Brought to you by the same people who couldn't get enough of Ron Howard's Christian-bashing The Da Vinci Code, comes another promotional effort of yet another Hollywood director's take on Jesus Christ conspiracy theories. At the top of the show NBC Today host Matt Lauer greeted viewers with the following tease about James Cameron's new documentary: "A shocking new claim that an ancient burial place may have housed the bones of Christ and a son. This morning a Today exclusive that could rock Christianity to its core."
Today co-host Meredith Vieira conducted the interview and promoted the discovery this way: "There are so few 'wow' stories out there, this is one of them." While Today did air some contradictory statements for the most part the entire segment ran as a full blown infomercial for Cameron's documentary. The following are all the teases and then the full segment as it aired on the 7:30am half-hour of the February 26th Today show:
[7:00am]
Matt Lauer: "Is it the tomb of Jesus? A shocking new claim that an ancient burial place may have housed the bones of Christ and a son. This morning a Today exclusive that could rock Christianity to its core."
...
[7:03am]
Meredith Vieira: "And then we have a potentially amazing story. Have we possibly found the tomb of Jesus Christ? You're looking live at the boxes that could have contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. They are in an undisclosed location. There's a news conference later today but we're gonna talk to the filmmakers first, here on the Today show about that discovery."
Lauer: "More research needs to be done but if this turns out to be true this changes everything."
Vieira: "Oh it's a huge story, absolutely."
...
[7:20am]
Meredith Vieira: "Meanwhile, coming up, a story that's bound to become the subject of a lot of debate. Have archeologists found the tomb of Jesus Christ? We'll get into the controversy but first this is Today on NBC."
...
[7:31am]
Matt Lauer: "Also ahead we're gonna talk about a discovery that if it's true it could rock the world. Did this 2000 year-old tomb in Jerusalem once hold the bones of Jesus and his family including a son? A new book and a documentary from Oscar-winning director James Cameron traces an archeological find that could change everything we know about Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene."
...
[7:37am]
Lauer, over song "Jesus Christ Superstar": "But up next a Today exclusive. Did these boxes once hold the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene? We'll find out why director James Cameron and others think it just may be true when we talk, right after this."
...
And now the full segment, in its entirety:
[7:40am]
Meredith Vieira: "It could be the greatest archeological find ever. Since the 1970s hundreds of tombs and thousands of ancient bone boxes have been uncovered in the holy land but now one tomb unearthed in Talpiot in 1980 is being regarded differently because it once held a box with this inscription: 'Jesus Son of Joseph.' While the Bible tells the story of Jesus and his resurrection this box could show physical evidence that he existed, was buried and that he had a son, Judah. Those are the claims in a new book from Emmy-winning investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici and a documentary from Academy Award-winning director James Cameron."
[Clip from The Da Vinci Code: "Witness the biggest cover-up in human history."]
Vieira: "It was the central controversial claim of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code."
[The Da Vinci Code clip: "Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife."]
Vieira: "That Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and started a royal bloodline that continues today. Brown's story was fiction but now a new documentary and book announce a startling real life discovery."
[Clip from documentary]
Simcha Jacobovici: "It's unbelievable."
Unidentified man: "This is it!"
Jacobovici: "It's the real thing."
[End clip]
Vieira: "Journalist Simcha Jacobovici says this tomb discovered underneath what is now an apartment complex near Jerusalem may be the final resting place of Jesus Christ. And this limestone box, called an ossuary, could have held his actual bones."
[Clip from documentary]
Unidentified woman going over tomb inscription: "...is for 'M'"
[end clip]
Vieira: "This ossuary may have held Maria's or the Virgin Mary's. This one is labeled Mary Amne which Christian scriptures says was Mary Magdalene's real name. And perhaps most shocking of all the writing on this box translates to: 'Judah Son of Jesus.' If true the consequences are impossible to measure."
Father Thomas Williams: "Well Christianity really stands or falls with the fact of Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead and that he physically ascended into Heaven."
Vieira: "Father Thomas Williams is an NBC News analyst."
Williams: "Where was this supposed son if, if he had one he would've been a prominent member of this new church and he wasn't."
Vieira: "The Church is not alone in auguring this tomb may have nothing to do with the Jesus Christ millions now worship. The site was first examined 27 years ago. An archeologist then came to a very different conclusion."
[Clip from documentary]
Professor Amos Kloner: "These are the most common names among Jews in the first century common era."
David Mevorah, chief curator, Israel Museum: "Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is far-fetched."
[end clip]
Vieira: "Jakobovici says experts in statistics, DNA and patina testing back up the conclusion that this could be the biggest archeological find ever."
[clip from documentary]
Man: "We found it, we actually-"
[end clip]
Vieira: "Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron are here for their first television interview on the Jesus Family Tomb and the Discovery Channel documentary called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Good morning to both of you gentlemen."
Simcha Jacobovici: "Good morning."
Vieira: "Read the book over the weekend, watched the documentary. There are so few 'wow' stories out there, this is one of them. I mean Simcha you believe you have found the family tomb of Jesus. You have brought over two of the ossuaries or the, the bone boxes, as we call them and you're gonna display them in front of the, the press later on today. We have them here. I want to show the audience. Got a live shot of them. And you describe which ones we're looking at. Oh there, there they are, right there."
Jacobovici: "We're looking at the bone box inscribed: 'Jesus Son of Joseph,' that's the more plain one, the smaller one. And the other one says Mari Amne which is, scholars today say is the real name of Mary Magdalene."
Vieira: "And they were found in that tomb along with other boxes that you believe held the, the remains of Mother Mary. Some of the relatives and also Judah who you think was the son. The box says, 'Judah Son of Jesus.' If this is correct what are the implications? They're huge."
