Nighthawk

There are five answers to this. In ascending order of importance, they are experience, history, miracles, prophecy and Christ. We could discuss this further... but then that is what we're doing.

Jackie Brown. Because I'm black.

Essentially no, but even our oldest manuscripts contain some contradictions. What they are exactly, however, is what's significant. Mistranslations and misinterpretaions obviously play a major role, but for example there are many discrepancies between the accounts in Kings and Chronicles, almost all dealing with numbers. The nature of Hebrew leaves this to be expected, but really, what soul hangs in the balance regarding how many chariots went into battle on such and such a day? These are the level of errors you'll find, if even that, and an understanding of the Hebrew language renders this essentially a non-issue.

For one, the similarities are fairly superficial, but more importantly, truth is not established by date. The Enuma Elish is actually disimilar enough that I feel comfortable severing a relationship on that basis alone. Gilgamesh, assuming it predates the writing of the Pentateuch,is explained easily enough when you realize that a literal interpretation of the Bible involves a flood actually occuring. The question of who wrote it down first becomes less important if you see them as both essentially true. This would have more significance if the Bible were being interpreted as a collection of myths and fiction. Can you elaborate or point me to some links? Ok, first let me establish that it's not Biblical. The last supper itself was an obvious symbolism, such language being a typical Hebraism, which the disciples clearly understood as such because his literal body, still unbroken, was sitting right in front of them. The disciples were, to put it bluntly, not the sharpest knives in the drawer, until they were filled with the Spirit at Pentacost, and actually probably would not have been able to grasp a transubstantiation in this setting for this reason, which brings us the second passage commonly used to justify transubstantiation, John 6. Jesus speaks here symbolically of bread from Heaven which gives life. The disciples, in verse 34, stupidly respond with "Lord, give us this bread always." Since they failed to grasp his metaphor, Jesus must explicitly tell them "I am the bread of life." A reading of the whole chapter demonstrates the confusion of the disciples and others, and their inability to interpret Jesus' words, in fact, that's largely the point of the chapter, from verse 22 on anyway. By reading a literal transfiguration of body and blood here, the Catholic church places themselves in the same position as the Jews here. A corporal presence was an idea held to one degree or another by some in the early church, but it was not openly advocated until 831 and eventually canonized at the Fourth Lateran Council as necesary for salvation. A study of the doctrine of salvation demonstrates this as false, but that's another discussion. Durant has called transubstantiation one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion in The Story of Civilization: The Age of Faith. One of the most telling instances of pagan transubstantiation occured in Mexico and Central America, as it was one of their most important rituals, that is, cakes consecrated and eaten as the flesh of gods, and the native people there had never even heard of Christ until well into the 16th century. You'll find references to transubstantiation in many other cultures of the near east long before it was adopted by Catholocism, the earliest of which, as I said before, was probably Egyptian. At the very least, Unas was known as an eater of the gods in the mid to late 2300s BC, although he was a supposed slayer and eater of the gods. Still, eating the flesh of a god to commune with or absorb his power can be seen more than 2000 years before Christ. This by the way was the inspiration for Nile's "Unas Slayer of the Gods" an extremely badass song. For one, Christ is our mediator, thus Mary and the saints could even be said to be usurping Christ. Asking a saint to pray for you is unbiblical. The concept of saints is unbiblical as used by the Catholic church. Besides, this is an issue of semantics. The Israelites worshipped YHWH as a golden calf, Catholics ask Mary to pray for them, but God said "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" Note that it says nor, not and. Some have said. If you want to try to support that Biblically, feel free. You sure? Yes. He was a rabbi, it comes with the territory. He mentioned Noah specifically in Matthew 24:37. Please do. For simple fact that a non literal interpretation of the Bible undermines the authority of the entire Bible, rendering Christianity an exercise in futility. You can play around with some doctrines and the truth is still there, in fact you can even be a Christian and not believe in Genesis, you're just not thinking very much. Again, Jesus believed it. You cannot squeeze evolution into the Genesis account and get away that way because evolution is a system built on death where the Bible clearly indicates no death before the fall of man.

