Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[mistercrabb]

Of course it is tell that to the JWs and all the others, who will tell you when the bile says days that's what it means.

I think you'll find that if you actually asked a JW they would tell you that the bible means 7 periods of time, not literal days.

 

[Dolph]

I can’t disagree and my original statement stating that science as a subject is not agnostic when considering god is incorrect.
That said in practice I stand by “Really what I’m trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simply that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.”

To an extent, I agree with you, but this is more due to the shocking levels of scientific education in this country than any sort of accuracy.

 

[Jack Bauer]

it's really not, why can't you just accept you were wrong and totally abused science.
Lack of evidence is not scientific fact for something not existing.

I hardly think I am abusing science, we are on OCers forum here, not publishing in Nature.

and as above I was wrong to state that science as a theory disproves the existence of God as fact. However, most scientists would consider it fact, but then I guess this is less to do with a lack of evidence and more to do with many of its teachings (again depending on the branch of religion) being disprovable or unlikely? I guess a good comparison would be alien. Most scientists are open to the idea of aliens in some form, but against the idea of God, while there is a complete lack of evidence for both.

 

[Jack Bauer]

To an extent, I agree with you, but this is more due to the shocking levels of scientific education in this country than any sort of accuracy.

Well I’m not taking about uneducated people, I’m referring to professors and lectures at top Universities. I agree with the shocking scientific education part but my problem is with the total lack of scientific knowloedge of degree students (people getting degrees not knowing what a 1 M solution is etc).

Perhaps the alien example above is a better one (which does prove my earlier statement wrong ). Religion does its self no favours in the eyes of scientists by bending observations to match their ideas etc.. slightly off topic and is heading towards an attack on religion rather than the existance of God.

 

[spudbynight]

Sorry for delay in coming back to this thread (I was at Mass)

This whole thread has gone a little bit off topic from what I originally started.

I really wanted to clarify the misconception held by many on here that anyone believing in God was some sort of literal creationist.

We seem to have gone off onto the usual slagging off of religion.

 

[Tefal]

Everyone interprets everything in the way that suits them.


why the hell should religious texts be any different?

 

[Tefal]

I really wanted to clarify the misconception held by many on here that anyone believing in God was some sort of literal creationist.

well to be fair you actually came in here slagged it off as a minor fringe belief despite it being held by still tens of millions (probbaly closer to hundreds of millions once you count in Africa).

You're just as bad as everyone you're having a pop at, trying to foist your view on a religion one to all it's followers, then you get uppity when you're told you're not the next messiah and don't speak for every member of Christianity.

 

[spudbynight]

well to be fair you actually came in here slagged it off as a minor fringe belief despite it being held by still tens of millions (probbaly closer to hundreds of millions once you count in Africa).

You're just as bad as everyone you're having a pop at, trying to foist your view on a religion one to all it's followers, then you get uppity when you're told you're not the next messiah and don't speak for every member of Christianity.

To be fair I think you must have read somebody else's post.

I stated that the majority of Christians were not believers in literal creationism.

I haven't got uppity at any point. I have never claimed to speak for every member of Christianity and I think your post above is just silly.

 

[spudbynight]

I appreciate what you're trying to say OP but I firmly believe that there is no place in the world for religion and science to live side by side when one is evidently incorrect at all times.

You seem to be a religious atheist? There is no proof that God does not exist so what you hold is a belief. It is no more possible to prove than beliefs held by Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else.

 

[Glaucus]

I hardly think I am abusing science, we are on OCers forum here, not publishing in Nature.

and as above I was wrong to state that science as a theory disproves the existence of God as fact. However, most scientists would consider it fact, but then I guess this is less to do with a lack of evidence and more to do with many of its teachings (again depending on the branch of religion) being disprovable or unlikely? I guess a good comparison would be alien. Most scientists are open to the idea of aliens in some form, but against the idea of God, while there is a complete lack of evidence for both.

Of course you have and continue to abuse it. You're trying to use it outside of what it was deigned for trying to say science has facts on something which it hasn't tested. Of course that is abuse and you continue to abuse it and refuse to learn and accept.

As well as that, scientists aren't science. They believe many thing and all thier believes are not based on science.

Finally you make another mistake a god doesn't have to be based on any religion.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Of course you have and continue to abuse it. You're trying to use it outside of what it was deigned for trying to say science has facts on something which it hasn't tested. Of course that is abuse and you continue to abuse it and refuse to learn and accept.

As well as that, scientists aren't science. They believe many thing and all thier believes are not based on science.

I can’t disagree and my original statement stating that science as a subject is not agnostic when considering god is incorrect.
That said in practice I stand by “Really what I’m trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simply that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.”

I believe I stated I was wrong above!

Finally you make another mistake a god doesn't have to be based on any religion.

Perhaps the alien example above is a better one (which does prove my earlier statement wrong ). Religion does its self no favours in the eyes of scientists by bending observations to match their ideas etc.. slightly off topic and is heading towards an attack on religion rather than the existance of God.

 

[Scrutinize]

To be fair I think you must have read somebody else's post.

I stated that the majority of Christians were not believers in literal creationism.

I haven't got uppity at any point. I have never claimed to speak for every member of Christianity and I think your post above is just silly.

What are your views on Jesus?

 

[spudbynight]

What are your views on Jesus?

I don't think that is really relevant.

 

[Castiel]

So can somebody clarify something for me, are the actual original extant texts still used or just fragments of them? And if it is fragments, what proportion of biblical texts do they make up and how contemporaneous are they to the writing of the bible?

This was under discussion only the other day so it is easier to simply quote from there and expand a little...(the quoted parts are obviously not addressed to you personally)

You simply don't understand that the Bible is not translated from previous Bibles, or as part of some process of evolution of translation changing the text being translated each time.

The Masoretic Texts and the Septuagint that form the basis of most translations is still used today, modern knowledge, new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and a greater understanding of Koine, Hebrew and Aramaic mean that a Bible translation today is far more accurate than one before, it is not a case of an ever decreasing knowledge base, but an ever increasing one.

The Latin Vulgate dates far earlier than 800AD, don't confuse the Illuminated Book of Kells with being the first Bible, It is based largely on the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina, both of which are 500 years earlier than the Illuminated Gospel Book written in 800AD.

The Septuaquint dates back to the 3rd Century AD and is the basis for the Vulgate, there are also various texts and fragments of texts that Support the accuracy of the later Masoretic texts as well as the aforementioned Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran which date as far back as the 1st and 2nd centuries as well as many, many others that need not be mentioned here.

This is why your assertion that the words have been altered so much as to be unrecognisable from the originals is simply not correct, translations are not always exact or correct, but to say they are completely different or that a book such as Harry Potter could be subjected to the same process and be altered so that it becomes the basis of a religion is simply wrong and no offence but you do not know enough about the translation process and the huge body of texts and linguistic science applied to make such a judgement.

The Masoretic Texts are far later than the Septuaquint, Latin Vulgate, Aramaic Targums, Qumran Scrolls, Vetus Latina and various other texts.

The Latin Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were based on original Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as the Koine Greek Septuaquint, There are Coptic, Syriac and Various other Codicies such as the Codex Sinaiticus that all predate the MT texts that all help form the basis of translations.

The Septuagint is itself a Koine (common) Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic Pentateuch or as we know it today The Torah, the Torah itself remains largely unchanged due to the strict adherence to precise and exact methodology in it's reproduction. It is considered that the Torah (and that of the Tanakh) is the same today as it was millennia ago. Along with various Codices such as Codex Verellensis and the various Septuaqint Manuscripts and the Qumran Manuscripts add to the multifaceted way in which modern translations are compiled. Added to this are better understanding of both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek along with other extent texts such as Samaritian Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targums which all contribute to increased accuracy and understanding of both the text itself and the context with which it was written.

 

[Castiel]

I believe I stated I was wrong above!

Something worth a watch:

 

[bhavv]

I'd like to believe this, but having personally attended an 'Evolution vs Creationism' debate at a UK university, stating that a significant number of Christians in the UK (even university educated ones) believe in / follow creationism and reject / oppose evolution couldnt be any further from the truth.

Also, I dismiss every video that has been posted so far in this thread, and raise you this:

^^ UK Christian school, government endorsed, 100% LEGAL.

 

[Castiel]

Also, I dismiss every video that has been posted so far in this thread.

You just dismiss the views of an eminent and highly respected Scientist out of hand??




It is also not true that Schools in the UK are teaching creationism over evolution in Science. It would be in contravention of National Curriculum guidelines and if found to be the case the school woukd have some major problems with Ofsted. Even Free Schools cannot teach Creationism as Science.

 

[bhavv]

No, I dismiss that video as a valid contribution to the topic on 'creationism in the UK'.

Learn some comprehension skills, and lose your terrible judgemental ones.

I am pretty sure that the number of Christians in the UK who believe in creationism and reject evolution greatly outnumber the tiny insignificant proportion that follow your views Castiel.

It is also not true that Schools in the UK are teaching creationism over evolution in Science. It would be in contravention of National Curriculum guidelines and if found to be the case the school woukd have some major problems with Ofsted. Even Free Schools cannot teach Creationism as Science.

Wrong again. These are private faith schools that do not have to follow the National Curriculum. Free schools can teach Creationism as Science, and quite a significant number of Christian Faith Schools are doing so.

Creationism was only banned from being taught in state schools in the UK, it is not (yet) banned from being taught in private schools.

 

[Castiel]

No, I dismiss that video as a valid contribution to the topic on 'creationism in the UK'.

Learn some comprehension skills, and lose your terrible judgemental ones.

Grow up will you, the video was posted in direct reply to agnosticism in Science and as such is perfectly justifiable.

You have a nerve calling me judgemental, every single fibre of your incessant, misinformed and bigotted stance against everything you deem anathema to your point of view makes you the most biased, judgemental and distinctly hateful person I have had the misfortune to meet on this forum, so before judging others I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself Bhavv.

And, you are wrong, by far the most common stance in mainstream Christianity in the UK is that expressed in the OP.

 

[bhavv]

=Christianity in the UK is that expressed in the OP.

Christianity happily coexists with science.

To quote university educated Christians that I have spoken to -

'Evolution is only a theory and I dont believe it, but you can if you want to, that is fine'.

IMO this is the Christian view of 'happy coexistance with Science'.

It does not imply that Christians do not reject Evolution in favour of Creationism as a personal belief.

These were also people who were studying to become teachers.

You have a nerve calling me judgemental

Yes out of me and you, you are the only one I see judging other people on this forum, and constantly putting words into their mouths that they did not say, purely because you have a complete lack of comprehension skills.