Thats one reason the bible shouldnt be taken that seriously its been through so many edits and alterations and re-interpretations over the centurys that the current book is probably of little resembelence to the origonal text.
Also the origonal Bible was origonally made up of parts/fragments from various other Bibles from other versions of the christian faith with differnt ideas concerning christianity. And those different versions were based on storys told over severall generations that most likely went through subtle changes over the generations. Which were based on origonal gospels from both Jesus and the various disiples varying views on what they thought Jesus meant [each view being different].
So as you can see the current Bible means very little in a literall sence.
I don't think it's quite so far removed as you suggest. Some of the more recent translations have been taken from hundreds of different sources, most of which correspond pretty closely, and some are really pretty ancient. That said, you're right about some of the varying views presented, and scholastic study suggests some of the books are patchworks, or at least have been added to by different authors at different times.
There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.
Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thats one reason the bible shouldnt be taken that seriously its been through so many edits and alterations and re-interpretations over the centurys that the current book is probably of little resembelence to the origonal text.
Also the origonal Bible was origonally made up of parts/fragments from various other Bibles from other versions of the christian faith with differnt ideas concerning christianity. And those different versions were based on storys told over severall generations that most likely went through subtle changes over the generations. Which were based on origonal gospels from both Jesus and the various disiples varying views on what they thought Jesus meant [each view being different].
So as you can see the current Bible means very little in a literall sence.
I don't think it's quite so far removed as you suggest. Some of the more recent translations have been taken from hundreds of different sources, most of which correspond pretty closely, and some are really pretty ancient. That said, you're right about some of the varying views presented, and scholastic study suggests some of the books are patchworks, or at least have been added to by different authors at different times.
There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.
Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thanks!!!
027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In chapter 2 he makes Eden. In it he places beasts of all kinds and trees of all kinds; as well as three rivers. He then places Adam in Eden and then he makes Eve for adam.
In the first chapter he makes man, both male and female, and in the second chapter he makes man again in the form of adam and female again in the form of Eve.
Dunno if that's what Egg is reffering to or not, but it's what I always saw.
Edit: It's through Adam and Eve that the Jews are born, but no mention of what became of the rest of mankind that god created. I believe that this is why you have Jews and gentiles.
Thats one reason the bible shouldnt be taken that seriously its been through so many edits and alterations and re-interpretations over the centurys that the current book is probably of little resembelence to the origonal text.
Also the origonal Bible was origonally made up of parts/fragments from various other Bibles from other versions of the christian faith with differnt ideas concerning christianity. And those different versions were based on storys told over severall generations that most likely went through subtle changes over the generations. Which were based on origonal gospels from both Jesus and the various disiples varying views on what they thought Jesus meant [each view being different].
So as you can see the current Bible means very little in a literall sence.
I don't think it's quite so far removed as you suggest. Some of the more recent translations have been taken from hundreds of different sources, most of which correspond pretty closely, and some are really pretty ancient. That said, you're right about some of the varying views presented, and scholastic study suggests some of the books are patchworks, or at least have been added to by different authors at different times.
There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.
Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thanks!!!
027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In chapter 2 he makes Eden. In it he places beasts of all kinds and trees of all kinds; as well as three rivers. He then places Adam in Eden and then he makes Eve for adam.
In the first chapter he makes man, both male and female, and in the second chapter he makes man again in the form of adam and female again in the form of Eve.
Dunno if that's what Egg is reffering to or not, but it's what I always saw.
Edit: It's through Adam and Eve that the Jews are born, but no mention of what became of the rest of mankind that god created. I believe that this is why you have Jews and gentiles.
That's pretty much it, Urdig.
The first chapter lays out the creation in six days, the story we're usually familiar with. In chapter 2, we get a different creation order, with animals and birds being created after Adam. It would appear from reading it, that we're seeing two separate, unconnected stories. have a read of the first two chapters and see what you think.
What amazes me is what a hot topic this is. My first reaction is, who really cares...and my next reaction is, we don't know for sure exactly how old the earth is. And as a result I find people who insist on either position to be intolerant. If someone tells me that the earth is 6000 years old, I say, "could be." If someone tells me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I say, "could be."
I am 40 years old, so I know from personal experience that the earth is at least that old. The oldest person I knew as a child was my great-grandmother. She told me she was born in the year 1900. I'll take her word for it, so the earth must have been around since then. I have seen photographs from the American Civil War, so I assume that the earth was around back then as well. The Declaration of Independence is dated July 4, 1776, so that means the earth is at least 231 years old (if the document is genuine. I believe it is). Several copies of the Magna Carta still exists, the orginal of which was signed by King John on July 15, 1215. Now we're getting up to about 800 years of age. Before that things start to get a little more murky.
The oldest book still in print is the Jewish Pentateuch. It is commonly believed to have been written by Moses. The exact dates of his life are uncertain. Historians place him anywhere from the 16th to the 14th centuries B.C. If there really was a Moses (I think there was) and the historians are correct then the earth is getting up to about 3500 years old. The Ebla Tablets are considered to be some of the earliest surviving written documents. Written in Cuniform, they were discovered in a palace excavated in Syria in 1975. They date to about 2400-2300 B.C. Whoa, now we're up to the earth being about 4500 years old.
That constitutes the begining of history. Anything before that time is pre-history so we have to look to other sources to try to determine how old something is. The pyramids of Egypt are thought to be some of the oldest surviving man-made structures. No one knows for sure how old they are, but they may be older than any written records. Their age is based mostly on ancient writings. To quote from Wikipedia:
"Traditionally, the evidence for dating the Great Pyramid by Egyptologists has been based primarily on fragmented summaries of early Christian writings gleaned from the work of the Hellinistic Period Egyptian priest Manethô who compiled the now lost revisionist Egyptian history Aegyptika."
You can see what I mean by things getting a little murky. We can't pin down the exact dates of Moses' life or the age of the Ebla Tablets, and the age of the Great Pyramid is based on a work written thousands of years later that is now lost. It's remarkable how we take dates in history for granted. We are told that the Battle of Thermopylae was fought in 480 B.C. How do we know that? Information of that battle comes to us from the Greek Historian, Herodotus. But he doesn't say, "in the year 480 B.C." He lived centuries before Christ was born. I don't have the text before me, but he is more likely to have said something like, "In the 50th year of King Leonides' life or in the sixth year of King Xerxes' reign." From other evidence, we can come up with a date around 480 B.C.
Now to get even older dates, we rely on scientific dating. I am not a scientist and will not even attempt to argue its reliablity. But it seems to me that scientific dating is not an exact science. At best it gives us a window. It's anywhere from this this old to that old. And it can be a span of millions of years. That's a pretty big window. Hardly enough to place 100% faith into.
My point of all this is, what difference does it make? I believe the earth is anywhere from 6,000 to 4.5 billion years old. And you know what, it doesn't really have that great of an impact on my life.
If you think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, you are simply misinformed. THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION. It isn't made up to debunk religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it is scientific TRUTH. Half lives are VERY well understood.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EARTH TO ONLY BE A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD.
Why do I care? Because creationists would like to have creationism taught in schools. Creationism isn't a science, it isn't based on factual evidence. God didn't make the earth in a few thousand years, the bible doesn't say he did, a man came to that conclusion based on what he believed the bible said, and now other men want to teach young people these lies.
This is not a conspiracy by athiests to convince christians, jews or muslims that god isn't real. Even Stephen Hawkins believed that there was a place for god in the big bang theory.
Edit: Science has PROVEN that the earth is billions of years old. Creationism isn't able to prove anything, nor have they even tried. They use the bible as evidence, and that is not proof. Determining the half life of an element is proof.
Half life: The half-life of a quantity, subject to exponential decay, is the time required for the quantity to decay to half of its initial value. The concept originated in the study of radioactive decay, but applies to many other fields as well, including phenomena which are described by non-exponential decays.
radiocarbon dating
Every time a living being dies a stopwatch starts ticking.
Death starts the stopwatch. Science can read it.
potassium-argon dating
Potassium-argon dating is used to determine the age of igneous rocks based on the ratio of an unstable isotope of potassium to that of argon. Potassium is a common element found in many minerals. The isotopic distribution of potassium on the earth is approximately 93% 39K and 7% 41K. Since these values are only approximate, the total percent abundance of these two isotopes is not 100%, but 99.9883%. The remaining 0.0117% is 40K -- an unstable isotope with a half life of 1.26 × 109 years (1.26 billion years). Potassium 40 has three decay modes: beta decay, positron emission, and electron capture.
When 40K undergoes beta decay it transmutes into 40Ca -- the most abundant isotope of calcium. Since calcium is also very common in minerals, it is not possible to distinguish the 40Ca produced from the decay of 40K from the 40Ca present when the rock was formed. However, when 40K undergoes positron emission or electron capture it transmutes into 40Ar. Argon is an inert substance, which means that it basically will not combine chemically with other elements. It is also a gas over an extremely wide range of temperatures, which means that any 40Ar would escape while the rock was molten like carbon dioxide escaping from a glass of soda. After solidification, those 40Ar nuclei that appeared as a result of radioactive decay would be trapped by the crystal structure and accumulate as the mineral aged.
Urdig, you are one of those I was referring to as being intolerant. The age of the Earth has not been proven by a long shot. As I said in my previous post, I am not a scientist, but I know enough to know that the issue has not been settled.
Here is the link to a website that favors an old earth date:
With my non-scientific mind, I read through it as best I could and there were a few things which stood out. The first four words following the overview are, "The generally accepted age..." That right there tells me that there is at least some disagreement on the Earth's true age. If it were a fact, there would be no disagreement whatsoever. Let's take an example from science that is a fact. It is a fact that a water molecule consists of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. There is universal agreement on that. Anyone with at least a high school degree would accept this truth. Anyone who was educated but genuinely refused to believe it would be considered crazy.
The FACT that there is not universal agreement on the earth's age tells me that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And we're not talking about people who are crazy (although you may disagree). We're talking about scientists who have PHDs.
Secondly, the website says the Earth and the rest of the solar system are about 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%). Do you know what one percent of 4.5 billion years is? 45 million. Meaning that margin of error spans 90 million years. We're told that the dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years. That plus or minus interval is almost 50% greater than the amount of time the dinosaurs have supposedly been gone. It seems to me if dating were an exact science, there wouldn't be such a large time interval either over or under the Earth's age. Maybe if it could be narrowed down to a million years in either direction, I would be a lot more convinced.
Finally, the website admits that the scientific dating is based on two assumptions. The sixth paragragh starts with, "If the solar is formed from a common pool of matter..." And the eighth paragragh begins, "If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios."
In addidtion to all that, there are also some credible arguments to the young Earth theory. One which I had heard before but had forgotten. And that has to do with the Earth's magnetic field. Just like any magnet, the Earth's magnet has a life-span. It is constantly being hit by solar radiation from the sun. These blasts of radiation slowly weaken it over time. And the rate at which it is weakening can be measured. At its present strength and the rate at which it is weakening, it can be calculated that as recently as 20,000 years ago it would have been too powerful for earth to support life.
Now the website referenced above attempts to address this agrument by listing several scenarios which would make it possible for the Earth's magnetic field to exist at its present strength and the Earth to still be 4.5 billion years old. But again, these points are still based on unproved assumptions.
I'm not disagreeing that the earth may be 4.5 billion years old. After all, the evidence for the young Earth date is also based on assumptions. But since you are dead set on the old Earth date, I felt compelled to point out some flaws in your position. If someone were to post a message saying that it has been proved that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I might be just as likely to argue the old Earth position. You want facts. The fact is...we really don't know for sure exactly how old the Earth is. And until there is universal agreement on the issue, I'm going to remain in the undecided category.
Your post made me go back and read one of your previous ones on this thread. And I must say, whereas I wouldn't question your knowledge of science, your grasp of history is a bit less impressive. You said, "We know that Egypt was a nation in 10k bce, along with the Sumerians and a group in what is now Pakistan and India. They were the first civilizations..." True all three were very early civilizations, but they did not all arise simultaneously. The Fertile Crescent region of Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. The Sumerians were first. Writing found there is thought to be about 500 years older than the foundations of Egypt. The Indus Valley region is younger still, with the first civilizations arising there about 1000 years after the Sumerians. And it was nowhere close to 10,000 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. (+/-1%. See, history is not an exact science either).
Also, you say that the Jews' religion parallels that of the Sumerians. In what way? If you mean the time at which they arose, perhaps. But in terms of the belief systems of the two, not even close. The Sumerians had a polytheistic belief system and the Jews a monotheistic one. That's a huge difference. You are correct in saying that the Jews came from the same area as the Sumerians. Abraham was a gentile who lived in the Sumerian city of Ur. It's quite possible he even believed in the Sumerian gods. But he was called by God to leave his home and go to the place God would show him which was Judea. At that point, if he did worship other gods, he forsook them and worshiped God alone. God gave him the covenant of circumcision and from that point he was Jewish.
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
Urdig, you are one of those I was referring to as being intolerant. The age of the Earth has not been proven by a long shot. As I said in my previous post, I am not a scientist, but I know enough to know that the issue has not been settled. Here is the link to a website that favors an old earth date: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creadate With my non-scientific mind, I read through it as best I could and there were a few things which stood out. The first four words following the overview are, "The generally accepted age..." That right there tells me that there is at least some disagreement on the Earth's true age. If it were a fact, there would be no disagreement whatsoever. Let's take an example from science that is a fact. It is a fact that a water molecule consists of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. There is universal agreement on that. Anyone with at least a high school degree would accept this truth. Anyone who was educated but genuinely refused to believe it would be considered crazy. The FACT that there is not universal agreement on the earth's age tells me that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And we're not talking about people who are crazy (although you may disagree). We're talking about scientists who have PHDs. Secondly, the website says the Earth and the rest of the solar system are about 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%). Do you know what one percent of 4.5 billion years is? 45 million. Meaning that margin of error spans 90 million years. We're told that the dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years. That plus or minus interval is almost 50% greater than the amount of time the dinosaurs have supposedly been gone. It seems to me if dating were an exact science, there wouldn't be such a large time interval either over or under the Earth's age. Maybe if it could be narrowed down to a million years in either direction, I would be a lot more convinced. Finally, the website admits that the scientific dating is based on two assumptions. The sixth paragragh starts with, "If the solar is formed from a common pool of matter..." And the eighth paragragh begins, "If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios." In addidtion to all that, there are also some credible arguments to the young Earth theory. One which I had heard before but had forgotten. And that has to do with the Earth's magnetic field. Just like any magnet, the Earth's magnet has a life-span. It is constantly being hit by solar radiation from the sun. These blasts of radiation slowly weaken it over time. And the rate at which it is weakening can be measured. At its present strength and the rate at which it is weakening, it can be calculated that as recently as 20,000 years ago it would have been too powerful for earth to support life. Now the website referenced above attempts to address this agrument by listing several scenarios which would make it possible for the Earth's magnetic field to exist at its present strength and the Earth to still be 4.5 billion years old. But again, these points are still based on unproved assumptions. I'm not disagreeing that the earth may be 4.5 billion years old. After all, the evidence for the young Earth date is also based on assumptions. But since you are dead set on the old Earth date, I felt compelled to point out some flaws in your position. If someone were to post a message saying that it has been proved that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I might be just as likely to argue the old Earth position. You want facts. The fact is...we really don't know for sure exactly how old the Earth is. And until there is universal agreement on the issue, I'm going to remain in the undecided category. Your post made me go back and read one of your previous ones on this thread. And I must say, whereas I wouldn't question your knowledge of science, your grasp of history is a bit less impressive. You said, "We know that Egypt was a nation in 10k bce, along with the Sumerians and a group in what is now Pakistan and India. They were the first civilizations..." True all three were very early civilizations, but they did not all arise simultaneously. The Fertile Crescent region of Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. The Sumerians were first. Writing found there is thought to be about 500 years older than the foundations of Egypt. The Indus Valley region is younger still, with the first civilizations arising there about 1000 years after the Sumerians. And it was nowhere close to 10,000 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. (+/-1%. See, history is not an exact science either). Also, you say that the Jews' religion parallels that of the Sumerians. In what way? If you mean the time at which they arose, perhaps. But in terms of the belief systems of the two, not even close. The Sumerians had a polytheistic belief system and the Jews a monotheistic one. That's a huge difference. You are correct in saying that the Jews came from the same area as the Sumerians. Abraham was a gentile who lived in the Sumerian city of Ur. It's quite possible he even believed in the Sumerian gods. But he was called by God to leave his home and go to the place God would show him which was Judea. At that point, if he did worship other gods, he forsook them and worshiped God alone. God gave him the covenant of circumcision and from that point he was Jewish. And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
Please watch part I of this movie video.google.com/videoplay then tell me about your argument. kk, thanks
Originally posted by xpowderx Please watch part I of this movie video.google.com/videoplay then tell me about your argument. kk, thanks
Hey, Powder
Out of interest, are you asking for his opinions to hear someone who has clearly studied ancient religions debunk the movie, or are you thinking this movie is going to show how his comments in his post are mistaken?
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
Ah, but he indeed has. Please note the section I have highlighted with color. The utterly irrational and supernatural belief in the resurrection from the dead.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
Ah, but he indeed has. Please note the section I have highlighted with color. The utterly irrational and supernatural belief in the resurrection from the dead.
He's objectively saying what a particular religious group believed, not what he believes, but thanks for the highlight.
Are we expected to take your views on the influences on early christianity seriously after that demonstration of blindly biased English comprehension? Maybe, you should present your case since you felt confident enough to assume Zindaihas has such an obvious limited knowledge of the subject.
Urdig, you are one of those I was referring to as being intolerant. The age of the Earth has not been proven by a long shot. As I said in my previous post, I am not a scientist, but I know enough to know that the issue has not been settled. Very true. I am intolerant of a group that wishes to push thier religious belief as a science without even using science to find anything that supports it. Religion isn't science, creationism isn't science, and no science has ever been used to back it up. The bible, something I've read, continue to read, and have read a few version of, doesn't say how long ago the earth was created. A man, several of them, "desiphered" the bible to DECIDE when the earth was made. You can go about finding something out in one of two ways. You can decide that you wish to find something that supports your idea, or you can figure something out with no prior bias leading to an unbiased answer. Creationism and young earth used the former, while science used the later. Here is the link to a website that favors an old earth date: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creadate With my non-scientific mind, I read through it as best I could and there were a few things which stood out. The first four words following the overview are, "The generally accepted age..." That right there tells me that there is at least some disagreement on the Earth's true age. If it were a fact, there would be no disagreement whatsoever. Let's take an example from science that is a fact. It is a fact that a water molecule consists of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. There is universal agreement on that. Anyone with at least a high school degree would accept this truth. Anyone who was educated but genuinely refused to believe it would be considered crazy. The FACT that there is not universal agreement on the earth's age tells me that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And we're not talking about people who are crazy (although you may disagree). We're talking about scientists who have PHDs. So pretty much every respectable, and some not so respectable, scientific institute or organisation that agrees that the earth was created billions of years ago is agreeing to this with no proof that supports thier claims? 68 nations and science acadamies are wrong? One thing that is universally agreed upon by science is half lives, and carbon dating. As well as other measurements that use the half life. It's been proven to be exceptionally acurate. No it's not exact, but it's much more reliable then "deciphering" the bible, wich is how the young earth idea came about. For crying out loud creationsists are trying to convince people that the grand canyon was cut in just a couple hundred years or so (something we know would take hundreds of thousands of years) and that dinosaurs were around during the time of man (something you would have to be crazy to believe). Something else that is very well understood is the speed at wich light travels. That has allowed scientists to determine not just how far away other stars are, but also how old they are. The youngest star ever found is only about 3 million years old. Nasa has just recently found the youngest binary star system yet, and it's only a little older then 3 million years old. They know how to measure the life of a star and our very own is known to be many billions of years old. As I've said before, those that belief the earth is only some thousands of years old are being mislead. Look up were that info comes from, I've already posted the names of the people responcible for that misinformation. Secondly, the website says the Earth and the rest of the solar system are about 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%). Do you know what one percent of 4.5 billion years is? 45 million. Meaning that margin of error spans 90 million years. We're told that the dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years. That plus or minus interval is almost 50% greater than the amount of time the dinosaurs have supposedly been gone. It seems to me if dating were an exact science, there wouldn't be such a large time interval either over or under the Earth's age. Maybe if it could be narrowed down to a million years in either direction, I would be a lot more convinced. Even one million years is some 999.990 years longer then creationists are saying. So even if science is off by some 80% they are still more on track then creationists. Finally, the website admits that the scientific dating is based on two assumptions. The sixth paragragh starts with, "If the solar is formed from a common pool of matter..." And the eighth paragragh begins, "If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios." In addidtion to all that, there are also some credible arguments to the young Earth theory. One which I had heard before but had forgotten. And that has to do with the Earth's magnetic field. Just like any magnet, the Earth's magnet has a life-span. It is constantly being hit by solar radiation from the sun. These blasts of radiation slowly weaken it over time. And the rate at which it is weakening can be measured. At its present strength and the rate at which it is weakening, it can be calculated that as recently as 20,000 years ago it would have been too powerful for earth to support life. Something very easy to determine is the age of fossils and the time required to turn those fossils into fuel. Neither of these supports young earth or creationism. Now the website referenced above attempts to address this agrument by listing several scenarios which would make it possible for the Earth's magnetic field to exist at its present strength and the Earth to still be 4.5 billion years old. But again, these points are still based on unproved assumptions. I'm not disagreeing that the earth may be 4.5 billion years old. After all, the evidence for the young Earth date is also based on assumptions. But since you are dead set on the old Earth date, I felt compelled to point out some flaws in your position. If someone were to post a message saying that it has been proved that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I might be just as likely to argue the old Earth position. You want facts. The fact is...we really don't know for sure exactly how old the Earth is. And until there is universal agreement on the issue, I'm going to remain in the undecided category. Actually I'm not dead set on the earths date. Most of the time when I make a comment about it I don't really give a number, just billions of years. Rarely do I actually use the number 4.5, not that I never do, just rarely. And again 68 nations and scientific academies is pretty convincing if you ask me. Your post made me go back and read one of your previous ones on this thread. And I must say, whereas I wouldn't question your knowledge of science, your grasp of history is a bit less impressive. You said, "We know that Egypt was a nation in 10k bce, along with the Sumerians and a group in what is now Pakistan and India. They were the first civilizations..." True all three were very early civilizations, but they did not all arise simultaneously. The Fertile Crescent region of Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. The Sumerians were first. Writing found there is thought to be about 500 years older than the foundations of Egypt. The Indus Valley region is younger still, with the first civilizations arising there about 1000 years after the Sumerians. And it was nowhere close to 10,000 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. (+/-1%. See, history is not an exact science either). You are right. My wording was way off. The egyptions (or who would become the Egyptions) began to populate the nile region around 11k BCE. At around 8k BCE there were multiple Egyptian states (?) And around 3k bce they unify to become a nation. Nation was the wrong word. The ancient Sumerian languange can be dated to 3k bce. The Actual nation of Sumer goes back to possibly as late as 5200 BC. The Sumers developed a nation first, but were not actually colonizing what would become Sumeria until after the egyptions had already started building indipendant nations along the nile. Also, you say that the Jews' religion parallels that of the Sumerians. In what way? Well genesis for one. They both share very similar creation stories. Also, if you read the first chapter of genesis you'll notice that god is never referenced as a single being. It's always US. The early Jews, like sumarians believed in multiple gods, as did every other religion at the time. If you mean the time at which they arose, perhaps. But in terms of the belief systems of the two, not even close. The Sumerians had a polytheistic belief system and the Jews a monotheistic one. That's a huge difference. You are correct in saying that the Jews came from the same area as the Sumerians. Abraham was a gentile who lived in the Sumerian city of Ur. It's quite possible he even believed in the Sumerian gods. But he was called by God to leave his home and go to the place God would show him which was Judea. At that point, if he did worship other gods, he forsook them and worshiped God alone. God gave him the covenant of circumcision and from that point he was Jewish. There are actually a couple stories in the old testement that have been found in Sumarion religion. I can't remember off the top of my head, I'd have to look them up again. There's also this religion called Samaritanism. They follow the Torah, but not the new testemants. They were also in conflict with the Jews. You'll find references to them being enemies of the jews in the bible. Along with persians and several other nations at the time. And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied. The entire story of Jesus is borrowed from MANY other religions, at least his birth and early childhood.. Religions that existed long before christianity. Every Christian holidy was another religions holiday. The people that would become christians were another religion before that, and it wasn't jewish. They retained a lot of the ceremonies. Other religions also had saviors that were executed by crucifixion. Even the story of how Rome began is similar to a few stories in the bible. Twins whos mother was impregnated by a god (divine). Mother fears for thier safety and sets them adrift down a river (kidna like moses) One brother kills the other (cain and able?). There are very few unique religions in the world. Judia and Christianity aren't one of them.
As far as religion goes I'm exceptionally tolerant. I actually like religion, find them intersting, and enjoy talking about it. I don't mind when someone tries to convert me, and when a Jehovah's witness comes to the house I'll actually spend time talking to them.
Religion doesn't bother me. Creationsism does. Creationist attempt to manipulate truths, and take advantage of peoples faith. I don't simply dislike it because it's a complete farse against real science, it's also a farce agains real religion. Nothing they are trying to push on people is coming from the bible. They are twisting peoples beliefs and faith in a religion to try and convince those that don't know or understand into believing the things they say.
The fact that these people opened a museum that depicts man living alongside dinosaurs is a complete mokery of science and religion. That same museam encourages hate and bigotry by blaming societies woes on Gays, abortion, and STEM CELL RESEARCH. It is groups like creationists that are one of the biggest detriments to society by continuing the spread of hate and intolerance by attempting to mislead a populus that is generally ignorant to science. Most people just don't know any better then to not believe these people. It's just a damn shame.
Originally posted by xpowderx Please watch part I of this movie video.google.com/videoplay then tell me about your argument. kk, thanks
Hey, Powder
Out of interest, are you asking for his opinions to hear someone who has clearly studied ancient religions debunk the movie, or are you thinking this movie is going to show how his comments in his post are mistaken?
I think a bit of both EggFtegg,
I cannot accept a basis of validity based on faith. So to help our learned and educated theologist I figured I would see how far he actually is learned..Or is he basing his educated but biased guess on only what he has learned so far. Or is it just a cultural experience for his perceptions. I would love to see him give argument to that movie. Considering it contains much historical fact and not fiction.
Originally posted by xpowderxOriginally posted by xpowderx Please watch part I of this movie video.google.com/videoplay then tell me about your argument. kk, thanks
I cannot accept a basis of validity based on faith. So to help our learned and educated theologist I figured I would see how far he actually is learned..Or is he basing his educated but biased guess on only what he has learned so far. Or is it just a cultural experience for his perceptions. I would love to see him give argument to that movie. Considering it contains much historical fact and not fiction.
In my opinion, that would have to be a pretty liberal use of the term “historical fact”.
From what I can gather, some of the points are backed up by a smattering of genuine historical evidence, but mixed in with that are some highly unlikely deductions, seriously shaky etymology and totally unsubstantiated claims.
The principle sources are biased in the extreme, instead of what we might hope to see: references to original texts or failing that, maybe books and papers from well respected scholars in the relevant fields.
The presentation would seem to be largely based on the work of Acharya S (aka D.M.Mudock) who has been accused of using outdated and already refuted fringe sources and cites the Victorian poet, Gerald Massey (known in Egyptologist circles as Gerald who? See M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology) as her main authority on Egyptology. Massey’s writings and lectures are out of copyright and can be found in various places on the net, should anyone wish to read them.
What I find fascinating is how some of the issues raised in the movie, such as the similarities between Jesus and Horus, have been so often repeated by those attempting to disprove a historical Jesus and so often copied and pasted onto multiple websites, that people seem to assume that such claims must be fact.
Most notable though is that whenever someone asks for evidence from original texts or unbiased sources to back up the claims, nobody can produce them. Surely, if this evidence existed, it would have been paraded around for all to see?
Holy cow, did I open up a can of worms with my two posts. Maybe I should have just kept my big mouth shut. I'll try to respond to as much as possible, but if I miss something, forgive me. Also, as much as I like debating, we could go on with this subject forever and I can't guarantee I'll always be able to respond.
Let's see...where to begin. How about the claims that Christianity has borrowed from other religions. Mithraism was mentioned by name and many people claim there are striking similarities between the two. I will admit that my knowledge of Mithraism was scant before I saw it posted on this thread, so I took the time to research it as quickly as possible. And this is what I found. The notion there are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Mithraism is a stretch at best. Here are the links to three websites on Mithraism.
The first link is anti-Christian, or maybe I should characterize it as being somewhat critical of Christianity. The second link is pro-Christian, as evidenced by the sub-heading, "Building Blocks for Christian Faith". And the third website shows no such bias either for or against Christianity.
The first thing which stands out to me about the first link are the sensational claims it makes without providing any real historical evidence to support its claims. It relies too heavily on a work called, "Jesus versus Christianity", quotes from a website which is no longer available and references a work, "Jesus Mysteries", which is discredited by the pro-Christian website. So the first thing I ask is, "How can I trust the claims made on this page."
The second website is exhaustive in its references, so much so that I had to read through it a couple times to make sense of what it was saying. But at its heart, it correctly addresses the issue. In order to learn exactly what the Mithraic belief system encompassed, you have to go back to the original sources which talk about it. And the author points out:
In 1975, Mithraic studies scholar John Hinnells lamented "the practical difficulty of any one scholar mastering all the necessary fields" -- linguistics, anthropology, history (Indian, Iranian, and Roman!), archaeology, iconography, sociology -- in order to get a grip on Mithraic studies.
Mithraism is essentially a dead religion. You can't just go to the bookstore and buy a book on its doctrine. So the only way to thoroughly understand it is to be knowledgeable in all the areas mentioned above. I don't have time to become an expert in all these fields, so I'll just rely on others. There's one important discrepency I quickly noticed between the first two websites. Vexen says Mithraism has its roots in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was founded by Zoroaster who was born about 650 B.C. But Tekton says:
"The first remaining record of a god named Mithra appears as a deity invoked in a treaty dated 1400 BC [Hinn.MS, ix]; thereafter he is one of several Indo-Iranian gods, and he is known for giving orders, assembling people, and marshalling them -- perhaps with some militaristic overtones."
Apparently Mithra is older than Zoroastrianism and the two became somewhat mingled when the second one came on the scene.
Another important aspect about the study of Mithraism in the modern era is that it underwent a re-evaluation in 1971. Before that time, a guy named Franz Cumont was considered the authoritative expert on Mithraism. But in 1971 the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies (I'm stunned that such a body actually gathered) determined his work to be unreliable. And the author on the Tekton site is careful to point out that people who draw their information on Mithraism from Cumont are most likely in error as well. That's why its important to know where the information is coming from.
The third website, which I found rather easy to read, provided some very valuable information. Most notably it says: "Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism." It goes on to say that archeologists have discovered a considerable number of Mithraic temples and artifacts which are our "primary source of knowledge", but since there exists no written accounts, their functions have been extremely difficult to decipher.
Of the relationship between Mithraism and Christianity, the author, Ulansey, devotes only the last paragragh to the subject. And this is the extent of the similarities in his view. "Here in the end we may sense a profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity. For early Christianity contained at its core an ideology of cosmic transcendence." Big deal...tell me a religion that doesn't.
Sorry, I'm going to have to cut this post a little short, or a little long depending on how you look at it. It's getting late. But this should give you enough to chew on for now. I'll try to get back to the rest of the responses later.
Reading these guys, you kind of get the impression that they're pretty pissed off with all the misinformation going around.
Has anyone else noticed how it can often be the same people who dismiss creationist scientists for hunting for anything in science or pseudo-science which might possibly support their preconceived ideas (and ignoring the sizable evidence presented by respected, mainstream scientists), who will unquestionably believe the christ-mythers, who do exactly the same with history?
As the people in a city-state became familiar with the gods of other cities, they worked out relationships between them, just as the Greeks and Romans did in their myths centuries later. Sometimes two or more gods came to be viewed as one. Eventually a ranking order developed among the gods. Anu, a sky god who originally had been the city god of Uruk, came to be regarded as the greatest of them all--the god of the heavens. His closest rival was the storm god of the air, Enlil of Nippur. The great gods were worshiped in the temples. Each family had little clay figures of its own household gods and small houses or wall niches for them.
The Sumerians believed that their ancestors had created the ground they lived on by separating it from the water. According to their creation myth, the world was once watery chaos. The mother of Chaos was Tiamat, an immense dragon. When the gods appeared to bring order out of Chaos, Tiamat created an army of dragons. Enlil called the winds to his aid. Tiamat came forward, her mouth wide open. Enlil pushed the winds inside her and she swelled up so that she could not move. Then Enlil split her body open. He laid half of the body flat to form the Earth, with the other half arched over it to form the sky. The gods then beheaded Tiamat's husband and created mankind from his blood, mixed with clay.
The longest story is the Gilgamesh epic, one of the outstanding works of ancient literature. The superhero Gilgamesh originally appeared in Sumerian mythology as a legendary king of Uruk. A long Babylonian poem includes an account of his journey to the bottom of the sea to obtain the plant of life. As he stopped to bathe at a spring on the way home, a hungry snake snatched the plant. When Gilgamesh saw the creature cast off its old skin to become young again, it seemed to him a sign that old age was the fate of humans.
Another searcher for eternal life was Adapa, a fisherman who gained wisdom from Ea, the god of water. The other gods were jealous of his knowledge and called him to heaven. Ea warned him not to drink or eat while there. Anu offered him the water of life and the bread of life because he thought that, since Adapa already knew too much, he might as well be a god. Adapa, however, refused and went back to Earth to die, thus losing for himself and for mankind the gift of immortal life. These legends somewhat resemble the Bible story of Adam and Eve. It is highly probable, in fact, that the ancient legends and myths of Mesopotamia supplied material that was reworked by the biblical authors.
It was during the Sumerian era that a great flood overwhelmed Mesopotamia. So great was this flood that stories about it worked their way into several ancient literatures. The Sumerian counterpart of Noah was Ziusudra, and from him was developed the Babylonian figure Utnapishtim, whose story of the flood was related in the 'Epic of Gilgamesh'. Immortal after his escape from the flood, Utnapishtim was also the wise man who told Gilgamesh where to find the youth-restoring plant.
The Genesis narrative in the light of recent scholarship
The saga of Abraham unfolds between two landmarks, the exodus from "Ur of the Chaldeans" (Ur Kasdim) of the family, or clan, of Terah and "the purchase of " (or "the burials in") the cave of Machpelah. Tradition seems particularly firm on this point. The Hebrew text, in fact, locates the departure specifically at Ur Kasdim, the Kasdim being none other than the Kaldu of the cuneiform texts at Mari. It is manifestly a migration of which one tribe is the center. The leader of the movement is designated by name: Terah, who "takes them out" from Ur, Abram his son, Lot the son of Haran, another son of Terah, and their wives, the best known being Sarai, the wife of Abram. The existence of another son of Terah, Nahor, who appears later, is noted.
Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. "They served other gods," Joshua, Moses' successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem.
After the migration from Ur (c. 2000 BC), the reasons for which are unknown, the first important stopping place was Harran, where the caravan remained for some time. The city has been definitely located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the Balikh valley and can be found on the site of the modern Harran in Turkey. It has been shown that Harran was a pilgrimage city, for it was a center of the Sin cult and consequently closely related to the moon-god cult of Ur. The Mari tablets have shed new light on the patriarchal period, specifically in terms of the city of Harran.
In ancient Sumeria cities would be directly related to specific gods, and often had a divine story behind the cities formation (as did many civillizations). The two accounts of creation presented in the bible actually match the belief of two dif. gods that ancient Sumerians, from dif. cities believed in. I don't think that it would be a long shot to assume that the other aspects of the creation story were taken from some of the other belief system present in Mesopatomia.
Adam represents man. Eve mother of man.
Through Adam and Eve are born the peoples of Cain and the peoples of Able.
Able specializes in raising livestock, and Cain in farming.
Cain invades Able, and shortly after suffers famine (Cursed).
What if genesis is giving the account of the rise, or influx, of the different Afro-Asiatic races in ancient Sumeria; in a particular region, Mesopatomia.
Then comes a flood (The Epic of Gilgamesh). The flood occurs in the area Mesopotamia; in theTigris-Euphrates river valley. A river valley that suffered severe flooding beween 4k and 2k bc, but this flood would have happend much later then that.
14The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Imagine instead it read, "Blessed by the Lord my God be the Shemites, and let the Canaanite be thier slaves. May God make space for the Japhethites and let them live in the tents of Shemites and let the Canaanites be thier slaves as well."
http://www.wikipedia.org/ (OMGZ! Wikipedia. Siting a single site is easier then siting a dozen. Feel free to check other places if you don't trust Wikipedia.)
The three sons of Noah, and thier sons.
Shem father of: Semetic ethnic and linguistic races.
Elam: 2700 BC to 539 BC, is one of the oldest recorded civilizations
Asshur: Assyria. The word Asshur can refer to either the contry of Assyria or the native people.
Arpachshad (Aphraxad): The Isrealites, Hebrews, Iraqi, and Arabians, amoung many others
Lud: Lydia
Aram: Aramaeans, who speak Aramiac, settled Mesopatomia in the late 12 century BC.
Ham father of: The term Hametic is no longer used. It's been replaced with Afro-Asiatic.
Canaan: The Canaanites (Phoenecians)
Cush: A civilization that arose in Nubia, northern Sudan.
Egypt: Everyone already knows who they are.
Put: Lybia
Japheth father of: The term Japhetic has been replaced with Indo-European. Peoples of the Caucasus area.
Gomer: Armenians
Magog: Skythians who were conquered by the Sarmatians; who they are closely related to. EthnicHungarians are also called Magyars
Madai: Persians, Kurds amoung others
Javan: Ionians
Tubal: Gorgians amoun others
Meshech: Phrygians
Tiras: Thracians
Ancient Jews were etymologists, and ethnologists (is that the right word? Someone that traces ethnicities) It's actually impressive how accurate they were.
With the historical information that has been dsicovered about ancient Sumerian life, it's reasonable to assume that the Jews were responcible for recording history, and Genesis is the product of that. History didn't start with Genesis, it's just were the Jews began to record what races they knew of at whatever time they began thier writtings. I'm not sure what the time frames they used were for.
Also, Sumerian arithmatic wasn't the same as it is today. It was based off of a unit of 60 instead of 10 that is used now. Sumerian arithmatic is actually used in computers in some way, but I"m not familliar with how. Can't even say how ancient Sumerian arithmatic works at all.
Sumeria didn't have a unified calender for quite some time as well.
If creationist were telling people that the bible indicates that civillization is between 6k and 12k years old then I would agree. It is, but the planet is much older.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the creation story in Genesis had been in existence for many generations already by the time they were first recorded in writing. They may even be so old that they predate all known civilizations and were adapted in different ways by different peoples over time.
James Ussher, born and raised in Dublin, Ireland became an important figure in the Christian Church early in his life. In 1605, at just the age of twenty-four, Ussher became chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral, located in Dublin. Soon thereafter, he was designated Bishop of Meath in 1620. In 1625,he was appointed Anglican Archbishop of Armagh. This is when he became a well known scholar and theologian in the Church of Ireland.
While Archbishop of Armagh, Ussher became determined to approximate when the universe was created. He traveled to Britain and Europe in 1640 trying to seek the earliest available manuscripts he could find. He decided to use the Book of Genesis to determine when he thought the universe was created. After counting the “begats” of the Book of Genesis, Ussher came to the conclusion that the universe was created at 9:00 am on the twenty-third of October, 4004 BC. This date was in fact used in some editions of the King James Version of the Bible.
One of James Ussher’s most important writings was the Annals of the World. This book is composed of two volumes. The first volume was written in 1650, the second in 1654. In these books, he stated his theory of when the universe was created and the dates and times of other biblical occurrences based on the that theory.
Because of the scientific developments we have today, scientists believe Ussher’s date of creation inaccurate. If one used the date of Oct. 23, 4004 BC, and calculated how old the earth would be today, we’d find the earth would only be about 6,003 years old. Because people have studied the ages of geological structures, we now believe that the earth is in fact a few billion years old. There are though, some people today that still believe James Ussher’s theory.
In 1656, James Ussher died at the age of seventy-five, while still living in England.
Price's most notable work, The New Geology (1923), a 726 page college textbook, contains numerous arguments that allegedly refute key elements of Darwin's theory of evolution. Several of these arguments remain popular in creationist circles today.
One of the most popular is the argument that evolutionary theory rests on faulty dating techniques. Price alleges that fossils are dated according to the age of the geological strata that they are found in, and that the rocks themselves are assigned probable dates based on the estimated age of the fossils found in them. In short, Price believes that all evolutionary claims based on the dates of fossils are in fact fallacious, based on a fairly straightforward circular argument. Price contends that all fossils are of the same age--that is, that the fossils were all laid down during the flood of Noah described in Genesis.
Unless you've been to the website and/or to the museum itself, then you really can't judge it. Can't just say, "Creation! Eww..." Sorry. I would have rather spent my time elsewhere if it weren't for the evolutionist protestors outside and the Planetarium inside. Those were the only two cool parts of it in my opinion. I did come away with some interesting tidbits of information though, so it wasn't time wasted although the museum wasn't entirely finished.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Unless you've been to the website and/or to the museum itself, then you really can't judge it. Can't just say, "Creation! Eww..." Sorry. I would have rather spent my time elsewhere if it weren't for the evolutionist protestors outside and the Planetarium inside. Those were the only two cool parts of it in my opinion. I did come away with some interesting tidbits of information though, so it wasn't time wasted although the museum wasn't entirely finished.
The creation museum website is just a big advert for the museum. It doesn't really give any info on what the museum actually has on display.
Answers in Genesis website has more info. AIG is the group responcible for the creation museum.
Distance in space is measure through a unit of time. By measuring the TIME it takes light from a body in space to reach us, we can determine the distance needed to travel to reach that object. It doesn't matter how many miles you need to travel to reach something 2 billion years away from you.
–noun
1.
Astronomy. the distance traversed by light in one mean solar year, about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km): used as a unit in measuring stellar distances. Abbreviation: lt-yr
He goes on to say: But something to remember is that the earth was actually made before the sun, moon, and stars
OK. In order to get the heavier elements that make up the cores of planets you need a star. Iron and nickle require the fusion of atoms to form. Stars are responcible for fusion. It also takes heat to conver metal elements into a solid or liquid state; without it, in an area of space with no stars, elements exist as gasses.
There is a lot of alluding to the idea that scientists are simply making things up based on thier preconcieved notion that the earth is billions of years old. Basically, science is biased. Yet everything about AIG and the creation museum is about trying to debunk science, and replace it with creationism. And money. Awfull lotta stuff on for sale. So if scientists are biased, what is AIG, and the creation museum?
This is also a group of people that calls gays and lesbians an abomination, and openly attacks athiests and those that believe in evolution. AIG is nothing more then a propaganda machine, and the museum is just another tool in thier fight against anything they fear might put into question thier faith.
Comments
There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thanks!!!
===============================
I don't think it's quite so far removed as you suggest. Some of the more recent translations have been taken from hundreds of different sources, most of which correspond pretty closely, and some are really pretty ancient. That said, you're right about some of the varying views presented, and scholastic study suggests some of the books are patchworks, or at least have been added to by different authors at different times.There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thanks!!!
027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In chapter 2 he makes Eden. In it he places beasts of all kinds and trees of all kinds; as well as three rivers. He then places Adam in Eden and then he makes Eve for adam.
In the first chapter he makes man, both male and female, and in the second chapter he makes man again in the form of adam and female again in the form of Eve.
Dunno if that's what Egg is reffering to or not, but it's what I always saw.
Edit: It's through Adam and Eve that the Jews are born, but no mention of what became of the rest of mankind that god created. I believe that this is why you have Jews and gentiles.
Wish Darkfall would release.
I don't think it's quite so far removed as you suggest. Some of the more recent translations have been taken from hundreds of different sources, most of which correspond pretty closely, and some are really pretty ancient. That said, you're right about some of the varying views presented, and scholastic study suggests some of the books are patchworks, or at least have been added to by different authors at different times.There's a lot that's great about the bible, it's a remarkable collections of books, and I believe we can learn a lot about God from it. For me, taking it as the inerrant word of God, is a leap of faith beyond reason, and a potentially dangerous one at that.
In regards to this thread, it is interesting to note, that Genesis actually presents two different creation stories within the first two chapters.
EggFtegg, I've heard that before but it was on the radio and the person didn't elaborate. I wanted them to so bad because I was totally curious what they meant.Please, tell me what the story is behind that. I've heard of a lot of contradictions in the Bible, but that one I hadn't heard of.
Thanks!!!
027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In chapter 2 he makes Eden. In it he places beasts of all kinds and trees of all kinds; as well as three rivers. He then places Adam in Eden and then he makes Eve for adam.
In the first chapter he makes man, both male and female, and in the second chapter he makes man again in the form of adam and female again in the form of Eve.
Dunno if that's what Egg is reffering to or not, but it's what I always saw.
Edit: It's through Adam and Eve that the Jews are born, but no mention of what became of the rest of mankind that god created. I believe that this is why you have Jews and gentiles.
That's pretty much it, Urdig.
The first chapter lays out the creation in six days, the story we're usually familiar with. In chapter 2, we get a different creation order, with animals and birds being created after Adam. It would appear from reading it, that we're seeing two separate, unconnected stories. have a read of the first two chapters and see what you think.
What amazes me is what a hot topic this is. My first reaction is, who really cares...and my next reaction is, we don't know for sure exactly how old the earth is. And as a result I find people who insist on either position to be intolerant. If someone tells me that the earth is 6000 years old, I say, "could be." If someone tells me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I say, "could be."
I am 40 years old, so I know from personal experience that the earth is at least that old. The oldest person I knew as a child was my great-grandmother. She told me she was born in the year 1900. I'll take her word for it, so the earth must have been around since then. I have seen photographs from the American Civil War, so I assume that the earth was around back then as well. The Declaration of Independence is dated July 4, 1776, so that means the earth is at least 231 years old (if the document is genuine. I believe it is). Several copies of the Magna Carta still exists, the orginal of which was signed by King John on July 15, 1215. Now we're getting up to about 800 years of age. Before that things start to get a little more murky.
The oldest book still in print is the Jewish Pentateuch. It is commonly believed to have been written by Moses. The exact dates of his life are uncertain. Historians place him anywhere from the 16th to the 14th centuries B.C. If there really was a Moses (I think there was) and the historians are correct then the earth is getting up to about 3500 years old. The Ebla Tablets are considered to be some of the earliest surviving written documents. Written in Cuniform, they were discovered in a palace excavated in Syria in 1975. They date to about 2400-2300 B.C. Whoa, now we're up to the earth being about 4500 years old.
That constitutes the begining of history. Anything before that time is pre-history so we have to look to other sources to try to determine how old something is. The pyramids of Egypt are thought to be some of the oldest surviving man-made structures. No one knows for sure how old they are, but they may be older than any written records. Their age is based mostly on ancient writings. To quote from Wikipedia:
"Traditionally, the evidence for dating the Great Pyramid by Egyptologists has been based primarily on fragmented summaries of early Christian writings gleaned from the work of the Hellinistic Period Egyptian priest Manethô who compiled the now lost revisionist Egyptian history Aegyptika."
You can see what I mean by things getting a little murky. We can't pin down the exact dates of Moses' life or the age of the Ebla Tablets, and the age of the Great Pyramid is based on a work written thousands of years later that is now lost. It's remarkable how we take dates in history for granted. We are told that the Battle of Thermopylae was fought in 480 B.C. How do we know that? Information of that battle comes to us from the Greek Historian, Herodotus. But he doesn't say, "in the year 480 B.C." He lived centuries before Christ was born. I don't have the text before me, but he is more likely to have said something like, "In the 50th year of King Leonides' life or in the sixth year of King Xerxes' reign." From other evidence, we can come up with a date around 480 B.C.
Now to get even older dates, we rely on scientific dating. I am not a scientist and will not even attempt to argue its reliablity. But it seems to me that scientific dating is not an exact science. At best it gives us a window. It's anywhere from this this old to that old. And it can be a span of millions of years. That's a pretty big window. Hardly enough to place 100% faith into.
My point of all this is, what difference does it make? I believe the earth is anywhere from 6,000 to 4.5 billion years old. And you know what, it doesn't really have that great of an impact on my life.
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/modern/half-life/
If you think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, you are simply misinformed. THIS IS FACTUAL INFORMATION. It isn't made up to debunk religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it is scientific TRUTH. Half lives are VERY well understood.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EARTH TO ONLY BE A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD.
Why do I care? Because creationists would like to have creationism taught in schools. Creationism isn't a science, it isn't based on factual evidence. God didn't make the earth in a few thousand years, the bible doesn't say he did, a man came to that conclusion based on what he believed the bible said, and now other men want to teach young people these lies.
This is not a conspiracy by athiests to convince christians, jews or muslims that god isn't real. Even Stephen Hawkins believed that there was a place for god in the big bang theory.
Edit: Science has PROVEN that the earth is billions of years old. Creationism isn't able to prove anything, nor have they even tried. They use the bible as evidence, and that is not proof. Determining the half life of an element is proof.
Half life: The half-life of a quantity, subject to exponential decay, is the time required for the quantity to decay to half of its initial value. The concept originated in the study of radioactive decay, but applies to many other fields as well, including phenomena which are described by non-exponential decays.
radiocarbon dating
potassium-argon dating
Potassium-argon dating is used to determine the age of igneous rocks based on the ratio of an unstable isotope of potassium to that of argon. Potassium is a common element found in many minerals. The isotopic distribution of potassium on the earth is approximately 93% 39K and 7% 41K. Since these values are only approximate, the total percent abundance of these two isotopes is not 100%, but 99.9883%. The remaining 0.0117% is 40K -- an unstable isotope with a half life of 1.26 × 109 years (1.26 billion years). Potassium 40 has three decay modes: beta decay, positron emission, and electron capture.
When 40K undergoes beta decay it transmutes into 40Ca -- the most abundant isotope of calcium. Since calcium is also very common in minerals, it is not possible to distinguish the 40Ca produced from the decay of 40K from the 40Ca present when the rock was formed. However, when 40K undergoes positron emission or electron capture it transmutes into 40Ar. Argon is an inert substance, which means that it basically will not combine chemically with other elements. It is also a gas over an extremely wide range of temperatures, which means that any 40Ar would escape while the rock was molten like carbon dioxide escaping from a glass of soda. After solidification, those 40Ar nuclei that appeared as a result of radioactive decay would be trapped by the crystal structure and accumulate as the mineral aged.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Urdig, you are one of those I was referring to as being intolerant. The age of the Earth has not been proven by a long shot. As I said in my previous post, I am not a scientist, but I know enough to know that the issue has not been settled.
Here is the link to a website that favors an old earth date:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creadate
With my non-scientific mind, I read through it as best I could and there were a few things which stood out. The first four words following the overview are, "The generally accepted age..." That right there tells me that there is at least some disagreement on the Earth's true age. If it were a fact, there would be no disagreement whatsoever. Let's take an example from science that is a fact. It is a fact that a water molecule consists of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. There is universal agreement on that. Anyone with at least a high school degree would accept this truth. Anyone who was educated but genuinely refused to believe it would be considered crazy.
The FACT that there is not universal agreement on the earth's age tells me that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And we're not talking about people who are crazy (although you may disagree). We're talking about scientists who have PHDs.
Secondly, the website says the Earth and the rest of the solar system are about 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%). Do you know what one percent of 4.5 billion years is? 45 million. Meaning that margin of error spans 90 million years. We're told that the dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years. That plus or minus interval is almost 50% greater than the amount of time the dinosaurs have supposedly been gone. It seems to me if dating were an exact science, there wouldn't be such a large time interval either over or under the Earth's age. Maybe if it could be narrowed down to a million years in either direction, I would be a lot more convinced.
Finally, the website admits that the scientific dating is based on two assumptions. The sixth paragragh starts with, "If the solar is formed from a common pool of matter..." And the eighth paragragh begins, "If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios."
In addidtion to all that, there are also some credible arguments to the young Earth theory. One which I had heard before but had forgotten. And that has to do with the Earth's magnetic field. Just like any magnet, the Earth's magnet has a life-span. It is constantly being hit by solar radiation from the sun. These blasts of radiation slowly weaken it over time. And the rate at which it is weakening can be measured. At its present strength and the rate at which it is weakening, it can be calculated that as recently as 20,000 years ago it would have been too powerful for earth to support life.
Now the website referenced above attempts to address this agrument by listing several scenarios which would make it possible for the Earth's magnetic field to exist at its present strength and the Earth to still be 4.5 billion years old. But again, these points are still based on unproved assumptions.
I'm not disagreeing that the earth may be 4.5 billion years old. After all, the evidence for the young Earth date is also based on assumptions. But since you are dead set on the old Earth date, I felt compelled to point out some flaws in your position. If someone were to post a message saying that it has been proved that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I might be just as likely to argue the old Earth position. You want facts. The fact is...we really don't know for sure exactly how old the Earth is. And until there is universal agreement on the issue, I'm going to remain in the undecided category.
Your post made me go back and read one of your previous ones on this thread. And I must say, whereas I wouldn't question your knowledge of science, your grasp of history is a bit less impressive. You said, "We know that Egypt was a nation in 10k bce, along with the Sumerians and a group in what is now Pakistan and India. They were the first civilizations..." True all three were very early civilizations, but they did not all arise simultaneously. The Fertile Crescent region of Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization. The Sumerians were first. Writing found there is thought to be about 500 years older than the foundations of Egypt. The Indus Valley region is younger still, with the first civilizations arising there about 1000 years after the Sumerians. And it was nowhere close to 10,000 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. (+/-1%. See, history is not an exact science either).
Also, you say that the Jews' religion parallels that of the Sumerians. In what way? If you mean the time at which they arose, perhaps. But in terms of the belief systems of the two, not even close. The Sumerians had a polytheistic belief system and the Jews a monotheistic one. That's a huge difference. You are correct in saying that the Jews came from the same area as the Sumerians. Abraham was a gentile who lived in the Sumerian city of Ur. It's quite possible he even believed in the Sumerian gods. But he was called by God to leave his home and go to the place God would show him which was Judea. At that point, if he did worship other gods, he forsook them and worshiped God alone. God gave him the covenant of circumcision and from that point he was Jewish.
And I don't know where you come up with the notion that Christians borrowed from other religions of the day. Christianity was unlike anything seen in the Roman world. Christians worshiped Christ as God, who taught love and forgiveness and demonstrated it by making the ultimate sacrifice and dying on the cross for the sins of the world. Tell me what religion that is borrowed from. As far as I know, love and forgiveness is absent from any ancient religion I have studied.
Please watch part I of this movie video.google.com/videoplay then tell me about your argument. kk, thanks
Out of interest, are you asking for his opinions to hear someone who has clearly studied ancient religions debunk the movie, or are you thinking this movie is going to show how his comments in his post are mistaken?
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
Ah, but he indeed has. Please note the section I have highlighted with color. The utterly irrational and supernatural belief in the resurrection from the dead.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
You obviously have very limited knowledge of the religons of the Roman Empire, and the obvious influences on early Christiantiy by Zoastrianism and Mithraism.
But then, you're not interested in finding truth, you are interested in reinforcing your irrational beliefs in the supernatural elements of Christianity rather than the moral and philosophical elements.
Zindaihas hasn't said what his beliefs are. Unless, I'm mistaken and he has posted them elsewhere (in which case, I apologise) you're making a pretty big assumption in telling him what it is he believes, and what he's interested in finding out.
Ah, but he indeed has. Please note the section I have highlighted with color. The utterly irrational and supernatural belief in the resurrection from the dead.
He's objectively saying what a particular religious group believed, not what he believes, but thanks for the highlight.
Are we expected to take your views on the influences on early christianity seriously after that demonstration of blindly biased English comprehension? Maybe, you should present your case since you felt confident enough to assume Zindaihas has such an obvious limited knowledge of the subject.
isnt the creationism museum right next door to the bigfoot museum
and if i recall correctly down the street is the academy of witchcraft....
As far as religion goes I'm exceptionally tolerant. I actually like religion, find them intersting, and enjoy talking about it. I don't mind when someone tries to convert me, and when a Jehovah's witness comes to the house I'll actually spend time talking to them.
Religion doesn't bother me. Creationsism does. Creationist attempt to manipulate truths, and take advantage of peoples faith. I don't simply dislike it because it's a complete farse against real science, it's also a farce agains real religion. Nothing they are trying to push on people is coming from the bible. They are twisting peoples beliefs and faith in a religion to try and convince those that don't know or understand into believing the things they say.
The fact that these people opened a museum that depicts man living alongside dinosaurs is a complete mokery of science and religion. That same museam encourages hate and bigotry by blaming societies woes on Gays, abortion, and STEM CELL RESEARCH. It is groups like creationists that are one of the biggest detriments to society by continuing the spread of hate and intolerance by attempting to mislead a populus that is generally ignorant to science. Most people just don't know any better then to not believe these people. It's just a damn shame.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Out of interest, are you asking for his opinions to hear someone who has clearly studied ancient religions debunk the movie, or are you thinking this movie is going to show how his comments in his post are mistaken?
I think a bit of both EggFtegg,I cannot accept a basis of validity based on faith. So to help our learned and educated theologist I figured I would see how far he actually is learned..Or is he basing his educated but biased guess on only what he has learned so far. Or is it just a cultural experience for his perceptions. I would love to see him give argument to that movie. Considering it contains much historical fact and not fiction.
MT
I cannot accept a basis of validity based on faith. So to help our learned and educated theologist I figured I would see how far he actually is learned..Or is he basing his educated but biased guess on only what he has learned so far. Or is it just a cultural experience for his perceptions. I would love to see him give argument to that movie. Considering it contains much historical fact and not fiction.
The presentation would seem to be largely based on the work of Acharya S (aka D.M.Mudock) who has been accused of using outdated and already refuted fringe sources and cites the Victorian poet, Gerald Massey (known in Egyptologist circles as Gerald who? See M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology) as her main authority on Egyptology. Massey’s writings and lectures are out of copyright and can be found in various places on the net, should anyone wish to read them.
What I find fascinating is how some of the issues raised in the movie, such as the similarities between Jesus and Horus, have been so often repeated by those attempting to disprove a historical Jesus and so often copied and pasted onto multiple websites, that people seem to assume that such claims must be fact.
Most notable though is that whenever someone asks for evidence from original texts or unbiased sources to back up the claims, nobody can produce them. Surely, if this evidence existed, it would have been paraded around for all to see?
Holy cow, did I open up a can of worms with my two posts. Maybe I should have just kept my big mouth shut. I'll try to respond to as much as possible, but if I miss something, forgive me. Also, as much as I like debating, we could go on with this subject forever and I can't guarantee I'll always be able to respond.
Let's see...where to begin. How about the claims that Christianity has borrowed from other religions. Mithraism was mentioned by name and many people claim there are striking similarities between the two. I will admit that my knowledge of Mithraism was scant before I saw it posted on this thread, so I took the time to research it as quickly as possible. And this is what I found. The notion there are a lot of similarities between Christianity and Mithraism is a stretch at best. Here are the links to three websites on Mithraism.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html
The first link is anti-Christian, or maybe I should characterize it as being somewhat critical of Christianity. The second link is pro-Christian, as evidenced by the sub-heading, "Building Blocks for Christian Faith". And the third website shows no such bias either for or against Christianity.
The first thing which stands out to me about the first link are the sensational claims it makes without providing any real historical evidence to support its claims. It relies too heavily on a work called, "Jesus versus Christianity", quotes from a website which is no longer available and references a work, "Jesus Mysteries", which is discredited by the pro-Christian website. So the first thing I ask is, "How can I trust the claims made on this page."
The second website is exhaustive in its references, so much so that I had to read through it a couple times to make sense of what it was saying. But at its heart, it correctly addresses the issue. In order to learn exactly what the Mithraic belief system encompassed, you have to go back to the original sources which talk about it. And the author points out:
In 1975, Mithraic studies scholar John Hinnells lamented "the practical difficulty of any one scholar mastering all the necessary fields" -- linguistics, anthropology, history (Indian, Iranian, and Roman!), archaeology, iconography, sociology -- in order to get a grip on Mithraic studies.
Mithraism is essentially a dead religion. You can't just go to the bookstore and buy a book on its doctrine. So the only way to thoroughly understand it is to be knowledgeable in all the areas mentioned above. I don't have time to become an expert in all these fields, so I'll just rely on others. There's one important discrepency I quickly noticed between the first two websites. Vexen says Mithraism has its roots in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was founded by Zoroaster who was born about 650 B.C. But Tekton says:
"The first remaining record of a god named Mithra appears as a deity invoked in a treaty dated 1400 BC [Hinn.MS, ix]; thereafter he is one of several Indo-Iranian gods, and he is known for giving orders, assembling people, and marshalling them -- perhaps with some militaristic overtones."
Apparently Mithra is older than Zoroastrianism and the two became somewhat mingled when the second one came on the scene.
Another important aspect about the study of Mithraism in the modern era is that it underwent a re-evaluation in 1971. Before that time, a guy named Franz Cumont was considered the authoritative expert on Mithraism. But in 1971 the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies (I'm stunned that such a body actually gathered) determined his work to be unreliable. And the author on the Tekton site is careful to point out that people who draw their information on Mithraism from Cumont are most likely in error as well. That's why its important to know where the information is coming from.
The third website, which I found rather easy to read, provided some very valuable information. Most notably it says: "Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism." It goes on to say that archeologists have discovered a considerable number of Mithraic temples and artifacts which are our "primary source of knowledge", but since there exists no written accounts, their functions have been extremely difficult to decipher.
Of the relationship between Mithraism and Christianity, the author, Ulansey, devotes only the last paragragh to the subject. And this is the extent of the similarities in his view. "Here in the end we may sense a profound kinship between Mithraism and Christianity. For early Christianity contained at its core an ideology of cosmic transcendence." Big deal...tell me a religion that doesn't.
Sorry, I'm going to have to cut this post a little short, or a little long depending on how you look at it. It's getting late. But this should give you enough to chew on for now. I'll try to get back to the rest of the responses later.
Peace
Professor David Ulansey (the third link) is a good source - http://www.ciis.edu/faculty/ulansey.html
Another leading expert in Mithraism is Professor Roger Beck. He wrote an article comparing Mithraism and Christianity which can be found in the BBC educational pages, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/paganshadowchrist_article_01.shtml
Reading these guys, you kind of get the impression that they're pretty pissed off with all the misinformation going around.
Has anyone else noticed how it can often be the same people who dismiss creationist scientists for hunting for anything in science or pseudo-science which might possibly support their preconceived ideas (and ignoring the sizable evidence presented by respected, mainstream scientists), who will unquestionably believe the christ-mythers, who do exactly the same with history?
http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm
Stories of Gods and Heroes
The Sumerians believed that their ancestors had created the ground they lived on by separating it from the water. According to their creation myth, the world was once watery chaos. The mother of Chaos was Tiamat, an immense dragon. When the gods appeared to bring order out of Chaos, Tiamat created an army of dragons. Enlil called the winds to his aid. Tiamat came forward, her mouth wide open. Enlil pushed the winds inside her and she swelled up so that she could not move. Then Enlil split her body open. He laid half of the body flat to form the Earth, with the other half arched over it to form the sky. The gods then beheaded Tiamat's husband and created mankind from his blood, mixed with clay.
The longest story is the Gilgamesh epic, one of the outstanding works of ancient literature. The superhero Gilgamesh originally appeared in Sumerian mythology as a legendary king of Uruk. A long Babylonian poem includes an account of his journey to the bottom of the sea to obtain the plant of life. As he stopped to bathe at a spring on the way home, a hungry snake snatched the plant. When Gilgamesh saw the creature cast off its old skin to become young again, it seemed to him a sign that old age was the fate of humans.
It was during the Sumerian era that a great flood overwhelmed Mesopotamia. So great was this flood that stories about it worked their way into several ancient literatures. The Sumerian counterpart of Noah was Ziusudra, and from him was developed the Babylonian figure Utnapishtim, whose story of the flood was related in the 'Epic of Gilgamesh'. Immortal after his escape from the flood, Utnapishtim was also the wise man who told Gilgamesh where to find the youth-restoring plant.
http://history-world.org/genesis_narrative_in_the_light_o.htm
The Genesis narrative in the light of recent scholarship
Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. "They served other gods," Joshua, Moses' successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Imagine this.
The names in genesis are groups of peoples.
In ancient Sumeria cities would be directly related to specific gods, and often had a divine story behind the cities formation (as did many civillizations). The two accounts of creation presented in the bible actually match the belief of two dif. gods that ancient Sumerians, from dif. cities believed in. I don't think that it would be a long shot to assume that the other aspects of the creation story were taken from some of the other belief system present in Mesopatomia.
Adam represents man. Eve mother of man.
Through Adam and Eve are born the peoples of Cain and the peoples of Able.
Able specializes in raising livestock, and Cain in farming.
Cain invades Able, and shortly after suffers famine (Cursed).
What if genesis is giving the account of the rise, or influx, of the different Afro-Asiatic races in ancient Sumeria; in a particular region, Mesopatomia.
Then comes a flood (The Epic of Gilgamesh). The flood occurs in the area Mesopotamia; in theTigris-Euphrates river valley. A river valley that suffered severe flooding beween 4k and 2k bc, but this flood would have happend much later then that.
14The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
In the Book of Jubilees (written around 153 B.C) the entire Earth was divided up among the grandsons of Noah
It's also refered to as the Table of nations.
24When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25he said,
"Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers."
26He also said,
"Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.
27 May God make space forb Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave."
Imagine instead it read, "Blessed by the Lord my God be the Shemites, and let the Canaanite be thier slaves. May God make space for the Japhethites and let them live in the tents of Shemites and let the Canaanites be thier slaves as well."
http://www.wikipedia.org/ (OMGZ! Wikipedia. Siting a single site is easier then siting a dozen. Feel free to check other places if you don't trust Wikipedia.)
The three sons of Noah, and thier sons.
Shem father of: Semetic ethnic and linguistic races.
Elam: 2700 BC to 539 BC, is one of the oldest recorded civilizations
Asshur: Assyria. The word Asshur can refer to either the contry of Assyria or the native people.
Arpachshad (Aphraxad): The Isrealites, Hebrews, Iraqi, and Arabians, amoung many others
Lud: Lydia
Aram: Aramaeans, who speak Aramiac, settled Mesopatomia in the late 12 century BC.
Ham father of: The term Hametic is no longer used. It's been replaced with Afro-Asiatic.
Canaan: The Canaanites (Phoenecians)
Cush: A civilization that arose in Nubia, northern Sudan.
Egypt: Everyone already knows who they are.
Put: Lybia
Japheth father of: The term Japhetic has been replaced with Indo-European. Peoples of the Caucasus area.
Gomer: Armenians
Magog: Skythians who were conquered by the Sarmatians; who they are closely related to. EthnicHungarians are also called Magyars
Madai: Persians, Kurds amoung others
Javan: Ionians
Tubal: Gorgians amoun others
Meshech: Phrygians
Tiras: Thracians
Ancient Jews were etymologists, and ethnologists (is that the right word? Someone that traces ethnicities) It's actually impressive how accurate they were.
With the historical information that has been dsicovered about ancient Sumerian life, it's reasonable to assume that the Jews were responcible for recording history, and Genesis is the product of that. History didn't start with Genesis, it's just were the Jews began to record what races they knew of at whatever time they began thier writtings. I'm not sure what the time frames they used were for.
Also, Sumerian arithmatic wasn't the same as it is today. It was based off of a unit of 60 instead of 10 that is used now. Sumerian arithmatic is actually used in computers in some way, but I"m not familliar with how. Can't even say how ancient Sumerian arithmatic works at all.
Sumeria didn't have a unified calender for quite some time as well.
If creationist were telling people that the bible indicates that civillization is between 6k and 12k years old then I would agree. It is, but the planet is much older.
Wish Darkfall would release.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the creation story in Genesis had been in existence for many generations already by the time they were first recorded in writing. They may even be so old that they predate all known civilizations and were adapted in different ways by different peoples over time.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/ussher_james.html
James Ussher, born and raised in Dublin, Ireland became an important figure in the Christian Church early in his life. In 1605, at just the age of twenty-four, Ussher became chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral, located in Dublin. Soon thereafter, he was designated Bishop of Meath in 1620. In 1625,he was appointed Anglican Archbishop of Armagh. This is when he became a well known scholar and theologian in the Church of Ireland.
While Archbishop of Armagh, Ussher became determined to approximate when the universe was created. He traveled to Britain and Europe in 1640 trying to seek the earliest available manuscripts he could find. He decided to use the Book of Genesis to determine when he thought the universe was created. After counting the “begats” of the Book of Genesis, Ussher came to the conclusion that the universe was created at 9:00 am on the twenty-third of October, 4004 BC. This date was in fact used in some editions of the King James Version of the Bible.
One of James Ussher’s most important writings was the Annals of the World. This book is composed of two volumes. The first volume was written in 1650, the second in 1654. In these books, he stated his theory of when the universe was created and the dates and times of other biblical occurrences based on the that theory.
Because of the scientific developments we have today, scientists believe Ussher’s date of creation inaccurate. If one used the date of Oct. 23, 4004 BC, and calculated how old the earth would be today, we’d find the earth would only be about 6,003 years old. Because people have studied the ages of geological structures, we now believe that the earth is in fact a few billion years old. There are though, some people today that still believe James Ussher’s theory.
In 1656, James Ussher died at the age of seventy-five, while still living in England.
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/George_McCready_Price
Price's most notable work, The New Geology (1923), a 726 page college textbook, contains numerous arguments that allegedly refute key elements of Darwin's theory of evolution. Several of these arguments remain popular in creationist circles today.
One of the most popular is the argument that evolutionary theory rests on faulty dating techniques. Price alleges that fossils are dated according to the age of the geological strata that they are found in, and that the rocks themselves are assigned probable dates based on the estimated age of the fossils found in them. In short, Price believes that all evolutionary claims based on the dates of fossils are in fact fallacious, based on a fairly straightforward circular argument. Price contends that all fossils are of the same age--that is, that the fossils were all laid down during the flood of Noah described in Genesis.
Wish Darkfall would release.
...etc...
Unless you've been to the website and/or to the museum itself, then you really can't judge it. Can't just say, "Creation! Eww..." Sorry. I would have rather spent my time elsewhere if it weren't for the evolutionist protestors outside and the Planetarium inside. Those were the only two cool parts of it in my opinion. I did come away with some interesting tidbits of information though, so it wasn't time wasted although the museum wasn't entirely finished.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
...etc...
Unless you've been to the website and/or to the museum itself, then you really can't judge it. Can't just say, "Creation! Eww..." Sorry. I would have rather spent my time elsewhere if it weren't for the evolutionist protestors outside and the Planetarium inside. Those were the only two cool parts of it in my opinion. I did come away with some interesting tidbits of information though, so it wasn't time wasted although the museum wasn't entirely finished.
The creation museum website is just a big advert for the museum. It doesn't really give any info on what the museum actually has on display.Answers in Genesis website has more info. AIG is the group responcible for the creation museum.
You'll find interesting things like:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/20/feedback-astrophysics According to David Wright a light year is only a measure of distance and not time.
Distance in space is measure through a unit of time. By measuring the TIME it takes light from a body in space to reach us, we can determine the distance needed to travel to reach that object. It doesn't matter how many miles you need to travel to reach something 2 billion years away from you.
–noun
He goes on to say: But something to remember is that the earth was actually made before the sun, moon, and stars
OK. In order to get the heavier elements that make up the cores of planets you need a star. Iron and nickle require the fusion of atoms to form. Stars are responcible for fusion. It also takes heat to conver metal elements into a solid or liquid state; without it, in an area of space with no stars, elements exist as gasses.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/on_demand_video.html?param=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/videos/metafiles/ksc_031104_spitzer.ram Spitzer space telescope is actually watching the process of stellar formation.
There is a lot of alluding to the idea that scientists are simply making things up based on thier preconcieved notion that the earth is billions of years old. Basically, science is biased. Yet everything about AIG and the creation museum is about trying to debunk science, and replace it with creationism. And money. Awfull lotta stuff on for sale. So if scientists are biased, what is AIG, and the creation museum?
This is also a group of people that calls gays and lesbians an abomination, and openly attacks athiests and those that believe in evolution. AIG is nothing more then a propaganda machine, and the museum is just another tool in thier fight against anything they fear might put into question thier faith.
Wish Darkfall would release.