If that's how it was then, it's wrong now. By the way, 0 is ten, therefore Parsonsburg is 15.

Ok, SP made some points here. Now, I could go through and respond to each one of those idividually, but I really don't think you want me to. I don't particularly want to either. For one thing, though, seriously studying the Bible requires studying it in the original language, which is an entirely different discussion when you deal with petty shit like this. The point is, and this is important to the discussion at large, the Bible claims to be infallible, which it is. The original documents were, and they no longer exist. Of course there are errors and contradictions in the Bible, the only version that was divinely protected letter for letter was the original, and in fact I could point out even more contradictions that what was listed there. There are no contradictions relating to the message, however. What you need to know to be saved remains, which, considering how many years and translations and copies it's been run through is miraculous in itself. God is protecting what's important. If you think you have any contradictions relating to doctrine, tell me and I'll address them directly. Even speaking historically, show me any contradictions that make any difference and I'll address them. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I need to address them individually. Numbers and petty shit like that? It makes no difference. Apologies, but these kind of superficial arguments just betray a hostility. These tactics would never fly in typical arguments, and granted, fundamentalists bring much of it on themselves. Many, even most, are ignorant, believe every word because God said so and make no effort to support this objectively. My point is that it doesn't have to be that way.

I didn't say that I believed dinosaurs and humans shared the earth based on the book of Job. I said dinosaurs and humans shared the earth because it says that all of the animals were created on the fourth and fifth days (and, once again, dinosaurs are animals) and man on the sixth. The Job answer was the equivalent of my saying Hondas are in the Bible because it says the apostles were in one accord. However, could the Job passages conceivably refer to dinosaurs? Yes. Does it matter? No. I made a special point of saying that I knew of no instance where dinosaur and human fossils were found in the same geological strata. I think I may see where your objection comes from if you thought I said that. However, geological strata are layered throughout the world in what could be called random order. You won't find the column. I said that geological strata are dated by the fossils in them, which they are. I assume you are aware of how much time, resources and money would be wasted radiometrically testing each layer excavated if there's fossils in it. Biological ages are well established to scientists, finding a fossil is like finding a calendar. So you are superpatently absurd. Dinosaurs no (and if I did, I take it back), but I did say you used carbon dating as proof of evolution, which even if you didn't, which I can concede, you brought it up as having some relevance to paleontologic fossils, which it doesn't. I have to be going soon, but I'll address some of the other things said eventually.

There was a second post after that one.

First, it is tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Whether he did or not bears no influence on the validity of the Bible or anything else. It bears relevance as to the validity of Jewish tradition at best. Another idea is that Moses acted as compiler and editor of Genesis at least, which was written in sections by the respective protagonists. What does it change? Nothing. Nephilim are commonly interpreted as angels,but it is by no means explicitly stated. It could just as easily have been the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. I would disagree with placing such a strict interpretation on an ambiguous passage such as this. I could talk at length about my interpretations of the Biblical doctrines of Hell, demons and Satan, which would have some relevance to this, but it would really be straying from the discussion at hand. That's all my own conjecture, anyway. But it also plays into prophecy. Picking out a Messianic prophecy falsely so called that has been mistakenly attributed to Jesus doesn't accomplish much, as their were literally thousands of them, layer upon layer which he did fulfill, and none which he didn't. Maybe some are mistakenly attributed, as I feel some passages are mistakenly attributed to the Devil. Choosing one which is directly recorded in a Gospel is clearly wrong, however. If you'd like, tell me why you think there were three authors of Isaiah. I know why you do, and it's wrong, but I think it's an important object lesson. Monotheism is prevalent throughout the Bible. Any other assertion is mere semantics, and it is said of pagan idolatry in 1 Corinthians "they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons" I'm afraid that these are among the worst posts we have seen, as they describe a half hearted hippy religion with one foot in the door of humanism. God says "I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Incorrect.

