Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate

[steven lloyd]

So...does anyone here believe god moulded human men out of dirt and a woman out of a rib?

Originally God suggested that Adam give up an arm and then He would create a woman – beautiful, obedient and subservient to all Adam’s needs. It was Adam who then countered “Gee God - What can I get for a rib?”

[cliffy1]

Was the new testament written by the followers of Jesus or by someone else for purely political reasons? I doubt Christians will watch this but I found it fascinating. It filled in a few blanks and connected a few dots to my previous knowledge of the subject:

[Glacier]

I understand very well that the Bible is not a science book.
The bible is not a history book.
The bible is not the written word of God.
The bible is simply a collection of stories, second hand accounts and tales which tried to explain events and circumstances that society did not yet understand, retold for centuries, passed on from one generation to the next, just as any other religion in history.

That's good that you understand the Bible is not a science book. The next part is to understand that the Bible not entirely second hand stories nor 100% false as some radical leftists like to say. BTW, I can label you whatever I want (which can be based upon posts in other threads), just as you have attached labels to me. Those are opinions, not facts. "Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe."

Anyway, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of many books. They aren't just a collection of books trying to explain events, but sometimes actual 1st hand accounts of an author's version of history. Sometimes they aren't even trying to explain anything. Heck, at least one of them doesn't even mention God or any sort of spiritual being even once. Some are autobiographical, while others are biographical. I have family members who have written biographies, including on people who could not read or write. For the most part, the stories are true in the sense that the important details are accurate, but some of the finer details might not be quite right because history is dealing with a person's fallible memory.

Biography writers interview several different people on the same event, and find that their accounts would all be different, though not necessarily inaccurate.Just a different perspective of the same event. In the Bible we see this as well with different books covering the same stories. Eg. a First Nations person's account of residential school system verses a white man's interpretation. Like family members of mine and their editors, the writers in the Bible likely eliminated stories that they thought didn't match up (or like you and I would do when relaying a story on this web forum). Of course, the odd suspect account can sneak its way into the final draft. The problem with writing history is that it's impossible to independently verify each story. Therefore, much of what we know of history, including Biblical history, might not have happened the exact way the biographer's thought that it did.

[janalta]

Anyway, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of many books. They aren't just a collection of books trying to explain events, but sometimes actual 1st hand accounts of an author's version of history. Sometimes they aren't even trying to explain anything. Heck, at least one of them doesn't even mention God or any sort of spiritual being even once. Some are autobiographical, while others are biographical. I have family members who have written biographies, including on people who could not read or write. For the most part, the stories are true in the sense that the important details are accurate, but some of the finer details might not be quite right because history is dealing with a person's fallible memory.

Biography writers interview several different people on the same event, and find that their accounts would all be different, though not necessarily inaccurate.Just a different perspective of the same event. In the Bible we see this as well with different books covering the same stories. Eg. a First Nations person's account of residential school system verses a white man's interpretation. Like family members of mine and their editors, the writers in the Bible likely eliminated stories that they thought didn't match up (or like you and I would do when relaying a story on this web forum). Of course, the odd suspect account can sneak its way into the final draft. The problem with writing history is that it's impossible to independently verify each story. Therefore, much of what we know of history, including Biblical history, might not have happened the exact way the biographer's thought that it did.

Many stories, combined under one cover is called...A BOOK.
Even the most devout of the religious call the bible THE BOOK...not...That collection of varies editions of books and stories all combined together in to one big edition.'
So, how about we cut out the semantics as a way for you to attempt to show that I don't know a thing about your bible.

And - you know exactly who wrote the bible because..... You know them personally - you were there to witness it's creation - or, that's just what you've always been led to believe, so it must be true ?
You also have absolutely no way of knowing if the stories are true or accurate, since they supposedly happened thousands of years ago, so you must rely on what you've been taught to believe.
No one knows, without doubt, who wrote the scriptures or how much of it is truth/fact/fiction or myth.
It is not possible to KNOW.
It is possible to BELIEVE...and you're free to do that all you wish.

[Atomoa]

Oldest living tree "clonal colony" is actually Pando in Utah.

80,000 year old living organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_%28tree%29

On my bucket list to walk those woods, also speaks to the earth is biblical crowd.

[Sneaksuit]

They aren't just a collection of books trying to explain events, but sometimes actual 1st hand accounts of an author's version of history. Sometimes they aren't even trying to explain anything. Heck, at least one of them doesn't even mention God or any sort of spiritual being even once. Some are autobiographical, while others are biographical. I have family members who have written biographies, including on people who could not read or write. For the most part, the stories are true in the sense that the important details are accurate, but some of the finer details might not be quite right because history is dealing with a person's fallible memory.

Biography writers interview several different people on the same event, and find that their accounts would all be different, though not necessarily inaccurate.Just a different perspective of the same event. In the Bible we see this as well with different books covering the same stories. Eg. a First Nations person's account of residential school system verses a white man's interpretation. Like family members of mine and their editors, the writers in the Bible likely eliminated stories that they thought didn't match up (or like you and I would do when relaying a story on this web forum). Of course, the odd suspect account can sneak its way into the final draft. The problem with writing history is that it's impossible to independently verify each story. Therefore, much of what we know of history, including Biblical history, might not have happened the exact way the biographer's thought that it did.

True, but there is no mention that the scribes not only conveyed their perspectives of historical events but also their beliefs about them. For example, just as texts containing Greek mythology are windows into the beliefs of ancient Greeks, Christian mythology everywhere in the Bible, such as the belief that Jesus was God incarnate, or the belief that Jesus died for our sins, or that belief in Jesus' resurrection will save us a place in Heaven. Surely perspectives of some believing Christians of the day but senseless to seriously believe today any more than Zeus is a real god the way the Greeks thought.

[Glacier]

And - you know exactly who wrote the bible because..... You know them personally - you were there to witness it's creation - or, that's just what you've always been led to believe, so it must be true ?
You also have absolutely no way of knowing if the stories are true or accurate, since they supposedly happened thousands of years ago, so you must rely on what you've been taught to believe.
No one knows, without doubt, who wrote the scriptures or how much of it is truth/fact/fiction or myth.
It is not possible to KNOW.
It is possible to BELIEVE...and you're free to do that all you wish.

Sorry, Dude, I never said anywhere that I knew who wrote the bible or that I have verified the accuracy of the stories. Sneaksuit is right. There is definitely a religious slant to the bible, though I don't think anyone denies this. The point is that some of the books have more spiritual aspects than others. At least one of them doesn't have any spiritual or religious aspect at all.

[cliffy1]

Sorry, Dude, I never said anywhere that I knew who wrote the bible or that I have verified the accuracy of the stories. Sneaksuit is right. There is definitely a religious slant to the bible, though I don't think anyone denies this. The point is that some of the books have more spiritual aspects than others. At least one of them doesn't have any spiritual or religious aspect at all.

The book is part forgery, part plagiarized and part fiction. But people are so desperate to believe they are not even willing to look at the evidence. I know, the bible says that people will try to say that but they are just under the direction of Satan. The book is full of stuff justifying its authenticity but that is not a legitimate way to do it. The authors put all that junk in there to keep people stuck, arrest the spiritual development, because, god forbid, they know the truth of who and what they are. If they did, they would know they didn't need religion or books to believe in and leaders to follow.

[fluffy]

Isn't there something very basically amiss with using the bible as proof of the bible's authenticity ?

[Glacier]

Isn't there something very basically amiss with using the bible as proof of the bible's authenticity ?

That depends on how one uses the bible to authenticate. It should be authenticated in the same manor any other books is authenticated. It is true that people accept it was true with out authenticating anything, but it is also true that others dismiss it off-hand, and thus hold their standard of authentication at a much higher standard than they do other books. There is no denying that everyone has their bias.

[JLives]

We can determine wizards are real because many of the characters and locations can be authenticated in Harry Potter.

[Glacier]

Okay, if you say so. You can also determine that Climate Change is real and happening now™ because you can read about in Al Gore's book.

[JLives]

I never read it.

[fluffy]

All I'm saying is that an argument that the bible is authentic because the bible says it is, isn't much of an argument in my mind. I accept that the bible is chock full of great moral messages, also some questionable content by today's standards. I'm of the belief that the bible was never meant to be taken literally, that it is a collection of fictitious works meant to convey moral messages. Much like Aesop's fables.

[Glacier]

All I'm saying is that an argument that the bible is authentic because the bible says it is, isn't much of an argument in my mind.

That is true since this line of reasoning is circular reasoning. I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of that.