US textbook omits evolution

[bombermick]

Nah! you could never offer that as proof - or even a serious suggestion, in the same way that you could never offer the Pyramids or primitive field drawings as proof of alien contact.
But the concept of dragons is almost archetypal across cultures. Generally a large, powerful lizard like creature. Adornments such as wings, fire-breathing, etc, are less common, and it intrigues me where the concept originated from. Crocodiles?

No idea. Man has a vivid imagination and alien and ghost stories are near-universal, too. Interesting they're universal, just like flood stories.

 

[Monniehawk]

It's not what we are discussing though. And we sure as heck aren't talking about "religion" which is a pretty useless term used by people to lump everything in together, as if they were all the same.

Well, I think religion is a general description of a faith-based belief system, so it is very relevant to the thread, I would say. Otherwise, be honest, and call it Baptist Education, Mormon, or whatever.

The context is should people blame God for bad things - school shootings - and on the other hand say we want nothing to do with him? We are talking about the US as well.

Well that is a separate thread, I think.
But in answer, if people do not believe in gods or Jesus, it is ridiculous to blame either of them. It would be roughly akin to blaming unicorns for producing Equine Influenza!
I think you can see the irrationality of those arguments.

But we are not discussing comparative religion as a good idea for a school curriculum.

Well, since I introduced it into the topic about school-based religious instruction, I would have to disagree. I would further argue that if xianity is taught in schools it violates the concepts of freedom of religious belief and desecrates the fundamental educational traditions of intellectual exploration.
Kids are entitled to know something about an important social construct such as religion, but the argument is based around the selection of how and which ones. I think it should be taught - but in the correct context of, say, a branch of philosophy or intellectual inquiry.
I have grave doubts about banning it completely, as that introduces strong possibilities of a reverse form of religious bigotry and irrational censorship. Because religion is a major influence and determinant of our societies, it should be studied - BUT, in a general sense - and particularly in a secular sense. Teaching ABOUT religion must be differentiated from teaching TO a religion.

And even then, should it be taught from a cognitive paradigm or a political one?
In other words, justifying teaching just one sectarian dogma as being "Religious Education" is tantamount to claiming that teaching Australian Nationalism is actually teaching History.
Clearly, it is not! Each is heavily value-laden and proscriptive. Such selective learning is a process that denies individual enquiry and defiles the education process.

Creating space for this type of religious instruction and offering an 'opt out' clause is just as unfair and divisive.
Teach it as Comparative Religion, then allow the parents and kids to make the choice as to how they will develop those concepts without the selective indoctrination.

Jesus was reprimanding those stopping little children coming to him - it matters not the context. If schools ban Xians from talking about Jesus, or people praying, etc; then they are stopping the kids from coming to Jesus. It would be a bit rich to then turn around and blame God for bad things - even if he was responsible for it, which he isn't as everyone agrees - atheist and theist like - but just for different reasons. lol.

The teaching of Comparative Religion is not stopping people coming to Jesus. Neither is not teaching R.Ed if it is limited to only one particular colour.
In fact, if we taught Islam or Shinto in schools, THAT would be denying kids and parents a choice.
Such instruction must be relevant, inclusive and appropriate.
There is a genuine concern amongst many that what passes for 'religious education' is actually indoctrination and exclusivity. It compromises the school, community, education process and importantly, the intellectual and spiritual development of kids.
Do we teach xianity in other social programs? Is Jesus being denied if we don't include him in, say, a swimming class, or at the footy club, for example? No, because there are other appropriate avenues for kids to be introduced to their families' religious aspirations.
There is good argument to say that specific Religious Instruction is not the province of schools, because schools belong to everyone, not just a brand of xianity.
I still contend that religion is a foundation of all societies and it must be addressed.
But in what manner, at what age and, most importantly, for what purpose?

BTW, CF. I just got back from visiting family in the old town. Checked out KP and took some pics which I will post on the Cats BF forum.
Go Catters!!

 

[CharacterFirst]

Think you've misunderstood that part CF. By "evangelicals" I mean preachers who gouge money from easily deceived believers - specifically the television evangelicals popular in the US (and elsewhere too). I have no problem at all stating I despise them. Especially when only too frequently their deception is exposed (Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind etc).

So nothing was meant towards you CF.

I know.

But its important to try and get the terms right. Evangelical simply has a literal translation of one who believes in the good news.

There are many who have made big mistakes, failures, and sinned badly. I don't like them overly either, but they are brothers in Jesus, even if they have blown it.

