Scientific theory defined

[jeezeweeze]

I don't think there is any doubt that the Bible has been manipulated throughout time. The King James version is well........ authorized by King James.

This is why protest*ants split from the Roman Catholics. If you think about it.This was the action of the people to separate the church from the state. POLITICS FROM RELIGION. Pilgrims came to the New World to get away from religious oppression.

That the Bible is not as originally scribed is probably an understatement. Things have been added and things have been taken away.It makes sense to me because you had, humans deciding what was relevant and what wasn't.
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
Ecclesiastes 1:9-14

The New Testament, added after Jesus and so on and so forth. But to say that it is all bunk is not fair. The whole book is a reference. To show us what it takes to live a life in the best way. The stories of the bible tell what happens when disobedience of simple laws effects your life.

Anyway to say that Detector's post is not true is lumping it all as a lie. All anyone can say is some of the things have not been discovered YET, because a lot of things that the Bible has recorded have been unearthed by scientists.

I actually don't find a big stretch in evolution and creationism. Science and The Bible.

Archaeology
Biblical Archaeology Society

[Detector]

OK I'm not saying we should take the bible as gospel. Well, let me rephrase that I'm not saying the bible is all fact, although I do believe the authors believed what they wrote to be fact, only that there is, in my opinion, information worth the attention of science. We don't have all the Dead Sea scrolls but we still find value in what we have. No doubt the bible was a pick-n-choose set of stories, but it doesn't mean whats there has no value.

Science has yet to find one single missing link even though there should be thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of them to be found if they exist. Yet science says just because it hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So goes the Ark right?

Archeology has already proved the bible contains at least some stories of real places, real people, and real events. That alone should be of interest to science, and it would be if not for science allowing politics to call the shots

[JayhawkMom]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

I actually don't find a big stretch in evolution and creationism. Science and The Bible.

Me either......I agree with you Weeze.

[jeezeweeze]

I don't know if I have mentioned this before when we were on this subject. May have I just don't remember.

For instance Cain and Abel

# And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
# And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
# And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

Isn't it ironic that the lord said blood crieth out. Who of the time knew how important blood info is.
God could have said "his voice crieth out, or his mind crieth out or his lips crieth out. Blood is mentioned in the Bible so often and its so important Now in our days and even tho there are same blood types, its totally different.
That is just ONE itsy bitsy reference of scientific info and Higher power info. There are so many its mind-boggling.

The point is , don't poo poo something totally just because it is unseen. Scientists couldn't "see" the little critters that caused the plague until the right equipment was invented.

Maybe I read too much into it.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

I don't know if I have mentioned this before when we were on this subject. May have I just don't remember.

For instance Cain and Abel

# And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

Cain should have said... "ummm aren't you all knowing? Wouldn't that mean you should KNOW where he is?"

[jeezeweeze]

Actually God already knew, he was just giving him a chance to not bear false witness. He had a chance to throw himself on the mercy of the court so to speak.

Really a different god than later Christian version -- Hebrew "I am that I am" walked among the people, ate with them, forgot where they were, got lost --

Great old god in that version, much different than the later take on it -- hell and judgement. Actually, after life (ie 'soul') wasn't in that version. The greeks added that, as i recall.

Most Christians don't know how different their "Old Testament" is than the original.

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Really a different god than later Christian version -- Hebrew "I am that I am" walked among the people, ate with them, forgot where they were, got lost --

Great old god in that version, much different than the later take on it -- hell and judgement. Actually, after life (ie 'soul') wasn't in that version. The greeks added that, as i recall.

Most Christians don't know how different their "Old Testament" is than the original.

The Torah

[Reddemons54]

JW, I think you do read a bit more into it. Blood was used, IMO, because that gives a much better picture of what happened. He was killed, hence of course blood was spread. Its not like they were going to do blood tests to determine if it was in fact him, or to see if his brother was the one that killed him.

Detector, can you tell me what science can actually 'test' in the Bible? You keep referring to things in the Bible that are testable yet you never give any examples. You refer to the missing links of humans in order to 'prove' evolution. Perhaps you are just behind on the science. Are you aware that scientists are now sequencing the genome of Neanderthals? Did you know that they are able now to compare the genome of the Neanderthal, modern human, and the chimp in order to see where mutations occured, how long ago they occurred and so on in order to give an estimate of the last common ancestor. Then with that information they can go through the fossil record, look for organisms of the genus Homo or Australopithecus and sequence that DNA and then once again compare genomes to see if their estimates and guesses are correct? Science is very busy right now, some interesting things are going on.

[Detector]

Detector, can you tell me what science can actually 'test' in the Bible?

Take the story of Mosses leading the Israelites to the promise land. As has already been pointed out possible mistranslation from the original bible needs clarifying. It is now believed it was not the Red Sea but the Sea of Reeds. A much smaller sea making the event less spectacular and more plausible.

Just as science was used on the story of Custer's last stand, science could also examine, test(repeatable) and verify the event. Such a large group would surely leave evidence behind such as pottery shards. By testing and dating the relics they could determine if such an event occurred, when it occurred, who was there and the path taken.

As far as the missing link I am aware of the new information linking Neanderthal. Seems rather convenient to me that not long ago science determined and made the claim that Neanderthal was not related to man(homoerectes{sp}) but a different species that died out. Now new information makes that information false.

The idea the Neanderthal was not an ancestor of man was not a theory but supposedly fact. Now its oops we were wrong, here is the real facts. Science self-correcting? Is that just a more acceptable way of saying we were wrong?

In any case a missing link has yet to be found. Proof that Neanderthal may have mutated to modern man is far from proof that plants mutated to animals.