By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”
The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”
Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”
“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.
The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.
Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”
For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.
“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”
– CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.
Hell must've frozen over.
Well I thought I would not live to see the day... When a guy like this faces reality and speaks common sense...what's next? Republicans and Democrats working together? Nah...
The Creationist agenda the Christian zealots are pushing just took a hit. The reality is of course that Mr. Robertson's faith
is not called into question here. He has made a perfectly rationale observation. This in no way comprimises his belief in God or the Bible. Assuming God gave us the brain he did then it's logical to assume he knew we would figure out DNA, carbon dating, archeology, paleontology etc etc. Never thought I'd say it but here- here Mr. Robertson! Leave Creationism in church and Evolution in school and we'll be fine.
Creationism did not really take a 'hit,' since it does not rely on Pat Robertson's believing it. (By the way, the quotes of Mr.. Roberson dealt only with the age of the earth, not what he believes regarding creation/evolution.) Creationism relies on, and is an interpretation of (as is evolution) of the characteristics of present life and of past life as shown by fossils. As such, it should be discussed where other such theories are discussed.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2 Peter 3:5-8
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
The Gap Theory
I previously assumed that when God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1) he simply created a ball of unformed and empty mass, and then proceeded to give it form and order in Days 1-6 (Genesis 1:3-31). It is true the Earth we know today was formed in the "creation week", but is this the entire history of the origin of our world?
The "Gap Theory", suggests the angels were created "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), rather than during or after the creation week, and that Satan and his angelic (demonic) followers fell prior to Genesis 1:2. Chalmers grounds this theory in the reinterpretation of words used in Genesis 1:2, and their relationship with other passages of scripture.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The word for "was" – hayah – is the same word used in Genesis 19:26 where Lot's wife was (hayah) turned into a pillar of salt. The implication is that the word hayah is not simply descriptive, but is active. Furthermore, the word "vav" for "and" can also be read as "but" depending on the context. In the Septuagint it has actually been translated this way. Thus Genesis 1:2 could, or should, read;
"But the earth became (or "had become") without form, and void".
“Without form, and void" has been translated from the Hebrew phrase "tohu vav bohu". The words tohu and bohu are also found in Isaiah 34:11, but is there interpreted differently;
Isaiah 34:11 "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu)."
Thus “tohu” can also mean "confused", and “bohu” can mean “empty”. "Confused" and "without form" share in common a lack of order, in a place where there should be order. Perhaps, then, the text could be read as follows; "But the earth was in disarray, and empty".
Jeremiah 4:23-26 also uses the phrase "tohu vav bohu", as follows:
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form (tohu), and void (bohu); and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.”
You will notice that this verse describes the Earth as it would have been at the time of Genesis 1:2;
1. The Earth is described as "formless and void" (or "in disarray and empty")
2. There was no man
3. There were no birds
What is interesting, though, is that it refers to cities, and what's more it seems these cities had received judgment from The Lord – "all the cities thereof were broken down (in disarray) at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger". Perhaps these cities represented the homes of the angels who had fallen.
The word "choshek" has been interpreted as "darkness", and when we read it we assume this is a natural darkness (i.e. before the creation of natural light), but the word "choshek" is also used in Exodus 10:21 to describe the darkness The Lord brought upon Egypt, which was so dark it could be felt. The word "tehown" has been translated as "the deep", but is in fact the same word (Greek abussos – abyss) used to refer to the home of demons and evil spirits, the place from which the anti-Christ emerges.
Thus, again, Genesis 1:2 could be read
"But the earth was in disarray, and empty; and spiritual darkness was upon the face of the demonic realm."
I think the best line I've ever heard about religion comes from, of course, Christopher Hitchins; who described the Catholic Church as a "clutch of sinister virgins..."
What a shame! I was truly hoping Christians would keep making fools of themselves, that way the young and educated generation would finally give them the boot. I guess if religion starts to be even marginally reasonable, they'll find a way to hang on a little longer.
Robertson said this....ASTONISHING.....On Monday's broadcast of Robertson's television show "The 700 Club," he answered a question from a viewer named Michael about how to repair his marriage to a woman who "has no respect for me as the head of the house."