Jacobovici: "They are huge but they're not necessarily the implications that people think they are. For example some believers will say, 'Well this challenges the resurrection.' I don't know why. If Jesus rose from one tomb he could have risen from the other tomb. It really has to do with ascension. But we're not theologians, I'm not a theologian. We're here, we're reporters and we're reporting the facts and what we're saying is here are the facts. There is a tomb, it has ossuaries. This, everybody agrees on that, archeologists. What do they say? 'Jesus Son of Joseph.' One that belongs to Maria, the mother, one belongs to Mary Magdalene. Another belongs to Josi, which the Gospel of Mark, the, the earliest gospel says is a nickname of the brother of Jesus. These are facts."
Vieira: "And that was a rare name, Josi? Not one you would find very often."
Jacobovici: "No."
James Cameron: "It's the only one, it's the only one found with that exact name."
Vieira: "And another box is, is inscribed with the named Matia?"
Cameron: "Matthew."
Jacobovici: "Matthew, yeah."
Vieira: "Matthew."
Jacobovici: "So what we're saying is that we took, we took the facts and had been dismissive. 'It couldn't be, it couldn't be the family of Jesus.' For two reasons. The second Mary couldn't be, isn't Mary Magdalene. But in 1980 when it was found they didn't know that her real name, not her title but her real name is Mari Amne, and that's what it says on the box. And the second thing is what these people said on your show. They're common names. But these are archeologists, they never went to statisticians. What are the odds a cluster of names? We went to statisticians. We were shocked by, by what they said."
Vieira: "And what were the odds that, that this is indeed the family of Jesus."
Cameron: "Well I, I think that you, that they don't like to use the term odds but they'll do a probability study and the, sort of the upper numbers that we're coming up with were up in the range of a couple million to one against, I mean in, in favor of it being them. Or say two million to one that it's, that it's not, a chance that it's not them. And the lowest boundary is somewhere around 100 to 1. So 100 to 1 is a 99 percent probability."
Jacobovici: "It's 100 to 1 for the tomb, between 100 to 1 and 1000 to 1 for the tomb."
Vieira: "And nothing to you suggests that there's any forgery involved or anything like that?"
Jacobovici: "Nobody argue, the archeologists who even deny that this is the family of Jesus don't deny that this is a true, authentic find. The issue is that archeologists played statisticians and dismissed the find. What we did is we went to the statisticians. We're just reporting the new-, we're not statisticians, we're not theologians. We're reporting the news. And now the debate is gonna begin because statisticians say it's significant. DNA experts say it's significant."
Vieira: "I want to talk about the DNA because when these ossuaries were first found there were bones in them back in 1980 and the archeologists removed, the bones were removed and buried. But there was enough remnant in, in the, the box that you believe contained the, the remains of Jesus and the one with Mary Magdalene. And you were able to, to DNA tests. And what did you find?"
Jacobovici: "We didn't do, experts did-"
Vieira: "Right."
Jacobovici: "DNA experts-"
Vieira: "Were you able to have them conducted?"
Jacobovici: "They didn't remove, they didn't remove bones. What they removed was what they call forensic human residue. We had a CSI lab in New York work on this. We had a paleo-DNA lab in Ontario work on this. And, and they got mitochondrial DNA. And what they found, see this could have killed the whole theory. If Mary Magdalene and Jesus', if that, if they match it means they weren't husband and wife, they're brother and sister. They didn't match. So they got a DNA profile. And again we're here to, you know, people have to, you know, people are gonna talk about all kinds of rumors, people are already commenting. They have to see the film, they have to see the evidence, March 4th on Discovery. They have to read the book The Jesus Family Tomb because only after they see the evidence will they be able to judge something as shocking as this."
Vieira: "And there are some critics including and I'm probably not gonna pronounce his name right it's Jozias, 'z' 'i' 'a' 's.'"
Jacobovici: "He hasn't seen the film and he hasn't read the book so this-"
Vieira: "Well he is a curator who was involved in the, in the initial finding of the ossuaries. Let me just read to you what he says, James. He says, 'Simcha has no credibility whatsoever. He's pimping off the Bible. He got this guy, Cameron,' you, 'who made Titanic or something like that. What does this guy know about archeology? Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession. You were brought into this because, obviously, you felt strongly about it. What do you think of that statement?"
Cameron: "Well yeah. I mean I, I think that, first of all, it's fair to say that I'm not an archeologist, I'm not, I'm a filmmaker. I'm the executive producer of this film. I helped put together the financing to get it made. I, I looked at the evidence initially and as a, as a, as a layman I found it to be compelling but I, I knew I needed to learn a lot more which I did over the, over the two years of the study. And, and over that two-year period I haven't seen anything that contradicts the, the initial hypothesis. I think people have their, their specific agendas and their, and their specific kind of knee-jerk reactions but I think when they see the film and they see how the evidence is presented then they should, then they should comment. Yeah, I'm not a theologian, I'm not an archeologist, I'm a documentary filmmaker."
Vieira: "Why wouldn't people be clamoring to get at this information? That's what I don't understand."
Jacobovici: "By the way, by the way the same Jozias, by the way I agree with Jim, I'm not, I'm an investigative journalist. That's my skill-set. And we went to archeologists and saw, and so they're reporting. It's not us. It's not us doing the science but I'll say this, when Jozias was involved in the find back in 1980 he said, and I quote, 'If I hadn't seen this excavated myself I would think it was a hoax.' So he was very compelled. And then what did they do with all these ossuaries? They put them on shelves, kinda Indiana Jones-style and they ignored it for 27 years. All we're doing is we're telling the world a story and let the scientists-"
Cameron: "To be fair, to be fair to them, they, there was a critical piece of information they didn't have available. They looked at the, they said, 'Oh well there's a second Mary here, you know Mary Amne is a, is a diminutive of Miriam which is Mary."
Vieira: "Miriam, right."
Cameron: "And but they didn't have the information from the, from the Acts of Philip which definitely identifies Mary Magdalene as Mary Amne. If they had that information-"
Vieira: "Maybe they would've, yeah."
Cameron: "-they might have looked at the whole name cluster very differently in 1980."
Vieira: "Well it is-"
Cameron: "Simcha found that information."
Vieira: "Yeah I am, I'm sorry that we've run out of time because it is absolutely fascinating, potentially, I mean, many would argue the biggest story or one of the biggest stories of our lifetime if you are correct."
