Have you Read the Bible

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Postby Nick Cowan » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:52 pm

Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle, Pascal, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage, Simpson, Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel, Henry, Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as a devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton, Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............

.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?
Nick Cowan
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:22 pm

mcowan32 wrote:Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle, Pascal, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage, Simpson, Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel, Henry, Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as a devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton, Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............

.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?


Ah, well, many of the first lot hadn't much of an alternative. And even then, they might have been killed if they had a copy in their vernacular. (Sounds uncomforatable enough anyway ;-) The second lot, though, should know better than to take it literally. Most educated Christians don't.

Anyway, welcome 'back' Nick.

Brian
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Ian Lowe » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:23 am

mcowan32 wrote:Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?


Cover to Cover, Nick. I even memorised large parts of it in my youth.

I have my battered old copy of the NIV sitting here beside me just now. So, where would you like to start? What would you consider more relevant? the bible's flawed view of cosmology (Gen 1 6-8) or the improbabilities of noah's ark?

Ian.
Ian Lowe
 

Finding Darwin's God

Postby Dave Oldridge » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:39 am

On 9 Oct 2006 at 17:52, mcowan32 wrote:

Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but
wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there
ever read it? All of it?

Yep... all of it. Including the parts Luther didn't want you to
read.

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle, Pascal,
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage, Simpson,
Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel, Henry,
Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as a
devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton,
Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............

.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?

Darwin, probably. Miller, maybe not, though I wouldn't be
surprised. But you should know that Christians like Miller and
myself worship the Triune deity, not a book.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Finding Darwin's God

Postby Dave Oldridge » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:40 am

On 9 Oct 2006 at 18:22, Oeditor wrote:


mcowan32 wrote:
Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but
wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there
ever read it? All of it?
Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle,
Pascal, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage,
Simpson, Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel,
Henry, Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as
a devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton,
Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............
.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?


Ah, well, many of the first lot hadn't much of an alternative.
And even then, they might have been killed if they had a copy in
their vernacular. (Sounds uncomforatable enough anyway ;-) The
second lot, though, should know better than to take it
literally. Most educated Christians don't.

Actually, when Jerome translated it, the Vulgate WAS being set
into the vernacular. The NT and the Septuagint were ALREADY in
the vernacular of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.


--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Finding Darwin's God

Postby Anonymous » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:55 am

mcowan32 wrote:
Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible?

It isn't Sunday school. Why would you have a problem with a Roman
Catholic biologist who accepts there is no incompatibility between the
Bible and evolution?

*snips list of people, virtually all of who were pre-Darwin*
Anonymous
 

Postby Michael » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:21 am

mcowan32 wrote:Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle, Pascal, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage, Simpson, Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel, Henry, Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as a devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton, Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............

.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?



I occassionally readit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You will find a good number of scientists today who have read it and accept proper science .

Also note that YEC is a recent phenomenon, most educated Christians from about 1750 accepted an old earth and before that they were iffy. Yet had no problem with the bible.
You will have to read my forthcoming chapter in Myth and Geology which will be published as a Special Publication of the Geol soc of London next year. I do have a study on Geology and Genesis in the early 19th cnetury - email me.

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby George Jelliss » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:54 pm

mcowan32 wrote:Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?


All you needed to do was start a "new topic" on The Bible, rather than hijack one intended to be about another book.

In my experience atheists are more familiar with the contents of the bible than most christians are, especially the more lurid sections of it.

I've never read it through, but I keep a copy for reference. However I find a lot of the language in the King James version antiquated and difficult to understand, if indeed it ever made sense in the original version from which it was translated.

Many of the modern translations I find give completely different meanings to some sections than older versions. Do you recommend one version as being the most "authentic"?
User avatar
George Jelliss
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: St Leonards on Sea (UK)

Postby Michael » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:01 pm

Let's consider this list

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, First three days of Genesis were longer than 24 hrs, rejected Trinity
Kepler,
Faraday, Accepted old earth geology but not evolution
Maxwell,Old earth geology
Pasteur
, Joule,Old earth geology
Boyle,
Pascal,
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Old earth geology
Lister,
Babbage,Old earth geology
Simpson,
Linnaeus, local flood
Stokes,Old earth geology evolution
Morse,
Davy, J.J.Old earth geology
Thomson, Old earth geology
Mendel,
Henry,
RayleighOld earth geology
, Ramsay, Old earth geology
Herschel,Old earth geology
Marconi (though maybe not as a devout Catholic!),
Steno,
Francis Bacon, gay
Agassiz, Old earth geology, unitarian and racist
Dalton,
Riemann,
Maury,Old earth geology
Fleming...Old earth geology
and evolution but not for humans
...........
So what are you saying then ? Most christians reject Young Earth nonsense

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Finding Darwin's God

Postby Anonymous » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:08 pm

George Jelliss wrote:
However I find a lot of the language in the King James version antiquated and difficult to understand,

The wording of its English was antiquated at the time this translation
was done. It is also, according to Hebrew scholars, a very poor translation.
Anonymous
 

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:18 pm

Michael wrote:Let's consider this list

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Pasteur
Michael


IIRC, there was more policitics and theology than might be imagined in Pasteur's career. (Read the book, forgot the title.) There was a battle between 'spontaneous generation' of microorganisms and the 'germ theory'. Pasteur correctly identified the microbilogical origin of infectious diseases, but used some flawed experiments to prove his point. This was glossed over because of the politics surrounding the French revolution: it was at the time of the rebound, and spontaneous generation was very much a no-no: atheist and so revolutionary.

