Welcome to Gaia! ::

when you look at a car, would you think... "wow that's such an awesome car. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is". Or maybe a computer "wow that's such a nice computer. It must have somehow came together by chance and pieced itself into what it is"

personally, I would think they have some designer and likewise, your own body - regardless of the respiratory system, circulatory system and so on - are much more complex that cars or computers. I would think there is a designer. And the universe itself too. personally, I'd say there is a designer. Unless I believed it came together by random which, for me, is actually harder to believe.

it's not just 5 sources, it's 5 sources with credibility. If you want hard evidence, it would require either you trusting me to, or you yourself doing so, going to the Grand Canyon, extracting some samples, and conducting the tests personally. Now, I dunno about you, but I can't really spare a week to go off and do so, and I'm sure you probably don't have that kind of time either.

What I gave was indeed a logical deduction, and a number of those at that. Using credible sources (five at that, which is indeed quite a number) is a universally accepted method for presenting evidence. If you can find credible sources saying otherwise (about the Grand Canyon, I mean), by all means do so.

If something else did occur, there would be definite evidence of it. So far, we have yet to find any evidence suggesting anything other than a river's flow creating the canyon. What "more" than rains are you thinking of? A meteor shower would have left impact craters and meteorites for us to find. An earthquake, even a massive one, would have left rifts other than the ones that follow the river's path, and yet we see nothing. I would say that this would qualify as another logical deduction, but if you see a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

@dboyzero:

1. sources
5 sources with credibility? Pastors have great credibility, general consences is that if anyone, they should be the ones most honest. So why don't you believe in their words? Obviously becuase you don't trust their believe, at least not until there is solid evidence, even though you might believe that they are telling the truth as they know it. But then does the same not go for you? You bring out sources and lets suppose they have the same honesty credibility, do you think what they researched is 100% right? No mistakes, no misinterpretations, no bias due to what society teaches? Say the example you brought up earlier:



Did I not also provide a perfectly logical alternative explaination with equal evidential support? (which is zero by the way) You believed that it is only natural for it to be an explaianation for evolution, yet did you realize it is perfectly logical to support creationism as well? Is this not bias? Can you be sure there's no bias in interpretation of their experiements? Much like you don't take pastors' words as absolute credible sources, i don't take yours as absolute credible sources either. We really both want the same thing if you think about it. You and I, we want evidence. Just saying "someone else says it" doesn't cut it for us. Not for me at least, what about you?

2. grand canyon
just saying "there wasn't anything we could observe" isn't really saying much since you dont' have any evidence to support that. Yet the point really isn't to prove that the grand canyon is created by the flood. I've repeated many atimes that I am not spewing from knowledge, and in fact I have little knowledge about the details of the proofs of either side. Yet what is more interesting is how you can support what you believe. Why do you believe what you believe. Can you support it with real evidence? I've been wanting to see you in action (figure of speach) for some time now and so I've not only brought up the grand canyon but also asked you to prove evolution - that you believe so strongly about - and the big bang - which you also believe. Why do you believe what you believe? Can you support it with real evidence, the same that you required of others?

You have not proven anything except that the bible stories have as equal a chance of being true as false. Just like you are waiting for proof, so am I. I want some concrete evidence that the old testament is true.

Humans. What are humans? basically they are thinking man. We take concepts, theories, we learn them, and we understand them.

Christianity is a Theory.
It is not proven. in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. I will explain


Religion is a Concept
It is also an answer, to something we will never have.

We will never have a full definition as to how we got here, what made the earth, where the universe came from, these are things that will boggle your mind for the rest of your life, unless youve come to a Religion that you are solely content with.

But it's just a comfort, is it not? You can never be certain of all these questions, so religion steps in, takes all these questions and pinpoints them into seperate ways of life, concepts and such.

So, christianity is a theory, that came from a concept, in which is a comfort, so you feel as if you have a reason to live.

Animals and such do not need this because they have not surpassed a level of intelligence that allows them to understand food, fighting to live for the purpose of living, sex (which they barely understand).

We most definately have.

So, without further ado you can tell I am not a christian, because since the age of 11 I have deeply searched and thought. I thought, and i thought, and i thought, and ive never stopped thinking like this.

I would rather not know all these questions, then to search for answers that have no credibility. They have a book. People consider the Bible PROOF of the Lord.

