HAPPY CHRISTMAS

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

Moderator: Moderators

HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:35 am

I wish everyone on this Forum a Happy Christmas:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Michael » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:26 am

Joachim Schlick wrote:I wish everyone on this Forum a Happy Christmas:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

--------------------


I prefer it in Greek
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:18 am

Joachim Schlick wrote:I wish everyone on this Forum a Happy Christmas:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.


If you want to preach and save souls, go elsewhere. I don't care if you think you are on a mission from God to convert us all.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Chris Sergeant » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:59 pm

Is that the taxing decree recorded as the first under Augustus in 6AD?
One was not needed under king Herod as the area was a client kingdom not directly controlled from Rome.
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

The taxing/registration decrees of Caesar Augustus

Postby Joachim Schlick » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:27 pm

re (Chris Sergeant): "Is that the taxing decree recorded as the first under Augustus in 6AD? One was not needed under King Herod as the area was a client kingdom not directly controlled from Rome".

Chris Sergeant asked which decree of Caesar Augustus this was. There is much about it on the Internet these days, here's a snip from one article.

It's a pity, but Roger Stanyard snipped the other 19 verses from Luke that I posted. At least he left one that is particularly capable of being historically verifed:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher, Pastor

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

[/quote]


Cut and past elsewhere. You have been warned time and time again about this. If you don't like it, find another forum. Use your own words.
Last edited by Joachim Schlick on Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joachim Schlick
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:14 pm

Postby Michael » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:50 pm

Interesting post from a Pastor of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod,

I gave a paper on ID at a conference in a LCMS college in 2000 and then on the sunday worshipped in one of their churches. My paper is now in Debating Design ed Ruse and Dembski CUP 2004

The LCMS insists on a 6-day creation and until about 1920 they also held that Copernicanism was wrong

Just some info

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

Postby Ian Lowe » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:47 pm

I have removed the hot headed posts, let's keep this polite and friendly folks.

Ian (moderator)
Ian Lowe
 

HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Jaf » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:57 pm

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:41:03 -0600, you wrote:

From time to time it may be necessary in that debate e.g. to assert the proven historical veracity of the Bible.

No! It's about *Science*, not religion or scripture. If you have any
claims to make, and can back them up with *science*, I'd love to see it (1).
The bible is evidence only of the bible.

Though there are many purely scientific arguments for 'intelligent design' which have nothing to do with the Bible

So let's see them, and the relevant *science*. Not disputing someone else's
research, experiments and conclusions, but some actual *science*. (2)


(1) I really would. Some real *evidence* of god (whichever one you like,
I'm not fussy) would really turn the world upside down.
(2) Oh dear, there isn't any, is there?
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
Jaf
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Timothy Chase » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:31 pm

John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:No! It's about *Science*, not religion or scripture. If you have any
claims to make, and can back them up with *science*, I'd love to see it (1).
The bible is evidence only of the bible.


This forum is called "Scripture Debate," isn't it? Seems to me the Bible might be of some relevance within this forum.



John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:
Joachim Schlick wrote:Though there are many purely scientific arguments for 'intelligent design' which have nothing to do with the Bible

So let's see them, and the relevant *science*. Not disputing someone else's
research, experiments and conclusions, but some actual *science*.


If he thinks that he can fit God in a test-tube or that articles of faith should be treated as empirical hypotheses subject to empirical criticism, then asking him for his science seems entirely appropriate...


John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:(1) I really would. Some real *evidence* of god (whichever one you like,
I'm not fussy) would really turn the world upside down.
(2) Oh dear, there isn't any, is there?
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk


I would assume that there are some things which you believe even though they aren't susceptible to the scientific method. Can you empirically demonstrate that something is beautiful? That a given action is moral? That murder is a bad thing? Do you have the empirical evidence for such claims? Do you have a theory from which which you are able to form specific hypotheses which are testable by means of experience and demonstrable to those who might disagree? Just curious.

But yes, if he claims that creationism is scientific, then he is claiming that the existence of God is susceptible to public, empirical demonstration, and moreover, claiming that it is in some sense falsifiable - something which may at least potentially be falsified by consequent experiments. It would seem to be a view that will make him unpopular among the genuinely religious, though, once they understand it.
User avatar
Timothy Chase
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Dave Oldridge » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:27 am

On 21 Dec 2006 at 15:28, Joachim Schlick wrote:

Chris Sergeant asked which decreee of Caesar Augusts this was.
There is much about it on the Internet these days, here's a snip
from one article.

It's a pity, but Roger Stanyard snipped the other 19 verses from
Luke that I posted. At least he left one that is particularly
capable of being historically verifed:

----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher, Pastor

1. In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census
should be taken of the entire Roman world.
2. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was
governor of Syria.
3. And everyone went to his own town to register (Luke 2:1-3 - I
am not sure which translation/version).

