• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Bible literal young earth Christian fundamentalism turning people away from God?

ERLOS

God Feeds the Ravens
In your opinion. Well, let's look at your opinion.

Talking Snakes - The snake didn't actually talk.

The Wife of Cain - What about the wife of Cain?

Men And Dinosaurs Co-existing - Genesis doesn't say anything about men and dinosaurs co-existing.
It denotes the descent of the Spiritual (kether) into the first male principle chockma (adam) and the division of Adam to give existence to eve (binah). The consequent descent. Coats of skin, etc.

IMO.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with, lets say, anything? Your basic contention was that Genesis wasn't written by Moses, it evolved "edited, redacted and compiled text originally based on Canaanite, Ugarit, Banylonian mythology found first in Sumarian cuneiform tablets."

All you have shown in all of your information is that there were people copying it over the centuries.

What I showed is there is not any evidence of the Hebrew written language before ~1,000 BCE, and the earliest known text from the Tanakh are the silver scrolls. We have no archaeological evidence of anything else, nothing to conclude that Moses was the author, nor whehter it was written near the time of Moses.

You have not provided any archaeological evidence that the Hebrew version was copied by others. The archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrews adopted and copied the Creation myths in Genesis from Canaanite, Ugarit, Babylonian, and the earliest Sumarian cuneiform tablets.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
It denotes the descent of the Spiritual (kether) into the first male principle chockma (adam) and the division of Adam to give existence to eve (binah). The consequent descent. Coats of skin, etc.

IMO.

Oh.

Well, why didn't you say so.
 

Earthling

David Henson
What I showed is there is not any evidence of the Hebrew written language before ~1,000 BCE, and the earliest known text from the Tanakh are the silver scrolls. We have no archaeological evidence of anything else, nothing to conclude that Moses was the author, nor whehter it was written near the time of Moses.

What would be sufficient evidence that Moses completed the book of Genesis at about 1513 B.C.E.? And more importantly, does the absence of evidence discovered imply that something doesn't exist. For example, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else wrote the book of Genesis at any other time, and yet that is what you seem to be implying through lack of evidence, and thirdly, the writers of the Bible, from Joshua to Jesus they attribute the writing to Moses. If you found a cuneiform tablet of a secular nature confirming this would it make it true?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What would be sufficient evidence that Moses completed the book of Genesis at about 1513 B.C.E.?

Simply Hebrew texts dated from the time of Moses. None exist.

And more importantly, does the absence of evidence discovered imply that something doesn't exist. For example, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else wrote the book of Genesis at any other time, and yet that is what you seem to be implying through lack of evidence, and thirdly, the writers of the Bible, from Joshua to Jesus they attribute the writing to Moses.

I warned that this was on the way. 'Arguing from ignorance' is not an adequate argument that anything exists. Yes there is evidence that others wrote the myths in the Canaanite, Ugarit, Babylonian, and Sumarian cuneiform tablets.

Later attributions of authorship are 'traditional beliefs' without any supporting evidence to justify your claim. The attributing authorship of ancient texts without evidence of authorship is common in the ancient cultures.

If you found a cuneiform tablet of a secular nature confirming this would it make it true?

Hypothetical archaeological finds that do not exist are not an adequate argument. Nothing has been found either secular nor scripture.

Still waiting for actual archaeological finds that justify your position .Nothing provided so far.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Yes, literal YEC is turning people away from religions. YEC is like simultaneously shooting themselves in the foot while giving free ammo to anti-theists.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Dating methods have improved over the years,
of course.

If your idea is that there is reasonable doubt
that the world is some billions of years old,
I would have to disagree.

ETA- Sorry you were treated so poorly, was
that in school?


That was grade school in the 1950s. We all survived it.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Simply Hebrew texts dated from the time of Moses. None exist.

Professor F. F. Bruce:
“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.

“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century.

“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. . . .

“The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.

“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - The Books and the Parchments, page 180.

Yet there are thousands of manuscripts of various portions of the Bible, some of which go back to within a hundred years of the time of the writing of the original material.

I warned that this was on the way. 'Arguing from ignorance' is not an adequate argument that anything exists. Yes there is evidence that others wrote the myths in the Canaanite, Ugarit, Babylonian, and Sumarian cuneiform tablets.

This is what I want you to show me.

Later attributions of authorship are 'traditional beliefs' without any supporting evidence to justify your claim. The attributing authorship of ancient texts without evidence of authorship is common in the ancient cultures.

The weakness, I have found, in educated people is that they don't seem to be able to think for themselves. They are good at regurgitating information but not so good at critical thinking. If you read in a scientific journal that they discovered some pictographic or cuneiform text and it was attributed to the chief of the tribe or medicine man or king or whatever, you wouldn't doubt it. Especially in the unlikely event that you were amazingly fortunate enough to discover another sample from another time which confirmed it, so why not the Bible? The writers of which who followed Moses in chronological order attributed the writing of the Pentateuch to Moses. From accurate Bible chronology you can ascertain the date of it's writing. You don't accept that because you don't accept the Bible. Is this not correct?

Hypothetical archaeological finds that do not exist are not an adequate argument. Nothing has been found either secular nor scripture.

Wait a minute. I just said that the authors of the Bible, from Joshua, who was tutored by Moses, up to Jesus attribute Moses to the writing of the Law of Moses. And you say "nor scripture?"

I realize that hypothetical archaeological finds isn't an adequate argument, I'm just trying to establish the possibility of a bias here, an agenda of an atheist nature. A double standard.

Still waiting for actual archaeological finds that justify your position .Nothing provided so far.

The Value of Archaeology

“Archaeology provides a sampling of ancient tools and vessels, walls and buildings, weapons and adornments. Most of these can be chronologically arranged and securely identified with appropriate terms and contexts contained in the Bible. In this sense the Bible accurately preserves in written form its ancient cultural milieu. The details of biblical stories are not the fanciful products of an author’s imagination but rather are authentic reflections of the world in which the recorded events, from the mundane to the miraculous, took place.” - The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land.

What Archaeology Can and Cannot Do

“Archaeology neither proves nor disproves the Bible in conclusive terms, but it has other functions, of considerable importance. It recovers in some degree the material world presupposed by the Bible. To know, say, the material of which a house was built, or what a ‘high place’ looked like, much enhances our understanding of the text. Secondly, it fills out the historical record. The Moabite Stone, for example, gives the other side of the story treated in 2 Kings 3:4ff. . . . Thirdly, it reveals the life and thought of the neighbours of ancient Israel—which is of interest in itself, and which illuminates the world of ideas within which the thought of ancient Israel developed.” - Ebla - A Revelation in Archaeology.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Refute what? Narcissism? How can I refute someone's narcissism? Especially if it's religious narcissism. What Ido I point to the bible?

YEC isn't even "CHRISTIAN," its Amway. I mean if people are convinced That amway is truth it's sort of hard to dissuade them. Some come to realisation eventually many don't. Grow up stop with the Bible as comic book its distracted distracting and immature all about me on high. But totally normal and American at the same time.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Are these people actually seriously damaging the work of Christ and turning people away from God?

I believe that when you're down on your knees and you finally cry out: God help me, that God will respond to that first step of yours by taking the other nine steps towards you. Then and only then will you know God is really there. As a reality. And the rest of your existence will be absorbing the complete understanding that faith is safely letting God take over completely. Imo

In any faith or place or time.

But we have to ask first.

There is essentially nothing that you cannot believe based upon faith alone. Therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to the truth of anything. If there is a god and he designed me to think critically and withhold belief until the evidence supports the belief, and then punishes me for doing what he designed me to do, then that god is a dick.
 

Marsh

Active Member
I think their blatant hypocrisy in supporting Trump, along with an embrace of anti-intellectualism, and anti-science, is destroying themselves now. Destroying other's faith was what came before.
Just thought I should point out that some atheists, including a number I known, and including myself, are Trump supporters.
 

Marsh

Active Member
Are these people actually seriously damaging the work of Christ and turning people away from God?
Fundamentalism definitely played an important role in turning me against belief in God. I just could not figure out a way to fit Genesis, or the Bible in general, into a scientific world view. After having lost my faith I often thought, if only society around me, and in particular my church, had not been so insistent on setting Genesis before science. I found myself in a position where I though I had to choose between the reality of God or the reality of the science I was certain was well founded. God lost.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Fundamentalism definitely played an important role in turning me against belief in God. I just could not figure out a way to fit Genesis, or the Bible in general, into a scientific world view. After having lost my faith I often thought, if only society around me, and in particular my church, had not been so insistent on setting Genesis before science. I found myself in a position where I though I had to choose between the reality of God or the reality of the science I was certain was well founded. God lost.

Speaking as an atheist who never had any
religious affiliation at all, it seems to me that
a silly false version of "god" is what lost.

One of my favourite people-I wish I am as smart as
she-is a molecular biologist. Catholic.

She is no floodie or evolution denier. Her faith
is of very different sort, and I respect it.
 

ERLOS

God Feeds the Ravens
There is essentially nothing that you cannot believe based upon faith alone. Therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to the truth of anything. If there is a god and he designed me to think critically and withhold belief until the evidence supports the belief, and then punishes me for doing what he designed me to do, then that god is a dick.



I'm not going to debate on the infantile level of a rebellious kid smoking behind the bike sheds. Stop asking for evidence. God's not your idiot.

What shall I say of this generation. They ask me for a sign. They say: we piped but you would not dance ...
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Just thought I should point out that some atheists, including a number I known, and including myself, are Trump supporters.
But did you decry other politicians, say Bill Clinton for example, for being moral unfit to be president because he had extramarital affairs? No? Then you're not a hypocrite, unlike those who cry moral outrage at the politicians they don't like, citing God as the standard to bear. Yet when Trump comes along, none of all that which they screamed about to the high heavens, really matters all that much. That's pure religious hypocrisy.

Why then should they have any credibility in the eyes of those who seek for actual spiritual truth? Atheism is clearly more attractive because they sure don't have it.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I'm not going to debate on the infantile level of a rebellious kid smoking behind the bike sheds. Stop asking for evidence. God's not your idiot.

What shall I say of this generation. They ask me for a sign. They say: we piped but you would not dance ...

Perhaps you are his?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
But did you decry other politicians, say Bill Clinton for example, for being moral unfit to be president because he had extramarital affairs? No? Then you're not a hypocrite, unlike those who cry moral outrage at the politicians they don't like, citing God as the standard to bear. Yet when Trump comes along, none of all that which they screamed about to the high heavens, really matters all that much. That's pure religious hypocrisy.

Why then should they have any credibility in the eyes of those who seek for actual spiritual truth? Atheism is clearly more attractive because they sure don't have it.


Trump is a judgement from Allah SWT for the evil that huumans do.
 
Top