-run national television later this year. Talebzadeh insists it aims to bridge differences between Christianity and Islam, despite the stark divergence from Christian doctrine about Christ's final hours on earth. "It is fascinating for Christians to know that Islam gives such devotion to and has so much knowledge about Jesus," says Talebzadeh. "By making this film I wanted to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue since there is much common ground between Islam and Christianity," he says. The director is also keen to emphasize the links between Jesus and one of the most important figures in Shiite Islam, the Imam Mehdi, said to have disappeared 12 centuries ago but whose "return" to earth has been a key tenet of the Ahmadinejad presidency. Talebzadeh made his name making documentaries about Iran's 1980-1988 war with Iraq, an important genre in the country's post-revolutionary cinema. But such weighty themes, and his latest film on Jesus, compete with domestic gangster thrillers and sugary boy-meets-girl love stories, which are the movies that continue to draw the biggest audiences in the Islamic Republic. The bulk of "Jesus, the Spirit of God," which won an award at the 2007 Religion Today Film Festival in Italy, faithfully follows the traditional tale of Jesus as recounted in the New Testament, a narrative reproduced in the Koran and accepted by Muslims. But in Talebzadeh's movie, God saves Jesus, depicted as a fair-complexioned man with long hair and a beard, from crucifixion and takes him straight to heaven. "It is frankly said in the Koran that the person who was crucified was not Jesus" but Judas, one of the 12 apostles and the one the Bible holds betrayed Jesus to the Romans, he says. In his film, it is Judas who is crucified. Islam sees Jesus as one of five great prophets - including Noah, Moses and Abraham - sent to earth to announce the coming of Mohammad, the final prophet who spread the religion of Islam. It respects Jesus' followers as "people of the book." Tens of thousands of Christians live in Iran and, like Jews, are guaranteed religious freedoms under the constitution. Many of them are Armenian Christians, though their numbers have fallen sharply since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Every Christmas, Ahmadinejad and other officials lose no time in sending greetings to Christian leaders, including the pope, on what they describe as the "auspicious birthday of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him." In this year's message, Ahmadinejad said that "peace, friendship and justice will be attained wherever the guidelines of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, are realized in the world." Shiites, the majority in Iran, believe Jesus will accompany the Imam Mehdi when he reappears in a future apocalypse to save the world. And Talebzadeh says the television version of his film will further explore the links between Jesus and the Mehdi - whose return Ahmadinejad has said his government, which came to power in 2005, is working to hasten. Shiites believe the Mehdi's reappearance will usher in a new era of peace and harmony. "We Muslims pray for the return [of Imam Mehdi] and Jesus is part of the return and the end of time," Talebzadeh says. "Should we, as artists, stand idle until that time? Don't we have to make an effort?" Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 16, 2008, 07:00:01 am Uhhhhh...no, I don't think so.
quote: Bingo. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2008, 08:01:33 am Islam view Jesus as a great prophet, they try to follow his teachings with the other prophets. But like Christians view the Jews and their religious laws - they do not think Christian teachings are always correct.
I'd be interested to see the movie and get their take on it. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 16, 2008, 11:03:56 am <cf wrote:
But like Christians view the Jews and their religious laws - they do not think Christian teachings are always correct. <end clip> Neither do I. I never subscribed to the notion of inerrancy. Skepticism when it comes to dealing with religion is a healthy thing. It forces one to study the Scriptures and other holy texts more, and helps keep one from becoming a nutty zealot. There's no sense in becoming arrogant about a certain religion when there's no way to positively determine whether that religion is the true one. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: dggriffi on January 16, 2008, 11:22:57 am Judaism,Christianity and Islam and theoretically in series with one leading up to the other.
They all disagree in doctrine with the "previous" dispensation. i think that Judaism wanted a King of the romans and thus rejects Christ and Islam believes that Christ was a valid manifestation of god as is mohammed. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2008, 11:33:52 am quote: It is my understanding that Islam does not believe Jesus was divine. Nor was Mohamed. Mohamed was merely the vassal god felt deserving of transcribing the last and true word of god. New Testament - last word of god Koran - last word of god Book of Mormon - last word of god and incidentally Jews think the Old Testament is the most recent word of god delivered. - - - As an interesting side note, I read an article that research on historic Islamic tests has resumed after being lost following WWII. While most Christians understand that the Bible on the shelf has changed over the years (oral tradition written down, translated, and outright edited for content repeatedly over ~1700 years) Muslims believe the Koran essentially fell from the sky as is around 700 AD. Apparently the research indicates, not surprisingly, that such was not the case. Different regions ended up with slightly different copies, copies after Mohamed's death varied by what region of the Caliphate you were in. A heavy reliance on contemporary Christian, Jewish and other text. In Islam, the Koran is the testament of God, it is what God gave his followers. Proving fallacy would be akin to proving that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Clearly this is not going over well. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 16, 2008, 11:51:44 am quote: Jesus had the last word on the cross when he said "It is finished". Everything he needed to do was complete. There didn't need to be anyone else to claim that they did or had something that Jesus didn't. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2008, 12:17:23 pm Now I'm confused. Is that a statement of your belief or are you categorically telling me that everyone else is wrong? Or are you agreeing that Jesus' act is more important than the Bible as I indicated? Or are you saying that the Bible is not held as the word of God?
Sorry for my daftness. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 16, 2008, 12:58:26 pm I didn't mean to confuse anyone.
What Jesus did on the cross was to shed blood for our sins so man could be reconciled back to God. When he died on the cross and said "it is finished", he had completed what he had to do for us. Certainly he rose from the dead 3 days later to show he defeted death and that we can have eternal life. All throughout the Old Testament are references to Jesus' coming. And, yes, the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is fully accurate in that if God is wrong about things, how would we know what he was wrong about. No one had been able to show me an error (or contridiction) yet. Although everyone will try to now. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: dggriffi on January 16, 2008, 01:29:21 pm your opening your self up for some serious debate there.
As we do in fact know that various versions of the bible do contradict each other and has thus lead to the variation in Christian belief. This has of course lead to such idea splits as the idea that god did not create evil and that god wants us to be wealthy. These are of course newer ideas source in the latest revision of the bible. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 16, 2008, 02:13:32 pm Don't I know it.
From what I've seen and read, the Bible will interpet the Bible. What i mean is that there may be a place that says something that is understood to conflict with something else. By going back to the Greek or Hebrew meanings and other Biblical references clears things up. To my knowledge, no one has been able to produce an actual Biblical contridiction. And, no, I'm not saying I can answer everything, nor would I try. I'm not a scholar. It would take me a while. If you wrote a really deep book, would you have conflicts and contridictions in it? I would hope not. If you did, you wouldn't be very credible or make any sense and no one would know what meant about anything. I don't believe the Bible is that way. Let's give God some credit. Various versions may say things differently, but should have the same meaning. I know of one version that does have some small translation errors in it which could lead to different beliefs. Just my point of view and belief. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 16, 2008, 02:39:57 pm <Wingnut wrote:
I'm not a scholar. <end clip> Your misspellings or poor sentence structure make that apparent. Sorry if I don't take seriously your notion that there are no contradictions in the Bible. That doesn't even take into account the numerous archaic edicts. Not to mention the passages that stretch credulity, to say the least. I do not believe that the entire world flooded with water, sparing only Noah and his family. Nor do I believe that Methuselah lived to be over 900 years old. I could go on. Let's face it: Faith is a highly personal thing that's enshrouded in mystery. Your mileage may vary, and to take a "my way and my way alone" stance is arrogant and presumptuous. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 16, 2008, 03:07:00 pm As I said, it's my point of view and belief.
I know no one else on this board ever misspells anything. There will always be someone better and smarter than me. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2008, 03:43:32 pm [disclaimer: believe what you will - clearly I will not change your cores beliefs. I encourage you to read this, but if reading contradictions in the Bible will upset you then it is best to skip it.]
Sorry, I really wasn't trying to set you up I promise. I was just seeking clarification. The linguistic issues go both ways, for as often as they resolve conflicts they create new ones. Which emphasize my central point: YOU DON'T KNOW. By your own admission your version of the book, if not the original, is subject to the indiscretion and editing whims of man. Seriously, if translation caused the myriad of problems following - what else is wrong? To say you have no seen a contradiction to me, means you have not paid very close attention to the bible. Kudos to most of the meaning in the book, but it certainly is not infallible. Just about anything in the bible is contradicted resolutely (Though shalt not kill, vs. God said kill these people. Though shalt not steal vs. steal from the Egyptians b4 you go). I can't resist. Sorry to those that will be offended and I'm not trying to drown you in quantity. I really do find this interesting and that's why I've studied it (12 years of Catholic schools gave me plenty of Bible time). (feel free to skip to the last two if you want. They make the point.]) The following are not really subject to translation issues - using King Jame's "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33). Oh, I beg to differ. You can look up the following passages, or any you so chose at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num.12:3;&version=9; 1) Lets start with an easy one you mentioned. Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day. Died on Friday evening. Saturday evening(1), Sunday evening (2). MATT 12:40 he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." But he spent 2 nights and 2 days. 2) Sticking with your comments, Jesus last words were "it is finished?" One might think the Bible would agree on the focal point of the entire life of God, but nay: Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." 3) and when was that that he was Crucified? Mark says "it was the third hour, and they crucified him." 15:25. But according to John 19:14-15 the crowd of Jews was calling for his crucification during the 6th hour "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!" (a moot point if he is already crucified). A minor point to be sure, a time line. But clearly not a perfect book. 4) For that matter, they don't agree on what happened after: Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Judas kept the $) Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." (Judas threw the money back) 5) Even the quotes of Jesus conflict with themselves: Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." (don't insult people) Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." (Jesus insulting people) 6) Perhaps it is a moot point. The savior will be a Son of David. But David's line is traced through Joseph, who is not Jesus father. (not arguing it as fact, pointing out a flaw). Much of the rest is just as confusing if you pay close attention - and much of it can not be explained by translation: - - - II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. (God told him to number the tribes) I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel. (Satan told him to number the tribes) - - - Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (God tempted Abraham) James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (God doesnt tempt) - - - PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. - - - MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Jacob was Joseph's father) LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. (Heli was Joseph's father) - - - KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. 20,000 < 4,000. This one seems very apperent. - - - ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (children are punished for their fathers ills) DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (children are not punished) - - - In Greek Genesis uses the plural for God... the Gods created the heavens and the seas. In the 10 commandments we again see "Though halt have no other Gods before me" - grammatically allowing lesser gods. Such instances are common throughout - in spite of a monotheistic insistence. Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord." Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image." (our being plural) Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil." (one of US, again plural) - - - Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth." Num.31:17, 18: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves." That's not very meek now is it? Bad mosses. Though shalt not kill. - - - Those are some contradictions, now about about inaccuracies? LEV 11:13-19 - And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (bats are not birds) LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Rabbits do not chew their cud) LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (insects do not have 4 feet, they have 6). Lets move on to fatal flaws shall we? These are from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God. DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God. 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love. and finally: - - - PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true. Except where he made the prophets lie for him (91 Kings 22:23), lied to Jeremiah (20:7), or admits to lying in Ezekiel 14:9. - - - I am supposed to fear God. There is no love in fear. So how can I love God? And in the book I am told that God does not lie, a short distance from where God tells me he lies. Pardon me if I'm confused. Again, sorry to everyone I surely offended. I love this stuff. Make for interesting discussion IMHO. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 16, 2008, 04:02:28 pm ^ Good stuff, cf.
Examples such as these are why I am repelled by religious absolutists, whether they're Islamists, Christianists or whatever. "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible (or Quran), it ain't necessarily so ..." Live your own lives, folks, and stop telling others how to live theirs -- especially if there's no way of telling whether yours is truly the right way. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Townsend on January 16, 2008, 04:34:55 pm +1
First long post I've read all the way through in a while. Nice job Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Hawkins on January 16, 2008, 04:39:00 pm I took this from the Wikipedia entry on "Armageddon."
quote: Has anyone else ever thought that maybe... just maybe... a secret organization of wise individuals planted this phrase in the Bible to ensure that one day, under the influence of this directive, religious extremists from all sides would kill themselves off, and leave the world a better place? [;)] Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: dggriffi on January 16, 2008, 04:52:03 pm grist for the mill from bibleinfo
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. HISTORY OF TRANSLATIONS The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages. From which language was the KJV was translated. Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available. The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: jne on January 16, 2008, 10:34:59 pm quote: I love this picture. Makes me think of "English as She is Spoke" Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 17, 2008, 05:21:11 am Very interesting CF. Is that all you could find? The first website says there are 143 supposed contradictions in the Bible. Scroll down a little.
For answers to those issues and more, go here:http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm or here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bible.html More info here: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/Contra/ Thanks for posting them. It keeps me on my toes. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: dggriffi on January 17, 2008, 08:03:29 am so wing, just curious, do you believe the earth is 4000 years old and do you believe that Christ was born on December 25th? No disrespect intended, just curious.
Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 17, 2008, 08:45:05 am In Wingnut's defense, the Bible never says Jesus was born on the 25th. It is a well documented historical fact that the date was chosen much, much later in the Roman Empire to coincide with a pagan holiday.
And no Wingnut, those are not all that I can find. However, many are subject to linguistic quirks that I am not an expert on (Jesus told Mary "What business of that is yours Woman?" Is that lack of respect for his mother or poor translation?) and still other's can be explained as issues of faith (there was light in Genesis before he made the sun, but perhaps the power of the Lord could accomplish this). Understanding of those arguments, I tried to post a few that seemed resolute in their differences and are, to the best of my knowledge, not subject to linguistic or simplified faith-based arguments. I admit that of those I posted some can be explained away and have read many of the explanations you cited. However, to many there is no logical explanation except that it must have been an error in translation, a misrepresented memory, or an editing mistake at some point. Frankly, if there are this many apperent errors that need an explanation it is not a perfect book. I would think a divine creation would be largely free of such obvious flaws. All that ignores the fact that Roman Emperor Constantine set in motion the bureaucracy that determined what made it into "THE Bible" some 300 years after Jesus' death. Shortly thereafter 66 New Testament books were adopted as official Christian texts. Of course, later Popes decided to cut this, that and the other to end up with our now 27 Book new Testament. Coupled with translations, other editing, general time changes in language, and the myriad of different versions and I seriously struggle to conclude it remains divine. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 17, 2008, 09:22:56 am quote: Another can of worms........ Dec 25th . Not at all. CF is correct, it was pretty much picked at ramdom, I believe by the Catholic Church. 4000 years old. Most creationists say around 6000 years old. I don't believe in evolution at all. There are too many holes in it. The ideas keep changing. Millions and millions++ of years?? 30 years ago it was the next ice age coming, now global warming is going to do us in in the next 30 or so? Give me a break! quote: I didn't realize that there had been that many (at least 143) possible issues found. I have heard about some, but not that many. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: TeeDub on January 17, 2008, 09:42:48 am I had the opportunity to go down the grand canyon. there was another raft of "creationist geologists" we kept running into. Anyone that thinks that the grand canyon as made in just a few years has a serious mental defect. Other than that, I think I will go with the "Buddy Christ" version of things. (http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1.jpg) Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: EricP on January 17, 2008, 10:00:16 am Wait, so you are saying with ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the evidence there is that suggests the earth is MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH older than 6,000 years, you just think there are too many holes in it to give up that piece of your religion to reality? We have had friggin trees that are a significant fraction of 6,000 years old. You're not just saying you don't believe in evolution.. you are saying that even the most basic science that a 2nd grader can understand is absolutely thrown out the window and we now live in la-la land, where nothing we do has any consequences because jebus will save us. Why worry about pollution?
Argh. Sorry. Cliffs: I have farts that have lasted more than 6,000 years. If you are going to believe that, at least don't make the rest of us suffer because of it. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: we vs us on January 17, 2008, 10:28:29 am quote: Dude. I've been thinking about that pic for DAYS. Every time I look at this thread, I keep thinking, "what everyone needs is a little more Buddy Christ in their lives." And look. Ask and ye shall receive. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 17, 2008, 10:52:36 am quote: What reality? What proves evolution really happend? Where are the transitional species? Fossils don't prove evolution? All they prove is that a creature died and we found it. Every time they find something different, they change their theory. All carbon dating is based on assumption. There is no way to prove it's accurate. Carbon degrades at different rates, not linearly, as believed. It's been proven in the lab. Even as a non-Christian I didn't believe in evolution. Million of years? Billions of years?? We can't even conceptualize that kind of time. It just was too far-fetched to me. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 17, 2008, 11:06:24 am Wingnut wrote:
Million of years? Billions of years?? We can't even conceptualize that kind of time. It just was too far-fetched to me. <end clip> Go to the Grand Canyon. Then try to reconcile the notion that it was created in 6,000 years, like some Christianists claim. It's preposterous. Given the Grand Canyon's slow rate of erosion and its extrordinary depth, millions or billions of years for its creation seems extremely plausible to me. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 17, 2008, 11:12:26 am Wingnut, if you don't believe in evolution, guess what?
Apparently bacteria and viruses do. That's the reason we have "superbugs" now. They evolved to be more resistant to antibiotics and other medicines. Whether you believe it or not, evolution *is* happening. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Hawkins on January 17, 2008, 12:40:31 pm quote: Thats such a polite way of saying that the Catholics screwed that up, along with all the other ridiculous wars, attacks on science, and torture that make up their illustrious history. How anyone can be a Catholic, given their history, is quite the mystery. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: restored2x on January 17, 2008, 01:08:56 pm Many of you are in the "No one should tell me what to believe!" crowd. "It is disgusting and arrogant for someone to say what they believe is absolute truth. Evangelism and arguments for "salvation", creationism, etc are wrong. Let people believe what they choose to believe."
Yet, in your next post, you ridicule another poster's faith and try to convince that person that you are correct, they are wrong, and are an idiot for not thinking like you do. Sounds like you're doing the same thing. If the person of faith had the same tone, he would be treated like an idiot. IMO, threads like this become totally worthless when discussion turns into ridicule or evangelism. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: EricP on January 17, 2008, 02:19:17 pm I simply like to question the reasons why people believe that way. As is usually the case (also in Wingnut's) they are thin as ice compared to the mountains of scientific observations :)
Anyway.. that's right, I don't think you can't tell me how to believe and I can't tell you how to believe. Nobody is trying to do that here. But there is an impass when people's beliefs disconnect them with a deteriorating reality such as Earth's climate. I've heard people tell me they believe that none of that matters because god will take care of it or because the earth hasn't been around that long anyway.. That's a problem. When people's beliefs start killing people/things, we've got problems. quote: Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 17, 2008, 02:24:57 pm I'm personally not ridiculing someone's faith as much as willful ignorance of facts and a lack of skepticism.
I don't dislike religion as much as I dislike intellectual laziness. These contradictions and archaic edicts in the Bible (insert holy text here) are real, and putting your head in the sand is no way to deal with them. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 17, 2008, 03:25:14 pm Restored:
I have corresponded with Wingnut to ensure he/she is not taking my posts the wrong way. The topic of flaws in the Bible came up and I obliged. Of course a grain of me wants to "show the light" but I have tried not to attack anyones faith nor has anyone thrust their faith upon me. Faith is, after all, NOT a matter of science. But one can understand a belief in something and attempt to shed additional light on the converse position without being offensive. At least, I have tried to do so. Hawkins: The Catholic Faith is nearly 2,000 years old. Without it, it is doubtful that anyone would be Christian today as it was THE CHURCH until the 1600's. In fact, the Christian beliefs of every denomination are based on the first 1600 years of Catholic doctrine. The trinity, the notion that Jesus was even divine - all Catholic doctrine (the earliest Christians treated Jesus as another great prophet, no mention of divinity. That was purged in the 300s). Also, the America's would probably not be Catholic without the funding of it's conquest (the Pope backed monarchs giving them power, allowing them to raise money, etc.). In fact, the entire paradigm of history would be infinitely altered. There was plenty of atrocities to be sure (from the Conquest of the America's, to the inquisition, to overt corruption) - but the nature of religion 1500 years ago was surely very different. Also, don't forget the good. Without the Catholic Church funding scribes it is possible most new testament books would not have survived. The Church was the bastion of knowledge in the dark ages and preserved countless works of art and science. A mixed bad over a longer history than any other institution on Earth, so judging the Catholic Church on something an Emperor did under it's auspicious One Thousand and Seven Hundred years ago is probably a bit harsh. - - - Wingnut: 1) First some basic understandings- Radioactive dating is a method generally accepted accurate within 5 confidence points (5%). So says every reputable physics laboratory and archaeologist from MIT, to the National Laboratories, to Oxford. "Evidence" of it's inaccuracy is found at christiananswers.net, answersingenesis.org, and creationdefense.org but nowhere else (who refute it using half truths and flawed data - ie. if you mess up the test you get the wrong date 3 times, but they fail to tell you the contamination of the tests). It is ideology dictating the argument and not findings. It has been confirmed beyond a doubt that the half life of C-14 is 5,730 years. Proper calibration and testing is more difficult with C-14 dating but the method allows greater accuracy for relatively recent periods (ie: its 4000 years old. You can test C-14 dating against tree-ring dating if you want a visible verification (1 ring, 2 ring, 3 ring, 4) and it has confirmed its accuracy within tolerances. As many as 40 other forms of radioactive dating exist and have been verified accurate to various degrees. The oldest standing tree in the world is in California at 4,700 years old. Barely relevant here, but damn that's cool. 2) Science, by it's very nature changes. That's why I am confident to rely on the proven premises the scientific method is able to establish. Without a willingness to change on better evidence, it would be a RELIGION (belief without proof). Under the scientific method, one comes up with an idea (theory). Then you test that idea. If the test confirms that idea and can be replicated it is a scientific fact. FACTS are simply things commonly believed to be true, in science they add the caveat of testable and replicable (do it again, I don't believe you). They can be proven false and often are (the world is not flat, hares do not chew cud, the Earth does not sit on pillars, women are not less intelligent, etc.). When proven wrong it is modified, replaced by the theory that proved it wrong, OR opens a search for better theories. If a theory lasts, it becomes a law (gravity). That is such an established fact that no scientific data realistically contradicts it. Between law and fact is the vast majority of our scientific knowledge. Things we understand and hypothesize about, but do not know all the details. In quantum mechanics we knew enough facts to understand how it works and manipulate or predict the actions at sub atomic levels (electricity). BUT - there are a ton of things we realize we do not fully understand (why does resistance lower with temperature?). Because we do not know "U" does not change the fact that we know X, Y and Z. 3) Per Geology, with great confidence the Earth is at least 4 BILLION years old. That is, of course, assuming a deity did not place false radio carbon dating, speed tectonic plate movements, accelerate the planets, or magically form and age minerals. Science, as it were, can not assume someone's gods have played such tricks or all knowledge would be worthless (as it could change at the whim of a god). Therefor, relying on the best scientific information available, the earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. Your belief's could tell you God made it to appear that old, but scientifically one can not test that theory and it is therefor unacceptable in an scientific discussion (else Scientology's version of creation is just as valid). If you would like the actual scientific arguments you can google "age of the Earth" as reciting them here would add no merit. Geographic, radiometric, and astrological findings ALL confirm the same approximate age. 4) Per EVOLUTION, it too is an established fact. The theory has not been accepted LONG enough to be called a law and as you aptly pointed out we do not understand everything - perhaps NOT enough to call it a law. However, the body of evidence has not been scientifically refuted nor a more plausible theory generated. Evolution stands as a theory (sniff test - it makes sense), it has been studied archaeologically, and has been readily observed. Simple observations are evident in human interference in many species: maize to high yield corn, large breed dogs bred into lap dogs, bacteria cultured to do our bidding. All those developments are in the last 300 years and are undeniable. If we can accomplish turning a Deutscher Spitz (40lbs) to a Pomeranian (4 lbs) in a few hundred years - it does not seem far fetched to assume that a fish could take to the land in several million (mind you, cross over fishes still exist that have lungs and "walkable" fins). Given enough trials, even the most complex problems can be solved by random chance. While it may be hard to believe that chance coupled with the inherent selection of survival and breed, has led to so much diversity it is able to explain the characteristics and behavior of most things (why did flowers develop pretty colors? Bees & other pollinators can see in color). And in the end, given a blank slate most people would chose to look at the evidence and the logic behind evolution instead of believing in magical powers. Faith in an all powerful never seen entity lacks proof, not evolution. 5) Transition Species I don't think a recitation of Homo evolution will do any good, but the evidence certainly shows a progression of skulls from ape like to Human like. The same is shown for a huge array of creatures all over the globe. The fact that a "complete" record of any evolution should come as no surprise given the time frames involved. I believe you have not delved very deeply into the evidence and reasoning involved with the claims. Two quick questions: A) You questioned the "facts" on evolution, what facts support creationism? B) Why, in recorded history, is religion consistently on the losing side of scientific battles? (Sun around the Earth, skies made of water, Earth on pillars over hell, flat Earth) C) More importantly, is it likely that learned individuals in 5 independent fields using 5 different methods are all wrong? - Anthropology has studied civilizations older and LEADING TO those in the Old Testament - Physicist radiometric dating - Archaeologists have numerous findings (Dendrochronology - tree ring dating) that indicates a much older Earth - Geologists assert many formations (Hawaii, Grand Canyon, Mountains) are millions old - Astrophysicists and astronomers date the Earth much older It just seems unlikely to me that such a case is probable. There is not one argument for an older Earth, but an insurmountable pile of evidence from all sorts of things. The only method to "explain away" all of the evidence is to say that God has the ability to alter any test result or construct the Earth to APPEAR that things are older. In which case the argument is moot. For at the point that Faith is interjected into an argument it is inherently a discussion about religion as it both neglects and negates all scientific principles (observable, testable, replicable). But given that construct, both can agree that the scientific age of the Earth is fact (observable, testable, replicable) and the Biblical age is faith (true as your God made it). Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: restored2x on January 17, 2008, 04:12:26 pm Thanks for clarifying, guys. Man, I love this forum! (I'm not being sarcastic)
Discussion and debate are cool, and when we keep it on a respectful level, everybody wins. This thread is good reading. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Renaissance on January 17, 2008, 04:57:16 pm quote: The point of faith is that it is a thing apart from intellectual criticism. A belief is not a school of thought. It's not a mathematical formula. There's nothing more annoying than listening to one intelligent person try to talk another out of religious belief. Just leave it alone. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: FOTD on January 17, 2008, 05:29:56 pm quote: That seems just wrong.... Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: mr.jaynes on January 17, 2008, 05:47:25 pm quote: Are you, like, Anti-Vatican or something? Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 17, 2008, 06:00:22 pm <Floyd wrote:
There's nothing more annoying than listening to one intelligent person try to talk another out of religious belief. Just leave it alone. <end clip> I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. It's that statements were made about biblical contractions and evolution that were ill-informed or demonstrably wrong, and should be countered. And casting doubts about religion does not equate into disbelief. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Hawkins on January 17, 2008, 06:03:58 pm quote: Yeah, I'm pretty much anti-large scale religion. I believe strongly in personal faith, and I think the bigger a church gets, the further from this it goes. The Vatican is a pretty good example. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 17, 2008, 09:48:13 pm I don’t believe that creation and science are mutually exclusive. Both sides work from the same evidence. It’s going to depend on the worldview of the person as to what they are going to believe.
As for evidence for creation, the best would be the Bible, since that’s where the belief comes from. If we believe that God does exist and had a hand in writing the Bible, why should we discount certain parts of it just because there is shaky human theories that say that it couldn’t have happened that way. Yes, it’s faith that believes in the creation event. But if we can’t trust God for creation, why should we trust God at all? Why should we only believe God for certain things and discount others? It takes faith to believe in God, just as someone has to have faith to believe in evolution. As for evolution being an established fact, what fact is that and how did it come about? School boards all over the country are having problems with evolution being a theory without proof. Breeding dogs and corn don’t count as evolutionary. If a man and woman make a baby, is that baby evolutionary or did the humans produce another human? It’s transition that makes critters evolutionary. You have to admit that the evidence just isn’t there to prove that beyond any doubt that evolution is what actually has happened. Carbon dating is unreliable (Mt St. Helens lava dome dated at 1-2.8 million years?? How, we witnessed it.)since scientists don't know the anounty of carbon in a particular item to start with. No transitional species exist. No one was there to witness any of the evolution events. On the other hand, we didn’t witness the creation event either. But God was there and witnessed it and wrote about it for us to understand. As for the confidence that the earth is 4.5B years old, what evidence or testing do they have confidence in? If dating methods are proven to be inaccurate, how can there be a high confidence in the results? They have dated the Grand Canyon and the top is shown to be older than the bottom?? How can that happen? As for a 6,000 year old earth…. If you follow the lineage back to Adam, which there is a clear, documented, path, it equates to about 6,000 years. I read that there are no known people groups that are older than 5700 years. As for evidence of the creation event, there is only the Bible and faith. But there is also no solid evidence to prove it didn’t happen either. Thanks for your discussion, Cannon Fodder. It is very interesting. I appreciate it. Some answer about creation (http://"http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm") Carbon dating info here (http://"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible") Take the $250,000 challenge! (http://"http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67?pg=articles&specific=21") Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 18, 2008, 06:43:17 am On a personal note….I don’t have a lot of time to write out a lot of dissertation as my contemporary, Cannon Fodder, may have. I do try to read when I can so I find it easier to post links which explain points better than I could do with my limited time. I don’t believe that any of us do any actual lab research on the topics, in that the information that we have for our discussions comes from what we all read. I don’t believe that any of us have come up with the “missing link” or the “holy grail” on our own, or that we have the smoking gun, not that there is one, that will prove once and for all that one side is the only way to believe. I would much rather direct someone to what I have read and understand than to try and repeat from memory and make a mistake which can and will be seized upon to change my original intention.
I feel these links explain things pretty well... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution As for a 4,700 year old tree, yes that is pretty cool. But if the earth is 4.5B years old, why is it only 4,700 years old and not X0,000's or X00,000's of years old? Is there only one? I find science facinating, but does this support an old earth or a young (6,000 yo) earth? Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: restored2x on January 18, 2008, 09:19:53 am quote: CF. Some very good points. Wow, if you actually came up with this stuff from your own studies and research, that is very impressive. It always impresses me when someone has a heart for truth and is bold enough to question things and not just accept the status quo. After 20-something years in ministry (not my full-time job now), I have met few people in churches who "search the scriptures, to see if these things are so..." I can't answer all of your points. Some may be just as confusing to me as they are to you. Some, however are very easy to answer. 1. Jewish folks did not count days as we do. (12:00 AM to 12:00 AM. - no clocks) It still may not be 72 hours, but the Bible never says 72 hours - it says "days". The timeline overlaps. Friday, Sabbath, and Sunday. The point is not counting days - but the fact that He died and rose for our sins. 2. There are seven "last words of Jesus" - This is no big deal to me. What He said is important - not exactly when He said it. You have three quotes. Those quotes are from three different writers, Matthew, Luke and John. Matthew and John were there, but not standing together. Luke wasn't present, but probably got his information from Peter. Each is telling the story from their perspective, it was the last words they heard or remembered, or were told about. The cool thing is that we get three perspectives on the fact that Jesus died and said some important things while dying on the cross. 3. I can't answer number 3. 4. I've heard and read stuff trying to reconcile these accounts - but not to my satisfaction. It really doesn't matter to me. Judas betrayed Jesus - sold him out. And he died a tragic death. 5. Context. Rules of hermeneutics (bible interpretation). We shouldn't judge people, does that mean God (Jesus) cannot judge people? I'll not go on. I don't understand everything, nor do I have answers for all of my doubts. Faith is not the absence of doubts, but the courage to believe in the face of doubt. I can choose to believe in a dozen perceived inconsistencies, or understand that it is a complex book and believe in what is plain and clear. A dozen or so troublesome verses do not outweigh about 31,000 other verses that are not controversial. Finding fault (perceived or true) is very easy. Searching for truth or choosing to believe - that can be more difficult. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 18, 2008, 11:17:33 am I agree Restored. Many of those details really don't matter. What he said on the cross is not really consequential to the story. If he had cried out in agony and seemingly lost his faith ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") it only shows that it WAS a sacrifice and he shared a common thread of humanity with all of us.
I question everything (as does my Son, which is amazingly annoying so I know how you feel!). Clearly not all of those ideas are unique to me but I have read scripture and double check things that don't make sense to me. Some of the basic precepts of the faith don't pass my reasoning test - which is why they are faith. I can not shake someone's faith. But I can point out rather convincingly that the Bible is not a literal work. In my warped little mind such an endeavor will strengthen some people's Faith since the Bible is NOT the point of Christianity as many know it (fundamentalism aside). - - - Wingnut: I understand time constraints. I general piece such long things together over a long period in Word and paste them into a post. Often they appear after lunch. So don't worry about competing or anything, though I would encourage you to read it through - I'll work on short responses. 1) No, the 4700 year old tree proves nothing about the age of the Earth in and of itself. It does, however, allow scientists to confirm the carbon dating methods and use tree ring dating to go back much further than 6000 years (google tree ring dating, perhaps more convincing because it is physical not radioactive based). 2) The Bible can not be "evidence" of creationism. Logically, it breaks down: Creationism is fact because the Bible says so. The Bible is fact because God wrote it. God wrote it because the Bible says so. Circular logic can not be used to prove a minor premise. That is why it remains a matter of faith - which has no place in science. I don't insist your religion teach my science, don't insist my science class teach your religion (sry if that sounded rude). 3) Transition makes evolution - the corn was an example of a transition. It went from thumb sized to, well, corn cob sized in a short time. I was seeking visible evolution. But no, though most scientist insist there is evidence to PROVE evolution I will allow you to state it is not a proven law. Not enough details are known and there are gaps in the research (the nature of research is to create more questions than answers). However, it is the theory best supported by evidence. The evidence we have points towards the theory as well as overtly disproves the creation theory (not all is as it was). 4) I have answered many of your questions/doubts in my dissertation. I understand it is long, but please read over it when you get a chance. I tried to be clear (hence lengthy). There are many different tests and disciplines that contradict the 6000 year old Earth, I believe you might agree with my assessment at the end. 5) There is indeed no solid evidence creation did not happen. But that's the way things work - you need evidence to prove the existence of something. It is impossible to disprove somethings existence (prove to me I wasn't alive with Jesus). No evidence for creation exists that is observable, testable, or repeatable. In the eyes of science - it does not exist. 6) I referenced many of the sites you pointed me to in my response. - - - Look, I understand this is a matter of faith. I'm not arguing against your faith (not yet [;)]), I am trying to point out that faith and science are different mediums and in many instances are mutually exclusive. I feel that some of the examples of this I have given are irrefutable. I understand and respect that you have strong convictions, but it is religions' inability to yield to better evidence that turned me off to it in the first place. When something is set up as infallible and I find many faults, it can not be reconciled. An admission of one fault is too much. Thus, impossible positions are defended. Thanks for the discussion, I don't want to repeat myself but would be happy to answer any questions or continue the discussion with anyone who desires. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 18, 2008, 11:45:51 am <restored2x wrote:
I don't understand everything, nor do I have answers for all of my doubts. Faith is not the absence of doubts, but the courage to believe in the face of doubt. I can choose to believe in a dozen perceived inconsistencies, or understand that it is a complex book and believe in what is plain and clear. A dozen or so troublesome verses do not outweigh about 31,000 other verses that are not controversial. Finding fault (perceived or true) is very easy. Searching for truth or choosing to believe - that can be more difficult. <end clip> Which is a good way of summing things up. The flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible are why I don't subscribe to its inerrancy and take literally all its passages, nor should anyone else. The Bible is meant to be studied so that people can try to reconcile those flaws and inconsistencies on their own. Many evangelicals would have you believe that there is one path through Bible study. But the Bible leads to many paths. Sometimes you'll find a fork in the road or even perhaps a dead end. Even if you find a straight line, you're never 100 percent sure it is the correct one. Such study shouldn't lead to sanctimony and certainty, but to doubts and humility and hope. (As an example, Mother Teresa was extremely tormented by doubts of God's existence, but that didn't stop her from trying to ease the suffering of others.) Ultimately, God is mysterious and unknowable. And if you come to some sort of contentment in knowing him, it is a deeply personal thing that may not be replicated in others. So, by the grace of God (or Allah), go we. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 18, 2008, 12:04:43 pm In response to the #3 that R2X couldn't answer, from a link I posted:
Christ was crucified at the third hour [Mark 15:25] Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour [John 19:14,15] At what hour was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says that in the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m. So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some help) and was crucified. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 -- early morning refers to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. --MAW They had their sundials set in different time zones.[:D] Something else that I found incredibly interesting is that Jesus, also called the Lamb of God, was crucified at the same time the Chief Priests were performing the slaughter of the sacrificial Passover lamb according to Jewish traditions. Why is that important? Because God said that without the shedding of blood, there is no redemption. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for our redemption, and was sacrificed at the correct time. But you guys probably already knew that. CF, I have read your replies and find them very interesting. It's the time that I have to study and generate my responses that are my issue. I do marvel at the time you have taken to study so that you can know what you believe. Too many people today just believe what they hear without studying and searching to see if what they are told is true. As before, it is by faith that we believe things, especially Bibical precepts. Ephesians 2:8 says For by grace you are saved through faith,.... If we don't have faith, it's all pointless. Everyone has faith, it's just what are people putting their faith in? The Bible says to be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect. I would much rather put my faith in God, (who is perfect) than in myself, who makes lots of mistakes, or a theory that keeps changing. I do thank you for the discussion. It has been a great exercise. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: restored2x on January 18, 2008, 12:34:02 pm Have you guys (and perhaps gals) ever heard about the theory of pre-history (also called the gap theory)? Just a theory - but interesting. It goes something like this (Wingnut, correct or add if you're familiar with this):
Basically, the Hebrew syntax and language of Genesis chapter one, verse one and the transition to verse two may suggest that God created a world - our universe - in verse one, and then there was a gap (perhaps of billions of years) until a "recreation" of the heavens and the earth and then man was created to inhabit a formerly inhabited earth in verse two. Have you heard of this? What do you think? Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: FOTD on January 18, 2008, 01:02:06 pm This thread has gotten bedeviled....
In Tulsa, you open a crack to a religious thread and a whole bunch of weird disrespectacle "stuff" comes seeping through. "a friend of the devil is a friend of mine...." Hunter/Nelson/Garcia Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: rwarn17588 on January 18, 2008, 02:35:01 pm Interesting, restored2x.
That theory certainly has more credence than the highly dubious notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: cannon_fodder on January 18, 2008, 02:42:19 pm Agreed. I suspect many of the establishment will adopt such a theory as evidence continues to mount. Which will come both as a relief and as a point of frustration - where science can admit it was wrong, religions often can not so such changes are slow in coming and somewhat odd.
I'm actually surprised the Deist beliefs of our forefathers didn't catch on. It seems very American to me. But more directly, no. I have not yet heard this theory. I really wish I knew more about Greek/Hebrew/Latin and could follow the translations better. When trying to follow such nuisances one really needs to grasp the linguistic details as well as connotations. I've done some research to figure out this or that, but as a whole I remain ignorant. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Townsend on January 18, 2008, 04:41:44 pm quote: There was a scifi book about a moon landing finding the remains of an earth astronaut from millions of years ago. A previous human rocket age. I'm sorry I can't supply the author or title but the cover was an illustration of a skeleton in a red astronaut suit laying prone against a large moon rock. That's all I've got about that theory but it was way interesting to me. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: restored2x on January 18, 2008, 04:59:53 pm quote: COOL! If anybody knows the title of this book - please let me know. Sci-fi and not bible - but cool nonetheless. Title: Islamic Jesus Post by: Wingnut on January 18, 2008, 07:38:22 pm I have heard of it but also know little about it.
My take on it.... Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the waters.... Looking up the Greek meanings, Formless (“without form” in the KJV) means empty, nothing, nothingness. Void: undistinguishable ruin, emptiness. If that’s the case from vs. 2, what could have lived there? The planet was covered with water. What could have lived there in the darkness? Plants didn’t exist, He hadn’t created them yet. Nor could they have any soil, therefore no fossils either. This was the first day of creation. Light was also created on the first day. The word “and”, I feel, is important as it joins vs. 1 & 2 together. I don’t see how millions of years could fit in there. Let’s say there were millions of years between vs. 1&2. What would it matter, there still wouldn’t be any fossils or plant life since there is no light to produce any life. Land and vegetation weren’t created until the 3rd day. Critters were created on the 5th day. Gen 3:21: And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. After Adam and Eve got booted out of the garden, this is the first physical death. Skin means hide or leather, which would have come from an animal that God slaughtered for the skin. Up until this time nothing had died, except the spiritual connection with God after they ate the forbidden fruit. Hence the need for Jesus to come and reconcile us back to God. Problems with the gap theory: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-gaptheory-problems.html From the Christiananswers.net website... Pember's struggle with long “geologic ages” has been the struggle of many Christians, ever since the idea of millions of years for the fossil record became popular in the early 19th century. Many respected Christian leaders of today wrestle with this same issue. Recounting Pember's struggle helps us understand the implications of the gap theory. The following is based on or quoted from his book Earth's Earliest Ages. Pember, like today's conservative Christians, defended the authority of Scripture. He was adamant that one had to start from Scripture alone, and not bring preconceived ideas to Scripture, thus changing its meaning. He boldly chastened people who came to the Bible “filled with myths, philosophies, and prejudices, which they could not altogether throw off, but retained, in part at least, and mingled—quite unwillingly, perhaps—with the truth of God” (page 5). He describes how the Church is weakened when man's philosophies are used to interpret God's Word: For, by skillfully blending their own systems with the truths of Scripture, they so bewildered the minds of the multitude that but few retained the power of distinguishing the revelation of God from the craftily interwoven teachings of men. And the result is that inconsistent and unsound interpretations have been handed down from generation to generation, and received as if they were integral parts of the Scriptures themselves; while any texts which seemed violently opposed were allegorized, spiritualized, or explained away, till they ceased to be troublesome, or perchance, were even made subservient (page 8). He then warns Christians: For, if we be observant and honest, we must often ourselves feel the difficulty of approaching the sacred writings without bias, seeing that we bring with us a number of stereotyped ideas, which we have received as absolutely certain, and never think of testing, but only seek to confirm.[11] (end of quote) {I see this statement as going along with what Fodder said has gotten him off of the belief that the Bible is inspired; too much human intervention in what the Bible really says.) I don’t see how a million year theory can fit in the beginning of creation, especially with the order in which God created earth and the things on it. If that was the case, where did the waters come from afterwards? Does the theory explain that God may have just wiped it all clean and started over? If that’s the case, it wouldn’t hold with the evolution theory as it doesn’t necessarily support a water event or Noah’s flood. (even though the earth is covered with water!! Go figure). I think the quotes above explain it pretty well. People dig into the Bible with preconceived ideas and try to make them fit into what the Bible says. I see the gap theory as just that. An idea that is looking for a place to lite in the Bible, that will bring creationists and evolutionists together by bringing evolution into a place that they don’t agree with, making it more agreeable to them. In other words, twisting, or adding to, scripture so they will believe it. 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, The gap theory just doesn’t jive. FOTD, I'm sorry your thread got off topic. It really wasn't intended to go this way, honest! quote: I saw a cartoon of a couple of astronauts looking over a woman laying prone on the face of the moon and one of them said "It's Alice Cramden" At least I thought it was funny.[:P] |