18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobno worries, its part of the net experience, tones take time to filter through and are not immediately apparent, plus i was in a bad mood anyway cause i had to go to work, dude if its a chess book ill read it, if its history ill also read it, if its based on materialism it has no value for me.
Apologies if my tone was condescending.
Here's a deal for you, i'll read the Bible from cover to cover if you read a book of my choice. I'll even send it to you in the post (as long as you send it back).
18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, you were compelled to admit that your statement about non-biblical corroboration does not hold for major elements of the first story in the bible.
I stated at the outset that in the case of Adam and eve, corroborating evidence was nigh impossible to find...
How about we keep a score? We'll go through each story and analyse the non-biblical evidence for it. Then at the end we count up and see what proportion of the bible is corroborated. Then we can look at those stories that are corroborated and figure out how many of the more fanciful elements are supported. For example, I'm fairly sure there was a king Herod but I don't think there's much outside the bible that he ordered a mass-slaughter of first-born. Also, I don't think there is much evidence of a census around 0bc requiring that each family go to the home city of an ancestor of the 'head of the house'.
The 'global flood' of course would leave loads of historical and archaeological evidence.Except it hasn't.
Somebody mentioned that it did not rain before the flood. I'd love to discuss that one!
--- Penguin
18 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Penguinno i am compelled to state that it does not hold in the case of Adam and Eve, a criteria that i did not set, based on a value assigned to me through an interpretation of a text from another post by another contributor in a different thread, you are the one who has inserted the terms , 'major events', not me.
Yes, you were compelled to admit that your statement about non-biblical corroboration does not hold for major elements of the first story in the bible.
How about we keep a score? We'll go through each story and analyse the non-biblical evidence for it. Then at the end we count up and see what proportion of the bible is corroborated. Then we can look at th d that it did not rain before the flood. I'd love to discuss that one!
--- Penguin
how about you understand that what is contained in the bible is spiritual and that all i claim is that inferences may be made, do you understand the difference between inference and proof, i doubt it, for if you, Noobster or anyone else had, you would not have asked for proof.
In the case of King Herod what proof do you have that he did not kill the first born, what proof do you have that he was not visited by astrologers? In the case of the census, not only is the Roman ruler named dates and places are also given, what proof do you have that it did not happen? Are you prepared to state that Christ's prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed was not fulfilled? that the Roman armies did not surround Jerusalem and for some inexplicable reason leave, giving a window of opportunity to heed Christ's words and leave? well are you?
I have always found that those who are at odds to tell others what the Bible does not say, have really no idea what it actually does contain, indeed, it is the folly of the rationalist, that in denying the inspiration of scripture they cannot see the constituent parts so as to form a whole and thus get the sense of it, for these things are examined not rationally but spiritually as Paul states, otherwise you'll never get the sense of it.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't get confused between a common ancestor on the female line and a single ancestor. Practically any group of whatever size will have a common female and common male ancestor at some point in their history. That is just the nature of population dynamics.
That there is indeed evidence that suggests a common ancestor for the human race that is
both female and human?
However, at the time that she lived, there were many other females, who we also descend from, but not along the maternal line.
This diversity of genes shows that there was more than a single pair of humans at the time.
Note that the Biblical story would imply that the time of Noah was also a genetic minimum.
The tower of Babel event is where the start of the vast majority of diversity would
have started, where different flavors of the human race began. Since the split of
lanuage occured those of like lanuage would have stuck together which would limit
the diversity according to the gene pool that each group had at the time.
Kelly
Approximately what date would you put that?
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if I can find one sentence in the book of Mormon that is supported by archeology and science, will you admit that your original claim in the other thread (which was intended to set the Bible apart from the book of Mormon,) was a worthless meaningless comment on your part? After all, what you now say is that your statement might have been little more than a claim that the nation of Israel is mentioned in the Bible and its existence is supported by archeological evidence - a claim that would not be disputed.
no i am compelled to state that it does not hold in the case of Adam and Eve, a criteria that i did not set, based on a value assigned to me through an interpretation of a text from another post by another contributor in a different thread, you are the one who has inserted the terms , 'major events', not me.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd have to look it up, shortly after the flood.
Don't get confused between a common ancestor on the female line and a single ancestor. Practically any group of whatever size will have a common female and common male ancestor at some point in their history. That is just the nature of population dynamics.
However, at the time that she lived, there were many other females, who we also descend from, but n ...[text shortened]... e pool that each group had at the time.
Kelly
Approximately what date would you put that?[/b]
Kelly
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not confused thank you. I'm simply saying a single line does not rule out
Don't get confused between a common ancestor on the female line and a single ancestor. Practically any group of whatever size will have a common female and common male ancestor at some point in their history. That is just the nature of population dynamics.
However, at the time that she lived, there were many other females, who we also descend from, but n ...[text shortened]... e pool that each group had at the time.
Kelly
Approximately what date would you put that?[/b]
a Biblical account nothing more than that. I actually think evolutionist should
wonder why we see a siingle line to tell you the truth.
Kelly
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou do seem to be.
I'm not confused thank you.
I'm simply saying a single line does not rule out
a Biblical account nothing more than that.
There isn't a single line, and yes, I believe the evidence does rule out a Biblical account.
I actually think evolutionist should wonder why we see a siingle line to tell you the truth.
Kelly
We don't see a single line. (hence my point about not confusing a single ancestor on the maternal line with a single ancestor).
19 Nov 10
There is no one single human, especially not a single female, starting a new specie. That's a myth, a misinterpreting by those not knowing anything about our specie started.
There are two ways to track genetic information:
(1) By mitocondrial DNA. DNA cannot be transferred from man to woman, because there is not mitocondrial DNA in a sperm cell, so a genetic line can only be traced thru femal lines, between mother and daughter. This is the base of the myth, that the first human being, the first individual of the specie Homo Sapiens, must be a woman, a maternal ancestor. And her name is definitely not Lucy. Nor Eve.
(2) If you trace our ancestery by the Y chromosome. This particular Y chromosome are transferred with a sperm to an egg to be a son. The woman has no eggs with Y cromosomes so the sperm is responsible for the sex of the phetus. Therefore it is possible to trace the genetic line only from father to son. This doesn't mean that the first human being is a man. The same myth should apply here, but it doesn't. Ant tht's why I think that the myth originated frompeople who really didn't know anything about this.
It is much more practical to trace the humankind with the aid of mitocondrial DNA, that's why this method are used more, even if the Y chromosome method also is used.
The second myth is that every person on earth can (theoretically) be traced to a single human being in the dawn of human history. That's simply not true. Try to breed a new canine race out of one single dog. It cannot be done, of course, you always have to have two dogs, one male and one female dog (obviously) to have the first individual of a new race. But even from this one, in order to probagate its genes, you have to have another dog to breed with... You need many dogs to start a new race. Same with humans.
From the beginning, there were a group of individuals, humans to be, who started the new human line that later came to be called Human Speces - us. They didn't do that on purpose, they were not aware of it. Only through many generations of isolation from their 'cousins' something could be seen, they came to have an advantage of some kind.
Bottom line: There is no reason to have an Adam and Eve story that explains the start. There are no need for a divine intervention. There is no need to believe in a singel female start of our specie. Get rid of the myth, and start to think practically.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow about you understand that what is contained in the bible is spiritual and that all i claim is that inferences may be made, do you understand the difference between inference and proof, i doubt it, for if you, Noobster or anyone else had, you would not have asked for proof.
no i am compelled to state that it does not hold in the case of Adam and Eve, a criteria that i did not set, based on a value assigned to me through an interpretation of a text from another post by another contributor in a different thread, you are the one who has inserted the terms , 'major events', not me.
how about you understand that what is ...[text shortened]... not rationally but spiritually as Paul states, otherwise you'll never get the sense of it.
I don't recall us ever throughout this thread asking for proof. What we repeatedly have asked for is evidence. The corroborating evidence from history, archealogy and science that you say exists.
Your original claim was not that inferences may be made but that biblical events are corroborated by history, archealogy and 'true' science and, as has been pointed out, this was in an attempt to differentiate the Bible from the Book of Mormon. You have failed so far to show this corroborating evidence.
How about you provide a list to us of biblical stories for which you can provide corroborating evidence outside of scripture. We will then pick one out of your shortlist to discuss. One of the aspects we will look very closely at will be whether any such evidence relates to extra-ordinary aspects of the story for that is the only way the bible could be shown to be distinct from other texts such as the Book of Mormon or the writings of any other religion.
Either that or retract your statement that biblical events are corroborated by history, archeaology and 'true' science.
Start a new thread for it if you like.
--- Penguin.
19 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI actually think evolutionist should wonder why we see a siingle line to tell you the truth.
I'm not confused thank you. I'm simply saying a single line does not rule out
a Biblical account nothing more than that. I actually think evolutionist should
wonder why we see a siingle line to tell you the truth.
Kelly
You need to read up on genetics to understand what a single ancestral line means. Nuclear DNA analysis hows that our population never reached as low as two people, or in the case of the flood story eight people.
19 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayA single line could indeed come from a single pair,
A single line could indeed come from a single pair, but several starting lines would
not support that.
Kelly
Your confused.
A couple doesn't produce a line. mtDNA is passed from mother to daughter, and the Y-Chromosone is passed from father to son. The two never mix and and don't constitute a pair.