Funny really, that he was right about the germ theory, but wrong about abiogenisis. Still, that was a long time before he was born, and he wasn't there to see it ;)

Brian
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Michael » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:46 am

mcowan32 wrote:Sorry if I've misunderstood the title of this forum group, but wouldn't it be better to start with the Bible? Anyone out there ever read it? All of it?

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Joule, Boyle, Pascal, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Lister, Babbage, Simpson, Linnaeus, Stokes, Morse, Davy, J.J.Thomson, Mendel, Henry, Rayleigh, Ramsay, Herschel, Marconi (though maybe not as a devout Catholic!), Steno, Francis Bacon, Agassiz, Dalton, Riemann, Maury, Fleming..............

.......MacIntosh, Burgess, Ham, Mackay, Layfield........

Wonder if Darwin did? Wonder if Kenneth Miller has?


I should have said earlier that this comes from the list of alleged creationist great scientists popularised by such scholars as Henry Morris (the founder of YEC who died this year and reckoned oit was fine to tell lies for the Kingdom of God) to show that all true scientists were YEC.

The trouble is few were and those who might be eg Steno, Boyle, Pascal lived before there was any hard evidence of the age of the earth.

It's good pulpit rhetoric in a mission hut but devoid of any truth but we have seen that before.

My challenge to mcowan32; is your chemistry any better than your history?

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby George Jelliss » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:08 am

Oeditor wrote:
Michael wrote:Let's consider this list

Here are a few guys whom I reckon did read it:
Pasteur
Michael


IIRC, there was more policitics and theology than might be imagined in Pasteur's career. (Read the book, forgot the title.) There was a battle between 'spontaneous generation' of microorganisms and the 'germ theory'. Pasteur correctly identified the microbilogical origin of infectious diseases, but used some flawed experiments to prove his point. This was glossed over because of the politics surrounding the French revolution: it was at the time of the rebound, and spontaneous generation was very much a no-no: atheist and so revolutionary.

Funny really, that he was right about the germ theory, but wrong about abiogenisis. Still, that was a long time before he was born, and he wasn't there to see it ;)

Brian



When I was taught science (in the 1950s) Pasteur's experiments and reasoning were cited as being ideal examples to follow. I've not read anything since that suggests they were faulty. Can you provide a reference or link?

Also as I understand it "spontaneous generation" and "abiogenesis" are different things. Spontaneoius generation was the theory that grubs and suchlike appeared from nowhere out of rotting meat, whereas abiogenesis concerns the original origin of life itself.
User avatar
George Jelliss
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: St Leonards on Sea (UK)

Postby Louis » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:37 am

Have I read the bible. Yup I've read a few versions of it.

And the qu'ran.

And the hadith.

And the bhagavad ghita.

And the torah.

And the talmud.

And the book of mormon.

And the guru granth sahib.

And the iliad.

And......

This is getting boring. A lot of us have read a lot of mythology, so what?

The rise of creationism is little to do with the bible, it's everything to do with the political ambitions of certain literalist sects and their dogmatic approach to religion. The bible is a document from which they cherry pick things to reinforce their pre-existing prejudices. A copy of mein kampf, the mr men go to the seaside, Jamie cooks cajun, or the dangerous book for boys would all suffice given the creationists' ignorant quote mining of the book they worship.

This isn't a scriptural debate, this isn't a scientific debate. It's a political reaction to the enlightenment by dark ages religious bigots. Modern theology handwaved biblical literalism away ages ago. Science has had greater success in explaining the natural world's working than any other human enterprise. The fluidity of species, evolution by natural selection, the old age of the earth and the universe etc were all uncovered by the application of the scientific method (in most cases) beyond the lifespan of the grandparents of anyone still living. There is no scientific debate and the theological debate is meaningless waffle. Ok so it might be USEFUL meaningless waffle when it comes to countering creationists, but it's a double edged sword because we play on their turf, it aids them in playing the "conflicting religions" lie.

We have to remember that creationists are not scientists, or more accurately they are not approaching this issue as scientists. They are scurrying around trying to find ANYTHING real or imagined that supports their very tenuous faith.

Louis

P.S. Of course Darwin read the bible, he was a hair's breadth away from studying divinity and becoming an ordained country parson.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

R P Feynman
Louis
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:54 pm
Location: London

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:54 am

George Jelliss wrote:When I was taught science (in the 1950s) Pasteur's experiments and reasoning were cited as being ideal examples to follow. I've not read anything since that suggests they were faulty. Can you provide a reference or link?


I'll try to dig it out, but it will be a while. It's book sort of deflating scientific heroes. Some were given all the credit when they didn't deserve it, some came up with the right answer for the wrong reasons. Pasteur came into the latter category. All I can remember is that it was something to do with his flasks sealed with mercury. His oponent pointed out the flaw, but by that time Pasteur was on a wave and his oponent was shouted down.

Also as I understand it "spontaneous generation" and "abiogenesis" are different things. Spontaneoius generation was the theory that grubs and suchlike appeared from nowhere out of rotting meat, whereas abiogenesis concerns the original origin of life itself.


Sure. But at that time they were pretty much the same thing. Pasteur's opponent was shouted down because the idea was supposed to be atheistic and so carried the taint of the "Terror"

Brian
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Next

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests