Why do you accept the bible as inerrant historical fact?

[outhouse]

I do not see where those who may be described as literal fundamentalists cause a real problem for their own souls or for other Christians or for outisiders by believing it is literal or historical in all senses?

Because you have taken the material out of context.


Much of the beauty is ruined with a literal interpretation.

The Bible is historical enough that many should take serious notice,

No, it is not.

IMO. Evolution is the fable.

Evolution is now fact. It has not been up for a REAL debate in a very long time. Just because wilful ignorance is still extreme in todays societies gives no credibility to mythology.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Bible is historical enough that many should take serious notice, IMO. Evolution is the fable.

And Evolution is historical enough (much more than the Bible) that it should be taken serious.

Consider each one of the hundreds of thousands of fossilized bones to each be a witness for the story. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of the same species all witness about their own chapter in the book. And on top of that, all the genetic evidence to tie it all together and the observed facts of it happening right now. The miracle of evolution is right here, right now, and was in the past.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not see where those who may be described as literal fundamentalists cause a real problem for their own souls or for other Christians or for outisiders by believing it is literal or historical in all senses?

However, such a position does allow for the doubters to find an easy piece of theology to attack. And if they can convince their audience that Noah’s ark was a fable or that Adam was not true or that he did not live to be 900 years old, then they parlay that into making the point the Bible is total fantasy. Which of course is a false argument regardless if it works on some.

The Bible is historical enough that many should take serious notice, IMO. Evolution is the fable.

You've answered your own question. About the only people who disbelieve evolution are literalist Christians. Their literal reading of the creation story forces them to deny the findings of modern science.

I'd say that's a problem caused by literalists.

 

[thau]

The main problem I see is that it causes a false dilemma for those who are asked to choose between the Christian faith and science. That one cannot be a Christian and accept the conclusions based on scientific evidence.



I agree that is a non-seqitur.



Evolutionary theory is based on solid evidence and makes predictions which are subsequently confirmed.

Well I knew I would sabotage my own message by throwing in that evolution quote. Dumb on my part.

Anyway, is that what you are getting at? Are you saying the only real hang-up between biblical literalists and doubters is how the world was created? Isn't there a lot more to it than that?

Because if that is all the Bible is at odds with with science then you would think science would embrace the Bible far more than it does? Like Catholics. They have no issue with evolution (except for me) and many other mainline Protestants. In other words, most Christians do not have to choose between science and their faith.

Or to put it another way, God could have easily created the world via evolution. I just do not see the evidence for it, which is the main reason I oppose it.

But my problem with fundamentalists (or literalists in some sense) is that they cling to verses. They say "you are saved by faith because of X" or "you are condemned for all eternity because of Y" but that is nonsense. They need to understand all of Scripture, all of the early church, all of revelations, etc. Then they might see that God is a little more intriguing and complex than their blanket black and white statements. Which is why Jesus established His Church.

 

[thau]

And Evolution is historical enough (much more than the Bible) that it should be taken serious.

Consider each one of the hundreds of thousands of fossilized bones to each be a witness for the story. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of the same species all witness about their own chapter in the book. And on top of that, all the genetic evidence to tie it all together and the observed facts of it happening right now. The miracle of evolution is right here, right now, and was in the past.

It is not even fair of me to bring up another evolution argument because most readers here have been through this so many times.

But I will. I am just going to make one point and then you can have the final word on it for now.

I am just musing about this because I do not know the accuracy to what I am proposing. But my question is “How long do you think it would take for a lizard to turn into a flying bird?” Or, “How many biological and physiological changes must have taken place?” Here I have no idea but would you not think it would be in the thousands? Surely to make an eyeball would be far more than that. But back to the lizard-bird metamorphisis. How many years might that take, all those changes to achieve this full transition? Are any of your text books telling us this? How about 50,000 years? Let’s use that.

So now I am saying that to make these serious transitions from species to species like that, there is a very long period of “transition.” So then why is every single animal since man has been around in its complete state? Why are there not thousands, if not millions, somewhere in the middle of a major change to a higher species? When there had to have been millions of animals in the transition stages at any one time in history, why is everything so nice and tidy since man has been around? If it takes 50,000 or a million years to complete the process then probabilities demand there would always be present countless animals doing something very noticeable. Always was that way and still should be now, especially with multi-millions of fish, birds, animal and insect species now around. A whole bunch of them should be somewhere in the process of becoming something else. Far too many creatures now present for this not to be the case. I don’t see it happening to any of them. I don’t buy it.

 

[rusra02]

It's even funnier because a lot of things have not been confirmed...

King David and Solomon are still up in the air figures, the exodus...no evidence...the wandering of the desert? Nope, Noah's flood? Nope...tower of babel? Nope...world created in 6 days? Nope...the Israelites tendency to fall into polytheism? Exaggerated it would appear polytheism was the norm according to archaeology...but you know victors write history.

As I mentioned, new discoveries are putting to rest questions raised about the historicity of persons and events mentioned on the Bible. For example, David.
Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the fact tht David became king of Israel. That year archaeologists found a basalt stone in Israel from the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”

Regarding Solomon is the testimony from Josephus. "Josephus speaks also of a place called Etan, which he locates 13 to 16 km (8 to 10 mi) from Jerusalem and which he describes as “delightful for, and abounding in, parks and flowing streams”, where, so he claims, Solomon was accustomed to ride in his chariot. (Jewish Antiquities, VIII, 186 [vii, 3])". (Quote from Insight on the Scriptures 1-p.890)

And so it goes.

 

[nazz]

Anyway, is that what you are getting at? Are you saying the only real hang-up between biblical literalists and doubters is how the world was created? Isn't there a lot more to it than that?

Yes, there is so no, that's not what I'm saying. I started this thread mainly out of curiosity and to see if anyone could suggest anything I'd not already thought of.

Because if that is all the Bible is at odds with with science then you would think science would embrace the Bible far more than it does?

No, because that is not how science works. Science seeks to explain things via methodological naturalism.

Or to put it another way, God could have easily created the world via evolution. I just do not see the evidence for it, which is the main reason I oppose it.

You can reject it all you like but the evidence is overwhelming. This is undeniable.

 

[nazz]

As I mentioned, new discoveries are putting to rest questions raised about the historicity of persons and events mentioned on the Bible. For example, David.
Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the fact tht David became king of Israel. That year archaeologists found a basalt stone in Israel from the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”

Regarding Solomon is the testimony from Josephus. "Josephus speaks also of a place called Etan, which he locates 13 to 16 km (8 to 10 mi) from Jerusalem and which he describes as “delightful for, and abounding in, parks and flowing streams”, where, so he claims, Solomon was accustomed to ride in his chariot. (Jewish Antiquities, VIII, 186 [vii, 3])". (Quote from Insight on the Scriptures 1-p.890)

And so it goes.

So it goes for some things. Which is to be expected. It would be unusual is everything was found to be false.

 

[outhouse]

As I mentioned, new discoveries are putting to rest questions raised about the historicity of persons and events mentioned on the Bible. .

Only in places.


Your example was not only bias but bery incomplete.

David really does not have any historicity. House of David does not mean it was from the biblical David.

I think he did exist but definately not as written. There is only a possibility for a historcial core to the mythology.



Solomon
Has no historicity what so ever.

Josephus is not a credible scholar and we know he made many historical mistakes.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not even fair of me to bring up another evolution argument because most readers here have been through this so many times.

But I will. I am just going to make one point and then you can have the final word on it for now.

I am just musing about this because I do not know the accuracy to what I am proposing. But my question is “How long do you think it would take for a lizard to turn into a flying bird?” Or, “How many biological and physiological changes must have taken place?” Here I have no idea but would you not think it would be in the thousands? Surely to make an eyeball would be far more than that. But back to the lizard-bird metamorphisis. How many years might that take, all those changes to achieve this full transition? Are any of your text books telling us this? How about 50,000 years? Let’s use that.

No. Much longer than 50,000 years. It's more in the range of 100 my. And it evolved from a dinosaur, not lizard. Besides, we do have quite a bit of fossil record of this. Also, birds still carry the gene for the teeth they share with the archaeopteryx.

So now I am saying that to make these serious transitions from species to species like that, there is a very long period of “transition.” So then why is every single animal since man has been around in its complete state?

They've not. They've changed. There are many observed changes in many different species. They're not in their "complete" state.

Why are there not thousands, if not millions, somewhere in the middle of a major change to a higher species?

Every individual is the middle of the change to the next. You are the "missing" link between your parents and your children. And there's no "higher" species. There are just species of different kinds. One is "higher" for a given context, but the context changes. The environmental niche is that context.

When there had to have been millions of animals in the transition stages at any one time in history, why is everything so nice and tidy since man has been around?

If you think it's nice and tidy, then you're thinking wrong. Biology is not nice and tidy, and the classification of species is very, very difficult just because of so many shared traits. And on top of that hybrids and mosaic parts of it just makes it hared.

If it takes 50,000 or a million years to complete the process then probabilities demand there would always be present countless animals doing something very noticeable.

It's not that noticeable most of the time. The changes tend to be very small, but many over time. It's like how you would make a morphing character in an animation. Or what they call "tweening" in Flash. Small changes over a time span results in a big change between first and last frame.

Always was and still should be now, if not now more than ever with multi-millions of fish, birds, animal and insect species now around. I don’t see it. I don’t buy it.

Where did dalmatians come from? When were they created?

I went to a Bible school /seminary for a year. We studied the historicity of Christianity and the evidence for Jesus' existence.

I also went to college and took anthropology classes, much more recent, and I learned about the evidence for evolution.

The result from those two experiences show very clearly to me that the evidence for evolution is thousands, if not millions of times stronger and complete than any so called evidence for Jesus.

---

I will give you just some simple examples of evolution. Today we drink a lot of beer. Beer is made by using grains, yeast, and hops (and water). The yeast and hops give a lot of the flavor to the beer. The yeast and hops we use today didn't exist 10, 20, 100 years ago. It has been cultivated through letting it grow and mutate(!) and we pick the best ones. This is how it works. The selection part for beer hops and yeast were made by humans, but the random mutation to give us the options were not made by humans. We can't control that yet. So... mutation and selection works. New things (and good and tasty things) come about through mutations even if you don't believe it or not. It is a fact of nature.

 

[thau]

You can reject it all you like but the evidence is overwhelming. This is undeniable.

If the evidence were overwhelming, you would not have well-educated scientists strongly objecting to the claims. It is not overwhelming, sorry.

If the evidence for “gradual evolution” were overwhelming, you would not have high priests of evolution (Stephen Gould and Steven Stanley for instance) publicly stating the fossil evidence is not there for it. That is a very troubling matter whether evolutionists want to accept it or not.

If the evidence is overwhelming you would have thousands of “transitional fossils” amongst the millions identified and cataloged. The fact is, you have scientists who believe in evolution who are also honest enough to say there are no transitional fossils they are aware of or can safely say they have identified. And if there were al these clear evidences of transitional fossils, we would likely see them in text books by the scores. Do we?

God could have easily created species and man via an evolutionary process, so I am not arguing against evolution because it is anti-God. But what bothers me far more than evolution vs. creation is those who hold to evolution without an intelligent designer. That lacks all belief.

 

[outhouse]

you would have thousands of “transitional fossils”

.

Evolution is now fact.


And every fossil is transitional

 

[outhouse]

Refute this. Evolution is now fact.

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts
about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution is now fact.


And every fossil is transitional

And there are thousands.

I can't find it right now, but there's a database being made to catalogue the fossil record, and they're at 2 or 300,000 at this point. Granted, that's all fossils of every different species. And unfortunately, there are not pictures. Only the classification and identification.

I think we have something like 2,000 of the genus Homo alone. So... thousands of transitional fossils.

But, I suspect that even if we had 100 trillion fossils, those who reject evolution won't be persuaded. It's an ideological resistance, not based on fact or reason. The resistance is hidden in reasons, and claims that there are no facts, but we know it's not true, so the real reason behind it is that it clashes with their belief. I think it's called framework in psychology, or something. No, wait, schema might be it. People have a schema of how they believe things work, and when that schema is challenged, they resist it--we all do.

 

[Ouroboros]

If the evidence for “gradual evolution” were overwhelming, you would not have high priests of evolution (Stephen Gould and Steven Stanley for instance) publicly stating the fossil evidence is not there for it.

I think you're misunderstanding Gould's position a little.

You won't have every single individual and every single step in the fossil record. You do get leaps because of how the speciation events happen, but that doesn't mean that we don't have any intermediate fossils at all. There are some series of species that we have a truckload of intermediates. Trilobites is one example. Horses and whales are some other.

Gould was a firm believers in evolution. He knew it was true. His critique was more about how the fossil record was represented and how evolution works.

A car is moving. We know it's an engine. Just because someone understand the science behind the engine better than we do and critique us when we say something wrong about it doesn't mean there's no engine or the car isn't moving. Evolution is something we can see has happened and is happening, how and why is the theory part of it and that part might change over time when we understand how and why better. It doesn't change that evolution is true in itself.

 

[rusra02]

So it goes for some things. Which is to be expected. It would be unusual is everything was found to be false.

It should be easy to refute the accuracy of a book started some 3,500 years ago, completed 2,000 years ago, written by some 40 different writers over a span of 1500 years, men with widely varying experience, skills, and abilities. Yet, the evidence mounts that the Bible is what it says it is, "not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is not even fair of me to bring up another evolution argument because most readers here have been through this so many times.

But I will. I am just going to make one point and then you can have the final word on it for now.

I am just musing about this because I do not know the accuracy to what I am proposing. But my question is “How long do you think it would take for a lizard to turn into a flying bird?” Or, “How many biological and physiological changes must have taken place?” Here I have no idea but would you not think it would be in the thousands? Surely to make an eyeball would be far more than that. But back to the lizard-bird metamorphisis. How many years might that take, all those changes to achieve this full transition? Are any of your text books telling us this? How about 50,000 years? Let’s use that.

So now I am saying that to make these serious transitions from species to species like that, there is a very long period of “transition.” So then why is every single animal since man has been around in its complete state? Why are there not thousands, if not millions, somewhere in the middle of a major change to a higher species? When there had to have been millions of animals in the transition stages at any one time in history, why is everything so nice and tidy since man has been around? If it takes 50,000 or a million years to complete the process then probabilities demand there would always be present countless animals doing something very noticeable. Always was that way and still should be now, especially with multi-millions of fish, birds, animal and insect species now around. A whole bunch of them should be somewhere in the process of becoming something else. Far too many creatures now present for this not to be the case. I don’t see it happening to any of them. I don’t buy it.

That is exactly the case... every species is in a transition to something else including us. Evolution does not run at a constant speed, but it is continuous.
Species only approximate a steady state, because we have such short lives to observer them in.
Changes can only happen every new generation. In fruit flies that is a very short period and change can be observable. In humans a new generation takes around twenty years, and it is difficult to discern genetic change in a population, as against natural individual variation.

The development of the Jack Russell dog into a stable and unique breed took less than the lifetime of a single man.

 

[nazz]

If the evidence were overwhelming, you would not have well-educated scientists strongly objecting to the claims. It is not overwhelming, sorry.

I'm really not going to debate this here, or anywhere for that matter. It's pointless to debate it with people unwilling to even acknowledge the mountain of evidence that supports the ToE. It was not the purpose of the thread anyway.

 

[nazz]

But, I suspect that even if we had 100 trillion fossils, those who reject evolution won't be persuaded. It's an ideological resistance, not based on fact or reason. The resistance is hidden in reasons, and claims that there are no facts, but we know it's not true, so the real reason behind it is that it clashes with their belief.

Exactly

 

[nazz]

It should be easy to refute the accuracy of a book started some 3,500 years ago, completed 2,000 years ago, written by some 40 different writers over a span of 1500 years, men with widely varying experience, skills, and abilities.

And indeed it is easy.

Yet, the evidence mounts that the Bible is what it says it is, "not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

I'm beginning to get the impression that this belief in the Bible as inerrant historical fact is based on nothing more than ignorance and/or denial of reality.