Robertson's response: "Well, you could become a Muslim and you could beat her."
Bizarrely, this comment elicited laughter from Robertson's co-host, Terry Meeuwsen.
Unfortunately, Robertson didn't stop there.
"I don’t think we condone wife-beating these days but something has got to be done to make her."
He also called the woman a "rebellious child" who doesn't want to "submit to any authority." However, since the Scripture doesn't allow for divorce, Robertson urged the husband to "move to Saudi Arabia," where, ostensibly, beating the woman would be permissible.
Oh... that's a beauty... I've got to find a tape of that !
I'm a devout Christian. I'm also a scientist. Creationism has always bothered me. Always has, always will.
Is it that big of a stretch to think that God communicated to Moses and the tribes of Israel in terms they could understand? Moses wrote Genesis with the stories of creation in 6 days, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Arc, etc. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of Heaven in parables; I believe God spoke of the creation of Earth also in parables. For God to have said to Moses that this planet was formed billions of years ago (numbers that were completely unfathomable for a group consisting of uneducated former slaves) or that humans adapted and evolved from less advanced species in a way that God directed, this knowledge and complete shattering of world view would no doubt have destroyed the minds of these folks. Instead, God spoke in parables and gave humans some great gifts: reasoning and curiosity. These led to scientific inquiries of who we are, how we came to be, etc. As a devout Christian, I do not find this at all controversial or difficult to grasp.
Another quick interesting note ... Charles Darwin was a devout Christian. He delayed publishing his theory because he knew the ramifications it would have. After around a year of prayer and consulting, he chose to publish. One of his reasons behind this was someone else could publish this theory, someone not from the religious background he had, and frame it around an attempt to attack religion. Darwin thought a whole lot about this. For anyone to attack Darwin for his theory or conversely praise him for creating a path for atheists is simply misguided.
You Said: " I'm a devout Christian. I'm also a scientist. Creationism has always bothered me. Always has, always will."
Which... 'may' be causing a perceptual bias.
You Said: " Is it that big of a stretch to think that God..."
While of course we don't know for sure, what's hard for me here is that you, as a scientist, have already started with the 'presupposition' that there is a God. Begging the Question.
Of course, we could speak in 'hypotheticals' all day long. However, it's hard for me to take you seriously after that.
Have you ever wondered why you are going through such mental gymnastics in order to come up with excuses for the Bible? If God was dumbing down this part of his communication what makes you think that the Bible writers got anything about God right?
Now let us assume that God was actually speaking in parables, and that men at that time didnot understand the concept of millions of years. But what amuses me is the fact that while men in the middle east didnot understand this enormity of time (poor uneducated slaves), people in Indian subcontinent already did, 5000 years before them!!! They already had the concept (Vedas and Hindu cosmology) that the universe was indeed billions of years old and there were many universes....
Why do Christians always feel that science attacks them? Bcoz probably they know the foundations they stand on.
Nice try at reconciling your faith with science, Markl, but I think that if you look at the issue unflinchingly and squarely in the eye, you'll come to realize that it's gotta be one or the other: blind faith in the tenets of Christianity (a religion begun about two thousand years ago), or a reasoned acceptance of the facts of the universe (where we live now, begun 14.5 billion years ago).
Where's your evidence that Charles Darwin was a devout christian? From what I've read, his wife Emma was a devout christian, but not Darwin. I haven't seen any proof as to why it took 20 years for him to do his research and publish his work, either. Maybe he was just thinking about what the church did to Galileo, after he showed the church was wrong!
Are you reading history books written by people who prefer a "biblical world view"–like Mike Huckabee? They will scrub recorded history (and science for that matter) to make it say what they WANT it to say. They've always had a problem with facts. Facts don't add $$$$ to their quest for self-preservation.
@therealpeace2all ... what's hard for me here is that you, as a scientist, have already started with the 'presupposition' that there is a God. Why's that hard to wrap your head around?
@Kenny ... have you actually read any of the Bible?
