Religion or not? (split from science thread)

[momo3boys]

However, the bible does show glimpses of homosexual relationships that were not condemned. The most apparent attempt at a hiding of such can be found in 1 Samuel 20:41. The story read in 1 Samuel is that of Jonathan and David, and the homosexual relationship cannot be missed, from the pledging of their love and Jonathan stripping naked for David, to where it says Jonathan desired David (the same word used in Genesis 34:16, where it implies sexual desire. However, different English versions will change the word to "like" "fond of" or "delighted by")
The climax (forgive the pun) comes in 20:41. Biblegateway.com will offer many translations of this last bit, and if you look at them side by side it is easy to see the original Hebrew was altered to change the story. The endings are very diverse:
wept no more
cried the loudest
David exceeded

Some even leave out that the men kissed.
The Hebrew word used was gadal, which means great, enlarged, engorged, big...and the original ending was they wept and kissed until David became great or engorged. Plainly put, he got an -CENSORED-.
---------------------------

There are other glimpses in the bible, too, such as Ruth and Naomi, where the Hebrew word used (to cleave) is the same as the word used in Genesis when a man leaves his family and cleaves unto his wife.
Or the story of two eunichs who fell in love with each other.

Have you read the context of the verses that you mentioned. When RUth "cleaved" to Naomi, it was when Orpah had just kissed Naomi Goodbuye and Ruth clung to here. THe same Greek word in also used in 2 Sam 23:10 to describe how a swords clung to David's hand in Battle, or in Jeremiah 13:11 to describe how a sash clings to a person. Neither of those references are sexual in context.

As for David and Jonathan, you might want to read the definnitions of those words more closley and not just pick out the ones you like because it suits your purpose, Exceeded-"gâdal
gaw-dal'
A primitive root; properly to twist (compare H1434), that is, to be (causatively make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor, also in pride): - advance, boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, be (-come, do, give, make, wax), great (-er, come to . . estate, + things), grow (up), increase, lift up, magnify (-ifical), be much set by, nourish (up), pass, promote, proudly [spoken], tower."

Love-aw-hab', aw-habe'
A primitive root; to have affection for (sexually or otherwise): - (be-) love (-d, -ly, -r), like, friend.

(My Italics) Just because you want to think that David was a gay guy, doesn't mean that it is true.

Jewish culture is clear that it is ok for men to kiss, they kiss all the time, as well as the French, Spanish, and other cultures.

If you are talking about Jonathan being naked in front of David, the only reference I could find was 1Sa 18:4 "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." This is referring to a robe, which is basically what we would consider a coat. This is an act of friendship and respect as was common in the culture then, and still is now.

I'm not familiar with the verse about the eunichs. Could you tell me where that is?

My thoughts on what the bible thinks about Homosexuality is in Genesis. God knew that it was not good for man to be alone so he created woman. They are one together, and literally made for one another. Jesus quoted it in regards to how we are to behave when married. Gen 1:27 is what Jesus is quoting here.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

God created them one female and one male, that is the order of things.

[Lily]

Have you read the context of the verses that you mentioned. When RUth "cleaved" to Naomi, it was when Orpah had just kissed Naomi Goodbuye and Ruth clung to here. THe same Greek word in also used in 2 Sam 23:10 to describe how a swords clung to David's hand in Battle, or in Jeremiah 13:11 to describe how a sash clings to a person. Neither of those references are sexual in context.

As for David and Jonathan, you might want to read the definnitions of those words more closley and not just pick out the ones you like because it suits your purpose, Exceeded-"gâdal
gaw-dal'
A primitive root; properly to twist (compare H1434), that is, to be (causatively make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor, also in pride): - advance, boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, be (-come, do, give, make, wax), great (-er, come to . . estate, + things), grow (up), increase, lift up, magnify (-ifical), be much set by, nourish (up), pass, promote, proudly [spoken], tower."

I have read the passages, over and over and all surrounding ones, looking for context. Your interpretations of the word make less sense and still do not explain the blatant rewriting of the text.

If you are talking about Jonathan being naked in front of David, the only reference I could find was 1Sa 18:4 "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." This is referring to a robe, which is basically what we would consider a coat. This is an act of friendship and respect as was common in the culture then, and still is now.

