Jurassic Park, reality?

[Edric O]

Let me ask a direct question:

Do you agree that because science is constantly changing, the Bible cannot possibly contain scientific material and be understood by people from every century?

Yes or No

[Anathema]

My answer would be yes.

Now let me ask you a question.

If the bible is Gods message to mankind, isn't it strange that there are obvious scientific impossibilities in it?

Yes/No

[Edric O]

Yes.

But only if you can show me one such impossibility that doesn't fit under the "can't be science because not everyone would understand it" category.

[nemafakei]

Nuker, I agree with Edric on this one. It's not (other than due to Edric's defined circumstances) strange at all. What IS strange is the degree of correction that has occurred - religion is constantly changing to accommodate some science, so that it doesn't look infeasible - who's to say that in 2000 years, it won't be just Genesis that's metaphorical - maybe even the whole book becoming a moral code of practice, rather than a real belief in any details...

"Yeah, one day a bunch of people got together and said: "Hey, let's invent a mythical Son of God figure, so we can all be martyrs and die in agony for Him!" "

I think they thought:

"We believe this jesus guy was who he said he was. But let's embellish the facts a bit, to prove that he's true... aftet all, it's for a good cause..."

NB Sermon on the mount as opposed to divided preacings and parables - obvious inconsistency.

[Acriku]

A religion is a set of beliefs - evolution follows a set of beliefs that are "believed" to be true. Nothing is for certain so they have to be beliefs. Is that hard to understand?

And once again with you saying that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, you are saying this to fill in holes that the Bible does not state. Seriously you are sounding like you have your own religion or branch when you say all these things that you "deducted" from the Bible.

And nice argument, which was only a statement of sarcasm...goes to show that what you don't argue against or can't argue against you mock.

To answer your question, yes, I agree, but that is one reason they don't have science in the bible, another reason could be that they weren't told by God what to write and made science errors because they were all alone writing it. Just another in a web of reasons.

Maybe you should start a new branch of christianity and call it Edrichristianity...

[Edric O]

What IS strange is the degree of correction that has occurred - religion is constantly changing to accommodate some science, so that it doesn't look infeasible - who's to say that in 2000 years, it won't be just Genesis that's metaphorical - maybe even the whole book becoming a moral code of practice, rather than a real belief in any details...

I doubt that, because even if the entire Bible would be 100% false, there are some things that science can't prove wrong. You can't prove that the Ressurection never took place any more than you can prove that it did take place. The same applies to most of the Bible...

I expect that the amount of allegories and metaphors we perceive in the Bible will fluctuate, as we get closer to the truth. Some things were meant to be allegories from the very start - like Revelation. (i.e. The Lamb = Jesus Christ and so on)

It is possible that you are right about the Apostles... but it's all just speculation. There is no proof either way, so all we can do is speculate.

NB Sermon on the mount as opposed to divided preacings and parables - obvious inconsistency.

Hmmm, please rephrase that, I don't understand what you mean.

[Edric O]

Acriku, I am by no means the only one to believe these things. There are many, many Christians who also "believe" in evolution. In fact, probably MOST Christians are also evolutionists.

This "Edrichristianity" is very widespread...

[Anathema]

But not under that name :).

[Edric O]

No, of course not.

Wait, hmmmm, this might be an opportunity for world domination! ;D

*starts plotting in a dark corner*

[gryphon]

NO, they did believe in mechanical science in stead of "god's".

Every thing existed from atoms from there age. Fire, Earth, Wather. Basic elements that made the whole univers. And that was about 500 BC. Even further back they thought everything consisted from just one "earthly" mather.

Everything came from that dust, and everything eventually whent back to that dust.

No magic from God's spiruts and or ghosts. Just there "science".

[Acriku]

My mistake, that somehow slipped my mind...hmm oh well. Thanks for the clearing up.

[DjCiD]

I believe in the big Bang Theory.

God spoke, BANG and there it was.

[gryphon]

"Please pay more attention to the historical context. The teachings of Greek philosophers like Plato was only available to a select few! We're talking pre-Roman times!"

So was the interpretaion of the Bible those days. Every part of the world had his own believe, his own interpretation of what happend. And that made the Bible as we know today just as "uncommon" to find as the idea of Plato for instance. The stroy did spread, but not that acurate that every part of the known world then had the same interpretation to it.

"The question is NOT "why". I have already established a few posts back that God is beyond our logic and our understanding, so we cannot possibly comprehend His motives."

That exactly why the question should be "why". That is one of the only things we can not possibly know from our human perspectieve. All other questions are relatively easy to onderstand or get a comprehencion it to understand becuase they are outlogical, they are possible for us to understand. Sho the impossible question then is "why", becuase that is one of the few things beyond our grasp.

Gryphon, you obviously don't know how simple people thought in ancient times.

Simple ? They created the basis for today's science. Created numerous religions with crossed aspects. Not to mention the foundation of large parts of today's political and governmetnal structure. And yes, they believed in stupid ideas. So do we.

