Do Christian right wingers really have nothing better to worry about than this?

[AllieBaba]

Remember, there's anthropological evidence that ancient man did live for an incredibly long time. I posted it last week. More evidence that the Bible is true and correct.

You have to keep track of this stuff.

 

[Shogun]

Remember, there's anthropological evidence that ancient man did live for an incredibly long time. I posted it last week. More evidence that the Bible is true and correct.

You have to keep track of this stuff.

HA!

yea... every other source in science points to 30-40 year lifespans TOPS during the bronze age but, hey, Allie says 969 years is plausable so...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

 

[Taomon]

Actually, since the thread was about the fundamentalist Christian attitude toward the dressing up, they don't like Halloween either. They're being pretty consistent.

But GunnyL was not, do try and keep up.

 

[AllieBaba]

HA!

yea... every other source in science points to 30-40 year lifespans TOPS during the bronze age but, hey, Allie says 969 years is plausable so...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Anything is plausible. Even the idea that we're just random specks of humanity floating in an empty world.

 

[Shogun]

Anything is plausible. Even the idea that we're just random specks of humanity floating in an empty world.

thank god for evidence..



would you mind reposting the article about long lived bronze agers?

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't even remember how I found it. What was the name of the guy? And I certainly don't remember the evidence was that they lived 30-40 years.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, I found it!

An orthodontist who studied Neandertals and found.....
"Through anatomical studies and a series of standardized radiographs similar to the ones utilized by orthodontists across the world, I have been able to calculate the Neanderthal lifespan in southwestern France to between 250 and 300 years. I was also able to uncover some misconstructions of the bones which prevented a good scientific interpretation of these remains.3 This information can be found in my book entitled Buried Alive.4"

His name is Cuozo. Jack Cuozo.

 

[Taomon]

Remember, there's anthropological evidence that ancient man did live for an incredibly long time. I posted it last week. More evidence that the Bible is true and correct.

You have to keep track of this stuff.

The Bible is far from true and accurate. You cannot invest your belief in scientists who garner their research biasedly. They start with the end result and work backwards. Anything that does not fit is discarded or denounced...such as carbon dating.

I am sorry, but that is not sound scientific evidence.

 

[AllieBaba]

Everybody is biased. In fact, research starts with a bias, a best guess as to what will or should happen. It's called a "theory".

Christian theories are just as likely to be accurate as atheist ones.

And the Bible is certainly middle-east archaeologists' best friend.

I love to see the lengths to which atheists will go to discredit it.

 

[Taomon]

Everybody is biased. In fact, research starts with a bias, a best guess as to what will or should happen. It's called a "theory".

Christian theories are just as likely to be accurate as atheist ones.

And the Bible is certainly middle-east archaeologists' best friend.

I love to see the lengths to which atheists will go to discredit it.

First of all, I am no atheist. Secondly, the true sickness is the lengths that people like you will go to give credit to the Bible. You cling to it as though the authors (who lived hundreds of years after Christ died and were primitive and misogynists) could not possibly be wrong.

But how accurate can the Bible be after so many authors and the multitude of editors who have altered the context of original manuscripts?

 

[AllieBaba]

Pretty accurate. Talk to the scholars who have studied it, or the multitudes of sad, misled people such as yourself who have attempted, and failed, to discredit it.

 

[Taomon]

Pretty accurate. Talk to the scholars who have studied it, or the multitudes of sad, misled people such as yourself who have attempted, and failed, to discredit it.

Actually, I never set out to discredit the Bible...it does that on its own. I am neither sad nor misled...I am an ex-Christian. I read the Bible. In fact, at an early age I attended Adventist and Baptist churches. I attended a few Catholic churches too.

But there are inaccuracies in the Bible. You can claim that the Bible is accurate, but that doesn't make it true. There are no Bible scholars here AllieBaba. You are making the claim that the Bible is accurate, now back it up.

I mentioned one way that makes that Bible very inaccurate, the multitude of editors who have removed and added text for centuries based on their own interpretations. And that is the crux is it not?

The truth is that Jesus and his ministry, which included his brothers, preached that Jesus would restore the Davidic throne according to the prophecies of Daniel.

After Jesus was cruelly tortured and crucified by the Romans (and Pontius Pilate was friend to Jesus. He hated Jews and killed as many as he could), the ministry continued on by Jesus' brother Joseph.

Paul joined the ministry after Jesus died. His message was a radical departure of what Christ's contemporaries (his family and apostles) and Christ himself were preaching. Paul claimed that he had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Suddenly, a cult was born. Now what is the difference between a cult and a religion? Time and numbers. How long the faith lasts and how many followers there are.

It is sad that you act like an authority on the Bible and yet know so little about it's history.

 

[bennylava]

Through anatomical studies and a series of standardized radiographs similar to the ones utilized by orthodontists across the world, I have been able to calculate the Neanderthal lifespan in southwestern France to between 250 and 300 years.

 

[Toro]

Its a good thing the kids didn't dress up as animals. We wouldn't want to encourage bestiality!

 

[Shogun]

Allie Baba I could not possibly laugh at you any harder than i am at this very moment.

Jack is about as much accepted science as you are a local bible scholar.



200-300 year old neanderthals..

 

[BrianH]

Humans by Era Average Lifespan at Birth
(years) Comment
Neanderthal 20 (Homo neanderthalensis is a similar species of modern humans but is still in any case a fellow member of the genus Homo.)
Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 39 (to age 54)[4][5]
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age[6] 18
Classical Greece[7] 20-30
Classical Rome[8][9] 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America[10] 25-35
Medieval Britain[11][12] 20-30
Early 20th Century[13][14] 30-40
Current world average[15] 67

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, I never set out to discredit the Bible...it does that on its own. I am neither sad nor misled...I am an ex-Christian. I read the Bible. In fact, at an early age I attended Adventist and Baptist churches. I attended a few Catholic churches too.

But there are inaccuracies in the Bible. You can claim that the Bible is accurate, but that doesn't make it true. There are no Bible scholars here AllieBaba. You are making the claim that the Bible is accurate, now back it up.

I mentioned one way that makes that Bible very inaccurate, the multitude of editors who have removed and added text for centuries based on their own interpretations. And that is the crux is it not?

The truth is that Jesus and his ministry, which included his brothers, preached that Jesus would restore the Davidic throne according to the prophecies of Daniel.

After Jesus was cruelly tortured and crucified by the Romans (and Pontius Pilate was friend to Jesus. He hated Jews and killed as many as he could), the ministry continued on by Jesus' brother Joseph.

Paul joined the ministry after Jesus died. His message was a radical departure of what Christ's contemporaries (his family and apostles) and Christ himself were preaching. Paul claimed that he had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Suddenly, a cult was born. Now what is the difference between a cult and a religion? Time and numbers. How long the faith lasts and how many followers there are.

It is sad that you act like an authority on the Bible and yet know so little about it's history.

The bible has been "edited" only a handful of times, by men devoted to preserving it as accurately as possible. These aren't New York Times editors, they were renowned scholars from around the world who were dedicated to translating the word as precisely as possible. The Bible today remains true to the ancient text, because the people who translated it and who treasured it were committed to seeing to it that it was accurate. At each step down the road, scholars (there were 50 of them who worked on the King James version) carefully researched and translated from existing text. Your contention that because it has been researched and translated it must be inaccurate does not hold water. If it were a scientific document you would use the same statement to prove its veracity. THe fact is, the people who "translated" it were committed to maintaining the essence of the original texts, and spent years poring over it in order to produce an accurate, noble product.

The Bible is accepted by archaeologists and historians alike. There are discoveries every day which support the claims in the Bible which were previously dismissed, and more will continue to be found. When there is a discrepancy in our understanding of the world and the Bible's description of the world, we will always be in the wrong, and ultimately the Bible will contain the truth. People have discounted the age difference for years, but as it turns out (and there will be more about this, trust me) men DID live longer than we did. People claimed Pontius Pilate's part in the NT was an invention, nothing but a character in a story to hook people. As it turns out, the Bible is accurate. People have doubted the existence of historical geographic sites in the bible, but sites continue to be found using the bible as the reference and map.predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

The prophecies recorded in the Bible have developed in such a way that they could not have been predicted by chance. People doubted for years that the prophecies of the bible were accurate and were in fact simply written as "prophecies" after the events allegedly prophesied had already happened. Now archaeologists have evidence (the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered only recently) that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents. Another doubt cast aside.

People will still refuse to believe. I can't make you believe. I will defend my right to believe, and continue to assert that my belief is no less valid than an atheist's lack of belief. I'm not stupid or foolish because I accept Christ and acknowledge the truth in the Bible. It's faith, but it's also reason that leads me to that acceptace. Reason is the thing that's lacking when it comes to rabid attacks on Christians and the Bible. Look at Shogun's lunatic ravings if you doubt it.

I believe Christ appeared to Paul. His preachings are not a radical departure from Jesus' teachings. Nor did Christians start out as a cult, any more than Jews started out as a cult. There's a reason the Christian church continues to gain in strength, and opposition, daily, and the reason is it is preparing for the return of Jesus. The bible will continue to be supported by science, and there will continue to be people who attack and ridicule it, until Christ returns and suddenly those people will be faced with a choice. You can claim to "know" that the Bible is inaccurate based on your own human concept of the world, but I hold that humans are faulty, and conceited, vain and foolish, and the Bible is not. If you can find any part of the Bible which has been scientifically disproven, have at.

