What are your religious beliefs?

[Cogar]

I am not anywhere near as naive regarding the theory of evolution as some of you seem to think. As I stated in the other thread, I have bachelors and masters degrees in engineering and am completely familiar with the scientific method since I worked in research and development in the electronics industry for many years. (I am still in the industry, but have moved up to a more "hands off" position now.) The reality is that the theory of evolution is not a slam dunk and the scientific community is well aware of this fact. I happen to have numerous friends who have degrees in things like ecology, geology, evolutionary biology, etc. and they agree that the theory is lacking in many points. The reality is that the facts revealed by the fossil and archaeological record do indeed coincide very well with the facts in the Bible, and Jewish scholars have used it for many years as a guide for their archaeological digs and the Bible (they just use the Old Testament) has been 100% reliable so far.

Am I bashing your point of view? No. Are you bashing mine? With comments like "you thumpers" and "you are to narrow-minded to see it" yes. (Great grammar, BTW.) There is evidence to prove the points I have made, and I have even cited them in this and the other thread (link). I have done my homework in depth regarding both sides of this argument. Before hurling insults and making generalizations, I suggest that you do the same.

[Aurora]

No offense, but having a degree in whatever doesnt make you an expert on evolution. Its almost insulting that you would even compare yourself to the same level. Just as it would be insulting to you if she compared her knowledge of engineering to yours and backed it up with a degree that wasnt in the same field.

[VeggieLifterGal]

Originally posted by Cogar
The reality is that the facts revealed by the fossil and archaeological record do indeed coincide very well with the facts in the Bible, and Jewish scholars have used it for many years as a guide for their archaeological digs and the Bible (they just use the Old Testament) has been 100% reliable so far.

I don't know where you got your 100% reliable statistic, but I have heard of Israeli archeologists going to places mentioned in the Torah and finding artifacts that coincide with biblical events. That fact does not dispute the theory that most rabbis now hold that the bible was recorded by several different authors over time, rather than all at once on the mountain by one person. Of course the bible would be a good historical record of events if it were being continuously written as history was occuring. You could argue for divine inspiration of the authors, but you could also argue that they possessed knowledge of a pattern they had to keep to in writing.

I would be interested to hear what shortcomings the theory of evolution supposedly has right now. At the same time, you probably know that physicists have been having trouble reconciling Einstein's theory of gravity (relativity and special relativity) with those of quantum physics. That doesn't mean we doubt that gravity exists, nor, at this point, that things happen on the quantum level. Sometimes even the most successful theories have kinks. I would like to hear what you believe evolution's "kinks" to be.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by VeggieLifterGal
That fact does not dispute the theory that most rabbis now hold that the bible was recorded by several different authors over time, rather than all at once on the mountain by one person.

The bible is a compilation of different books, written by different authors and put together by the catholics. This fact has never been in dispute, especially since most of the books still exist in their original seperate forms. In fact there are missing books that the chirch has decided not to include for whatever reason, I havent seen them. Unless you mean 1 specific book had more then 1 author...

[VeggieLifterGal]

Originally posted by Aurora
The bible is a compilation of different books, written by different authors and put together by the catholics. This fact has never been in dispute, especially since most of the books still exist in their original seperate forms. In fact there are missing books that the chirch has decided not to include for whatever reason, I havent seen them. Unless you mean 1 specific book had more then 1 author...

Sorry, should have been more specific. I'm talking about the old testament, the Torah. The rabbis are not concerned with the new testament and christ. :)

[Aurora]

Even the old testament is broken down into several books;

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc, etc.. Its really very long. But I think we are talking about different bibles. I dont know what the Jewish book looks like.

[VeggieLifterGal]

That's right, deuteronomy, genesis, etc. are all supposed to have been written at once on the mountain and handed to moses...I'm fuzzy on the details but I believe that's the gist of it. According to the bible, it was written all at once by god or with divine inspiration and handed down. According to logic and reason, it was written over time by people.

[Gods Son]

Originally posted by Aurora
The bible is a compilation of different books, written by different authors and put together by the catholics. This fact has never been in dispute, especially since most of the books still exist in their original seperate forms. In fact there are missing books that the chirch has decided not to include for whatever reason, I havent seen them. Unless you mean 1 specific book had more then 1 author...

Sorry but Wrong the hebrews put together the bible.Your right on 1 count.Only 4 of the disciples have books in the bible.The other 8 were lost or not included.More than likely the others told the same storys as the 4 used.So they were not recorded.

[Aurora]

When I say bible I mean the whole thing. Including the new testament. The book you buy in the store as a whole, was put together by catholics. Unless you buy the jewish book, but I dont think they call it a bible, isnt it called something else?

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Gods Son
The other 8 were lost or not included.More than likely the others told the same storys as the 4 used.So they were not recorded.

I was refferring to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Is this the same thing that your talking about? The other 8?

[Aurora]

Originally posted by VeggieLifterGal
That's right, deuteronomy, genesis, etc. are all supposed to have been written at once on the mountain and handed to moses...I'm fuzzy on the details but I believe that's the gist of it. According to the bible, it was written all at once by god or with divine inspiration and handed down. According to logic and reason, it was written over time by people.

Ya its been a long time since I was in school but I could swear I remember learning that moses didnt write them all. They thought his ancestors did or something. ...??? I cant remember. Your right it doesnt make sense though.

[Cogar]

Let me make a note regarding the Bible, as we are discussing it so everyone is on the same page.

1. The Bible as we would typically purchase it in a store comes in two forms: a Catholic Bible or a "regular" Bible. Both contain what is referred to as an "Old Testament" and a "New Testament." The difference is that the Roman Catholic Church (in response to Martin Luther's charges that resulted in the Reformation) added some books to the Old Testament during the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s to support their viewpoints. The "regular" Bible does not include these books. Who is right has been a debate for 450 years, although the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) states that the Old Testament was completed around 424 B.C., so I suspect that the Roman Cathlolics were wrong to add to it.

2. The "Bible" used by the Jews is referred to as the Tanakh. It is what we would call the Old Testament. The name Tanakh is derived from the Hebrew letters of its three components: Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), Nevi'im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings). The Ketuvim includes the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles.

3. The books were indeed written by different authors in different time periods. A "regular" Bible contains 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. That is, the Bible is a collection of these books in one cover. The Old Testament books were originally penned in Hebrew and Aramaic. As a trivia note, Aramaic is one of the languages spoken in Mel Gibson's film The Passion (the other being Latin). The New Testament was written in Greek, although some Aramaic expressions were preserved as in Matthew chapter 27 verse 46, where Jesus says, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani."

[Cogar]

Originally posted by VeggieLifterGal
I don't know where you got your 100% reliable statistic, but I have heard of Israeli archeologists going to places mentioned in the Torah and finding artifacts that coincide with biblical events. That fact does not dispute the theory that most rabbis now hold that the bible was recorded by several different authors over time, rather than all at once on the mountain by one person. Of course the bible would be a good historical record of events if it were being continuously written as history was occuring. You could argue for divine inspiration of the authors, but you could also argue that they possessed knowledge of a pattern they had to keep to in writing.

Archaeologists like the Israelis is the point to which I was referring. The idea is that if there is something mentioned in the Bible that can be dug up, they go looking for it and have found what one would expect from reading the Bible. This included the discovery of entire lost civilizations like the Hittite empire.

The idea that different people penned the different books in the Bible is a historic fact. I think the problem comes from how people interpret "different people." Some modern critics see several authors behind most books, which is going overboard. It is a complex topic beyond that, although books on the history of the Bible like A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix discuss the various theories, which the reader can evaluate.

Originally posted by VeggieLifterGal
I would be interested to hear what shortcomings the theory of evolution supposedly has right now. At the same time, you probably know that physicists have been having trouble reconciling Einstein's theory of gravity (relativity and special relativity) with those of quantum physics. That doesn't mean we doubt that gravity exists, nor, at this point, that things happen on the quantum level. Sometimes even the most successful theories have kinks. I would like to hear what you believe evolution's "kinks" to be.

As I mentioned earlier, this has been addressed in numerous books, like the one I cited earlier (Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson). Others include:

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
DARWINS BLACK BOX: THE BIOCHEMICAL CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION by Michael J. Behe

[Tinfish]

Mormon

Not a worthy member

Attend church to support the wife.

[Aurora]

Cook tks Cogar.