It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 29
11
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triarchic
reply to post by OldThinker
 


OH! I see now what you where referencing. Dude you should have just pointed that out.


but you quoted them sooooo much...

It kinda confused me??

OT




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


My avatar-switching young smart friend...

how's the Dr. Ben Carson research coming?

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I'm guessing because he's human. See above video.


how's the Dr. Ben Carson research coming?

I'm not. There is no point, he's contributed to science and has a believe in god without evidence, i.e. faith.

You voiced his opinions but if we spent all our time researching opinions, there would be no time for science. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Sumer?


From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship. The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original.

A popular theory, proposed by liberal "scholars," said that the Hebrews "borrowed" from the Babylonians, but no conclusive proof has ever been offered.22 The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details, make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant source from the Sumerian traditions. This still does not stop these liberal and secular scholars from advocating such a theory. The most accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms.23 The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version. Indeed the Hebrews were known for handing down their records and tradition.24 The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. The One-source Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical event of the Flood and Noah's Ark.25 To those who believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses.26 The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews.

Research REFERENCES opportunity for ya....


[1] Keller, Werner, The Bible as History, (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1956), p. 32.
[2] Sanders, N.K., The Epic of Gilgamesh ,(an English translation with introduction) (London: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 9.
[3] Graves, Robert, The Creek Myths, Volume 1,(London: Penguin Books, 1960), pp. 138-143.
[4] Rehwinkel, Alfred M., The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1951), p. 129.
[5] O'Brien, J. Randall, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", Biblical Illustrator, (Fall 1986, volume 13, number 1), p. 61.
[6] Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible, (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916), pp. 273-277
[7] Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
[8] Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Flood, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 38.
[9] Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 13.
[10] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 61.
[11] Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallel, p. 13.
[12] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 21.
[13] Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archaeology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 35.
[14] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, pp. 20-23.
[15] Ibid., pp. 30 39.
[16] Ibid., pp. 39-42.
[17] Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
[18] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 109.
[19] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", pp. 62, 63.
[20] Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 85.
[21] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 64.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 92.
[25] Ibid., p. 85.
[26] Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 134; Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 488.


actualy it was here: www.bibleorigins.net...

[edit on 25-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


And exactly where did you copy and paste this from? Copypasta doesn't really count as research, especially when it's so clearly propaganda going so far as to presume a god.

Oh my god, OT you are pathetic. The Instatue for Creation Research???? I expected more from you


THE OLD TESTAMENT is more than reliable!!!!

No, it is not.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
THE OLD TESTAMENT is more than reliable!!!!


Old Testament Overview

The 39 books of the OT were written over a 1200 year period from approximately 1600 BC to 400 BC.
Starting with Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, and ending with Ezra who wrote Chronicles, the OT had a wide range of writers. They all had God's inspiration and would have agreed with David's remark:
"The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue." ~ 2 Samuel 23:2

The OT primarily tells the story of the Jewish people from roots to riches to ruin. It contains history, law, poetry, prophecy, and personal stories.

"Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path. ...
Revive me, O LORD, according to Your word. ...
And teach me Your ordinances.
My life is continually in my hand," ~ Psalm 119:105-109
Layers of Evidences
Here, briefly are a few of the reasons that we can have absolute confidence in the accuracy of today's Old Testament:

Exacting Jewish Scribes
The OT was written and meticulously preserved in the original Hebrew language from the beginning through today. It was always considered sacred and therefore was very seriously guarded and copied with the utmost care.
The sole responsibility of the Jewish Scribes was to know, maintain, protect, and, exactly preserve the books of the OT. The levels of care that they went through is astounding:
The skin, ink, document size, and lines on the document were all clearly defined. The number, size, spacing, and length of lines and columns per skin were specified. The spacing of the letters, words, sections, and books and the point of ending books were to be exact.
The dress and cleanliness of the scribe, condition of the book being copied , and the manner in which the name for God (YWHW) was written was all specifically ordered.
When each book or section had been copied, the scribes would count and check the number of every verse, word, and letter of the manuscript. They even counted the times each letter occurred in each book, calculated the middle word and middle letter and checked the new with the old. Such detail seems extreme to us, but with this level of detail, we can know we have reliable manuscripts today.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
An amazing event occurred in 1947 with the beginning of the discovery of 931 ancient documents found in caves near the town of Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Prove the OT Accurate
The manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls date to as old as 400 BC. The OT manuscripts found are 900 to 1100 years older than the most reliable available Hebrew OT manuscripts. When the Scrolls are compared to the newer manuscripts, they prove to be amazingly accurate, nearly identical. The few differences were mostly slips of the pen, spelling changes or word substitutions (over vs. above e.g.). The extreme accuracy of the newer documents puts to death the questions of the OT reliability based on time.
Prove the cannon of the OT
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained 223 OT manuscripts! Those 223 manuscripts include 38 of the 39 books of the OT! The one book missing is Esther, but other documents there refer to the story, so we know it was part of their culture.
Non-Hebrew & Other Jewish Evidences
The following ancient documents give tremendous support for the accuracy of the OT.

The Septuagint (250 BC) is the translation of the OT into Greek. An important and powerful document, it not only gave the Jews their scriptures in the common language of the entire region, but gave non-Jews easier access to God's Word (Just in time to understand the context of Jesus' Ministry.).
The Hexapla (240 AD) is a comparative Greek/Hebrew OT with versions in 6 columns created by the Christian elder Origen.
The Samaritan Pentateuch (200 BC) is the Samaritan copy of the OT's first five books.

Aramaic Targums (200 AD) are paraphrases of the scriptures kept by Jewish communities to aid in understanding the OT.
The Mishna (200 AD) was the Law of Moses retold and explained.
The Gemara (200 AD) was an Aramaic commentary on the Law of Moses.
The Midrash (100 BC - 300 AD) are doctrinal studies of the Hebrew OT.
Evidence from History and Archeology
Substantial proof for the accuracy of the OT text comes through Archeology.
One famous Archeologist said:

"... categorically ... no archeological discovery has ever [contradicted] a Biblical reference. Scores of ... findings ... confirm in ... outline or detail the statements of the Bible."
Kingdoms, Cities, Countries, Personal Names, Battles, Kings, Languages, Writings, Laws, Religious Practices, and even the use of words have proven to be correctly described in the OT. Time and again historians have thought that the OT was wrong concerning an event (etc.) only to have the Bible prove right when the facts were known.
Prophecy in the OT has proven correct in every case expected. Hundreds of predictions have literally come true including those regarding: Edom, Tyre, Babylon, Persia, Nineveh, Israel, Greece, Jesus Christ, and many others.
Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming (And this is far from all the evidence.). You do not have to guess or hope, you can KNOW that the Old Testament we have is true & accurate



much more here: christiandevotionals.blogspot.com...

Thoughts?

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



39 references there.....

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I'll just say this; if there are actual facts to support any alternative, then it should be taught as a possibility. The problem with Creationism is that there are absolutely no facts to support it. Just an overtranslated ancient text, which in no way can be considered as factual on it's face.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I'll just say this; if there are actual facts to support any alternative, then it should be taught as a possibility. ....


JR, that is my point....let the scientist's within their discipline, who see IMPLICATIONS, for creationism, BE HEARD!!!!

Not banned, not denied tenture, etc


Always glad to have you on OT's thread...




OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


What is an 'In statue?'

I know what you menat....no biggie!

Here's another friend...www.theopedia.com...

mp3's for that sweet ipod of yours....32 GB right?

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....Oh my god...


oh my WHO?


???


OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You may think that 39 references validates your source but it doesn't because it is an apologetics website more admittedly biased that you, meaning that if they are wrong, they will ignore it.

Since you seem incapable of researching things for yourself let me help you get started with a strictly unbiased website, religioustolerance.org who state..

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.

The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way.


Further..


The Babylonian tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. 3 Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages.



J and P seem to have based their stories on two original stories from Mesopotamian sources, perhaps based on a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE which would be perceived by the local population as being very extensive; perhaps world wide. Alternatively, it may have been based on the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea.

www.religioustolerance.org...

Now that I have started you off, you can go on your own search to find some answers from unbiased sources. Note, being is how they are base on the same parent myth and are different, neither of them can be said to be the original account, There is no reason to believe that one is more accurate than the other.

Another thing to note is the Sumerian account is written in the original language, and the bible is not. Some of the tablet pieces date back 4000 years and yet there are no original copies of the Old Testament in existence after the Library of Alexandria burnt down.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



You didn't just got info from some one else did u?

I thought you HAD ALL the answers yourself?

You have the time right?

OT curious......



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You didn't just got info from some one else did u?

I thought you HAD ALL the answers yourself?


Oh no, that would be cheating if I gave you all the answers. You are supposed to 'research' the Sumerian Myths, not research what apologetic sources say about them.

Starting with apologetic and demonstrably false creationist websites isn't research - it's pretending you have the right answers to begin with.

>: /

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
You are supposed to 'research' the Sumerian Myths, not research what apologetic sources say about them.

Starting with apologetic and demonstrably false creationist websites isn't research - it's pretending you have the right answers to begin with.

>: /

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]


OK, you have to understand a few things.....

I don't live for ATS...man I got at least two kids older than you....

I don't have the time, let alone know where a library is, because I travel every week.... to read your book on sumerian genesis stuff...

you got some website/cliff notes I can view....

btw, is this some 2000 AD dude, reading some stone tablets, he thinks is authentic?

OT

PS: what if the stories are similiar, does that invalidate the old testament? I dunno?

[edit on 25-8-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


PS: what if the stories are similiar, does that invalidate the old testament? I dunno?

That is an unexpectedly honest answer from you. The fact of the matter is that it implies certain things.

The story was a tale based on events that may or may not have happened, but if it did, it was a regional flood, not world flood - the world was believed to be flat then. Being the ancestor story was an oral tradition loooon before it was written down, there is no way to know how embellished the story became.

That you can't take either account as absolute when both have changed over time. The originals of Gilgamesh exist and originals of Genesis don't.

You also can't say that Genesis happened when it says it did when the tale, itself, pre-dates the described events.


Another thing that jumps to mind is the Tower of Babel. How could god have "confounded" man's language when in reality there were already many languages.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


PS: what if the stories are similiar, does that invalidate the old testament? I dunno?

That is an unexpectedly honest answer from you. The fact of the matter is that it implies certain things.




We are both on the quest for truth friend...don't be surprized ok?

OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I disagree. I think you are on a quest to backup your held paradigm. I am on a quest for facts, not truth.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I disagree. I think you are on a quest to backup your held paradigm. I am on a quest for facts, not truth.


not really...you are on a (hopeful) quest...to get your beliefs...to line up with your behavior, sorry


OT



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No, the quest is to base my yet non-developed-beliefs on reality, i.e. science. This is why I have no trouble being uncertain about ecumenical things.

Truth is demonstrable, and facts are observable.


I do not work on faith.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join