The strange thing is, that many humanist atheists somehow find their behavior hypocritical or offensive, when most of them are deeply naturalistic. They borrow from a Xian world which they don't believe, to judge Xians who they don't like, for things which according to naturalism are just random acts in a completely subjective world. Go figure?

 

[CharacterFirst]

BTW, CF. I just got back from visiting family in the old town. Checked out KP and took some pics which I will post on the Cats BF forum.
Go Catters!!

Look forward to them.

 

[Pie eyed]

Makes perfect sense. I knew about the mythical status of early biblical figures, but I wasn't sure if "later" figures like David existed. Sounds like they did, but not in the form the bible portrays them to be.

Surely if Israel fled Egypt the Egyptians would have kept some records of it.

Sorry but none of the otherwise fastidious record keepers of the age have any recollection of anything at all claimed in the bible having ever happened.
Luckily we have the remarkable memories of the folk who ghost wrote the Gospels 100-300 year after the events to elucidate the "facts" for us and 1600 years of theological embellishment to fill in the gaps, edit out the inconsistencies and tone down the malevolence found in the early drafts.

 

[CharacterFirst]

There are significant doubts about the historicity of parts of the Bible. The Old Testament is essentially a collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history.

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new.

But what has changed is the idea that those who doubt, somehow hold historical fact.

There is not a consensus between biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen.
Many archaeologists, bible scholars and historians continue to form evidence that the Exodus occurred. The editor of Biblical Arch' Review - Hershel Shanks for a start - and many others.

But in the end it comes down to the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Sorry but none of the otherwise fastidious record keepers of the age have any recollection of anything at all claimed in the bible having ever happened.
Luckily we have the remarkable memories of the folk who ghost wrote the Gospels 100-300 year after the events to elucidate the "facts" for us and 1600 years of theological embellishment to fill in the gaps, edit out the inconsistencies and tone down the malevolence found in the early drafts.

This is pretty inaccurate mate. It sounds like you have been getting your info from The Da Vinci Code or some such.

http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/starting-out/modern-new-testament-study.htm

http://uncover.org.uk/more/sorting-gospels

 

[Pie eyed]

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new.

But what has changed is the idea that those who doubt, somehow hold historical fact.

There is not a consensus between biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen.
Many archaeologists, bible scholars and historians continue to form evidence that the Exodus occurred. The editor of Biblical Arch' Review - Hershel Shanks for a start - and many others.

But in the end it comes down to the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

I rode my Unicorn to Atlantis yesterday and met Horus, reborn.

 

[bombermick]

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new.

But what has changed is the idea that those who doubt, somehow hold historical fact.

There is not a consensus between biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen.
Many archaeologists, bible scholars and historians continue to form evidence that the Exodus occurred. The editor of Biblical Arch' Review - Hershel Shanks for a start - and many others.

But in the end it comes down to the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

The difference of opinion between scholars at bible colleges and those at universities is stark. Most of the later group agree with the kind of information Roylion has provided.

You'll say it's because of their world view, but most will agree it's because they haven't made a conclusion before they've started.

 

[Roylion]

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new.

No. And the latest archaeological discoveries in Israel and Egypt are casting further doubt on the historicity of the first five books of the Bible, as well as Joshua. As I have already described.

But what has changed is the idea that those who doubt, somehow hold historical fact.

No one side holds historical fact. If the archaeological evidence emerges then the historical consensus amongst scholars may change. To date there is almost nothing that supports that the Exodus occurred. Some Biblical websites claim that the Merneptah Stele is evidence of the Exodus but I fail to see how.

There is not a consensus between biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen.
Many archaeologists, bible scholars and historians continue to form evidence that the Exodus occurred. The editor of Biblical Arch' Review - Hershel Shanks for a start - and many others.

Consensus: general or widespread agreement

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the god of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

Could you outline Hershel Shanks' evidence for the Exodus, as described in the Bible? He did say this about the Exodus.

"Some archaeological facts suggest an answer [to the Exodus], but they don't prove an answer. There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty in Biblical history—at least as far as archaeology is concerned."

He also said that "Two million Israelites did not cross the Sinai on their way out of Egypt, despite the biblical implication as to this number (Ex 12:37)"

His comments on the Book of Joshua?
"Most archaeologists today don't see evidence of a swift conquest, as described in the Book of Joshua,"

But in the end it comes down to the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

No it doesn't. Anything that is claimed to be historical must be taken with a grain of salt until evidence emerges that confirms such historicity. The Exodus, as described in the Bible, may not have happened.

 

[Niximus]

I rode my Unicorn to Atlantis yesterday and met Horus, reborn.

Sounds legit. Where can I donate money to feed your unicorn?

 

[Pie eyed]

This is pretty inaccurate mate. It sounds like you have been getting your info from The Da Vinci Code or some such.

http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/starting-out/modern-new-testament-study.htm

http://uncover.org.uk/more/sorting-gospels

ROFL.
My "information" came straight out of my brain. It is the sum total of the facts I've been able to glean about the bible over 50 years as a Catholic.
I assume you have never read the Da Vinci Code, it being "not recommended reading" down at hillsong or wherever, as it has little to do with anything I have posted.
In the end they discover Jesus direct descendants living in England.

 

[CharacterFirst]

No. And the latest archaeological discoveries in Israel and Egypt are casting further doubt on the historicity of the first five books of the Bible, as well as Joshua. As I have already described.

I am not fussed one way or the other if people consider early parts of the OT historical or not, or a mixture or the two (my position). I don't consider it necessary to know who God inspired to write Job or Hebrews, in order to accept them as God's word. The issue you are raising are not knock down ones for the truth of the OT, the NT or God in general.

No one side holds historical fact. If the archaeological evidence emerges then the historical consensus amongst scholars may change.

Completely agreed.

The same goes for modern scientific discoveries - ones either seemingly "for" God (like the Fine tuning of the Universe), and those seemingly "against" God - some gene stuff.

The "evidence" changes all the time, and each generation see it with fresh eyes, even to the point of seeing it agian as past generations have understood it.

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the god of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

I may have misunderstood you, but that doesn't seem to be what you have generally been arguing for. I get the distinct impression in this thread (and past ones) that you have been trying to discredit the bible as any sort of reliable text. It seems to me you would have people believe there was never an Exodus, not just that it might have been smaller than we thought. And that b/c we have no "hard evidence", it can't possibly have happened. It just doesn't follow.

What is the evidence that the Exodus was small for example? I haven't read anything that confrims that opinion beyond doubt. Perhaps you could outline it for us?

........Hershel Shanks' evidence for the Exodus..........

Yes. I think he was uncertain as numbers etc. I see no reason that the biblical numbers could not be accurate. However, he firmly believed that there was an Exodus.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/HerschelSchanks.html

Well the bible is the primary account we have of the Exodus, so anything anyone has to say on it will be largely from the bible.

"Some archaeological facts suggest an answer [to the Exodus], but they don't prove an answer. There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty in Biblical history—at least as far as archaeology is concerned."

This really doesn't strengthen a case against believing the scriptures as true and reliable.

No it doesn't. Anything that is claimed to be historical must be taken with a grain of salt until evidence emerges that confirms such historicity. The Exodus, as described in the Bible, may not have happened.

All those thing are possibly true Roy. But just b/c we don't arch evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen. The jury is still out on a lot of arch evidence. But there is plenty of pro-bible OT arch evidence.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old-testament-has-been-archaeologically-verified/
http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-this-archeological-discovery-prove-that-the-bible-is-true/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/isr...ing-the-name-of-jesus-traditional-birthplace/
http://news.yahoo.com/archaeologists-claim-theyre-one-step-closer-proving-bible-135821511.html


Again, we have to look at the genre, and time of writing, its intention, etc. If we just look at from a Western 21 st C perspective we do the scriptures a great disservice.

None of the issues you have raised about the understanding of the historicity or compilation of the OT, need impact its truthfulness. Again - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. B/c we haven't got a stone pillar with pictures of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, doesn't mean it never happened.

This article is a few years old but deals with some of the areas - http://www.theologynetwork.org/studying-theologyrs/modern-old-testament-study.htm

The issues of idolatry (discussed earler in the thread) are actually evidence for the accuracy of scripture as I see it. The bible pulls no punches - it tells it like it was, not sanitized. Read this article - http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/getting-stuck-in/the-concept-of-idolatry.htm

 

[CharacterFirst]

ROFL.
My "information" came straight out of my brain. It is the sum total of the facts I've been able to glean about the bible over 50 years as a Catholic.
I assume you have never read the Da Vinci Code, it being "not recommended reading" down at hillsong or wherever, as it has little to do with anything I have posted.
In the end they discover Jesus direct descendants living in England.

LOL. Sorry if I offend you by not accepting the "sum total of gleaned 'facts' of a former Roman Catholic unbeliever."

Wow, 50 years! You must have read the bible hundreds of times, discussed these things with some great theologians, read the most pressing and scholarly works on biblical theology, etc. You certainly have an enormous amount of "faith" in the bits and pieces you have picked up around the place.
How many degrees in theology do you have PE? Which schools of biblical education have you studied at again? Can you give us your opinion of the greatest theological works of the last two thousand years?
Just what do you think about the Centrum Paulinum? What did you find the hardest part about studying the NT in the original languages?

The back of a postage stamp would have room for a shopping list after we wrote down all the true things you believe about how the NT came into being and it's reliability.

Hillsong - lol. No not Hillsong matey. But I do believe in Jesus Christ as Lord a Saviour, and one day I will give an account of my life (and so will you, Pies Fans are not exempt ). It won't be perfect, but I thank God daily for his grace in Jesus that will get me thru on that day.

 

[Niximus]

Wow, 50 years! You must have read the bible hundreds of times, discussed these things with some great theologians, read the most pressing and scholarly works on biblical theology, etc. You certainly have an enormous amount of "faith" in the bits and pieces you have picked up around the place.
How many degrees in theology do you have PE? Which schools of biblical education have you studied at again? Can you give us your opinion of the greatest theological works of the last two thousand years?
Just what do you think about the Centrum Paulinum? What did you find the hardest part about studying the NT in the original languages?

I always laugh when I see these types of comments from theists.

1) Because they need you to have formal qualifications in theology in order to say anything about religion when quite often in the same qualification they are disregarding much of physics and biology with barely a high school science class behind them, and

2) Because if the bible really were the work of a divine, perfect being. Created for the purpose of bringing his word to all mankind and saving them from eternal damnation. He must be quite the dick to have written it in a way that requires extensive study and a PhD in theology to correctly interpret. Was he not capable of creating a message that was easily understandable by even the least educated person, or is heaven only for the privileged?

 

[CharacterFirst]

I always laugh when I see these types of comments from theists.

I'm guessing you know next to nothing about Jesus either, hence the need to reply to a post not even addressed to you. You are clearly in the same boat as PE.

So many atheists - esp. the "New" brand - hold such little respect for so many of the greatest minds of the day and history, who willingly and humbly submitted themselves to the mighty and awesome God.

However, the real clincher is the pride of the one who rejects Jesus. You don't need a PhD to know Jesus, but a bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when one makes ridiculous statements about scholarly issues, it is clear that a bit of knowledge might be a generous epithet.

And yet when all is said and done, atheists still feel the need to say more! They still feel compelled to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing something/someone they don't even believe in. Of course you are experts everyone of you. Authorities on something you know little about, and care even less for. Mind blowing.


BTW, Merry Xmas to you Nick.
May it be filled with Christ and all the joy and peace he brings to earth from heaven. you might want to get yourself a copy of this for under the tree -http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/31/trouble-with-athiests-defence-of-faith

 

[Max zero]

Again - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's not evidence of truthfulness either.

While you try to equivocate the trend of modern scientific study is clearly against the Bible being the literal truth.

The sad fact is that buying into this debate CF you tactically acknowledge that scientific facts will be the deciding factor in determining the validity of Bible. Bible based claims alone are not enough alone to sway people anymore.

Science has all the credibility so it's in this domain where the argument takes place.

 

[Niximus]

I'm guessing you know next to nothing about Jesus either, hence the need to reply to a post not even addressed to you. You are clearly in the same boat as PE.

If you want a private conversation, take it to PM's. Quite happy to be in a boat with PE, thanks

So many atheists - esp. the "New" brand - hold such little respect for so many of the greatest minds of the day and history, who willingly and humbly submitted themselves to the mighty and awesome God.

Huh? Not sure what point you're trying to make here, but yeah, when I learn someone believes in magic I lose some respect for them.

However, the real clincher is the pride of the one who rejects Jesus. You don't need a PhD to know Jesus, but a bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when one makes ridiculous statements about scholarly issues, it is clear that a bit of knowledge might be a generous epithet.

I 'reject Jesus' in the same way I reject Santa.

And yet when all is said and done, atheists still feel the need to say more! They still feel compelled to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing something/someone they don't even believe in. Of course you are experts everyone of you. Authorities on something you know little about, and care even less for. Mind blowing.

I care a lot about it. I want to see humanity prosper and advance for the betterment of all, religion is a major threat to that.

BTW, Merry Xmas to you Nick.
May it be filled with Christ and all the joy and peace he brings to earth from heaven. you might want to get yourself a copy of this for under the tree -http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/31/trouble-with-athiests-defence-of-faith

uh huh

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

There's too much "god" shit in this thread.

Chloroplasts.

Those things impress me.

 

[Bennett.]

Sorry but none of the otherwise fastidious record keepers of the age have any recollection of anything at all claimed in the bible having ever happened.
Luckily we have the remarkable memories of the folk who ghost wrote the Gospels 100-300 year after the events to elucidate the "facts" for us and 1600 years of theological embellishment to fill in the gaps, edit out the inconsistencies and tone down the malevolence found in the early drafts.

You still pushing this 'late writing of the gospels' thing even though I, and others, have shown time and time again that you are wrong?

 

[Bennett.]

Basically, it appears to me at least, that anyone who devotes their being to studying science, etc is to be revered, but
not so if they believe in God? Seriously, there are plenty of Christians with PhD's who deserve the same amount of respect
as those who are non christian, purely for their achievements alone. How many PhD's do we have amongst us at the moment in this forum?
Just because someone, like myself for instance, chooses to study Theology does not mean that I am to be disregarded as an imbecile,
on the contrary, I am devoting a large part of my life in the pursuit of my beliefs - Just like most scholars, scientists, garbage workers and mechanics do.

I find it unbelievably arrogant that there are some people here who will mock, deride and discredit people because they are pursuing
answers for themselves. Just because a scholar is a Christian, it doesn't mean it will slant their views. What it could do however, is
confirm some of the beliefs and teachings - and I believe that is why most of them do the work they do.

 

[Niximus]

I wouldn't think you're an imbecile for studying theology.

Think about this though. Imagine you met a grown adult who truly, completely believed in the easter bunny. Like, they literally believe that a rabbit will bring them chocolate eggs on easter. Not just that they like the idea of it, they 100% believe that the easter bunny is fact. Would you really think that they were firing on all cylinders? If you say yes, you're lying.

That is how I view theists, people who literally believe in magic.

Now imagine that it isn't just one person, there is a whole heap of them and some are in positions of power....

 

[bombermick]

The Bible is an amazing book. Its creation myth is the best one I've heard, it has great drama (story of David for example) and Proverbs is as good as anything the Buddha came up with.

Its trouble is it's clearly scientifically inaccurate, unless you claim it's not a literal creation account. That then opens up more problems IMO. There's also massive doubts over its historical accuracy, with most secular scholars saying many of its major characters are unlikely to have existed.

 

[evo]

I wouldn't think you're an imbecile for studying theology.

Think about this though. Imagine you met a grown adult who truly, completely believed in the easter bunny. Like, they literally believe that a rabbit will bring them chocolate eggs on easter. Not just that they like the idea of it, they 100% believe that the easter bunny is fact. Would you really think that they were firing on all cylinders? If you say yes, you're lying.

That is how I view theists, people who literally believe in magic.

Now imagine that it isn't just one person, there is a whole heap of them and some are in positions of power....

The Easter bunny only brings chocolate. No-one claims that the Easter Bunny created the universe, or cares whether you whack-off, eat fish on Fridays or face Mecca when you worship him. There is very little dispute amongst the various Easter bunny sects - no wars have ever been fought in regard to the Easter Bunny - we all agree he brings eggs.

The Easter bunny seems more plausible, in my view.

Happy apocalypse to you.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I wouldn't think you're an imbecile for studying theology.

Think about this though. Imagine you met a grown adult who truly, completely believed in the easter bunny. Like, they literally believe that a rabbit will bring them chocolate eggs on easter. Not just that they like the idea of it, they 100% believe that the easter bunny is fact. Would you really think that they were firing on all cylinders? If you say yes, you're lying.

No.

That is how I view theists, people who literally believe in magic.

But it isn't a reasonable or logical comparison. For a start, I know many, many believers in God, but not one of them believes the Easter Bunny is real. Why not? If these two beliefs are analogous, we should see many Theists also being Easter Bunnyist, or Flying Spag Monsterist, etc.

When the The New Atheists and their disciples spread the gospel of the Spag' Monsters, or "God is Santa for grown ups" etc; it is hard to keep a straight face.

In short - there is evidence against EB, Santa etc that is so strong, we take it as proof these things don't exist. What is your evidence against God that is so strong that we can consider it proof he doesn't exist.
I am sure everyone would like to read/see/hear it, as no one else in all human history has discovered such evidence.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary

Read this. You will have to think, about 3/4 down you will find the specific response to God as Santa etc. But read the rest to learn and understand the logic etc behind it all.