@Simran ... apples and oranges. Great civilization in India at the time vs slaves. Slaves with no education. God has always presented himself to an unexpected audience. Slaves, the poor, shephards, etc. And of course he came to earth in the most unexpected of all forms. Everyone expected a conquering king and they got a baby, born in a cold stable surrounded by messy conditions, and the first to be alerted were shephards. And if you understand what class of folks the shephards belong in you understand why this is so unexpected.
Maybe re-read my post to you again about perceptual bias, begging the question, etc... as far as that forming your world-view.
Evolution may not explicitly deny the existence of God. However, it assumes that the processes involved in the development of life were driven by randomness with no design or direction. If you allow for the existence of God (that is, you do not assume He doesn't exist), this brings in the possibility of design and direction. In other words, the assumptions may not be true. It follows that the conclusions based on the assumptions may not be true, either.
What follows is not a defense of creationism, which I believe can and must be defended on the evidence. It deals with theology, not science.
There are several problems with this argument. Probably the most severe is that evolution, even if directed by God, involves the survival of the fit and the death of the not fit. And, however you view Adam and Eve's sin as a form of parable, the Bible states quite clearly that their actions caused death, pain and sorrow to appear on the earth. That God's creation, however He brought it about, was perfect (another contradiction: evolution never reaches perfection) and was changed by man's actions is not a peripheral idea nor a parable, but is central to the story of the Bible. But if death did not exist before Adam, how could there be evolution?
Mathew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God!"
Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"
1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"
Life is no simple walk in the park ideology. The devoutly devoational complexities of but a single cellular cosmological configuartion makes ones hairs stand up! Yes, of God are all things made complete and completely sublimated. We are God's buildings and bear the marks of His husbandries.
Yea though I am a 'pragmentalist', my ever onwards in pragmatism is my life's blood and also the dagger in my heart's murmurings. The continual trials and errors of rudimentary sylable quotients leaves ajar the wanton lids never to be soundly tightened. Although my lingerings have sentimental values only the endings of my tribulations will tenderly reveal God's Truths
So, basicly you can prove god exists by citing the book no one knows who wrote that proves god exists?
Wow, my head hurts...
Excuse me, what exactly is a "cellular cosmological configuartion"? Do you choose big words the way you'd choose dishes off a Chinese menu (one from column A, one from column B), string them together and hope that someone thinks you sound smart?
@Tanker: Your head hurts because you are trying to read, and obviously cannot. The writer did not say that her quotes "proved the existence of God". She is just addresing that creationism is not relevant to historical Christianity. Even you should be able to comprehiend that.
What I comprehend is that Christianity is retreating from its "book", which is proving to be more of an embarassment as science progressess.
What is "Historical Christianity" if "Biblican Christianity" is a collection of fairy tales?
Pat F – I highly doubt anyone who writes like that has anything to say. I wonder why you think its a woman who wrote that?
Hey, CP in FL, from where did the eternal spirit within your body come? Are you without sin? Do you never make mistakes in your actions or thoughts? Do you have grown kids that call you just to say hi? Prayer is just like picking up the phone and calling home to our Heavenly Father to say hello. The day that you turn away from Atheism will be the greatest day of your life. Science and religion go hand in hand, just like faith and works. You can't have one without the other. You can't have a right arm without a left arm. That's the balance of the world in which we live. It's so easy to understand; I'm amazed that you don't.
Wow, you really belive that?
(avoiding eye contact)
You have obviously been brainwashed from early childhood. Science and religion are direct opposites. The reason you must have faith to believe religion is because there is no evidence of god. There are only stories written by man a long time ago.
How do you know that you have an "eternal spirit" within your body? Has anyone ever see it, or measured it's age all the way to eternity?
Actually Treblemaker, I've met veterans that do indeed have a right arm without a left arm. And right now it seems like an extraordinarily high price for them to pay for your right to be stupid.
So, do you REALLY believe that the god that has the power to create the entire universe, and everything in it, would have an EGO? A god that could create anything, would need to be worshipped by tiny, petty, imperfect human beings? When I hear people say that god created us to glorify him, I laugh. Why would god, who is perfect, have human flaws?
There is something miraculous about the universe and our existence in it, something that connects all of us. However, I don't believe for a moment that it all came about due to the egotistical desires of an old, white guy, who floats around in the clouds, and lives in a palace in the sky. Frankly, I feel sorry for people who believe it, just because it's what they were raised to believe. If it were god's plan to create the universe and allow organisms to evolve over millions of years, that would be way more plausible than believing he created everything in 6 days.
Doesn't anyone ever wonder why god in Genesis, created the universe on Earth time? Could it be that the people who "made up" the creation story, only knew the concept of time as it related to Earth?
People who choose not to have relationship with God will experience a spiritual train wreck at the end.
It's is absurd to think the earth is only 10,000 years old. I am embarrassed for those that think otherwise. I also think that it is absurd to take the Bible literally in all instances. I have a hard time believing all people are descendants of Adam and Eve. I think it is a strong story full of lessons about honesty, obedience, morality, consequence and foregiveness. There are others that are hard to conceive but I will leave it with the example of Adam and Eve. Dinosaurs, early human like primates, the chemical nature of items, physics and a number of other sciences all point to an old earth. This does not take away from the notion that God created it all and sent his only son to save mankind.
Robertson is right. The 46% that believe the earth is less than 10K years old, well, you can't fix stupid now can you.
Evolution and Creation. Both are valid and need not cancel each other. We have SEEN evolution throughout our own lives. But there MUST be a CREATOR. How can all this be if it never was created ?????? But WHEN did the CREATOR manifest itself to us humans ? This is the age-old conundrum but I do not think that we have been programmed to know it. We may find out after we pass from this life on earth. The subject is too deep for us to know. The story of Adam and Eve is beyond our ability to comprehend. There is no place in the geologic record where a man like we are to-day suddenly appeared on earth.
Why MUST there be a creator? Just because you want to believe that doesn't make it so.
If for something to exist there must be a creator, dosen't someone need to create the creator?
"The story of Adam and Eve is beyond our ability to comprehend. "
Duh – because it's MYTH.
Ok, rockysfan et al: Create something. Don't use any raw materials because that is only making something. I want you to prove to me that you or someone else can create something, ANYTHING, from nothing at all. Because that IS what God did with the universe. And that does not contradict science because His revelation is silent on HOW that creation was accomplished.
Get back to us when you've created something and let us see it.
Well said, Tanker! Well said!
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Stephen Hawking
I know, the science is a bit complicated and it takes a bit of effort to work your way through it, but it is sound. Dismissing it out of hand like you have just demonstrates that you haven't even tried to understand why scientists like Hawking claim this. Of course we can't do as you ask, because beings such as us do not have magical powers. You can imagine a being like God with those powers just like we can imagine a being as strong as Superman, but that doesn't make either of them actually real. Ironically, "creating" such a character out of the nothing of our imaginations pretty much fulfills your challenge.
Admittedly, it's been nearly 20 years since I read A Brief History of Time but I think I would have remembered a little something like " By the way, gravity can create mass out of nothing. "... But I do see that he has apparently released a revised edition that I'll have to order.
Deep winter's night does set straight the lintels awnings ever to be tightened by the truant muse and his trusty driver. Soon the stars will fade like dying patterns amid the lake's waves easing upon the once watery drenched shoals. How things have changed he thought in silence, Eager and with much palpitations the solitary muse does reach ever longing for the boat's rowing oars. Taking to the boat the young muse does set the oars straight and aligns his sight toward the far away shore. Rowing strong the muse makes his journey home.
He will be home soon this youn muse of desperations feeling careful his lashing sores from past deeds so done. Forget he cannot nor will he ever want to forget lionlylambs intent. Nearing the ponds mid points the muse looks back from whence and where the deed was done. Sadness fell upon his face. Worry naught for the deeds were done and cannot be undone. "I must not falter." the sired muse did say in a whisper as his breath showing the cold's mistiness fogginess.
Nearing the shoreline the rowing muse stops and takes up the oars and makes ready to abandon his boat. Wading to the shoreline, boat being drug toward and finally pulled upon the land does the wader's eyes look back to his place of bitter done deeds, No more will the sire of languishing frivolities be never again and so done.
The hated act does lie heavily upon muses mind as he clamors past the deadened trunks of elder trees long ago chopped down by his own hands so many years ago. The boat and its oars snuggled up to its resting place; the sired son did make way for home. Bitten and drawn onward by the sweet smells of an aroma he does know and hunger pangs now in the belly of his being. Rent with wanting, he trudges ever on heading for home!
Just about home this muse did think to himself as he went roundabout upon the weaving path. Soon, soon did he think. The sweet aroma of pies being made did get ever so stronger as he closed in upon the door of his home. Finally home he did open the door and a sweeter odor filled his senses. More than just pies were now filling him with wanton desire to feed upon the aromatic flavors whisking about the air. The forest fairies were so kind in their making the meals for him whenever he was upon any journey from home. It will be a good meal this morning the muse did whisper quietly to himself.
The nurse will be by with your medication shortly...
Im loving these posts from lionlylamb...best laughs ive had in ages
So sad, Robertson wears his ignorance like a badge of courage and fools rush in to follow him.
Jerimiah was a bullfrog.
He was a good friend of mine.
I never believed a single word he said, but I helped him drink his wine.
LOL ! :D Sing us some "3 Dog" brother !
Hmmm. IDK this seems like it says that there is some history included in Jeremiah, but you have to go at sooooo loosely...
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. WHAT do astronomers call that period in the development when there was the beginning of light before the sun? Is it plasma? I don't remember.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. This has to be the tetonic plates shifting and creating the continents.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. Yep, birds evolved from reptiles and no, Fred & Wilma Flinstone were not present yet.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger. IDK Anybody know the historic period to which this refers? I'm coming up blank.
27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. Oh, OK. Have to read the whole chapter for these last two to make sense in context. This was was Jeremiah bellyaching about the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and we do have historical record of Nebuchadnezzar messing with this and ruining the whole area circa 600BC.
The Book of Jeremiah combines history, biography, and prophecy. It portrays a nation in crisis and introduces the reader to an extraordinary person whom the Lord called to prophesy under the trying circu.mstances of the final days of the kingdom of Judah. Jeremiah was born, perhaps about 650 B.C., of a priestly family from the village of Anathoth, two and a half miles northeast of Jerusalem. He was called to his task in the thirteenth year of King Josiah (Jer 1:2). Josiah’s reform, begun with enthusiasm and hope, ended with his death on the battlefield of Megiddo (609 B.C.) as he attempted to stop the northward march of the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco, who was going to provide a.ssistance to the a.ssyrians who were in retreat before the Babylonians.
Nineveh, the capital of a.ssyria, fell in 612 B.C., preparing the way for the new colossus, Babylon, which was soon to put an end to the independence of Judah.
The prophet supported the reform of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23), but after the death of Josiah the old idolatry returned. Jeremiah opposed this as well as royal policy toward Babylon. Arrest, imprisonment, and public disgrace were his lot. In the nation’s apostasy Jeremiah saw the sealing of its doom. Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem (598 B.C.) and carried King Jehoiachin into exile (Jer 22:24).
During the years 598–587, Jeremiah counseled Zedekiah in the face of bitter opposition. The false prophet Hananiah proclaimed that the yoke of Babylon was broken and a strong pro-Egyptian party in Jerusalem induced Zedekiah to revolt. Nebuchadnezzar took swift vengeance; Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 and its leading citizens sent into exile.
The prophet remained in Jerusalem, but was later forced into Egyptian exile. We do not know the details of his death. The influence of Jeremiah was greater after his death than before. The exiled community read and meditated on the lessons of the prophet; his influence is evident in Ezekiel, some of the psalms, Is 40–66, and Daniel. In the postexilic period, the Book of Jeremiah circulated in various editions.
How are the Lord of the Rings books different than the Bible?
We know who wrote The Lord of the Rings books;
We know when he wrote them;
The author admitted he made the stories up...
Because the Bible challenges our moral behaviour and the eternal consequences for all people, we have emotionally charged discussions, people take sides and/or look for ways to either follow or reject it. Nations (including the USA) were built on it. Sorry, LOTR doesn't do that (not even close to being in the same league).
Sorry to disappoint you John, US was not built on the Bible. And in fact, there are so many nations who were never ever built on the Bible. Just look outside you small church window – there is a big world outside.
IDK Simran... It seems that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was populated by people who broke with the Church, did not want to participate in the Sacraments and came up with some seat-of-the-pants ideas about what scripture meant because they were reading and interpreting it themselves. The Continental Congress enacted the 1st amendment so they could avoid the Protestant-Catholic wars that Europe experienced.
If one diatribes fetal modernism, one is locked within a promiscuous choice: either make acceptable a proponent’s rationalism or declare the other has a ranking significance, but only if artistic leverage is interchangeable with the narratively orientated and therefore an unattainable languishing of a higher order. Many quatrain narratives concerning rationalism do so exist. Therefore, the subject “God” does endure to be a relative diagnostic embolism.
Are you trying to communicate something? O.o
How long did it take you to construct that message? The thesaurus must be exhausted.
"And he who talks to imaginary friends is crazier than a bag full of weasles."
The Gosphel According to Tanker 1:1
To me, one of the most amazing things is the improvement in the precision astronomers have made during my own lifetime. We know believe the age of the universe to be 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years old. This comes largely from data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and its observations of the very early universe, shortly after the Big Bang. I don't know of any scientists that still believe the 14.5 billion year estimate.
This entire anti-science argument is just comical from those who have been guilted their entire lives into believing what their pastor told them as children (and not believing it means they will go to hell). Please learn a little human history / world history folks.
Written language wasn't even invented until about 2600-2700 BC. So, if the garden of Eden story (and all early biblical stories) was somehow accurately dated by an Irish Archbishop in 1650 AD (whose famous last words were "forgive my sins of omission") who didn't know what fossils were because they had yet to be discovered based on, at best texts which were written (with the 6000 year theory) at best 1300-1500 years after they happened and most biblical scholars believe the first actual biblical writings were more like 3400-3500 years ago (so about 2500 years after the events supposedly happened).
If you think this is an accurate way to record events, do a little experiment. Write down a very true story from your life, about the length of a chapter in a book. Tell it to your kids and ask them to retell it to theirs, and on and on. 1000 generations from now, in the year 4500 (assuming we humans have not destroyed our planet by then) have them write down the story and then break out your written text. How similar do you think they will be? Ummmmmmm yeah, we have all played the telephone game and know that 30 people sitting in a circle over 60 seconds can't even keep a sentence straight because someone mishears or misinterprets something. But yeah, those bible stories are true because people heard voices who told them so (in 2012 those voices are called "my thoughts and ideas" or schizophrenia – things our ancestors called God.....).
Excellent analysis, Ramone. Now if we can get all religious right wing zealots to stop believing their own propaganda, that would really be human progress.
We, in modern western cultures, do not have the same memory capacity that peoples in undeveloped countries with tribal organizations and memorized oral histories. We don't have to remember things because we write them down. This is not true of all peoples and it certainly wasn't true in most of history.
"Writing is powerful in a different way: it permits people to generate ideas, store them, and retrieve them as needed across time in a highly efficient and accurate way. The absence of this technology in oral societies limits the development of complex ideas and the insti.tutions that depend on them. Instead, sustained thought in oral settings depends on interpersonal communication, and storing complex ideas over a long period of time requires packaging them in highly memorable ways, generally by using mnemonic tools."
There is renewed interest in studying cultures that rely upon oral history and developing our own version of such.
"When human beings step into literate culture, Socrates talked about writing: “this discovery of yours will creae forgetfulness in the learner’s souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence” (Plato, Phaedrus). In Plato’s perspective, writing destroys memory, explained by Ong as “Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external resource for what they lack in internal resources. Writing weakens mind” (Ong, P.78). Does writing really weaken memory? I do not agree with it. Writing, as a technology, is “utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials” (Ong, p.81). In fact, written text as an exterior memory carrior, enlarges human being’s memory capacity despite of the fact that it exists outside of our brain, and “frees the mind for more original, more abstract thought” (Ong, P24). "
Interesting. Does this mean some of the church people are..............wait for it.............EVOLVING?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.