No, a robe was different than a coat, different words entirely, and in fact a coat or outergarment is rarely mentioned in the bible. Why? I don't know about you but I find Greece and Egypt to be fairly warm most of the time. Every historical piece you will find on clothing in ancient Mesopotamian regions and surrounding area will describe a robe as a regular garment, not outerwear.

I'm not familiar with the verse about the eunichs. Could you tell me where that is?

My thoughts on what the bible thinks about Homosexuality is in Genesis. God knew that it was not good for man to be alone so he created woman. They are one together, and literally made for one another. Jesus quoted it in regards to how we are to behave when married. Gen 1:27 is what Jesus is quoting here.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

God created them one female and one male, that is the order of things.

The order of things, in Jesus' words, is love and acceptance. I find the bible to be in dangerous hands when it comes to those who want to regulate EVERYONE. If homosexuality isn't right for you, fine, but to attempt to control others based on your beliefs from one interpretation is not ok. Again, the only times it is denounced in the bible is when coupled with a sin that hurts self or others - yet that fact is often ignored. It is not part of the 10 commandments, nor is it part of Jesus' teachings.

I'm quite certain you can find the story of the eunichs. It's not exactly hidden - unless you have one of those censored bibles.

[momo3boys]

No, a robe was different than a coat, different words entirely, and in fact a coat or outergarment is rarely mentioned in the bible. Why? I don't know about you but I find Greece and Egypt to be fairly warm most of the time. Every historical piece you will find on clothing in ancient Mesopotamian regions and surrounding area will describe a robe as a regular garment, not outerwear.

If you look at the Hebrew word that is used here it is a coat. And if you go to the Middle east you will find many people wearing them still. The more flowing layers that are on, the cooler you are.

meh-eel'
From H4603 in the sense of covering; a robe (that is, upper and outer garment): - cloke, coat, mantle, robe.

It is actually used in the bible many times. I counted at least 20, using coat and robe in the original Hebrew. I don't know what you mean by the distorting of text though. Hebrew words can have many meanings, if they don't agree with your meaning does that mean that it is distorted.

I know that Jesus preached on love, true love that treats others with respect but doesn't condone their sin. (He loved everyone but He also pointed out to them where they needed to change) I don't know where Jesus Preached on acceptance. He accepted people but not the sin.Could you show me those verses?

I looked for Eunuch homosexuality in six different versions of the Bible and couldn't find it.

[Theodore]

By your way of thinking, tearing your robes as a sign of extreme unhappiness must be sexual too. No, a robe was just a valuable commodity, and giving your robe to someone else meant quite a lot at the time. Brief undergarments were worn under the robe, and guys being naked around other guys is only sexual anyway if you make it that way. I suppose you think the guy's showers instantly turn sports teams into a bunch of gays? And what about doctors - they must really have problems.

The order of things, in Jesus' words, is love and acceptance.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. You don't take gays out on the streetcorner and shoot them, but neither do you just go about your business and let anyone do anything they want so long as it doesn't affect you personally. You are supposed to tell people if they're doing something wrong (in a nice way, not a nasty way), and leave it up to God to change their hearts.

There's such a thing as being so open-minded your brains fall out. If you accept everything, then you stand for nothing.

[zozomom]

Theodore, your statement about open-mindedness letting your brains fall out was right to the point. The inferences drawn from the passages was so off base, I actually felt sick after reading them. I reread the verses and didn't see it sexually at all! We need to discern carefully the info given on websites as well as the sources of the info. Yes, right and wrong do exist, not just anything goes.

[knobren]

Knobren thank you for all those references. SOme were hard to read, (I'm not a scientist) But I could get some info from them anyway.

<snip>
FOr the footprint article they are Laetoli Footprints
here is the page. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... ominid.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /birth.asp
this is a page on how quickly sediment can go on an animal, not thousands of years, but moments.

Here is another whale of a tale! http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp

Enjoy.

The talkorigins.org site should be fairly readable. And showed why the tree and whale in sediments don't mean what you think they do. So what if there are instances where layers are layed down quickly? That doesn't show that that is how all layers formed. Obviously, this happens sometimes and can be observed happening today. It doesn't mean that a geologist would confuse those types of quickly formed layers with the types that compose the "geological column" that is consistent around the world. So what is this upright tree "evidence" supposed to "prove" or "disprove"? These arguments were addressed 100 years ago!

How do you explain the fact that the geological column has fossils of less complex organisms in deeper layers, while more complex organisms don't appear until more recent layers? Why are there transistional forms in between? Why aren't there fossils of African apes in South America? Because they didn't evolve there or migrate there. These are all consistent with what one would predict to see if all organisms had evolved by common descent.

Here are some other expectations from biogeography, excerpts from http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sec ... ogeography

Prediction 2.6: Past biogeography
Example 1: marsupials
Example 2: horses
Example 3: apes and humans
Past biogeography, as recorded by the fossils that are found, must also conform to the standard phylogenetic tree.

Example 1: marsupials
As one example, we conclude that fossils of the hypothetical common ancestors of South American marsupials and Australian marsupials should be found dating from before these two landmasses separated.

Confirmation:
Consequently, we find the earliest marsupial fossils (e.g., Alphadon) from the Late Cretaceous, when South America, Antarctica, and Australia were still connected. Additionally, the earliest ancestors of modern marsupials are actually found on North America. The obvious paleontological deduction is that extinct marsupials fossil organisms should be found on South America and Antarctica, since marsupials must have traversed these continents to reach their present day location in Australia. Interestingly, we have found marsupial fossils on both South America and on Antarctica. This is an astounding macroevolutionary confirmation, given that no marsupials live on Antarctica now (Woodburne and Case 1996).

Potential Falsification:
We confidently predict that fossils of recently evolved animals like apes and elephants should never be found on South America, Antarctica, or Australia (excepting, of course, the apes that travel by boat).

Example 2: horses
As a second example, very complete fossil records should be smoothly connected geographically. Intermediates should be found close to their fossil ancestors.

Confirmation:
The Equidae (i.e. horse) fossil record is very complete (though extremely complex) and makes very good geographical sense, without any large spatial jumps between intermediates. For instance, at least ten intermediate fossil horse genera span the past 58 million years. Each fossil genus spans approximately 5 million years, and each of these genera includes several intermediate paleospecies (usually 5 or 6 in each genus) that link the preceding and following fossil intermediates. They range from the earliest genus, Hyracotherium, which somewhat resembled a dog, through Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus, to Modern Equus. Every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse are found on the North American continent (MacFadden 1992, pp. 99, 156-162). For more detail about the known evolution of the Equidae, consult Kathleen Hunt's thorough FAQ on Horse Evolution.

Potential Falsification:
It would be macroevolutionarily devastating if we found in South America an irrefutable Epihippus or Merychippus (or any of the intermediates in-between) from the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, the Miocene, or anytime before the Isthmus of Panama arose to connect North and South America (about 12 million years ago). Moreover, we should never find fossil horse ancestors on Australia or Antarctica from any geological era (MacFadden 1992; Brown and Lomolino 1998).

Example 3: apes and humans
As our third example, consider the African apes. Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis). Why did the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and Robert Broom go to Africa in search of early hominid fossils? Why not dig in Australia, North America, South America, Siberia, or Mesopotamia? Charles Darwin gave an answer for this question over 130 years ago - long before any early hominid fossils had been found.

"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." (Darwin 1871, p. 161)


Thus, the theory of common descent predicts that we may find early hominid fossils on the African continent.

Confirmation:
Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa. For examples, discussion, pictures, detail, and extensive references refer to Jim Foley's comprehensive Fossil Hominids FAQ. These examples include such fossil species as Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus garhi, Kenyanthropus platyops, Kenyanthropus rudolfensis, Homo habilis, and a host of other transitionals thought to be less related to Homo sapiens, such as the robust australopithicenes. At this point in time, the difficulty in reconstructing exact genealogical relationships among all of these fossils species is that there are too many links, not that there are missing links. Like most family trees, the family tree of the hominids is best described as a wildly branching bush.

Potential Falsification:
We do not expect to ever find any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa. Any such findings would be catastrophically problematic for the theory of common descent.