How do you know this? How do you know that the Bible wasnt made by some crazy who searched for answers to a point where he created his own imaginary god in his mind, that helped him think that he could finally understand the world?

When you 'pray', how do you know that God can hear you, or whether or not your Mind hears you, and your Mind helps you fight your way through whatever you are praying for. How Do You Know?

God as an entity I do not fully agree with.
Made in God's image? We have no rational idea of that. Why consider god an entity?

No God is a concept manufactured by man, a loose description of the forming of life.
We all hold some concept of a divine or creation theory. And we can continue trying to describe how everything came to be. But we are as now what our ancestors were then, as everything was in all time. Here.

Regarding the Credibility of the Bible

I must thank you for bringing that up as it has finally spurred me on to finally do what I set out to do. Below I will present my case for one discrepancy in the Bible which I am most familiar with. Personally, I don’t believe that a single misgiving in a text is enough to bar its credibility, but if you are satisfied with one, that is what I’ll deliver. This is mostly because I’m not terribly familiar with the rest of the text, but this (Genesis) is one part with which I am rather confident about.

Firstly, you asked previously why there has been no big noise about why the Bible has been refuted, and that it shouldn’t be taken literally. I see now that my previous answer was inadequate, while I personally don’t believe it to be invalid. There is, however, a more logical one: it already happened. Obviously, it hasn’t happened recently, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. However, the Renaissance period of Europe saw the dawn of the Scientific Revolution, in which many individuals made radical claims about the natural world, nearly all of which went directly against church teachings and led to calls of heresy and witchcraft. These people were persecuted for their beliefs, and yet it is under them that we study a half a millenium later. It was thanks to the likes of Galileo, Copernicus, Brahe, Bacon, and many others that people stopped taking the Bible literally, and led to the world we’re in. Sure, society makes us teach the way of science, and by looking solely at the present you could argue that this is the reason that religion doesn’t have as much sway. However, by taking the past into account, especially a past where the church’s word was law (from the Middle Ages on), and seeing the world we’re in now, wouldn’t you say that the credibility of the scientific method must have validity, explaining how we were able to take ideas that were once completely heretical and scoffed at by all, confirm them with data and reasoning, and eventually use them to advance our technology and science into where it is today? There will be no news story or breaking coverage about science disproving elements of the Bible because it has already happened. Very few people take the Bible literally any more, and even fewer believe that simply because one part is true that the rest must be as well (or the opposite regarding one part being false). I believe that there are definitely parts of the Bible that are factual and true, verified historically and archaeologically. However, this is not proof that the rest of it must be, as that would be committing the fallacy of logic known as “truth (or falsehood) by association.” It would be the same as one saying, “Apples fall down, and I can fly.” We know that apples fall down, and we know this to be true, but that doesn’t mean that the second part is true as well.

Okay, on to the meat and potatoes. There are several key differences between the first and second chapters of Genesis that have led most theologians, historians, and Biblical scholars to believe that they were written at (substantially) different times by different people. These differences lie in the actual text itself, the content of the texts, and the history of the texts and references to them. I will be using the New Oxford Translation for the text.

The text itself features a few distinct contradictions between the two chapters, which implies that they are meant to be portrayed as different stories rather than one and the same. Beginning with the existence prior to creation, the world is described as such.



This presents the world before creation as a watery chaos, possibly symbolizing the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, as the word “deep” (Heb. tehom) has no definite article attached to it. Aside from this possible reference, this states that there is a world prior to creation, whereas 2 Macc 7:28 says (this was taken from the site http://newadvent.org because I only have the books of Genesis with me):



If the world was made out of nothing, what was the watery chaos?

Moving on, the second chapter even disputes whether it was a watery chaos, as it describes the world prior to creation much differently (as you can see, this shows a second creation story entirely, but I’ll get to that in a bit).



Earth? Ground? So now we see that the world is not a watery chaos, but a fallow plain, a field with no plants and no rain. This is very similar to other creation myths of the ancient Near East, representing a desert or other barren lands.

Now we get to the actual creation itself. The first chapter contains the very familiar seven day creation, but the second chapter features a creation story of one day.