 

[Shogun]

 

[bennylava]

The bible has been "edited" only a handful of times, by men devoted to preserving it as accurately as possible. These aren't New York Times editors, they were renowned scholars from around the world who were dedicated to translating the word as precisely as possible. The Bible today remains true to the ancient text, because the people who translated it and who treasured it were committed to seeing to it that it was accurate.

Oh honey.....no. Just no. Please do some research on the history of the Catholic church before you start saying things like that. It's not a scientific theory, it's a FACT that
a) When the Bible was originally put together, certain books were left out.
b) When the Bible was originally put together, parts of certain books were left out
c) The Catholic church has repeatedly decided to take out parts of the Bible that were contrary to their agenda, before the protestant split.
d) There are parts of the Bible that the Catholic church has that protestants don't.
e)Some books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew. Unfortunately there are no vowels in Hebrew, leaving people to guess at some of the words. Things like the Red Sea vs. The Reed Sea, that kind of thing.
f) If you've never learned a foreign language, you have no idea how easy it is to mistranslate something, try putting some bible verses into babelfish and then translate them into two languages and see what you come up with.
g)The Bible was translated and rewritten by hand in the West by monks. All it takes is for one monk to screw up the original rewriting and then everyone else is going to include that mistake in their versions too.

 

[Taomon]

The bible has been "edited" only a handful of times, by men devoted to preserving it as accurately as possible. These aren't New York Times editors, they were renowned scholars from around the world who were dedicated to translating the word as precisely as possible. The Bible today remains true to the ancient text, because the people who translated it and who treasured it were committed to seeing to it that it was accurate. At each step down the road, scholars (there were 50 of them who worked on the King James version) carefully researched and translated from existing text. Your contention that because it has been researched and translated it must be inaccurate does not hold water. If it were a scientific document you would use the same statement to prove its veracity. THe fact is, the people who "translated" it were committed to maintaining the essence of the original texts, and spent years poring over it in order to produce an accurate, noble product.

The Bible is accepted by archaeologists and historians alike. There are discoveries every day which support the claims in the Bible which were previously dismissed, and more will continue to be found. When there is a discrepancy in our understanding of the world and the Bible's description of the world, we will always be in the wrong, and ultimately the Bible will contain the truth. People have discounted the age difference for years, but as it turns out (and there will be more about this, trust me) men DID live longer than we did. People claimed Pontius Pilate's part in the NT was an invention, nothing but a character in a story to hook people. As it turns out, the Bible is accurate. People have doubted the existence of historical geographic sites in the bible, but sites continue to be found using the bible as the reference and map.predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

The prophecies recorded in the Bible have developed in such a way that they could not have been predicted by chance. People doubted for years that the prophecies of the bible were accurate and were in fact simply written as "prophecies" after the events allegedly prophesied had already happened. Now archaeologists have evidence (the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered only recently) that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents. Another doubt cast aside.

People will still refuse to believe. I can't make you believe. I will defend my right to believe, and continue to assert that my belief is no less valid than an atheist's lack of belief. I'm not stupid or foolish because I accept Christ and acknowledge the truth in the Bible. It's faith, but it's also reason that leads me to that acceptace. Reason is the thing that's lacking when it comes to rabid attacks on Christians and the Bible. Look at Shogun's lunatic ravings if you doubt it.

I believe Christ appeared to Paul. His preachings are not a radical departure from Jesus' teachings. Nor did Christians start out as a cult, any more than Jews started out as a cult. There's a reason the Christian church continues to gain in strength, and opposition, daily, and the reason is it is preparing for the return of Jesus. The bible will continue to be supported by science, and there will continue to be people who attack and ridicule it, until Christ returns and suddenly those people will be faced with a choice. You can claim to "know" that the Bible is inaccurate based on your own human concept of the world, but I hold that humans are faulty, and conceited, vain and foolish, and the Bible is not. If you can find any part of the Bible which has been scientifically disproven, have at.

Before printing presses, books were copied. The people copying texts had maybe a third grade level at best. Scholars did not do the work, laymen with minimal education did it.

So if a previous editor made an error, that error was copied. When the texts were interpretted, those errors were mis-translated.

But even more appalling was the amount of editors who removed certain texts because it did not agree with their belief, or added text to align their beliefs better.

When Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," there is scholarly evidence that the event never happened to Jesus and in fact happened to another man and then attibuted to Jesus.

Do yourself a favor...attend a Jewish Synagogue and have someone interpret the ancient texts for you. Maybe then you will see the inaccuracies.