In a way they had to overcome the same science and religious gaps we still fase today. Nothing "simple" to that. Just the time frame is different.

But I recon you do know how simple they thought back then compared to out present day "god like" thinking status ?

[ The above is just to show the ironi from my perspective about us finding them simple. So "you" is not directed to Edric O. :) ]

- this was initially mentioned as a seperate post but because I was the last I edited it in. It's a comment to myself above about that "why" question.

What if we started playing god ourselfs by making clones of ourselfs or re-creating the dinosaurs.

What do you recon the most important question is they have ?

Not how, a clone can easaly learn that. Not when, they can look ik up. The important question about craetion is "why". Why did we create them ?

That is as you [ Edric O ] mentioned a thing beyond our grasp. Allother questions arn't. So that's why that one, the one we can [ not possibly ] answer, is the important question.

[ if there would be such a matter of importance because that can be utterly subjective ]

[Edric O]

Gryphon, the only ancient people with views like the ones you described were in a few city-states in Greece. And only the elite knew about scientific subjects, such as the atomist theory. All in all, the enlightened people you talk about were no more than a few THOUSANDS, isolated in small pockets (Greek city-states). All the rest were simple superstitious folk, with NO knowledge of science.

Besides, Moses was supposed to preach the Bible to the Hebrews, not the Greeks. They never went anywhere near Greece and its philosophers!

[Anathema]

New question: why is cloning and genetic modification "playing God"?

[gryphon]

It isn't playing God according to me. But that's in one of the first posts in this topic. Just needed th eexample above in that form.

Gryphon, the only ancient people with views like the ones you described were in a few city-states in Greece

I don't think that there is really that much difference. Just a few poeple thougth what I mentioned. But just a few people could read the Bible for themselfs. And the mouth-to-mouth translations where nit coherent. So there was no just one Bible around the world.

[Edric O]

There was NO Bible around the world! The only people who had the Bible at that time were the Hebrews. Some of them could read, and they told the others. In fact, it's very likely that Moses himself wrote the first books of the Bible. And he was the leader of His people and could tell them what God had instructed him to write.

No translation was needed, because all the people who knew about the Bible spoke the same language (hebrew). And they lived in a small country, so mouth-to-mouth storytelling was kept pretty accurate. Especially since they could always go to a religious leader (who could read) and ask him to settle a dispute.

The Bible began to be known to other nations only much later, in Roman times, after Jesus's Ressurection.

Gryphon, I really think you need to study more ancient history. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I notice you get things really mixed up.

In any case, the whole point of this ancient history argument is that the vast majority of the people that needed to understand the Bible couldn't possibly know any science and they were very superstitious. So if the Bible contained any scientific material, nobody would have believed it. Even Nema agreed to this statement. The Bible cannot contain any science because science constantly changes, and so does the level of understanding among the common people.

So, Gryphon, answer with Yes or No to my original question:

Do you agree that because science is constantly changing, the Bible cannot possibly contain scientific material and be understood by people from every century?

[Edric O]

Nuker:

Because we are playing with God's creation, trying to improve or modify the living beings He has made. We are not even close to being intelligent enough to use this wisely. We are trying to do what He did, but as usual we'll either fail miserabely or end up inventing yet another weapon.

Look what happened when we discovered atomic energy! The very first thing we used it for was a weapon of mass destruction!

[Super-ness]

what we should of done with atomic energy was to make flying cars or faster aeroplanes.

in gozilla, the atomic bomb was meant to wipe out the new biological weapon..Godzilla, not just winning the was killing Japan's new ally, Gozilla lol :)

[Acriku]

Nuker:

Because we are playing with God's creation, trying to improve or modify the living beings He has made. We are not even close to being intelligent enough to use this wisely. We are trying to do what He did, but as usual we'll either fail miserabely or end up inventing yet another weapon.

Look what happened when we discovered atomic energy! The very first thing we used it for was a weapon of mass destruction!

First off, we play "God" every living day of our lives! We choose who dies in hospitals, we disrupt nature and bring people that have actually died for a few minutes and bring them back! I don't see you complaining about that! We set out to destroy God's creations for land, money, and other things. My point is, is that this isn't playing God, and it is highly egotistical to think that we "Humans" could possibly be playing God.

Second, the atomic bomb wasn't necessarily thought to be used as a method of destruction, that would be pessimistic, but the optimistic view is a method of peace - that is to "threaten" to use it, scaring them off, or using it and ending a war. You need some sun in your views Edric, the world is crashing down on you and all you see is bad things. Tsk tsk, not healthy.

[nemafakei]

Stop me if I get incoherent.

Religion and science differ in the following ways:

1. Religion is based only of evidence of assumption of a theory, plus correlation to exemplary evidence. Scinece is based on evidence of greater than this - direct evidence of at least one level of causation is usually required to all exemplary evidence. Also Pattern-based evidence showing the logical procession oaccording to scientific method (NB Mendeleev).

2. Religion starts out with conjecture, then sets out to prove it (if at all). Science sets out with conjecture, but rejects it for more suitable theory when proven otherwise, seeking not to prove the initial conjecture, but to discover the truth.

[exatreide]

What about the native americans of north america? Greece wasnt the only ones having a democracy.

If memory serves me right

Franklin bassed a lot of the constinution on the tribes as well as greece.

These tribes existed in a democratic like state since 1,500 years. ;)

[TMA_1]

not really Ex. Ben Franklin based the constitution on the five tribe confederacy in where we now call new york. They based it off of a holy man that told them the true way to rule. They were not democrats. They just ruled by ideas that really made sense to the founding fathers. Native americans had some great ideas in their tribes and nations.

Edric. If you read the first chapter of Genesis in the hebrew, you know its not allegory. With languages other than english and whatnot. YOu look at certain ques and syntax that point to allegory. It is clearly telling the truth about the 6 days of RESTORATION.

If you have to settle for your own opinions on what the bible says and not on the exact text then you are lacking faith and are not following what the bible says. Most of the people here are right in their pointing out scientific ideas. They are sceptics and want to know what the bible has to say. Even nema. The problem is unbelievers that study the bible dont get what the meanings really are without the holy spirit. I wont go into that because it is a debate inanofitself. So as I was saying. You cant compramise the scriptures and change what the bible says just because it doesnt "fit" scientific ideas. Science cant prove anything. if you actually do go to college courses and talk to your professor they will agree. It is the best idea scientists have, (macro evolution, quantum theory) None of it can be proved and it will be improved upon by scientists. Christians are not scientists. We believe by faith in Christ Jesus. I believe every word of the bible and see what is allegory and poetry by how the language explains it. You have to believe it by faith. If you cant believe in one thing in the bible than you have a problem with the lord and should work on it. Stop changing the bible to "new ideas".

I am pointing this out edric because it is true. You say that christians should unite. They cant as long as there are so many factions. It will always be that way because of human nature. We are a house divided. We have to believe in our independant studies through the holy spirit.

[gryphon]

"Do you agree that because science is constantly changing, the Bible cannot possibly contain scientific material and be understood by people from every century?"

I don't understand the question. [ I know, sounds stupid ] But that's why I didn't answer it before.

It's the last part. The Bible can't be understood by people of every century.

Isn't it that because the Bible doesn't hold that [ changing ] science in it[ as in the first part of the second half, on that I agree ], it can be understood by poeple of all centuries. That because it's not based upon science that changes.

It was the intent of the Bible, to pass the word of God.

Making that possible, the exact form of science could not be in the Bible. Again I agree. But that doesn't, and shouldn't mean it isn't understandable for people of every century.

As you mentioned [ and I agree with if God should exists ] we can not judge even the simplest capabileties of God power.

But I think that making it not understandable for even one generation would not have been nessecary if it was inspired by God. It sound so small a task, compared to the creation of the everchanging univers, to make a book that can be understood by every persone no matter what time he lives in.

So think my answer should be no. I don't agree. If there is a God who created us and of which the Bible is one of his forms of communica to us, I think it would be possible to make the Bible understanable for every generation or century for that matter. If it doesn't, then the influance / connection of God to this world would be lost in that periode.

When you belive in God, you also belive or uphold the Bible. And in my opinion, when you don't believe in the Bible, you dont uphold that idea of God. And we know [ sort of ] that the faith in God has been kept alive throughout the centuries. And so with that I think it was, and should be possible to make the Bible [ and with it God's word ] understandable for every persone no matter what date.

Just looked over the topic again but I fail to see where I made a connectino To ancient Greece. Mayby just Plato, but I thought you would understand that that's not about the country but the idea he had. I sad it would be easier to believe, so when the Bible and Plato's ideas would eventually collide Plato's idea's would "hold".

And strangly enought, that happends to be the case today. Morals, values and politics, al the whole bunch we have now can be directed back to Hypocritus, Plato or Aristottle [ and some other smaller guy's from a lot of years BC who's names have sliped my mind at this hour of day ]. That has in most cases be the main route of science, not the Bible.

And nice to see that "if Nema agrees" on any thing it must be right. ;)

About the rest, IM is on the way.

:)

[Anathema]

Nuker:

Because we are playing with God's creation, trying to improve or modify the living beings He has made. We are not even close to being intelligent enough to use this wisely. We are trying to do what He did, but as usual we'll either fail miserabely or end up inventing yet another weapon.

Look what happened when we discovered atomic energy! The very first thing we used it for was a weapon of mass destruction!

Genetic modification of animals would be a reliable source of human-compatible organs- that could save a LOT of lives. I know many religions despise genetic modification, but if an atheist lies in a hospital dieing because there are no organs available, then who is going to tell them that he COULD have been saved if religious people didn't prevent the implementation of GM on animals? Why should that atheist die because of christian values?