[knobren]

(This part of the discussion has revisited science)

Y'all keep giving 100 year old arguments related to geology. Evolution is a biological concept. Try looking at more than a few outdated arguments about geology.


http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


"In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications." (Bold emphasis added by me)

[knobren]

Some of the evidence for common descent:

All living things decode the information in DNA the same way. There are 20 amino acids that make up proteins. A gene is a particular region of DNA that carries information on how to make a protein. The information in a gene is copied in the form of mRNA, which is used as a recipe to make the protein. The mRNA recipe is written in codons, sets of three nucleotides that represent different amino acids. There is no reason that all living things would use the same "language" unless they had descended from a common ancestor. (By the way, this is the reason that genetic engineering works - the gene has the same meaning in the new organism.)

There are certain types of metabolism, etc. that are common between all living things. If all living things had descended from a common ancestor, one would expect there to be a core set of genes that wouldn't differ much among living things. This has been confirmed. In contrast, there are examples of convergent evolution where living things have evolved similar solutions to a given problem by different mutations in the same gene or by mutations in entirely different genes. The core genes in question do not show the latter.

Living things group into patterns showing their evolutionary relationships with one another. One would predict that common descent would result in DNA and protein sequences with fewer differences in closely related species and greater differences between more distantly related species. This has been observed not only in the coding, but also the non-coding regions of DNA. The coding parts carry information on how to make a protein; the non-coding parts do not. As one would expect, the non-coding parts pick up mutations (changes in the DNA sequence) faster than the coding parts. There are also "fossil" genes. Genes that are no longer used. Why are they there if they aren't being used? (because they had a use in ancestoral species)

Why do snake and whale embyros have limbs for a time during development? Probably because they evolved from ancestors who had legs. Why do human embryos have tails? Probably because our ancestors had tails.

I could go on.....

[WishboneDawn]

What about the prophecies,

The men that wrote the gospels were generally well versed in the Hebrew scriptures. They could simply have written the gospels in such a way to show they fullfilled Jewish prophecies. This was a VERY Jewish practice - re-interpretting scripture to support new arguments and ideas.

and the fact that so many copies have been found and verified?

I just don't understand why more copies translates somehow into the contents being literal fact.

Also, what about all the archaeological evidence of town that are in the bible?

There's some evidence that some of the places in the bible were historical. That shows evidence that the stories draw on history. It does not imply or suggest that every word is literal fact.

keep hearing on science channels about how there were a lot of little floods all over the world, at approximately the same time, why don't they call it a world wide flood?

Probably because it wasn't a world wide flood. I can't comment too much because I've not heard the same thing.

TO me it's all or nothing. Jesus Quoted the Old Testament all the time, as truth, I refuse to call Him a liar.

You've got a very specific paradigm of what constitutes truth and what constitutes lies. It's not a paradigm the ancient hebrews would have shared or even christians, up until the last several hundred years. Even many inerrantists have a hard time with literalists. For me it's a reflection of a culture that doesn't know how to recognize truth and read myths anymore.

[knobren]

DNA From the Beginning (An animated primer on the basics of DNA, genes, and heredity)

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/dnaftbref.html#title


Graphics explaining DNA structure and function, http://www.accessexcellence.org/

Online Biology Book - protein synthesis, http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... OTSYn.html

[WishboneDawn]

Y'all keep giving 100 year old arguments related to geology. Evolution is a biological concept. Try looking at more than a few outdated arguments about geology.

I'm afraid that outdated arguments are mostly what's on offer from creationist sites.

[Theodore]

The talkorigins.org site should be fairly readable. And showed why the tree and whale in sediments don't mean what you think they do. So what if there are instances where layers are layed down quickly? That doesn't show that that is how all layers formed. Obviously, this happens sometimes and can be observed happening today. It doesn't mean that a geologist would confuse those types of quickly formed layers with the types that compose the "geological column" that is consistent around the world. So what is this upright tree "evidence" supposed to "prove" or "disprove"? These arguments were addressed 100 years ago!

No, it doesn't prove that all the layers were laid down quickly, but it does show how they can be laid down quickly, and if some layers can be laid down quickly, you can't say with certainty that they all weren't. In other words, this doesn't disprove the Geologic Column, but it makes it completely worthless as a proof for anything, including your estimated age ranges (see my other posts).

How do you explain the fact that the geological column has fossils of less complex organisms in deeper layers, while more complex organisms don't appear until more recent layers? Why are there transistional forms in between? Why aren't there fossils of African apes in South America? Because they didn't evolve there or migrate there. These are all consistent with what one would predict to see if all organisms had evolved by common descent.