Jacobovici: "We are unveiling this today at 11am, at a press conference."
Vieira: "Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron thank you to both of you. The book is The Jesus Family Tomb and the Discovery Channel documentary is The Lost Tomb of Jesus which will air Sunday night at 9pm/8pm central. I'm sure you're gonna hear a lot more about this. You can also find more on our Web site at today.msnbc.com. And we are back after this. Thank you gentlemen very, very much."
UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 23:38 EST): Below are a few good blog items that have picked apart Cameron's assertions as inconsistencies, although it appears the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins is taking Cameron on blind faith at his blog, which labels itself a "clear-thinking oasis."
Kim Priestap at WizBang pointed out archaeologists who dispute Cameron's claim.
Bryan at Hot Air dismisses the use of DNA analysis as meaningless pseudoscience when dealing with 2,000-year old remains and adds that it's laughable if Cameron's DNA comparison is that found on a relic of questionable authenticity:
If they’re comparing the DNA to what appears to be blood extracted from the Shroud of Turin, well, that would be…interesting. The Shroud’s authenticity isn’t exactly an established fact, though, making such a DNA comparison a bit specious, to say the least... It would be ironic, to say the least, if the Shroud pops up as Cameron’s DNA ace in the hole. The phrase "house of cards" comes to mind.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.



Meredith Vieira: "And then we have a potentially amazing story. Have we possibly found the tomb of Jesus Christ? You're looking live at the boxes that could have contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. They are in an undisclosed location. There's a news conference later today but we're gonna talk to the filmmakers first, here on the Today show about that discovery."
David Mevorah, chief curator, Israel Museum: "Suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is far-fetched."
Jacobovici: "By the way, by the way the same Jozias, by the way I agree with Jim, I'm not, I'm an investigative journalist. That's my skill-set. And we went to archeologists and saw, and so they're reporting. It's not us. It's not us doing the science but I'll say this, when Jozias was involved in the find back in 1980 he said, and I quote, 'If I hadn't seen this excavated myself I would think it was a hoax.' So he was very compelled. And then what did they do with all these ossuaries? They put them on shelves, kinda Indiana Jones-style and they ignored it for 27 years. All we're doing is we're telling the world a story and let the scientists-"









Comments Policy
rock thee
February 26, 2007 - 14:23 ET by CarpareusNot mine.
Yawn and double yawn
February 26, 2007 - 21:21 ET by garvinSunday, February 25, 2007, Yawn and double yawn,
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/JWalking/2007/02/yawn-and-double-yawn.html
The bottom line from the whole, "Hey, I found Jesus' bones in a box!" thing by James Cameron - yawn and double yawn. There really isn't anything new - although I have no doubt that there are those who will make it seem like new news. This is a rehash of old accusations made about a tomb discovered 27-years ago. The best piece I've seen about it comes from The Jerusalem Post. Here it is in full: The Israeli-born, Canadian-based filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici is reigniting claims, first made over a decade ago, that a burial cave uncovered 27 years ago in Talpiot, Jerusalem, is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. At a press conference in New York on Monday, the two-time Emmy winner Jacobovici and his team - including Hollywood director James Cameron - will detail claims that of 10 ossuaries found in the cave when it was discovered in 1980, six bear inscriptions identifying them as those of Jesus, his mother Mary, a second Mary (possibly Mary Magdalene), and relatives Matthew, Josa and Judah (possibly Jesus's son). Their documentary will be screened this week in the US, UK, on Channel 8 in Israel and around the world. The producers are said to have worked on the project with world-renowned archeologists, statisticians and DNA specialists. But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense." Kloner, who said he was interviewed for the new film but has not seen it, said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that "Jesus son of Joseph" inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years. "There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb," Kloner said. "They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE." A spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority had no comment herself on the documentary and referred inquiries to Kloner, who no longer works for the IAA. The spokeswoman did say, however, that the IAA has loaned out two of the ossuaries that were found in the Talpiot tomb for display by the filmmakers at Monday's New York press conference. She said it was a routine procedure to lend out such artifacts provided the borrowers complied with the necessary handling, transport and insurance requirements and that it did not signal any IAA authentication of claims made in the documentary. Kloner said the IAA had been "very foolish" to agree to the loan. "The left hand there doesn't know what the right hand is doing," he said. The Daily Telegraph reported this weekend that the 10 ossuaries removed from the tomb when it was first excavated "were taken initially to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem. Nine were catalogued and stored but the tenth was left outside in a courtyard. That ossuary has subsequently gone missing." But Kloner said the IAA routinely left ossuaries in the courtyard if they were not inscribed and were unremarkable, since it had no room for them all "under our roofs." He added: "Nothing has disappeared." The Jacobovici documentary comes more than 10 years after similar speculation about the so-called Jesus family tomb made world headlines, prompting a London Sunday Times feature entitled "The Tomb that Dare Not Speak Its Name" and a BBC documentary. The assertion that the ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb were those of Jesus of Nazareth and family members was branded by The Sunday Times at the time as an archeological discovery "that challenges the very basis of Christianity." The makers of the documentary are refusing to discuss its content prior to their New York press conference.
Wow. Thanks, Matt and Mered
February 26, 2007 - 14:24 ET by GalvanicWow. Thanks, Matt and Meredith. Can we please get back to Anna Nicole now?
...yes, Christianity is suffi
February 27, 2007 - 12:20 ET by TruthMonger...yes, Christianity is sufficiently shaking in it's boots now - after all these centuries - first nailing Jesus to a cross, then beheading John the Baptist, then the Romans feeding believers to the lions, etc - we've finally met our match in the form of a...HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR...Christianity is surely done for very soon...
I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...
As I said in today's Open T
February 26, 2007 - 14:30 ET by DyneAs I said in today's Open Thread:
There's more than one inaccuracy in what [James Cameron] claims to have found, but
the biggest is the fact that the Jews didn't use coffins. Jesus was
ceremonially wrapped in a special linen cloth and placed inside the
tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea where the only barricade between his body
and the outside air was the stone used to cover the entrance. See John
19: 38-42
To add to that:
As for Jesus's remains, they will never be found. After three days, his spirit and body reunited in glorious resurrection, he showed himself to his disciples, stating he had "flesh and bones," and when he ascended into Heaven, he took that same body with him. See Luke 24.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
Dyne, just for the record:Dur
February 26, 2007 - 14:58 ET by vrwc13Dyne, just for the record:
During the time of the Second Temple, Jewish burial customs included primary burials in burial caves, followed by secondary burials in ossuaries placed in smaller niches of the burial caves. Some of the limestone ossuaries that have been discovered, particularly around the Jerusalem area, include intricate geometrical patterns and inscriptions identifying the deceased. (from Wikipedia)
Fortunately, Jesus never needed one. I have been to the "other" tomb in Jerusalem, the Garden Tomb. Personally, I felt that I had been in the very place He was laid and more importantly rose from. The inscription on the door says "He's not here, He has risen!"
face piles of trials with smiles
Jesus loves me yes I know...f
February 26, 2007 - 15:05 ET by DanKentonJesus loves me yes I know...for the bible tells me so.
Sorry Dyne, just because something is written down in some book (of questionable interpretation I might add) don't make it so!
DanKenton
February 26, 2007 - 15:10 ET by florida_chadIts faith that makes it happen.
Spoken like a true liberal wh
February 26, 2007 - 15:40 ET by NeoCon JediSpoken like a true liberal who professes religious tolerance except when it comes to Christianity. If this was about a discovery that could discount the existance of Mohammed, every liberal moonbat and their brother would say it was a "right-wing conspiracy."
I do know that Jesus loves me, because my faith in God tells me so. Nothing that you or James Cameron or any other left-wing looney can say will disway me from my faith.
As for questionable interpretation of the Bible, that mantra has been around for centuries, can't you find something original?
"At an end your rule is, and not short enough it was!" -- Yoda
"...written down don't m
February 26, 2007 - 15:40 ET by vrwc13"...written down don't make it so!"
like:
More proof of Biblical events than those of evolution and global warming combined!
face piles of trials with smiles
I tend to be more of a reader
February 27, 2007 - 07:58 ET by LRK27I tend to be more of a reader of this site, and not a poster, but I feel compelled to jump in here. If you are still clinging to the idea that there is no proof of evolution, you should not be engaging in a discussion with grown ups. Your statement can only be described as ridiculous.
LRK27 - Good point.
February 27, 2007 - 08:09 ET by acaiguanaLRK27 - Good point.
Personally, I don't think very many people really reject evolution theory. One would have to be a rather 'neat fit' of the Leftoid hammered picture of a looney Far Right Christian to buy into the rejection of evolution.
Like yourself, I believe most readers here know all of that.
Unfortunately, there are some who post here who are heavy duty Bible thumping folks that give the impression that Conservatives equal Christian nut cases.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"many don't reject evolu
February 27, 2007 - 12:06 ET by vrwc13"many don't reject evolution theory" Sorry ACA but up until now I sort of enjoyed your posts. But where do you get that not "very many people really reject evolution theory." Done a poll lately?
So let's see...slime=fish=iguana=monkey=ACA. I would rather think of myself as a Child of God thanks.
face piles of trials with smiles
Exactly the point. What we,
February 28, 2007 - 10:59 ET by Rupert CadellExactly the point. What we, or a school board in Alabama, would prefer to think of human beings as is irrelevant.
Aca, I'm rather shocked at
February 28, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Eric TurnerAca, I'm rather shocked at your last statement. I am one of those "heavy duty Bible thumbing folks" I hope I've never given "the impression that Conservatives equal Christian nut cases."
I most strongly disagree with evolution. There is not one person on this planet that can prove to me through the scientific method that evolution is a fact.
This doesn't make me a looney though.
It is to my chagrin that I find I must post this short comment.
Eric - The context of my post was faith and science..
February 28, 2007 - 10:59 ET by acaiguanaThe context of my post was to point out that faith and science do not require the same rigour. That wasn't very clear, I'm afraid.
One can 'believe' in whatever one wants. The particular concept of evolution being 'wrong' because it somehow conflicts with one's faith in Christianity or any such faith; I'm not a Christian myself, but I find it hard to discount one over the other.
When people argue against a scientific theory from a theological point of view; then the one who wishes to discuss the theory itself is put on notice that there will be no further argument or point in continuing. How could anyone dismiss another's 'faith'. They cannot.
So, I see the topics as being necessarily separated. For the purpose of discussion; let us assume that the Christian POV of creation is correct.
There is no further point to be made, would you not agree?
And if that is the case, then why bother to discuss it? That is why I don't get into these discussions. I might have something to say from my point of view; but that doesn't matter any longer, once the Bible (sorry if 'thumping' was offensive) is brought out by the other side of the discussion.
That is my main point. Now whether the two can be reconciled (Christian Creation versus Darwin's theory) has been discussed by many greater minds than mine. It is my impression that deep thinkers on this subject have been able to reconcile the two and therefore they are not mutually incompatable issues.
To this end, I disagree with trying to teach 'Creation Science' or even to lable Christian POV Creation faith as 'science'. It isn't science. It is faith.
My particular POV, which I never disclose on this site, would conflict quite a bit with both ideas. But that is my issue, not yours. And I contend I have as valid a reason for my POV as those who point to the 'Bible'.
The Bible is a document of a particular theological POV. To that end, it is just fine as it provides comfort and a basis for the faithful. It is in itself a book that reflect faith. It is not in itself the original basis for the faith professed by Christians. My understanding of Christianity is that Jesus is the basis for the faith.
Now, we can argue theology or we can argue science.
It is the indivudal's church's responsibility to discuss theology, not the school's.
To this end, if Creation 'Science' is taught in a tax-payer funded Government School; it abuses my individual faith to do so.
That is my point.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I still stand with you! ;-)
February 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Eric TurnerAca, I know you rarely reveal any personal beliefs but I have seen you do so. I know I have - especially of late. I try not to. But it does come out.
I would argue though that although many claim that Christianity (or Judaism) is not compatiable with science I would disagree. I am not capable or educated enough to elaborate on that topic more than just what I said.
The evolutionists have already won the battle if we take a creation POV out of the picture. They win by default and that's what they want. If there was/is no creator - then we must come from one-celled organisms. As long as they can keep any hint of a creator out of the discussion by stating the two topics are intrinsically and inherently separate they win. After all, what alternative to evolution is there if there was no creator? None, so by default evolution must be true.
I believe that (even without the Bible) one can point to a beginning of life from a creation POV (regardless of who that creator might be - God, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, what- or whoever). But neither side can be proven through the scientific method. I suppose we'll just all know when we die!
However, my main point of contention with evolution is not that they teach it - but that they teach it as fact. I don't even care if they don't discuss creation science in school. I just don't want them teaching evolution as fact. I'd prefer them not teaching it at all to be quite honest. I'd sent my kids to a private school if I could afford it. Heck, I'd homeschool them if I could. (and yes, this is an attempt to seek out donations from fellow NBers for my kids' education).
However, I do see my kids learning evolution as somewhat a good thing because it forces me to research it and find the answers from a creation POV - and they are out there, or to simply show how evolution "facts" can be successfully challenged which can also be done.
I'm not seeking a dominance of Christianity theology or philosophy in our government or schools - I am seeking an equal standing with secular humanism.
This all said, I will still stand side-by-side with you as we continually struggle against liberal worldviews! ;-)
Eric, I can see your point quite well.
February 28, 2007 - 11:40 ET by acaiguanaEric, I can see your point quite well.
I would possibly take some issue over the '...evolutionists have already won the battle...' comment if I thought there was a 'battle'. I don't particularly view it as a battle at all.
I often muse to myself that the noise being made over this issue paints both sides in a poor light. When I see it played out here; that viewpoint is often more reinforced than ameliorated. For example, I was raised in Kansas. I don't think I need to elaborate on that silliness.
I really did appreciate the equation posted by another here moving from slime to ACA; although it maligned my Iguanas who want little to do with my heritage. I can't remember being insulted in such a backhanded manner quite as neatly.
But, I digress.
All I am saying is that the Christian faith based belief in Creation is owned by the Christian faith. That's OK, if you are Christian. If not?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Iguanas unite!
February 28, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Eric TurnerAca,
1st - I agree about your iguanas. Your iguanas should take insult to the insinuation that you came from them. (there are more jokes I want to insert here but I don't know you well enough and this is a poor medium to make some of them)! I guess one isn't so bad - You could only hope to be as well-mannered as your iguanas! ;-)
2nd - Logically, Christianity is (as are all faiths) fundamentally exclusionary. I don't care what post-modernists have to say on the subject. If you believe in one faith, by definition, all others must be false.
Therefore, as a Christian I must believe that my worldview is the only correct one. However, that doesn't mean that I have to go around pushing it on everyone else. God (vis-a-vis Christ) only wants those believers who willingly come to Him. So it does me no good to force my beliefs on others - in school or in government. Basically, I just ask for clarification to be made during the instruction of evolution.
3rd - As for me believing it's a battle. I have to. As a former soldier (you are too if I'm not mistaken), I see everything in terms of military definitions! My wife hates it too. But furthermore, I see it that way, because according to my faith and beliefs I see everything on earth as a working out of the spiritual world.
It is my worldview and I see everything that goes on through the lenses of my worldview.
(Caveat: Please don't think I'm trying to preach to or convert anyone. I'm simply clarifying why and how I see things the way I do. That way folks can better understand me better.)
Choosing battles is important.
February 28, 2007 - 12:04 ET by acaiguanaChoosing battles is important.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
maligned my Iguanas...that wa
February 28, 2007 - 12:15 ET by vrwc13maligned my Iguanas...that was me. Evolution actually would put a lot more "=" to's in the string, but the point is made. Sorry, was not meant as an insult but an insight. Evolution teaches that we evolved from some sort of primevil slime thousands/millions/billions? (however long they now claim, but how do they really know?) of years. From slime to fish, to fish walking on water and breathing air, to so on and so on to monkeys/apes to men. That takes alot more faith than I can imagine. Plus the odds, which have been calculated, are astromonical, thus the t/m/b/ years for it to take place. Kind of like the old saying "if a million iguanas typed on a million typewriters (remember those?) in a million years one of them would type the script to the Da Vinci Code".
face piles of trials with smiles
Eric..homeschooling isn't exp
February 28, 2007 - 11:58 ET by vrwc13Eric..homeschooling isn't expensive or hard to do. We (my wife) have been doing it for over ten years. We started because of moving a lot, but after hearing "horror" stories on "Point of View" about such things as Whole Language, Outcome Based Eduacation, and the like, we had no choice. Faith related issues is a whole other issue. Please feel free to contact me thru my inbox here and I would be happy to help.
BTW, one of my favorite responses to evolution, etc. that even my kids use is "where you there? How do you know?"
face piles of trials with smiles
vrwc13, I agree that home s
March 1, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Rupert Cadellvrwc13, I agree that home schooling is an excellent option when parents have the time and energy to really do it. Can you explain Whole Language? I've been involved in education for 20 years and never heard that term.
Rupert C...Whole LanguageSurp
March 1, 2007 - 10:16 ET by vrwc13Rupert C...Whole Language
Surprised in 20 years you haven't heard of it, it's been quite a controversy.
Whole Language: A philosophy of reading instruction based on the belief that children learn to read in the same way they learn to speak: naturally. Thus the child is introduced to whole texts at the very beginning and is expected to learn a variety of strategies which help him or her figure out what the words say. Some phonics is taught as in look-say, but is meant to be used by the reader only as a last-resort strategy. The emphasis is on looking at words at wholes, as units of potential meaning, and "interpreting" the text rather than reading for accuracy. Teaching phonics is discouraged because it breaks up words into letters and syllables which have no meaning and negates the idea of the whole. This method of teaching produces inaccurate, subjective readers.
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/WholeLanguage.html
more at Wikipedia, a ton if you "Google" it.
Worst comment I heard on it was as you learn each word on its own if you come to a word you have not "learned" yet, you skip it! So much for reading comprehension. We heard about it around 1994 as we were getting ready for our first of 5 kids (6 on the way) to start school. Point of View radio program was doing a series on what's wrong with our schools and this one one of the major topics.
Got to run, not supposed to be here today...going to Tres Dias retreat for a bit of a sabatical.
face piles of trials with smiles
Here's how 'whole language' works in the real world.
March 1, 2007 - 10:25 ET by acaiguanaHere's how 'whole language' works in the real world.
Young Boy Finds Note: "Being held in underground coffin. Call Police immediately; Location - ...."
Young Boy Reads Note: "Being held in ....skip...skip... Call ...skip ...skip... skip...
Young Boy Throws Note in Garbage Can: "Gee mom would be proud of my taking care of the litter."
Pretty much it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Good one LRK27. When did t
February 27, 2007 - 10:40 ET by walkGood one LRK27. When did the theory of evolution turn to fact or proof as you now state it? I must have missed that discussion. And, of course, as a Christian, I am not allowed to foster any beliefs based on my faith or engage in a discussion with "grown-ups" such as yourself.
Your statement reminds me of that meteorologist from the weather channel who thinks that any AMS certified meterologist who does not believe that humans are the primary cause of globabal warming should have their AMS credentials revoked.
We are either haters or phobic. It's all about the science. Believe or be silenced.
Hey man - it's the un-biased
February 27, 2007 - 12:28 ET by TruthMongerHey man - it's the un-biased, impartial and cool-headed academics of the Darwinist clergy (and their science-book thumping followers) who champion the idea of rich and diverse discussion and exchange of ideas on the origins of humankind...NOT : ) !
I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...
I agree with you on global wa
February 27, 2007 - 20:03 ET by LRK27I agree with you on global warming. For the same reason that I believe in evolution. Science. You can't pick and choose when science is your friend and when it is wrong. Apparently you did miss the discussion when evolution turned to fact or proof, as any scientist will attest to.
For all of you that quote scientists arguing against global warming, ask any of them if they believe in evolution.
Science should not be a political tool. It tells you the rules of life.
As for evolution, it says that it is correct. Sorry that they haven't collected every single fossil of the several trillion species that have lived over several billion years, but the evidence that they DO have is overwhelming and easy to find, if you're willing to see it.
As for global warming, the science says that, yes it is slightly warmer now than a few years ago. We are in a warming cycle. The science says that that happens naturally. There is a hypothesis that man is causing it, with no proof behind it. I believe that man has nothing to do with any possible warming going on right now. We agree on that.
Let science be science. If you faith goes against what science says, then it's up to you to adapt. Just has the church has done over the years by accepting evolution, and that the earth is round, and goes around the sun, etc.
Evolution is a theory, not fa
February 28, 2007 - 10:32 ET by walkEvolution is a theory, not fact or proof. If you insist that it is, then it is you who is having a problem with the science. Gravity is not a theory, I can prove to you mathematically that it is force of a specific magnitude between two masses over an inifinite distance.
Gravity is a scientific theor
February 28, 2007 - 21:54 ET by LRK27Gravity is a scientific theory. Newton had what he called a law of universal gravitation, but it turned out not to be a scientific law. This by no means means that things won't fall and gravity is a myth, only that it is technically called a theory. Just as evolution is called a theory. It has nothing to do with the overwhelming and ridiculous amounts of data to support the theories.
From wikipidia: "Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics."
LRK, if we consider the origi
February 27, 2007 - 11:04 ET by MikeBLRK, if we consider the origin of life to be a binary solution set, i.e., life starting by evolution or by creation, and then consider the probabilities of each possibility, then, evolution becomes a matter of great faith. The British astronomer, Robert Jastrow, who is an evolutionist, calculated the probability of life starting by accident as 1 in 10 to the forty thousandth power. That is zero, decimal, 39,999 more zeroes, followed by a one. The probability that life originated with God, then is zero, decimal, 40,000 nines. To put these numbers in perspective, 10 to the 40,000th power is a number greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. In probability theory, any event with a probability less than one in ten to the fiftieth power is considered impossible. So, you are dead certain that an event that is 39,950 orders of magnitude beyond impossible is the right one? That takes faith!
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
LRK27=Blatherskite
February 27, 2007 - 11:59 ET by vrwc13Blatherskite I say. First of all what "proof" do you offer for evolution that is not theory? Go ahead and list fossils, but they do not. Go ahead and mention "links" for they do not exist either, as far as I know they are all still "missing" other than the ones that occasionally pop up only later to be found as fraud. And as far as your arguement of "over thousands, no make that millions, no make that billions, oh for heavens sake let's just make it bazillions" years, my kids would ask you "Where you there? How do you know?"
Then check the Bibical facts and tell me which ones have been proven false. Please just one will do. I'll wait.
Second, what kind of debate do you call it when you question one being "grownup" and describing my post as ridiculous without any facts. Just by you saying so? Blatherskite.
face piles of trials with smiles
As for proof of evolution, vi
February 27, 2007 - 19:50 ET by LRK27As for proof of evolution, visit any museum or talk to a scientist. I believe too many of you guys are seeing the word "theory" and assume that it's a debated idea. Theory has a different definition in the scientific world. Just like gravity is a theory, so is evolution. Lack of proof is not an issue. It is entirely too complex to explain in one post on a message board. I trust you are all smart enought to look at the evidence objectively yourselves. It's there, and not debated at all in the scientific community.
As for not being able to prove a single biblical fact false? Are you serious?
First of all, it depends on what you call a biblical fact. I'll for now ignore the blatant contradictions, that by rule, make each other incorrect.
Let's start with the age of the Earth. 6000-10,000 years has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt to be 100% false. Not only false, but laughably false. Try closer to 15 billion years. And yes, it's scientifically PROVEN.
I'll be glad to get you some more if you feel the need to go on. There has to be more evidence on this flat world we live in at the center of the universe. (You guys still believe that one right?)
The Earth is 10-15 Billion ye
February 27, 2007 - 19:57 ET by NL207The Earth is 10-15 Billion years old?
If BS were electricity, you'd be a powerhouse.
And you look like a horse's behind to me.
I apologize. The age of the
February 27, 2007 - 20:15 ET by LRK27I apologize. The age of the UNIVERSE is 15 billion. The age of the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years. Still, not quite 6000.
But since God made Earth, THEN the Sun and stars, how is this possible?
Why do you assume God's day i
February 27, 2007 - 21:51 ET by NL207Why do you assume God's day is equal to the duration of one rotation of the Earth on its axis?
NL,I know this question wasn'
February 27, 2007 - 21:54 ET by BlondeNL,
I know this question wasn't directed to me....
But I've always wondered why any human would even try to equate our own sense of time to that of God's.
It's one of those questions that's always made me shake my head at the arrogance of humans.
Just sayin.
Arrogant lberals can, have, a
February 27, 2007 - 21:58 ET by NL207Arrogant lberals can, have, and continue to do just this on a daily basis.
They can conceive of no God greater than themselves and no morality that is not amendable by themselves.
I intend to have some good sport with this one.
I don't know NL207
February 27, 2007 - 22:07 ET by acumenI don't know NL207.....LRK27 makes a very compelling case for evolution.
Not a day goes by where I am not totally amazed at how some humans are rapidly evolving into beast-like animals.....particularly in our liberal media.
I don't know that we have any
February 27, 2007 - 22:13 ET by balboaI don't know that we have any other basis on which to form an idea of what is meant by a "day" in the Bible if not the standard.
Expand your frame of referenc
February 27, 2007 - 22:20 ET by BlondeExpand your frame of reference Balboa.
Instead of trying to continually provoke people here.
If you'd actually stop and consider the entire story of the Garden of Eden, and think about it (with your continual pseudo film juju) you might actually enjoy the story. Particularly if you didn't take it all so literally.
It is the absolute most fascinating story ever. Take some time, read about it...then think about it, carefully.
Who knows...you might even learn something.
If not about us....about yourself.
And why do you assume I haven
February 27, 2007 - 22:25 ET by balboaAnd why do you assume I haven't read the story of the Garden of Eden?
And it's a legitimate question. If a "day" is not a day then how are we supposed to know what it is? Or are we not supposed to figure out how one of those "days" relates to us?
I assume you've never read it
February 27, 2007 - 22:27 ET by BlondeI assume you've never read it, nor thought about any of it....because of the sheer shallowness of your postings, here.
Shallow, bal. Extremely shallow.
You continually bite on the literal. And show no depth, whatsoever.
Ponder that.
I'M shallow. You're full of n
February 27, 2007 - 22:39 ET by balboaI'M shallow. You're full of nothing but trite assumptions, and I'm shallow.
You're a peach.
That's extremely mature, Bal.
February 27, 2007 - 22:43 ET by BlondeThat's extremely mature, Bal.
"Astute" is the word you're l
February 27, 2007 - 22:50 ET by balboa"Astute" is the word you're looking for.
I assume it equals one rotati
February 27, 2007 - 22:09 ET by LRK27I assume it equals one rotation because that is the definition of the word "day". If you are reading the book with different meanings of basic words, I can't have a reasonable debate with you.
I also interpret it that way because the word "day" is used with the same meaning throughout the duration of the bible. If you are willing to admit that the most basic premises of the book aren't to be taken literally, you must re-examine many things in it.
The 'book' you are referring
February 27, 2007 - 22:36 ET by NL207The 'book' you are referring to is attempting to describe within the limitations of the Hebrew language the creation of the universe man can see by an infinite God in terms that a man of 1400 BC might comprehend.
Again, how can you assume the length of God's day is knowable by you or even by the man who set this story to paper?
We can start by the notion of what the most basic premises of the Bible are. You have just, by implication, asserted that the details of the story of the creation is one of the most basic premises of the Bible. I argue this misses the point. The point of the creation story is that the universe we live in including ourselves was created by a omniscient, omnipotent God. Proof: This premise is necessary and sufficient by itself for the rest of Genisis to proceed coherently.
Again, how can you assume th
February 27, 2007 - 22:42 ET by balboaAgain, how can you assume the length of God's day is knowable by you or even by the man who set this story to paper?
Why should we assume otherwise? Why would this story about creating the world in seven days be told in days if we're not supposed to think of them as actual days?
We might assume otherwise bec
February 27, 2007 - 23:02 ET by NL207We might assume otherwise because we are referring to an entity so far beyond our daily comprehension as to be unimaginable. To conclude that a force sufficient to bring the entire universe as we know it into existence measures time in units of the planetary rotation of our home is pretty presumptuous, to say the least, and demostrates a complete lack of any humility.
But you see my point? Why &
February 28, 2007 - 10:53 ET by balboaBut you see my point? Why "days" then? Why quantify it?
Balboa, even Biblical Christi
February 28, 2007 - 11:04 ET by vrwc13Balboa, even Biblical Christians differ on the meaning of "days". But that is not the real issue here. Days could mean days as we know it, thats what I believe. Many people try too hard to connect the dots of the earths age and Biblical fact. The Bible simply states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then it goes on to state how He made things during the seven days “Creation.” Want to call the earth millions/billions of years old? Fine, Bible does not refute that. The 6000 years you quote is a factual time from Adam to now as can be proven by the births and deaths of the line from Adam to Jesus.
face piles of trials with smiles
Where is this proof of the
February 28, 2007 - 11:31 ET by The Wicked ConservativeWhere is this proof of the earth being billions of years old? Radio carbon dating can only go back 50 thousand years and that's assuming the "theoretical curve" doesn't change beyond where we can measure. As for geological events that may indicate the age of the earth many cataclysmic events can change the surface of the earthin a short amount of time . Such as....a flood maybe.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
hmm...a flood maybe? Where
February 28, 2007 - 11:46 ET by vrwc13hmm...a flood maybe? Where do you get such ideas!
face piles of trials with smiles
face piles of trials with smi
February 28, 2007 - 10:24 ET by vrwc13face piles of trials with smiles
As for proof of evolution, visit any museum or talk to a scientist.
I believe too many of you guys are seeing the word "theory" and assume that it's a debated idea. Theory has a different definition in the scientific world.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Just like gravity is a theory, so is evolution.
Lack of proof is not an issue. It is entirely too complex to explain in one post on a message board. I trust you are all smart enought to look at the evidence objectively yourselves. It's there, and not debated at all in the scientific community.
As for not being able to prove a single biblical fact false? Are you serious?First of all, it depends on what you call a biblical fact. I'll for now ignore the blatant contradictions, that by rule, make each other incorrect.
Let's start with the age of the Earth. 6000-10,000 years has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt to be 100% false. Not only false, but laughably false. Try closer to 15 billion years. And yes, it's scientifically PROVEN.
Theory - "In scientific usage
February 28, 2007 - 21:19 ET by LRK27Theory - "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence."
"Gravity is a law last I knew, evolution is still a theory."
Last you knew, you were wrong. Newton did have a "law of universal gravitation", but gravity in the modern scientific sense is technically still a theory.
"Proof is better supportive of Biblical evidence, and there is actually quite a bit of debate in the scientific community over creation versus evolution. And I am smart enough to look at the evidence, have you?"
There is very little debate about the facts of evolution. There is debate over how it should be taught, but the debates about the facts are largely originated from creationists.
Blatant contradictions? We'll start with a short list of simple ones:
It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 19:7
It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 18:31
Children are punished for the sins of the parents
Ex 20:5
Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
Ezek 18:20
Man is justified by faith alone
Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
Man is not justified by faith alone
James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13
It is impossible to fall from grace
John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
It is possible to fall from grace
Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21
No man is without sin
1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
Christians are sinless
1 John 3: 9,6,8
There is to be a resurrection of the dead
1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
There is to be no resurrection of the dead
Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14
Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
Prov 11:31
Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10
Annihilation the portion of all mankind
Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
Endless misery the portion of all mankind
Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2
The Earth is to be destroyed
2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
The Earth is never to be destroyed
Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4
No evil shall happen to the godly
Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
Evil does happen to the godly
Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7
Or some about the resurrection:
In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
For being the word of God, you'd think there would be less contradictions. There are hundreds more if you like.
"The 6000 years you quote is a factual time from Adam to now as can be proven by the births and deaths of the line from Adam to Jesus."
Proven how? Because it's written? Did they find all these bodies that I'm not aware of?
You have to learn the difference between faith and science. I'm not saying you shouldn't have faith, that's your choice. I'm saying that to ignore facts is a disservice to yourself and others that you are trying to convince.
If evolution is such a myth, why has the Catholic Church accepted it?
Bible inaccuracies...LRK27Loo
February 28, 2007 - 21:39 ET by vrwc13Bible inaccuracies...LRK27
Looks like you have done some homework or a lot of cut and paste...leaving for the weekend but I will get back to you.
In the meantime maybe some of my NB buddies will step in and assist.
First pass though you may be taking passages out of context...common error. Plus you have to know the whole story not just pieces. As in God said do not murder...yet he ordered the deaths of entire towns and cities, but this is not a contradiction...see if you can figure this one out. I'll be back.
face piles of trials with smiles
Sure it's cut and paste, I do
February 28, 2007 - 22:02 ET by LRK27Sure it's cut and paste, I don't have the time or motivation to rewrite and look them all up. I'm not even trying to say that every one of these is perfect, simply that they do exist.
I'm not attempting to get into a biblical fact vs. fiction matchup with anyone here. I only wanted to make my point about evolution. I know what I'm up against on this board as far as religion goes. Nothing in the world could ever allow me to win an argument, I'm simply outnumbered. But if you want to have a serious debate about serious issues, you need to accept the facts, however harmful to your argument or beliefs.
There are a lot of things in the bible I believe to be true. But there are also a lot of things that I believe aren't. I will always lean toward the side of science, just as you will always lean towards the side of faith. That's just how it is. You don't need to spend the weekend debunking the contradictions I've posted, if you'll simply concede that some may exist. Otherwise we could both go on for quite a while.
Biblical error? LRK27I am gla
February 28, 2007 - 23:15 ET by vrwc13Biblical error? LRK27
I am glad to hear you believe some of the Bible, that's a good start. But after living in your world of belief for some 40 years, including belief in everything science as fact, I had an awakening to the truth. I am now convinced that there are no errors, fables, nor just a good guy with one of the ways to heaven guy. All of scripture is of God and man is no equal.
Thought to leave you with...if you are right its back to dust for us. If I am right, well there just is not any easy way to put it other than I am in everlasting life with God and you're not.
I am off to a three day retreat to renew and refresh, I will be praying for you.
face piles of trials with smiles
If it's a simple disagreement
February 28, 2007 - 23:29 ET by LRK27If it's a simple disagreement on faith, I have no problem with that. I was raised a Christian and went to Sunday school and the whole nine yards. I've drawn my own conclusions, as you have too. A debate to believe or not is a never ending debate, neither of us would ever convince the other. I see things differently than you. My only point of this argument was evolution. It's impossible to debate someone into changing their views on faith, in either direction. I am familiar with Pascal's Wager, and I am fine with my decision.
Enjoy your weekend. I hope to continue an honest and enjoyable debate with you in the future.
Back to gravity. I assume
February 28, 2007 - 14:20 ET by walkBack to gravity. I assume you meant to say relativity was a theory, right?
Our best theory of gravitatio
February 28, 2007 - 21:25 ET by LRK27Our best theory of gravitation today is the general theory of relativity. Both theories. But that won't stop the apple from falling next time y