Quite different from the first chapter, as I you can see. Not only does this all take place within the course of a single day, but the whole creation is actually completely different from the way things were in the other story. In the first chapter, man is created last, after all the plants and animals and so forth. However, in this version, man is created first, and then the garden of Eden is planted with all the plants of the world, and then all the animals are made. Being a deity, why would man, plants, animals, or the world itself need to be created twice? Also, in the first chapter male and female are created at the same time, evidenced by the following quote.



This contradicts the second creation story, which is famous for the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib.



And this creation of woman takes place after the creation of the plants and animals as well.

Speaking of animals, the first chapter features the creation of the animals as a divine event, done to fill the skies, seas, and land. The second chapter, however, has a different motive for creation.



Now, while we’re on the subject of the character of “God,” there are some other key differences between the ways he’s portrayed in these two chapters of Genesis. The first is his name. In the first chapter, the word for God is a name, the Hebrew Elohim meaning “divinity.” It’s actually the pluralized version of the word Eloah, which may be another reference to polytheistic origins. However, grammatically speaking, it’s used as both a plural and a singular, depending on the passage of the Bible. But the word itself is used by itself in the first chapter, that’s what’s important. This is important because in the second chapter of Genesis, they refer to God as Yahweh Elohim, which translates to “Lord God.” Odd isn’t it? If you reread the first and second chapters with this in mind, it certainly makes a bit of a difference.

God is also portrayed differently by the way he acts and creates in the two chapters, which speaks of a different interpretation and a different story. In the first chapter, he’s elevated to a cosmic scale, almost immeasurably powerful and vast. However, he’s still man enough for us to relate to, which begs the question of why he can’t escape from human trappings. In any case, his power is in his language, befitting of the intellectual that was idealized. He uses words and ideas, creating with but a word from his divine lips. Read the first chapter closely—it follows almost a formula of “God said, there was, and he saw it to be good.” His challenges are cosmic and spectacular, as great as the sky and sea (sound familiar?). The focus is on separation, separating the light from the dark, separating the water from the sky, separating water from the earth, and so forth. In essence, it’s a big way of organizing the muddy mess that was there before God stepped in and spoke it out of existence, the triumph of order over chaos. Chaos has traditionally been represented by the seas, a realm out of the control of man and civilization.

In the second chapter, God is much more down to earth, and quite literally, although he’s still divine and unable to be represented by humankind. The realm is earth, and he creates using his hands to sculpt things into existence, representing the laborer or the craftsman. He also plants the Eden and all the things that grow within it, representing the farmer. His challenges are agricultural in nature, and he creates Adam to till the land for him. It is also interesting to note that in the third chapter (mentioned because the second and third chapters are connected), he physically walks through the garden, rather than being the omnipotent speaker from above, as mentioned in the first chapter.

Lastly, I come to the history of the text. As quoted by the New Oxford Translations introduction to Genesis, “Two hundred and fifty years of historical-critical scholarship have established that Genesis was written over a long period of time, using oral and written traditions…Ever since the work of Graf and Wellhausen in the late nineteenth century, most scholars have recognized that the earliest origins of Genesis probably are to be found in the non-Priestly material [the Priestly material is the label given to the first chapter of Genesis and other passages].”

Of course, this is probably not enough to convince you of this point, as it truly doesn’t contain any hard or physically tangible evidence for you to work with. Like the case with the Grand Canyon, the empirical evidence would have to be dating the source. Until we can find that source, we’ll never know for sure the true ages for the manuscripts (assuming, of course, that you’re willing to trust the word of another on their age and dating). The fact of the matter remains that this will continue to be debated until one side fades away to the sands of time. Right now I could show you several articles which make sense of the two chapters of Genesis, arguing that they are indeed the work of the same author, and that the documentary hypothesis is full of falsehoods. However, it would only make sense for people to defend their faith, their holy texts, in such a manner. The fact that such a controversial idea, born amidst such a Christian environment, has managed to survive with such evidence for two centuries grants it great credibility, in my opinion. However, as I said before, it depends on your interpretation of the text under question, and it is that human interpretation that leads to so many conflicts.

Recently, a computer was used to analyze the text of the Genesis to determine consistencies, or lack thereof, with the authorship. Like all things, where you get the story matters greatly to what story you get.

From the Answers in Genesis website:


From the Time website:



See what I mean?

I must close with this point: that regardless of the textual inconsistencies or historical inaccuracies, the Bible is still a religious document, and that its meaning is not detracted after being dealt with by human devices. Taken from Simple to Remember, the following makes sense to me about the nature of Biblical Criticism and the true points of it all.

I didn’t say that the Bible was proven wrong—I said that people don’t take it literally anymore. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days, and we know this cannot be true because of the geological and cosmic timescale, the latter of which you used yourself to show that the Big Bang occurred. The Bible states that a global flood occurred that covered the entire planet, and yet we’ve proven this to be false based on the geological formations all over the planet. How many Christians are there again? If the Bible was proven to be taken literally, why aren’t we doing so? After 500 years of observation and experimentation, we know that it can’t have happened as written.


It depends on the version of the Bible you’re reading, am I correct? The second book of Maccabees is considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. My apologies if you don’t fit into either of these denominations, but it is still a biblical text. The text I’m using (as I said before) is the latest Oxford Translation, and is the most widely accepted version for scholarly work. Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and traditional Jews all contribute to make sure it is accurate and significant.


The world may have been empty, but the water exists, does it not? The chaos is derived from the word “deep,” Hebrew tehom, which as I explained earlier, lacks a definite article and has a connection to the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, who represented oceanic chaos.


Did you catch the “but?” This means that the world was a fallow plain to begin with, and then the waters came about and allowed God to sculpt mankind. I’m not taking small chunks, I’m even taking a broader look than you’re giving, as it is I the sentence afterward (verse 7) that it reads “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.” The two go hand in hand, but it was before creation that I’m referring to, not yet the actual creation of man.



Depending on how you read it, I suppose it can read either way (referring to verse cool and the translation does indeed make quite the difference when referring to verse 4. However, in 9 and 18 you could argue that the plants and animals were created after man (Adam) was created. More on this later.



It’s simple; in the first chapter he created man and woman at the same time after he had created everything else, whereas in the second chapter he created man, then plants and animals, then woman. Like I just mentioned, versions and interpretations can change how you look at this.



Doesn’t it seem odd that they would only mention all of this after the creation of man, where in the first chapter man was clearly created last? It seems like you’re reading the “Now the Lord God had formed” as if the “now” was a “now, see here” kind of “now.” Forgive me, my knowledge of grammatical nuances aren’t as keen as they used to be, but the way I see it it’s emphasizing the “now” in the passage, like a “now you can see” kind of now. It is this that shows how God formed the animals (and plants, going back to an earlier verse) after Adam. And women haven’t even been made yet, which clearly contradicts the first book.



So why don’t we see the different names of God used interchangeably? If there’s one truth to powerful writing (and the Bible is a prime example of this), it’s that every word is used for a reason. Why use just Elohim when you can use YHWH Elohim, also pronounced Yahweh or Jehova. Or are the names just used arbitrarily, with no forethought whatsoever? And an even bigger question, if there truly is one author, why would there be multiple names at all? Is this not confusing and redundant in any kind of writing, to use multiple labels for the same thing?



I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “trying to put God in a box.” Please explain, but I guess it means you think I’m trying to rationalize God? Then yes, that is exactly what I’m trying to do. Because this is a forum for intelligent discussion, and rationalizing is what intelligent discussion is all about. He’s God, of course he is. But the question is what this exactly means. Commanding things into existence is precisely the point I was trying to make. That’s because in the second chapter, he doesn’t do that at all. He forms Adam and the beasts out of the dust of the earth, and plants the garden of Eden, whereas the God of the first chapter could just (and quite literally) say the word and it would be done. This is but one piece of evidence which makes the idea of it being one and the same god between the two different chapters questionable.



It’s not just that the Bible was written by many different authors over long spans of time (although it’s nice to know that you agree with me on that one), but that Genesis (supposedly written by Moses along with all the other books of the Pentateuch at the same time) was written by at least two different people, if not more. The point is that they do conflict with each other, but I suppose if you read the book as a believer you’d be far less inclined to see it that way. Just how closely did you read my arguments? It almost seemed like you just skimmed it over without pausing to really think about them.

I’ll be sure to PM you when I do the evolution bit. I think I’ve only got time in my schedule for one mammoth post per week, and maybe not even then since I’ve got a show coming up that I’ve got to prepare for in a couple weeks. Just stick around and be patient, I never back down from a challenge.