The titular pun is extremely strained.

Your opinion is worthless, move along.

So anyway, I've said this less out of personal conviction than to make some points. First, that someone who says they believe the Bible but compromise on difficult issues is wasting their time. Second, that evolutionists can be more dogmatic and less rational than the religious. But yeah, there's actually many different isotopes which all function on a different radiometric clock. Carbon, of course, would be ideal for things that were once living, but it is limited to the ages stated. Samarium has about the longest range of the elements used... it's not too common, really. But you can see what's happened... you've got Nanks in here scoffing at the idea that scientists date geological strata by the fossils in them (which really is what they do... look it up) and saying that carbon dating throws it out the window, when carbon dating had nothing to do with it. Croweater had similar thoughts, though he worded it less foolishly. Yes, there are methods of radiometric dating which can be used on rocks and give long ages, but too many times do you see carbon dating given as a proof of evolution, in the name of reason. This kind of childlike faith in evolution is on a level with anything you'll find in religion, which is somewhat of the point. You can believe that God performed miracles, or that out of nothing came everything. Yet evolution gets hailed as fact, and rational, when it's really not. Theistic evolution is also foolishness, and I'll explain why if anyone so desires.

SP is right in a sense. There's also zero reason to believe he wasn't married. There's zero reason to believe he was tall, or that his favorite meal was chicken. It just doesn't make any difference. People who get caught up in the idea that he was or he wasn't are wasting their time.

It was Pope Gregory the Great, actually.

Does it say he wasn't married? It doesn't say whether he was because it has no relevance.

For one, many believe Jesus was married. The other two questions are ridiculous. Those things are miracles, if they weren't miracles, it wasn't God, and if it wasn't God, why are you reading it in the first place? Why would I want to demiraculize the scripture? This is the application of the verse "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness".

So they sealed it with pitch.

I think you're right. This always happens. Christ was supposed to be the important part, yet 90% of the discussion winds up in Genesis. You see why I said it was important earlier. It's all anybody wants to know. The answer to both questions is actually the same. Clearly the conditions were better suited for life and longevity. Possibly due to an extra atmospheric layer shielding us from the sun's harmful rays.

No, it makes sense that the dimensions were dictated to him, as that's the only part which requires divine inspiration. As to how he built it, does it say that he built it alone with no prior knowledge? Maybe he was in the business of building ships. Of course they had engineers by this point, he wouldn't even have to be the first one. Once again, if he paid somebody to do it, they'd do it. All he needed were the dimensions. The preposterous part is how painfully linear your thinking has become. I've answered all of your claims, and you've been unable or unwilling to retort, raising question of the fantastic nature of the proceedings.

They were still alive after the Garden of Eden, you know. In fact, if you assume no gaps in the genealogies in Genesis (which you shouldn't), Adam was still alive when Noah's father was alive. He died before Noah was born though. It says that the dimensions of the ship were dictated by God, which really does have to make sense. This is just the developement of civilization. You're arguments are a little shallower now, but that's ok. I know a lot of people have issues with things like this, and they're really not hard to answer. By the way, I meant that you should assume gaps in the genealogies.

In summary, because the statement I made is true and it had nothing to do with proving otherwise. Look, some would say that using acceleration techniques you can extend carbon dating's range to maybe 100,000 years, not necesarily reliably, but even if I give you that, Paleontologists aren't going to have much use for it, and it's therefore practically irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I didn't bring it up because it's often a flaw of creationists, they bring down carbon dating when it has nothing to do with evolution. But since you guys did, that's why it doesn't.

and the point is invalid because of the huge amounts of carbon 14 present in nature. This statement is ridiculous.

No, not before that. While they were there.

But the point was that the half life renders it unreliable for large ages. Give me a break, it's late.