• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

The Creation Museum

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyegrad;1898011; said:
If Sagan is being honest in that statement it sounds as though he didn't leave his scientific circles very often. Reality is this occurs on the individual level with politics and religion daily, sometimes in small shifts, other times in deep, radical ones. If I were to go back in time 10 years and have a discussion with me at 25 years of age, I would have significant theological differences with myself over the role of Torah for a Christian, the degree to which the Protestant Reformation returned Christianity to its roots, and what the eschaton will look like.
Click to expand...

The problem with his quote is that he starts off, grammatically, with describing scientists on an individual basis. He then compares that to religion and politics on a general basis.

His point, it would seem, is that science as a creature requires constant correction to its determinations, while religion is unwavering. This is obviously false. I don't know of any Christians today that still use the bible to uphold slavery or the differentiation of races. Jesus wasn't even resurrected in the earliest bible we have evidence of (IIRC - I may not). Things change.

Also, he adds politics, an ever-moving series of events and people that changes often. Maybe he is reverting to the individualist take again, or maybe he meant that all along (a take which you have already shown to be false) Whatever he intended, this makes what I said previously, and what I think he meant, make no sense.

It is an awful quote by a generally intelligent man.
 
Upvote 0
Open wide, and say "duuuhhhh". The looks on their faces are priceless. :lol:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6YROu-JrBc&feature=related"]The Christs Before Christ[/ame]
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1899404; said:
Open wide, and say "duuuhhhh". The looks on their faces are priceless. :lol:

The Christs Before Christ
Click to expand...


You might want to look at the most recent academic literature in historical comparative religion rather than the videos you find on YouTube because what that video propagates are late 19th, early 20th century theories that few academics, who are experts in this subject matter, take seriously. The most recent research indicates either pagan religions adopting the Christian narrative once contact between the two religions occurred or the ideas developing independently of each other.
 
Upvote 0
kinch;1899032; said:
Jesus wasn't even resurrected in the earliest bible we have evidence of (IIRC - I may not).
Click to expand...


????????????????????????????

1 Corinthians 15 is considered by most scholars, religious and secular, to hold the earliest declaration of a belief in Jesus' resurrection of which we have direct evidence. Verses 3-5 state:

For I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

This was written by Paul c. 55 CE. The authorship and dating of 1 Corinthians is almost uniformly held by all scholars, once again, religious and secular. 1 Corinthians was always included in any listing of books that should compose the Christian writings that would become the New Testament. It was also quoted and referenced by early church fathers at the turn of the first century, such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp.

So, I'm not certain where the idea that the resurrection was not originally included in the earliest Bible is coming from.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1900306; said:
????????????????????????????

1 Corinthians 15 is considered by most scholars, religious and secular, to hold the earliest declaration of a belief in Jesus' resurrection of which we have direct evidence. Verses 3-5 state:

For I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

This was written by Paul c. 55 CE. The authorship and dating of 1 Corinthians is almost uniformly held by all scholars, once again, religious and secular. 1 Corinthians was always included in any listing of books that should compose the Christian writings that would become the New Testament. It was also quoted and referenced by early church fathers at the turn of the first century, such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp.

So, I'm not certain where the idea that the resurrection was not originally included in the earliest Bible is coming from.
Click to expand...

I am probably totally wrong: I am certainly no biblical scholar.

What I am referencing is the earliest bible of which we have a hard copy, and that was split into three among the Germans, British, and Soviet Union (or something like that: you probably know what I am referring to in any event) and which was recovered, scanned, and put online in the past year or two. I read an article describing that the sections of the bible that typically describe resurrection are strangely absent.

Like I said, I'm no scholar and don't particularly care, I just remember reading that. And that various gospels "unaccepted" don't mention a resurrection either.

I'm sure you can enlighten this. :) I really have no axe to grind either way.
 
Upvote 0
kinch;1900341; said:
I am probably totally wrong: I am certainly no biblical scholar.

What I am referencing is the earliest bible of which we have a hard copy, and that was split into three among the Germans, British, and Soviet Union (or something like that: you probably know what I am referring to in any event) and which was recovered, scanned, and put online in the past year or two. I read an article describing that the sections of the bible that typically describe resurrection are strangely absent.

Like I said, I'm no scholar and don't particularly care, I just remember reading that. And that various gospels "unaccepted" don't mention a resurrection either.

I'm sure you can enlighten this. :) I really have no axe to grind either way.
Click to expand...


Are you referring to the Codex Sinaiticus? If so, I am unaware of it lacking the verses that speak of the resurrection. Perhaps you are referring to last verses of Mark that are absent from the Codex S., but that missing passage (Mark 16:9-20) does not eliminate the account of the resurrection even in the book of Mark--saying nothing else of the other books that proclaim it. In Mark, verse 6 of the same chapter has an angel proclaiming the resurrection.

Of course, even more important than the Codex S. (c. 450 CE), are earlier copies of the individual books and letters of the New Testament that go back to the early second century and which proclaim the resurrection. In addition, there are writings from the church fathers that are several centuries older than the Codex S. that proclaim a faith in the resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeye86;1896925; said:
Fairy Tales contain certain measures of truth. For instance, if you are a little girl in a red cape walking alone, you shouldn't fuck with wolves.
Click to expand...

That depends on the girl...

anna-paquin-and-trick-r-treat-gallery.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I can't wait to see the Dinosaur Dung ride.

The controversial museum, backed in part by Mike Zovath, a co-founder of the Answers in Genesis ministry which previously built Kentucky's 70,00 square-foot Creation Museum, got the funding after months of back and forth over the legitimacy of a religious attraction being funded by a state government.
Click to expand...

More "history" courtesy of the bible. :roll1::lol:

Noah's ark theme park coming to Kentucky
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top