All those even vaguely familiar with Luke's Christmas story have
heard of Caesar Augustus and his famous decree. It was this
decree that sent Mary in the ninth month of her pregnancy 80
miles south to Bethlehem, along with husband Joseph. But could
such a thing have really happened? Do we have any proof from
historical sources outside of the Bible that the Roman emperor
ever authorized a census? Yes, we do.

"Caesar Augustus" reigned as emperor of the Roman empire from 27
B.C. to 14 A.D. The grand-nephew of Julius Caesar (100- 44
B.C.), his real name was Gaius Octavius and he lived from 63
B.C. to 14 A.D. Because Julius Caesar had legally adopted
Octavius as his son, Octavius took the name "Caesar" from
Julius, which in later years became a name almost equivalent to
"emperor." "Augustus" is a Latin term that means "worthy of
reverence."

Caesar Augustus's reign was marked by peace and security - the
famous Pax Romana...

What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to
Luke 2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all
the world should be taxed." Most other translations say
something like "that all the world should be registered" (NRS)
or "that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world"
(NIV). The Greek verb is apographo, which literally means to
"enroll" or "register" as in an official listing of citizens.
What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It would have been
a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing taxes. But
only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of
citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether
that number was growing. This probably was the primary reason
for the census (see below).

But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any
record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a
decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses
during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are
listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought
were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud
of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts
of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of
Augustus's mausoleum after he died.

The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14
A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke
mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship
normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C.
census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken
several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach
Palestine...

Incidentally, 8BC agrees with some astronomical phenomena that
may have been the basis for the "three wise men from the east"
seeking out the child Jesus.



--

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

HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Jaf » Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:18 am

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:31:34 -0600, you wrote:


John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:
No! It's about *Science*, not religion or scripture. If you have any
claims to make, and can back them up with *science*, I'd love to see it (1).
The bible is evidence only of the bible.



This forum is called "Scripture Debate," isn't it? Seems to me the Bible might be of some relevance within this forum.

Quite so, but along with his previous paragraph, the statement suggested
that quoting the bible would be necessary for discussing 'creation science.
I dispute that. Of course, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong,
unlike cretinists. . .

John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:
Joachim Schlick wrote:
Though there are many purely scientific arguments for 'intelligent design' which have nothing to do with the Bible


So let's see them, and the relevant *science*. Not disputing someone else's
research, experiments and conclusions, but some actual *science*.


If he thinks that he can fit God in a test-tube or that articles of faith should be treated as empirical hypotheses subject to empirical criticism, then asking him for his science seems entirely appropriate...



John Flemming (Jaf) wrote:
(1) I really would. Some real *evidence* of god (whichever one you like,
I'm not fussy) would really turn the world upside down.
(2) Oh dear, there isn't any, is there?
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk


I would assume that there are some things which you believe even though they aren't susceptible to the scientific method. Can you empirically demonstrate that something is beautiful? That a given action is moral? That murder is a bad thing? Do you have the empirical evidence for such claims? Do you have a theory from which which you are able to form specific hypotheses which are testable by means of experience and demonstrable to those who might disagree? Just curious.

I can't do it personally, I only got as far as O-level, but psychology can
explain how my development, nurture and nature, socialisation and so on have
helped me decide, or even decided for me, what I find beautiful and why, how
and why my moral sense has developed, etc. Straightforward logic can help
to explain morals. Modern brain-scanning techniques can demonstrate,
visually, the 'mechanics'; much older technology can demonstrate the
chemistry.

But yes, if he claims that creationism is scientific, then he is claiming that the existence of God is susceptible to public, empirical demonstration, and moreover, claiming that it is in some sense falsifiable - something which may at least potentially be falsified by consequent experiments. It would seem to be a view that will make him unpopular among the genuinely religious, though, once they understand it.

--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
Keep Science Scientific
BCSE http://bcseweb.org.uk
Jaf
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby George Jelliss » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:02 pm

John Flemming (Jaf) wrote::

Timothy Chase wrote::
I would assume that there are some things which you believe even though they aren't susceptible to the scientific method. Can you empirically demonstrate that something is beautiful? That a given action is moral? That murder is a bad thing? Do you have the empirical evidence for such claims? Do you have a theory from which which you are able to form specific hypotheses which are testable by means of experience and demonstrable to those who might disagree? Just curious.


I can't do it personally, I only got as far as O-level, but psychology can
explain how my development, nurture and nature, socialisation and so on have helped me decide, or even decided for me, what I find beautiful and why, how and why my moral sense has developed, etc. Straightforward logic can help to explain morals. Modern brain-scanning techniques can demonstrate, visually, the 'mechanics'; much older technology can demonstrate the chemistry.