1) Fossils of less complex organisms tend to be found deeper because that's where they are to begin with. The bigger the animal, the longer it will take for sediments to trap it, and the less deep it will sink. You can see the same layering on a smaller scale after any large sediment depost.

2) If in fact almost all the fossils were laid down during a worldwide Flood, you'd see only fossils in each area consistent with the animals that lived there at the time. The Bible says nothing about all animals being created every place on the Earth simultaneously, just that they all passed by Adam at the Garden of Eden so he could name them.

3) How do you explain all the fish fossils on the tops of mountains, if there was no worldwide flood? Again, one good Flood theory is that the world was mostly flat before the Flood, but there were huge pockets of water under the continental plates, so when all that water game spurting out, it caused a large amount of plate shift in a short amount of time, crumpling the plates and forming mountain ranges such as the Rockies. Then the parts that were thrust down rather than up became the oceans, and areas that were formerly accessable by land separated from one another.

Regarding the rest of your post, the world would have been much larger in terms of land mass before the Flood, and there was only about 1600 years between Creation and the Flood. You wouldn't find all fossils everywhere in the world, but rather clustered in certain areas, and the same goes for animals after the Flood - except in the latter case, the continents would be separated by water and drifting farther apart, to the point where animals couldn't get from one continent to the next unless they could swim or fly. If a cluster didn't make it to a continent, that was it - the animals were stuck there unless transported across the oceans by humans.

It really all makes perfect sense if you assume for the sake of argument that things really did happen the way the Bible said they did. I would think that fish fossils on top of tall mountains would be a pretty good argument for those mountains being much lower and underwater in the past, and the fact that this isn't localized to one place means that it isn't just a strange anomoly.

Regarding your biology arguments, they all boil down to one thing: life has many similarities, therefore it must have a common origin. Creationists agree with this! We just believe that life came from one creator, rather than a big batch of random chance. The fact that life is similar says nothing about where it came from.

If an artist creates a set of paintings, are they all totally different? No - the coloring styles, brush techniques, etc. remain the same, and a person with a good eye can identify the painter. Would you say that these similarities prove the paintings evolved through random chance, rather than being created by the same intelligence? No. So how can similarities in the way life is formed prove evolution?

[momo3boys]

Knobren, when you were talking about the horses and animals I agree with the fact that you will find different kinds, however that is seen today. The problem I have is that horses were once something else. Dogs are another example. If you look at Dog DNA, they are all the same, from wolf to chihuahua. The are all of the "same kind" the way the bible say they would be in Genesis. However, a cat and dog have very different DNA as well as the other animal species.

Science has yet to prove that we are descended from apes, they can't seem to agree on that subject, I've heard many options, sea otters, chimps, and something else, I can't remember. However, every time that there is a genetic mutation, that mutation is a bad thing. We aren't X-men with special powers, we have children with extra fingers, or distorted limbs, that are debilitating at times. Natural selection would have them die without reproducing to stop those mutations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp
This is a great site for all. It talks about how we are have the same evidence we just interpret it differently. Some funny cartoons too.

I am sorry about some of the arguments I have been using. As I have been doing research, I have been finding a lot more information and changes than I had heard before. Thank you for the opportunity to know the facts a little better.

This has been fun.

[knobren]

Hey, Theodore, do you want to move the science stuff back into the science forum?

(Maybe you might even split the evolution stuff away from the thread it started on, so it would be easier to find, too. The discussion arose on the "Curious Educator" thread when secular vs. non-secular science materials came up.)

[knobren]

Momo3boys,

Some of the DNA links I posted should help you see why mutations are not always bad. I have also given examples of mutations that have helped humans survive infections and parasites, bacteria survive antibiotics, fish survive in freezing waters, etc. Some mutations are also neutral...people have different colored hair and eyes, some have hair on their fingers between the knuckle and the first joint, some people have "hitchhiker's" thumb, some have lobed ears, etc. These are all the result of differences in DNA sequences.

Differences in DNA arise by mutation. If the changes have a negative effect in the current environment, individuals who carry that form of the gene are less likely to pass that trait on to the next generation. If the changes are neutral, it won't matter to reproduction. If the changes are beneficial, the individuals carrying that form of the gene are more likely to survive and reproduce better and therefore pass that trait on to the next generation. This is called natural selection.