Awesome things "god" does.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

It's amazing that people actually believe everything anything that the Answers in Genesis people put out.

FIFY

I love how we are supposed to discount all the evidence available because it conflicts with the "eyewitness account" in our "trusty Bible".

So Jaybird, one more time, given all the evidence of innacuracies, changes and mistranslations in the current (KJV) Bible, why is it that you trust its word as absoulutely correct?

Yes, it's a "loaded question".

One that you keep dodging and ducking.
Or ignoring.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Quote

It's amazing that people actually believe everything anything that the Answers in Genesis people put out.

FIFY

I love how we are supposed to discount all the evidence available because it conflicts with the "eyewitness account" in our "trusty Bible".



So Jaybird, one more time, given all the evidence of innacuracies, changes and mistranslations in the current (KJV) Bible, why is it that you trust its word as absoulutely correct?

Yes, it's a "loaded question".

One that you keep dodging and ducking.
Or ignoring.

(Generic answer, not assuming to speak for Jaybird)
"Because it is the inerrant, inspired Word of God!" "How do you know?" "Because the bible says so!" And...down the rabbit hole we go again.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[beowulf 1]

I thought about putting 'anything', but I figured somewhere they had to get at least one fact right and don't have the time or the patience to read through everything on their website.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I thought about putting 'anything', but I figured somewhere they had to get at least one fact right and don't have the time or the patience to read through everything on their website.

They actually get quite a few facts correct.

It's the interpretation of the facts that's so far out of whack.

I happened across a discussion on the radio a few weeks back.

The commentator was arguing that dinosaurs had to coexist with man. The argument went something like: Fossils have been found of dinosaurs with the remains of their last meal discernable in the stomach. The last meal was discernable because the bones of the dinosaur that was eaten hadn't been digested yet, and had fossilized too.
BUT, since that meant that the last meal was a creature that had to have died when it was eaten, and there was no death before the fall from grace and expulsion from the Garden of Eden, then that dinosaur had to have existed after Adam and Eve.

Really. That was the argument.

Of course the other person on the air didn't put up any debate or argument, but acutally complimented the main commentator on the elegance of his argument.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[beowulf 1]

That's pretty wild rationalization!

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Observational Science vs. Historical Science

Try some truth once and awhile.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

So Jaybird, one more time, given all the evidence of innacuracies, changes and mistranslations in the current (KJV) Bible, why is it that you trust its word as absoulutely correct?

I disagree with your premise ("given" inaccuracies, changes, mistranslations, we should distrust). Those might account for less than a percent of the whole, there is no evidence that any of it was done with intent to deceive, and none affects the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Also, the original manuscripts are inerrant, not necessarily everything in the KJV translation (that's not one of the versions, by the way, that I rely on for study). A more scholarly (word for word) translation into English would be the NAS or ESV. Besides, infallibility means that the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations. It does not mean that a KJV translator can’t make an error in usage or omission. But again, there is no evidence of any widespread translational dishonesty and those very few discrepancies account for a miniscule portion of the whole. In this way, the vast number of translations themselves gives much credibility to the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is the most scrutinized work in history because of what’s at stake. It is trustworthy. I believe it was said that approximately 95% of the New Testament could be reproduced from the Dead Sea Scrolls alone. There is no other ancient work in existence with as much textual and historical evidence as the Bible.

[freethefly 6]

More proof that AiG is just stupid and that those who believe AiG are just as stupid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/08/scitech/main20103228.shtml?tag=re1.latest

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

More proof that AiG is just stupid and that those who believe AiG are just as stupid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/08/scitech/main20103228.shtml?tag=re1.latest

Quote

The Science editor is much too modest in stating the problem. The problem is not that there are “few fossils that provide detailed information on this transition” [emphasis mine]. The real problem is that there are no fossils that provide detailed information on this transition. A review article by Michael Balter in the same issue of Science describes this time slot as “a murky area of human evolution” and states that “the oldest Homo specimens are scrappy and enigmatic.” Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the famous fossil, Lucy, is quoted as saying: “The transition to Homo continues to be almost totally confusing”2 hence, the reason for optimism and hope by discoverer Lee Berger that Au. sediba may be a link between the australopithecines and the first humans. To date, there are no legitimate candidates for this position, and, unfortunately for evolutionists, Au. sediba also fails to qualify.

Quote

There are several reasons for giving Au. sediba a “pink slip.”

First, from an evolutionary perspective, Au. sediba appeared on the scene too late in time. Even evolutionists recognize that Homo (humans) had already arrived.

Second, Lee Berger and his team do recognize that their Au. sediba fossils are too young to be the actual ancestors of the genus Homo—that they overlap with discoveries of fossils assigned to Homo. But they suggest that earlier, yet undiscovered, members of Au. sediba could be the ancestors of Homo.

Third, Berger and his team write: “H. habilis is generally thought to be the ancestor of H. erectus, although this might be questioned on the basis of the considerable temporal overlap that existed between them.”

Quote

Many have observed that while there are thousands of fossils of humans and their alleged human ancestors, there are relatively few fossils of non-human primates. The reason is quite simple: when a non-human primate fossil is discovered, it is not recognized as such, but is instead claimed to be an evolutionary ancestor of humans.

The most parsimonious explanation regarding Australopithecus sediba is that it and Australopithecus africanus are both extinct varieties of the original Genesis ape kind.

The Problem with Australopithecus sediba

All depends on one's worldview.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)-150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus-once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)-a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)-based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man)-now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

Australopithecus africanus-this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men

These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus-there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 11515. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis-there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types-such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus-many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).

Is There Really Evidence that Man Descended from the Apes?

NOT a very good track record.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Java man/Homo erectus

This guy must've been my ancestor!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

These are ones that everyone agrees are not pre-human intermediates between apes and humans.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)-150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus-once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)-a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)-based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man)-now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

Australopithecus africanus-this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men

These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus-there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 11515. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis-there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types-such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus-many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).

Is There Really Evidence that Man Descended from the Apes?

NOT a very good track record.

Oh I don't know about that. A world view that refines itself and corrects its errors in the light of new evidence is far far superior to one that says a 2,000+ year old book written by neolithic goatherders is the unerring truth because it says it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7).

Well then, there you go! The authoritative word from a book that claims a magical spirit made mud people and then put his lips to them and gave them life!!!!!!! WOW!!!!! I'm so not impressed.

I am impressed with: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/sediba/index.xhtml You know, actual scientist. Not like those hacks and nut sacks at AiG.
Hint, hint, AiG is not a credible source. In fact, people who quote AiG are often laughed at.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Belgian_Draft 0]

"Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist."

Ok, fine. If you want to accept that as the truth then you must also accept as truth that since there is no physical evidence AT ALL that God exists, he doesn't exist. In fact, there is almost infinitely more evidence of evolution than there is of a god.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Java man/Homo erectus

This guy must've been my ancestor!

What, nobody finds my favorable coffee/erection prefrence reference funny?

What about the small brain?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[freethefly 6]

Quote

f you want to accept that as the truth then you must also accept as truth that since there is no physical evidence AT ALL that God exists, he doesn't exist.

You foolish little human! The bible says he exist, so he does.
Oh, and J.R.R. Tolkien's book 'The Hobbit' says that Hobbits exist, so they do.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

f you want to accept that as the truth then you must also accept as truth that since there is no physical evidence AT ALL that God exists, he doesn't exist.

You foolish little human! The bible says he exist, so he does.
Oh, and J.R.R. Tolkien's book 'The Hobbit' says that Hobbits exist, so they do.

How could I be so blind.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 2,998]

>The commentator was arguing that dinosaurs had to coexist with man.

Teach the Controversy!

[billvon 2,998]

>The Bible is the most scrutinized work in history because of what’s at stake. It is
>trustworthy.

Well, except for the parts that contradict each other. And the parts that people ignore because they're old laws. And the parts that theologians have agreed don't apply any more. And some of the references to things like the "sun standing still." But other than that, it's trustworthy.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Well, except for the parts that contradict each other.

No contradictions...just laziness.

Quote

And the parts that people ignore because they're old laws.

No old laws...just ignorance.

Quote

And the parts that theologians have agreed don't apply any more.

Again...more ignorance, primarily from non christian/atheistic theologians.

Quote

And some of the references to things like the "sun standing still."

yes, I forgot, the sun revolves around the earth...it actually rises and sets...

Quote

it's trustworthy.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Well, except for the parts that contradict each other. And the parts that people ignore because they're old laws. And the parts that theologians have agreed don't apply any more. And some of the references to things like the "sun standing still." But other than that, it's trustworthy.

No serious examination of an ancient literary work is performed in the careless, non-contextual, broadstroke manner you seem to want to apply to the books of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books and, taken together, is a progressive revelation of God's plan of salvation for His people throughout history. Context is everything. The laws, for example, do not all apply to us. Would you read a contemporary history of law describing the different laws of the major nations in the world and apply those specific to Russia to us? The Civil laws of the Nation of Israel, for example, only apply to the Nation of Israel. The purpose for the ceremonial type laws were fulfilled in Christ's work on the cross and the moral laws of God, of course, still apply to everyone today (not in the work-righteous sense but in the perfect righteous standard for salvation sense.)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

No serious examination of an ancient literary work

can assume that because it says its from "God" that it must be.

You guys are very good at rationalizing and ignoring the inconsistencies in the Bible.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

So Jaybird, one more time, given all the evidence of innacuracies, changes and mistranslations in the current (KJV) Bible, why is it that you trust its word as absoulutely correct?

I disagree with your premise ("given" inaccuracies, changes, mistranslations, we should distrust). Those might account for less than a percent of the whole, there is no evidence that any of it was done with intent to deceive, and none affects the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Also, the original manuscripts are inerrant, not necessarily everything in the KJV translation (that's not one of the versions, by the way, that I rely on for study). A more scholarly (word for word) translation into English would be the NAS or ESV. Besides, infallibility means that the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations. It does not mean that a KJV translator can’t make an error in usage or omission. But again, there is no evidence of any widespread translational dishonesty and those very few discrepancies account for a miniscule portion of the whole. In this way, the vast number of translations themselves gives much credibility to the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is the most scrutinized work in history because of what’s at stake. It is trustworthy. I believe it was said that approximately 95% of the New Testament could be reproduced from the Dead Sea Scrolls alone. There is no other ancient work in existence with as much textual and historical evidence as the Bible.

I'll agree that none of the innaccuracies take away from the overall message of the Bible, just that they make it untrustworthy as a completely accurate historical record.

But a lot of the changes were made with the intent to exert control over the faithful.

And while 95% of the NT is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are large amounts of the DSS that have been excluded from the Bible. Selectively edited out because the ones in charge didn't like what they had to say.

To say that the Bible is accurate because "There is no other ancient work in existence with as much textual and historical evidence as the Bible" is kind of like comparing an ant to a grain of sand. In comparaison, the ant is huge. But that doesn't make the ant big.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jaybird18c 24]

Here's the real problem: You don't want to believe. Because, if you did, then you'd be accountable to what it says. You'd be accountable to a God who has laws. You could no longer just do what you want with no consequences or accountability to anyone other than yourself. That goes against our nature (our fallen nature, that is). That's why the Bible says that we actively "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." As it is, you stand guilty before a thrice holy God and there are consequences for your actions either in this life or in eternity when you die. That is an inconvenient truth that someone would rather forget, ignore, or deny rather than face.

[beowulf 1]

Prove it.

You make a lot of claims now show the evidence to support it.