I'm with JAF on this. But I hesitate to enter into these arguments about faith and reason on this forum, since they tend to get deleted as being disruptive, since BCSE wants evolutionists with religious views on board.

Ideas of beauty are a matter of personal taste. Saying that I thnk something beautiful is not the same as saying that I "believe" this as a matter of scientifically demonstrable fact. For instance I have a website all about knight's tours of chessboards. I find them beautiful and fascinating. But I know many people find them boring or even ugly. Specialists who study spiders or beetles no doubt find beauty in them.

I'd also question the assumption that something is "scientific" only if it is "empirically demonstrable". Pure reason is an important part science. Mathematics is an important part of science.
GPJ
User avatar
George Jelliss
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: St Leonards on Sea (UK)

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:08 pm

George Jelliss wrote:
John Flemming (Jaf) wrote::

Timothy Chase wrote::
I would assume that there are some things which you believe even though they aren't susceptible to the scientific method. Can you empirically demonstrate that something is beautiful? That a given action is moral? That murder is a bad thing? Do you have the empirical evidence for such claims? Do you have a theory from which which you are able to form specific hypotheses which are testable by means of experience and demonstrable to those who might disagree? Just curious.


I can't do it personally, I only got as far as O-level, but psychology can
explain how my development, nurture and nature, socialisation and so on have helped me decide, or even decided for me, what I find beautiful and why, how and why my moral sense has developed, etc. Straightforward logic can help to explain morals. Modern brain-scanning techniques can demonstrate, visually, the 'mechanics'; much older technology can demonstrate the chemistry.


I'm with JAF on this. But I hesitate to enter into these arguments about faith and reason on this forum, since they tend to get deleted as being disruptive, since BCSE wants evolutionists with religious views on board.

Ideas of beauty are a matter of personal taste. Saying that I thnk something beautiful is not the same as saying that I "believe" this as a matter of scientifically demonstrable fact. For instance I have a website all about knight's tours of chessboards. I find them beautiful and fascinating. But I know many people find them boring or even ugly. Specialists who study spiders or beetles no doubt find beauty in them.

I'd also question the assumption that something is "scientific" only if it is "empirically demonstrable". Pure reason is an important part science. Mathematics is an important part of science.


Agreed!

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

Re: HAPPY CHRISTMAS

Postby Paula Thomas » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:09 pm

George Jelliss wrote:
John Flemming (Jaf) wrote::

Timothy Chase wrote::
I would assume that there are some things which you believe even though they aren't susceptible to the scientific method. Can you empirically demonstrate that something is beautiful? That a given action is moral? That murder is a bad thing? Do you have the empirical evidence for such claims? Do you have a theory from which which you are able to form specific hypotheses which are testable by means of experience and demonstrable to those who might disagree? Just curious.


I can't do it personally, I only got as far as O-level, but psychology can
explain how my development, nurture and nature, socialisation and so on have helped me decide, or even decided for me, what I find beautiful and why, how and why my moral sense has developed, etc. Straightforward logic can help to explain morals. Modern brain-scanning techniques can demonstrate, visually, the 'mechanics'; much older technology can demonstrate the chemistry.


I'm with JAF on this. But I hesitate to enter into these arguments about faith and reason on this forum, since they tend to get deleted as being disruptive, since BCSE wants evolutionists with religious views on board.

Ideas of beauty are a matter of personal taste. Saying that I thnk something beautiful is not the same as saying that I "believe" this as a matter of scientifically demonstrable fact. For instance I have a website all about knight's tours of chessboards. I find them beautiful and fascinating. But I know many people find them boring or even ugly. Specialists who study spiders or beetles no doubt find beauty in them.

I'd also question the assumption that something is "scientific" only if it is "empirically demonstrable". Pure reason is an important part science. Mathematics is an important part of science.


The first thing you need to have before the scientific method can be used is well defined terms. ( would think that a concept like beauty would be too subjective to be testable.

Paula
Paula Thomas
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Chris Sergeant » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:13 pm

The above quote mentions “first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. “
I read that the governors of Syria from 12 to 3 BC were Marcus Titius, Sentius Saturninus & Quintilius Varus doing their 3 year stints. So no room for Quirinius who was recorded as governor of Syria in AD. Thus 8 BC does not look a well supported date.
Do we have any proof from historical sources outside the Bible that a census took place in Judea around the right time? It was a client kingdom until annexed by Rome in 6AD. So not appropriate for a heavy handed Roman census.
The Internet has more detail on the contradictions in the accounts of Matthew & Luke.
Of course this is only a problem for people who insist their interpretation of the bible is literally true and non-bible sources must be made to fit.
Chris Sergeant
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm


Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron