That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Liza Q]

Albeto - I want to believe that science is objective, even when scientists are, well, human. Like I have said, I think I have been reading all the wrong stuff!

 

Thanks for the link, and thanks to everyone who recommended books upthread. My goal is not to "know" but to understand more.

[albeto.]

Both are articles of faith because neither can be verified. 

 

From where do you think "faith" in science comes?

 

What do you consider verification to entail? 

[Lady Florida.]

I've never read any Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, but from what I gather they seem like the Ken Hams of the other side - I'm right, you're wrong, don't be stupid.

 

 

 

I don't know what Sam Harris' background is, but Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist by profession. While he does write a good deal about atheism, he has several scientific books written for the public, including one for children. He actually is qualified to speak on the subject, but gets more attention for his atheist activism (partly his own doing, I recognize that).

 

Here's his Amazon page, for anyone who wants to see what he's written.

 

The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale are two I'd recommend for adults. The Magic of Reality is the one he wrote for older children but is wonderful for adults too.

[Tanaqui]

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.31288.78.0/religion/christianity/archeology-proves-bible-history-accurate

 

The author of that article seems more interested in asserting "Yup, the Bible is accurate" than in actually providing evidence to prove the point. I had to wade through 22 paragraphs to even get to a single piece of evidence, and let's examine that evidence.

 

The deciphering of the Behistun inscription in the 19th century was one of the most remarkable archaeological advancements and the most vital to understanding ancient writings uncovered in the Fertile Crescent. The discovery opened the door for archeology to further confirm the Bible’s historical accuracy.

 

The inscription, like a billboard about the size of half a football field, is situated on a cliff about 300 feet above the base of a mountain in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran. The site lies along the road that connected the ancient capitals of kingdoms of Babylonia and Media: Babylon and Ecbatana. The inscription dates back to 516 b.c. and is an account of Darius i’s assumption of the Persian throne (521-486 b.c.). This account was written in cuneiform in three languages (Babylonian, Elamite and Old Persian). In 1835, Sir Henry C. Rawlinson copied and began to decipher the text, finishing the Persian translation in 1846. He and other scholars were soon able to translate the Babylonian and Elamite portions.

 

Many ancient cultures in the Middle East used cuneiform, but these works were a mystery until the trilingual Behistun inscription was deciphered—the discovery made possible the translation of other cuneiform writings.

 

The Behistun breakthrough led to others, including the translation of 22,000 tablets at the ruins of Nineveh, Shalmaneser’s Black Obelisk, Shennacherib’s Prism, and the epic poems of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish. (These poems contain accounts of the Flood, creation and the tower of Babel that closely parallel the Bible.)

 

 

Okay. So, he says that this can help prove Biblical history, but he doesn't explain how - other than that "there are stories of the Flood and creation and the tower of Babel that parallel the Bible". Well, yeah? There are stories about girls in captivity the world over, but that doesn't mean that Cinderella was literally true. Those cultures lived in close proximity to one another. It makes sense that they'd rip stories off each other all the time.

 

Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Some critics said they may have been a small and unimportant tribe. But the critics were off the beam!

 

Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite Empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The centuries-old Hittite rubbish showed they were a real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East. They exercised considerable control south into Syria and Palestine.

 

The Bible was right all along! Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites. Yet an anti-Bible prejudice still exists. Scholarly people usually believe that if it’s in the Bible, it’s wrong. But the Bible is right and has always been right.

 

Nonsense. The existence of the Hittites no more proves the truth of the Bible than the existence of Troy proves the truth of the Iliad. And for that matter, most "scholarly people" accept quite a lot of what's in the Bible - certainly details as mundane as place names and the like - if it's backed up by other evidence.

 

In 1974, Italian archaeologists found approximately 17,000 cuneiform tablets and fragments at the site of ancient Ebla in northern Syria. The inscriptions on these artifacts date them prior to the 24th century b.c. Noachian Flood. Similar finds were uncovered in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tablets show that writing was common centuries before Moses. The critics can no longer claim that Moses and his contemporaries were illiterate or that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra in the 5th century b.c.

 

1. Again, the conclusion doesn't fit the premise. The existence of writing does not necessarily prove that Moses was literate.

 

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla-Biblical_controversy

 

Hold on....

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

 Your Inner Fish  instead (caveat - I haven't read those either, but I hear they're good - maybe others can give more personal recommendations for books with good science but without opinionated blowhards). :)

 

 

I haven't read the book, but downloaded a sample to my Kindle. I just need to make some time to read it. Alternatively you could watch the series Your Inner Fish. I think it's on Netflix. Ds and I enjoyed it very much (after we finished watching the new Cosmos).

[Tanaqui]

 

One of the most ridiculous claims of the critics has been that the Babylonian captivity did not take place. This is on a par with those who believe the Holocaust of World War ii did not happen. The Bible gives specific details about the captivity of Judah by the armies of Babylon early in the 6th century b.c. (ii Kings 24-25). Scholars have said it’s all just another Jewish myth. However, between 1935 and 1938, important discoveries were made 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem at a site thought to be ancient Lachish. Lachish was one of the cities recorded in the Bible as being besieged by the king of Babylon at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7).Twenty-one pottery fragments inscribed in the ancient Hebrew script were unearthed in the latest pre-exilic levels of the site. Called the Lachish Ostraca, they were written during the very time of the Babylonian siege. Some of them are exchanges between the city’s military commander and an outlying observation post, vividly picturing the final days of Judah’s desperate struggle against Babylon! Since the 1930s, there has been more unearthing of Babylonian historical texts describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The historical fact of the Babylonian captivity is firmly established.

 

Um, maybe? I notice he doesn't name these critics, which makes it hard for them to defend themselves - if they even exist. He also doesn't state what, exactly, they say - perhaps that it wasn't something that happened to all of the Jews?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachish_letters

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

 

We could discuss literally hundreds of archaeological finds that corroborate Bible history. Noah’s Flood, the Exodus, David, Solomon and the kings of Israel and Jerusalem as described in the Bible are proven to be historical by non-biblical sources.

 

I find it suspicious that he says we COULD discuss  these archaeological finds for things which are much more shaky (like the flood) than whether or not writing existed at a certain point of time, but that he doesn't bother to actually do so. He wasted 22 paragraphs (I counted) on "Yup, you can trust the Bible", I'm sure he could've spent some of that text on Noah, Exodus, Solomon, etc.

 

If you desire to know more, go to your local library and do some self-study. You may be surprised to find how much information is actually available to you.

 

That's the line I used to sign book reports off with, when I didn't want to bother to come up with a decent conclusion. "If you want to hear more, just read the book!"

 

Here is a short list of some of the more important treasures of antiquity:

• The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.) shows Jehu, king of Israel, bowing before the Assyrian king. This is the only known picture of an Israelite king.
• Tablets from the time of Tiglath-Pileser (744-727 B.C.) state that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah. This is the full name of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7).
• A wonderfully detailed limestone relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh shows the siege of Lachish.
• One of the most important is the cylinder of Nabonidus (555-539 B.C.). He was the last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This stele proves that his son Belshazzar was co-regent with him (Daniel 5; 7:1; 8:1). Scholars previously scoffed at Belshazzar’s existence.

 

 

Nobody is doubtful that the ancient Israelites existed and had kings and all that. This is a thread about YEC. Nothing written here backs that up in even the slightest.

 

Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history†(emphasis mine). That last statement is the most important. Archaeology has proven that the Bible is accurate history!

 

Mmm. We've shown that it is extremely unlike that any pyramids were built entirely or predominately by Jewish slaves, nor that the firstborn were murdered, nor... well, any of the events of Exodus. Indeed, there is evidence to show that the Jews weren't anywhere near Egypt at the time, which means that the question of Moses' literacy is the least we have to be concerned about.

 

We know that the Sumerians already existed back when the world was supposedly created. (Gotta love The Onion, but their timeline is right on.)
 

 

Workers repairing a sewage-pipe break uncovered the Pool of Siloam in Old Jerusalem. This pool was a major gathering site for the Jews. The Pool of Siloam is central to the account of the miracle of Christ healing a man blind from birth (John 9:1-7). Christ put clay on the man’s eyes and then told him to wash at the Pool of Siloam. Obeying Christ by washing in the pool completed the miracle (verse 11). This created an incredible stir among the Jewish elite of Christ’s day (verses 14-41). Why? Jesus Christ had made the clay with His own spit on the Sabbath day. The Jews considered this act a breaking of the Sabbath command. Jealous and insecure, the Pharisees declared that Christ was not of God for healing the blind man on the Sabbath (verse 16). A study of the whole chapter makes plain that the entire incident was used by God to show the Pharisees how blind they were to God and what God was doing on this Earth. Of course, they failed to learn that lesson.

 

The existence of the Pool of Siloam does not prove the existence of miracles, no more than the existence of Vegas proves the existence of kidney thieves. It makes sense for people telling stories to set them in actual locations. That's why Ghostbusters is set in NYC instead of in some other place that never was built.

 

It not only establishes the historical accuracy of John’s Gospel, it reinforces the historicity of Jesus Christ. The find also establishes that it is God’s desire to heal mankind of seemingly impossible health crises.

 

None of that follows from the evidence.

 

[Professormom]

Ok, I am going out on a limb here. I am going to preface this post by saying that I am only responding to a post up thread, which I can't seem to find now, on the historicity of Jesus. Most of the people here seem to be legitimately seeking answers and want scholarship to back up what is being said. I wanted the answer to this myself, so I contacted a Duke PhD in ancient biblical studies. This is the response. This could easily be a new thread, but I see people working through these issues and blanket statements implying Jesus wasn't real, just isn't accurate scholarship. I was very thankful for his thorough and above and beyond response to help clarify things for our little thread. Again, you can think what you want about the DEITY of Christ, but the fact that he lived when we think he did is non-controversial. This is a public service message with the sole intent of not leaving that up thread statement up in the air as fact for people who are questioning.

 

ETA: I realize someone upthread made some of these references, maybe Michelle?... I just thought the way he tied it all together was useful. And it is another credible look at the same topic. I am not looking to debate this with people who don't want to look at the biblical scholarship involved here. I respect the scientists and their scholarship, biblical scholarship gets the same respect.

 

"There are numerous extra-biblical references to Jesus in the first century and in the early second.

 

1. Josephus (AD 37 - 100) Antiquities 18.3.3:

 

"Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today."

 

Also 20.9.1:

 

"...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

 

2. Tacitus (AD 55-117) Annals Book 15:

 

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

 

3. Suetonius (AD 69-140) Lives of the Caesars - Claudius 25:

 

"He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus."

 

And Nero 16:

 

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

 

4. Pliny the Younger (AD 62-113) Letter to Trajan 10.96-97:

 

"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

 

"Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

 

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

 

"I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded."

 

5. Julius Africanus, himself a Christian, refers to a remarkable testimony in writings by the pagan authors Thallus & Phlegon at his Chronography 18:

 

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak" [viz., when our Lord was crucified].

 

I hope this helps, Heather! In addition, there is no good reason as a historian to reject out of hand the four gospels in the Bible as historical sources in their own right. Few doubt that there was an historical Homer - though there are some skeptical scholars who do push this point - just because the only solid evidence we have for his existence are his own writings: and the earliest copy of them that we possess dates from long after his death. (If memory serves, 3 centuries or so.... but maybe even longer.) In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, we have 4 little books that fit neatly into the known ancient Greco-Roman genre of the "life" of a notable person, all of which date from within 30 years of his death. And our earliest manuscripts of the gospels - parts of John - date to about 125 AD. That is a much much smaller gap than the one with Homer, and Homer is just one example from antiquity.

 

There are no credible historians today, either Christian or not, who deny the historical reality of the man Jesus of Nazareth. All agree that he was born about 4BC and executed under Pilate about AD 30. The differences start coming up when we talk about whether (a) Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, and (b) whether he was raised from the dead. That's the point where real scholars start to differ from one another. But even the atheist historians believe that Jesus actually lived and died."

[Lady Florida.]

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist & while obviously he accepts evolutionary theory, his books have little to do with it specifically. His books are more about faith (The End of Faith) and ethics (lying, free will, moral landscape). Some of you guys might not know that Harris is a cultural Jew, and a pretty woo guy. Did his time in Indian ashrams etc. & he's a very serious meditator & proponent of mindfulness meditation for its brain benefits.  He's also quite iinterested in the transcendental experience & what it is from a neuroscientist pov. His book Waking Up is subtitled A Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

 

 

 

 

I didn't know he was a neuroscientist.

 

As for the woo-ness: Nooooooo! Say it ain't so!

 

But I suppose Linus Pauling is proof that one can be highly intelligent and still taken in by woo. 

[Tanaqui]

I note that none of those people were contemporaries of Jesus, and that Nero doesn't actually speak about him, just his followers. Well, we know there were Christians at that time.

[Bluegoat]

 

• What are the sources you have for the existence of Jesus? Not hearsay (I hear Matthew knew him), but actual sources (not that you've laid your eyes on, but we know to exist)
•  

 

 

I mentioned this earlier, upthread, but it seemed to go by the wayside.  The question of Jesus existence is not considered controversial by historians of ancient history.  People who support the Jesus myth theory are considered, in academic circles, to be crack-pots. 

 

The confusion over this seems mostly to come from people being really unaware about how historians work and how to evaluate historical evidence, and people getting information from out-dated 19th century books, which had a tendency to be strongly reactionary.

 

This article outlines how scholars view this question really well.

[albeto.]

1. Josephus (AD 37 - 100) Antiquities 18.3.3:

 

"Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today."

 

Also 20.9.1:

 

"...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

 

Not contemporary; didn't write about Jesus but what others said about Jesus; out of character, and likely added centuries later

 

2. Tacitus (AD 55-117) Annals Book 15:

 

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself. We can find references of the followers of the cult of Osiris, that isn't evidence the man-god Osiris existed.

 

3. Suetonius (AD 69-140) Lives of the Caesars - Claudius 25:

 

"He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus."

 

And Nero 16:

 

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself.

 

4. Pliny the Younger (AD 62-113) Letter to Trajan 10.96-97:

 

"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

 

"Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

 

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

 

"I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded."

 

Not a contemporary; references the followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself. 

 

5. Julius Africanus, himself a Christian, refers to a remarkable testimony in writings by the pagan authors Thallus & Phlegon at his Chronography 18:

 

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak" [viz., when our Lord was crucified].

 

Not a contemporary; references claims about the Christ made by followers of the cult of the Christ (himself being one). 

 

I hope this helps, Heather! In addition, there is no good reason as a historian to reject out of hand the four gospels in the Bible as historical sources in their own right. Few doubt that there was an historical Homer - though there are some skeptical scholars who do push this point - just because the only solid evidence we have for his existence are his own writings: and the earliest copy of them that we possess dates from long after his death. (If memory serves, 3 centuries or so.... but maybe even longer.) In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, we have 4 little books that fit neatly into the known ancient Greco-Roman genre of the "life" of a notable person, all of which date from within 30 years of his death. And our earliest manuscripts of the gospels - parts of John - date to about 125 AD. That is a much much smaller gap than the one with Homer, and Homer is just one example from antiquity.

 

There are no credible historians today, either Christian or not, who deny the historical reality of the man Jesus of Nazareth. All agree that he was born about 4BC and executed under Pilate about AD 30. The differences start coming up when we talk about whether (a) Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, and (b) whether he was raised from the dead. That's the point where real scholars start to differ from one another. But even the atheist historians believe that Jesus actually lived and died."

 

If you start a new thread, I'd be happy to address these, too. In short, he's appealing to the bible to provide credibility to the claims in the bible, and appealing to popular belief to simply accept it. This makes for bad history, bad education. We wouldn't accept these reasons to assume Scientology provides an accurate account of history, but Christianity gets a pass because "everyone knows it." That's a big stinkin' red flag right there, lol!

 

eta: Historians who were contemporaries of the Jesus biography era, seem to be silent on the matter. No miracles, no great following, no ride into Jerusalem on a donkey hailed as a king, no raising from the dead, no formerly dead people walking around the city, no earthquake, nothing that correlates to any claim in the bible about Jesus of Nazareth. None of these things are mentioned as a matter of recording events during the era Jesus' biography gives. 

[redsquirrel]

I just want to add that Dawkins' current job is something like 'Oxford professor of public science education'.  So his current job is to talk and teach the public about science and issues pertaining to science. Weather or not he is good at his job is a matter of debate.

 

 

Here is Neil Degrasse Tyson's opinion on the matter

 

https://youtu.be/_2Aw9UGYNsA

 

 

edited to add: there is a joke with an f-bomb at the end of this.  I think dawkins was trying to change the subject....

 

 

[hornblower]

I didn't know he was a neuroscientist.

 

As for the woo-ness: Nooooooo! Say it ain't so!

 

But I suppose Linus Pauling is proof that one can be highly intelligent and still taken in by woo. 

 

well, let me back up a bit & say that it's not woo. Not real woo. Not Deepak Chopra woo. I'm really mischaracterizing him if I've left that impression so I apologize to him & all his fans.

 

In fact it's not woo at all because it's observable & measurable changes in the brain that he's interested in. The word spirituality in his subtitle of the newest book really threw me though - but that's mostly just me :)   (And yeah, he is a hard core meditator and he's interested in the measurable changes in the brain from meditation).

 

There's an epic smackdown of Chopra that I think is well worth watching & which I think shows how UN-woo he is.

 

I just wanted to convey that he's not a cold robot type of guy, just give me the facts & nothing but the facts, kwim? & My shorthand term 'woo' was probably in hindsight not the right term at all.

 

 

oh & yeah, he's a cognitive neuroscientist & is interested in the parts of brain responsible for issues of faith v. evidence (again, I'm probably mangling & over simplifying ... ;)  )

 

 

[Bluegoat]

There is an article in this month's issue of National Geographic titled "The Age of Disbelief"  concerning doubt and scientific proof.  I haven't had time to read it yet, it's still in my pile.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

 

I read this the other day at the dentists office.  i have to say I was dissapointed - I felt that the author really tried to be thoughtful about it, but failed to take it past the obvious.

 

It ddn't really even approach an answer about why some people distrust science.  Ane then the part where the academic said that people on both sides are actually always responding to something other than the actual scientific evidence - that is really interesting, and perhaps could point at an answer to the larger question.  But the author just let it go with "yes, but with science what it says is really true". 

 

I think - even if they are right, factually speaking - the fact that most people who trust science do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science is probably pretty crucial to the question.

 

 

[Dicentra]

There are no credible historians today, either Christian or not, who deny the historical reality of the man Jesus of Nazareth. All agree that he was born about 4BC and executed under Pilate about AD 30. The differences start coming up when we talk about whether (a) Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, and (b) whether he was raised from the dead. That's the point where real scholars start to differ from one another. But even the atheist historians believe that Jesus actually lived and died."

 

:iagree:

 

I've been reading a fair amount of Bart Ehrman lately (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman).  He's a former Evangelical, now an agnostic, who received his Ph.D. in New Testament scholarship from Princeton.  Even he feels there's enough evidence for a historical Jesus.  Not a divine one or one that performed miracles or rose from the dead, but a real historical person.

 

I am, of course, taking his word for some of the background info he is using.  I don't have access to all the primary sources he does, nor do I read Hebrew or Greek.  From what I've read so far, I've liked his logic and his reasoning processes.  I haven't found any reason to doubt his conclusions - yet. :)

[Professormom]

I note that none of those people were contemporaries of Jesus, and that Nero doesn't actually speak about him, just his followers. Well, we know there were Christians at that time.

Ancient historical scholarship uses many different approaches to establish historicity because we simply don't have databases full of primary documents. This stuff is hard to find and well-won when it is. I am seeing in this remark the same type of "looking at the evidence with your own lens and ignoring what the scholarship says in this regard" attitude that many are accusing the YEC's of in this thread. This is the "science" of the Bible. If you don't want to see it, that is ok... But there is a great deal of evidence here, put forth by scholars in their field at well-respected universities. I am not trying to be jerky, just pointing out a disconnect in how worldview can affect how we see established scholarship in the field of discussion.

[hornblower]

double post
 

[fraidycat]

 

 

We know that the Sumerians already existed back when the world was supposedly created. (Gotta love The Onion, but their timeline is right on.)

 

 

.

Thank you for this link! :lol: :lol:

[Daria]

 

 

We know that the Sumerians already existed back when the world was supposedly created. (Gotta love The Onion, but their timeline is right on.)

 

 

 

What is the YEC position on Sumer?  I have never heard an explanation for what archaeologists have found there?  How are timelines addressed in ancient history texts written from a Biblical Worldview?

 

I'm asking this because I'm curious!

[Bluegoat]

One scientist and one study?  Sure, you're completely right, see my previous note about Tobacco Companies funding research to prove smoking is healthy (those are out there!)

 

But are peer-reviewed, and if they're fishy they get  repeated by other scientists to see if they can repeat the results, and that's how you weed out 'bad science' and bias.

 

Evolutionary theory is not based on one scientist or one study with a bias.  Or even a few.  My guess is that there are not hundreds, but thousands, and probably thousands upon thousands of studies that confirm Evolutionary Theory.  Not that each one sets out to prove or disprove it, but again, a Theory can be used to predict an outcome.  Over and over, studies that use Evolutionary Theory to predict an outcome are successful.  When they are not, things are tweaked.  Anything that would disprove or radically the whole Theory at this point?  Does not exist.

 

(And again, Evolutionary Theory says nothnig about the age of the earth.  For that, you have to start arguing with Geologists, and for the age of the universe, Astrophysicists.  The fact that all these different areas of study pretty much agree on the timeline - billions, not thousands of years - should be telling).

 

I am not sure I would agree that it says nothing - if we explain a lot of the diversity of life by evolutionary theory, we must be talking about timescales that are really significant.  Certainly far in excess of 10.000 years.  And there are also extrapolations of dates for divergence of species, for example.

 

As far as the reliability of science as an institution - I would also be more cautious.  The example of tobacco companies is not isolated - money plays a huge role in research, and that means who can fund it is important.  This can impact what research is done, and how, at a very fundamental level - more and more often we seem to hear about scientists in universities complain that their research is limited by what is of use to industry, for example.  We know all about the problems with pharmacutical research, with research that might impact large industries like biotech or oil.  It even seems to have affected some of those peer reviewed journals that everyone says will help ensurer good, unbiased science.

 

And then there are, I think, also possible ideological assumptions that need to be looked out for.  There is the famous story by james Lovelock about having a journal submission refused simply because it came from a private address and not from an institution.  Or for that matter, the way his Gaia thery was ignored simply because people assumed it must be some sort of religious thing.

 

I don't think the scientific community can ignore the implications of these things and expect people to take them seriously when they say "trust me".

 

 

[Professormom]

Not contemporary; didn't write about Jesus but what others said about Jesus; out of character, and likely added centuries later

 

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself. We can find references of the followers of the cult of Osiris, that isn't evidence the man-god Osiris existed.

 

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself.

 

 

Not a contemporary; references the followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself.

 

 

Not a contemporary; references claims about the Christ made by followers of the cult of the Christ (himself being one).

 

 

If you start a new thread, I'd be happy to address these, too. In short, he's appealing to the bible to provide credibility to the claims in the bible, and appealing to popular belief to simply accept it. This makes for bad history, bad education. We wouldn't accept these reasons to assume Scientology provides an accurate account of history, but Christianity gets a pass because "everyone knows it." That's a big stinkin' red flag right there, lol!

 

eta: Historians who were contemporaries of the Jesus biography era, seem to be silent on the matter. No miracles, no great following, no ride into Jerusalem on a donkey hailed as a king, no raising from the dead, no formerly dead people walking around the city, no earthquake, nothing that correlates to any claim in the bible about Jesus of Nazareth. None of these things are mentioned as a matter of recording events during the era Jesus' biography gives.

These are your thoughts, not established ancient history knowledge. You are entitled to them, but again, this is you thinking something through your lens and looking at a few fringe sources... Not the established thought of the current scholars in this field.

 

Just because the evidence doesn't fit what you think it should be, doesn't mean that the criteria doesn't fit for the people who actually are the experts in this field and who establish the parameters for good evidence in that field. Again, it is falling into the same trap you are arguing against in the YEC discussion. I see a lot of intelligence and critical thinking ability in many of your posts, but the inflammatory "Christians whitewash slavery" or "Christianity gets a pass... Stinking red flag" comments color over some of your more well-thought out points. Not seeing something is not the same as saying that thing never existed.

[hornblower]

What is the YEC position on Sumer?  I have never heard an explanation for what archaeologists have found there?  How are timelines addressed in ancient history texts written from a Biblical Worldview?

 

I'm asking this because I'm curious!

 

I thought the stretching of the 6000 into 10000 is supposed to account for ancient middle eastern civilizations...?

 

Of course our current understanding of homo sapiens is that the species first appeared about 200,000 ya. The genus homo dates to over 2 million years ago.

[Laura Corin]

 Few doubt that there was an historical Homer - though there are some skeptical scholars who do push this point - just because the only solid evidence we have for his existence are his own writings: and the earliest copy of them that we possess dates from long after his death. 

 

On the contrary: it is very common to attribute the writings of 'Homer' to the bringing together of a long oral tradition under one mythical figure.  I don't think that 'few doubt' that there was an historical Homer.  Here's the Columbia page on the issue, quoting from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome.

[Bluegoat]

Not contemporary; didn't write about Jesus but what others said about Jesus; out of character, and likely added centuries later

 

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself. We can find references of the followers of the cult of Osiris, that isn't evidence the man-god Osiris existed.

 

 

Not a contemporary; references Nero and followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself.

 

 

Not a contemporary; references the followers of the cult of the Christ, not Jesus himself. 

 

 

Not a contemporary; references claims about the Christ made by followers of the cult of the Christ (himself being one). 

 

 

If you start a new thread, I'd be happy to address these, too. In short, he's appealing to the bible to provide credibility to the claims in the bible, and appealing to popular belief to simply accept it. This makes for bad history, bad education. We wouldn't accept these reasons to assume Scientology provides an accurate account of history, but Christianity gets a pass because "everyone knows it." That's a big stinkin' red flag right there, lol!

 

eta: Historians who were contemporaries of the Jesus biography era, seem to be silent on the matter. No miracles, no great following, no ride into Jerusalem on a donkey hailed as a king, no raising from the dead, no formerly dead people walking around the city, no earthquake, nothing that correlates to any claim in the bible about Jesus of Nazareth. None of these things are mentioned as a matter of recording events during the era Jesus' biography gives. 

 

These posts though are another example of people not understanding historical evidence.  These things are all considered good quality evidence in the context of ancient history, and taken together, they are a good argument.

 

We also have texts by people who knew and were taught by the apostles, who knew Jesus.  THese are also considered to be very high quality historical evidence.

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

These are your thoughts, not established ancient history knowledge. You are entitled to them, but again, this is you thinking something through your lens and looking at a few fringe sources... Not the established thought of the current scholars in this field.

 

You misunderstand. It's not my opinion that these quotes lack any contemporary record of Jesus. It's a fact. You can see it for yourself. These are not contemporary historians. They do not record contemporary events. If you think I'm wrong, please point out one contemporary event recorded referring to what Jesus did in any one of those quotes.

 

Not seeing something is not the same as saying that thing never existed.

 

I didn't say Jesus never existed [in this thread]. I'm saying those quotes you provided don't mention Jesus, they mention his believers. That's a fact. My comments about stinkin' red flags don't actually affect what I'm saying about the lack of Jesus mentioned in those quotes. 

[albeto.]

These posts though are another example of people not understanding historical evidence.  These things are all considered good quality evidence in the context of ancient history, and taken together, they are a good argument.

 

We also have texts by people who knew and were taught by the apostles, who knew Jesus.  THese are also considered to be very high quality historical evidence.

 

It is not considered good quality evidence in the context of any history to appeal to circular reasoning, or ignore a body of objective information that fails to confirm a belief. 

[Bluegoat]

I posted this on another thread and I am going to post it here as well, because I think it is a very good overview not only of why scholars accept the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure, it gives some insight into what kind of evidence is used, and how, in the study of ancient history.

 

A lot of comments that get made saying some kinds of evidence are no good are really just very out of tune with the conventions of the field.

[hornblower]

I don't understand why proving the historicity of the person of Jesus one way or the other affects the age of the earth at all.   Plenty of people have no doubts about Jesus' existence & some even believe in him as a god & yet also accept an old earth.

[Professormom]

You misunderstand. It's not my opinion that these quotes lack any contemporary record of Jesus. It's a fact. You can see it for yourself. These are not contemporary historians. They do not record contemporary events. If you think I'm wrong, please point out one contemporary event recorded referring to what Jesus did in any one of those quotes.

 

 

I didn't say Jesus never existed [in this thread]. I'm saying those quotes you provided don't mention Jesus, they mention his believers. That's a fact. My comments about stinkin' red flags don't actually affect what I'm saying about the lack of Jesus mentioned in those quotes.

No misunderstanding at all. I think you misunderstand my point... which is that it doesn't matter. There are ENOUGH references, pieces of evidence, etc. that scholars in this field have come to a consensus. That consensus, within its community of experts, is that the person existed in history. And I am seeing more of an interest in semantics on this point, than actual discourse. You did imply that and, if the extraneous comments have nothing to do with what you are saying, I think it is important to realize that they are not useful to the discussion. These are the types of things that break down the good debate that I see, otherwise, in these posts.

 

And in saying the above, I feel like I am mirroring what so many, including me, are saying to the YEC's in this thread. Look at the evidence, look at the community of scholars, what is the consensus. That it is not a good idea to ignore the evidence because of a personal lens.

[Pen]

I think a mix of 2 and 4.

 

I don't care what you think, that's your prerogative. But yes, it baffles and saddens me that such a degree of misinformation holds sway with so many. There is a scientific consensus on this for a reason and none of the YEC science makes any gosh darned sense. Honestly, it sounds really out there and preposterous. I get that others feel the reverse and that's just how it is. I can't pretend though that I think either position is reasonable. I don't argue with people's specific beliefs but I also don't pretend to agree with them either. My friend started dating a man who believed the world was young and didn't believe in evolution. Truthfully, I was somewhat relieved for her that he changed his mind to see the science as it is before they got married.

 

I think you have to have either quite a bit of exposure to science, plus no feeling that your ultimate eternal salvation depends on believing in a YE, or, if not a lot of exposure to science then, no exposure to a YEC view plus your own exposure to something like a huge eroded rock cliff where you can personally see deposition layers to start having personal questions about the huge antiquity you are seeing along the lines of some of the earlier scientists who realized that the earth had to be a lot older than Genesis accounts plus genealogy work might suggest.  Otherwise, if you are just living your life day to day in many places there is nothing much to tell you one way or the other. Sort of like in many places if you look out, the land looks flat(ish) and the sky looks like a dome overhead.  Where I grew up there were eroded cliff faces, but where I live now there is soil and grass and trees, nothing that really gives a clue. And a lot of the local homeschool kids are very insulated academically from anything that could tell them that YEC science doesn't make sense...and if it makes eternal damnation and perhaps worse, current separation from their families and peers to believe other than YEC, that would make your view of what seems obvious hard to hold.

 

I was the OP of the original poll, and my intent with that poll was actually to reveal some of our more "harsh" inner statements when we encounter someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Not stuff we would ever say out loud to them, but stuff we say in our heads. I think the poll posted above does not reflect what some of us REALLY think. I actually have never thought: "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."...In fact, that's so darn polite I might actually say it out loud!!  :laugh: 

 

In fact....

 

to be perfectly honest, when someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I think "There's no frickin' way that an intelligent person can believe that in the face of the science of evolution." It seriously, and negatively, colors my opinion of that person. It is seriously anti-science, and I think it is this very "anti-science" that contributes to our societal blindness towards global warming, species extinction, environmental destruction and anti-vaccine hysteria. To me, it's indicative of a much larger problem, in addition to just being silly. I think it also give Christians a bad rap. I am Christian, but I am also pro-science and understand evolution as FACT, not theory.

 

And that's the God's honest truth. 

 

But then... what if someone else looks at your own beliefs and is saying, "I can't believe you still believe that sh**" probably feeling just as clear that what you believe is candy brain fluff as you see when you consider YEC. This is not a criticism...   I am trying to get my own head around this right now.

 

How much difference does the saying it aloud make?  I think some people on here are saying they've been called "morons" etc. not because it was said aloud, but because the inner belief comes through anyway.

 

BTW, I think anti-science and a view that the Earth is worthless in the scheme of Eternal salvation adds to the environmental problems, but I also think short term greed, inertia and head in the sand thinking, corporate law structure and a number of other factors play a huge role.

 

My point exactly. If someone told me the Earth was 6000 years old, I wouldn't say "That's nice, but I politely disagree." No more than I would if someone said brains are made of cotton candy.

 

 

What would you say?  Suppose you left NYC and instead of going to FL, you came to where I am now in rural Oregon where the majority around believes just this.  What do you say?  (More to the point, what do you think I should say?)

 

For one of these groups, incidentally, when I explained some of my reasoning the reply was that Satan put the geological record, the Uranium-Lead dating, etc. there to trap those like me of too little Faith.

[LisaKinVA]

This goes back a little...but I wanted to add my observations to the "growth" of YEC in families.  I'm going to use my own family, and those I know as examples.  In my original family, there are 6, 2 adults and 4 children.  Of those four children, all of us were taught a minimal version of the 6 days (I probably had the *most* indoctrination into YEC of all of us)  Out of those four YEC children, 3 are OEC, and one WAS YEC, but had never heard of OEC, but is currently re-evaluating those views.  There are 25 grandchildren, of those 25 grandchildren half of them are either now OEC, or are being taught OEC.  The other children are really too young to really care.

 

Of those homeschoolers I taught, who are now having children, the vast majority were raised YEC and are now OEC *even those who did not attend college*

 

My family uses a variety of curricula (including BJU, Abeka and Apologia), my oldest three are very fluid in their thinking when it comes to timelines and the age of the earth.  The youngest two have not reached an age where they question the age of the dinosaurs (all of our dino books are evolutionary-based), vs. what they might read in an Apologia text, or singing a 7 day creation song.  We usually get to that in middle school.

 

Apologia is one of the easiest curricula to use with younger children.  Abeka (the high school texts), I find suitable for upper elementary, because of the question/answer format -- and because it goes into a bit more depth than most middle school texts (but I skip the huge chapter on YEC).  By junior high, we are usually using a combination of secular and Christian resources, and the kids have a large Philosophy of Origins course which provides multiple resources covering the theories of the beginning.

 

As far as Christians arguing against the "Big Bang" -- I find that odd.  When my children were entering middle school (we attended a church that has very strong YEC beliefs, to my chagrin), one of them was laughing about how silly the "Big Bang" was...and I asked her how she thought the universe was created.  She offered up, "Well, God spoke and it was" -- and I replied, "So God spoke and BANG it was?"  She's never questioned the "Big Bang" since.  I'm firmly in the camp that science and religion do not have to be at odds...and the more I learn about the world and how it works, the more I marvel at God's creation.  

[Bluegoat]

It is not considered good quality evidence in the context of any history to appeal to circular reasoning, or ignore a body of objective information that fails to confirm a belief. 

 

 

 

Look, I don't want to be rude, but you clearly have no idea how historians study ancient history, and no basis on which to debate it.  No one is using circular reasoning, or ignoring anything.  You might as well claim that evolution can't be true because chimps have never evolved into people.

 

It is absolutly normal in the study of ancient history not to have contemporary records of people, even very well known and famous ones.  And it is normal to consider "followers' as one kind of evidence that there was in fact a person to be followed.

 

In the field of ancient history, people who claim that Jesus was some kind of myth are considered whack-doodles, usually whack-doodles with a personal agenda, just like creation-scientists. 

 

You really can't tell people to trust the scientific method because it is the consensus what people who understand science and how it works believe, and then make comments like this about an area of study that is considered perfectly reputable.  It's completely inconsistant.

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

well, let me back up a bit & say that it's not woo. Not real woo. Not Deepak Chopra woo. I'm really mischaracterizing him if I've left that impression so I apologize in advance to him & all his fans.

 

In fact it's not woo at all because it's observable & measurable changes in the brain that he's interested in. The word spirituality in his subtitle of the newest book really threw me though - but that's mostly just me :)   (And yeah, he is a hard core meditator and he's interested in the measurable changes in the brain from meditation).

 

There's an epic smackdown of Chopra that I think is well worth watching & which I think shows how UN-woo he is.

 

I just wanted to convey that he's not a cold robot type of guy, just give me the facts & nothing but the facts, kwim? & My shorthand term 'woo' was probably in hindsight not the right term at all.

 

 

oh & yeah, he's a cognitive neuroscientist & is interested in the parts of brain responsible for issues of faith v. evidence (again, I'm probably mangling & over simplifying ... ;)  )

 

 

 

Whew!

[redsquirrel]

Well, expect this topic to be getting a lot more attention in the news.  We now have a politician announcing he will be a candidate for the presidency on the steps of Liberty University, a 'robustly creationist' school.

 

I am NOT making any partisan or political statement about this, ok?  I am simply relaying information. My news feed is filled with the word "Creationist university'' and 'young earth' and attempts to explain to the public at large what that means.

 

I find this particularly interesting b/c this particular politician graduated from Princeton and Harvard. So, aside from ideology, I am not seeing the connection between the two.

 

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about any politician or party or anything like that. But will be interesting to see how this topic, an earth that is 6,000 years old,  is covered in the news.

 

 

 

[fraidycat]

These are your thoughts, not established ancient history knowledge. You are entitled to them, but again, this is you thinking something through your lens and looking at a few fringe sources... Not the established thought of the current scholars in this field.

 

Just because the evidence doesn't fit what you think it should be, doesn't mean that the criteria doesn't fit for the people who actually are the experts in this field and who establish the parameters for good evidence in that field. Again, it is falling into the same trap you are arguing against in the YEC discussion. I see a lot of intelligence and critical thinking ability in many of your posts, but the inflammatory "Christians whitewash slavery" or "Christianity gets a pass... Stinking red flag" comments color over some of your more well-thought out points. Not seeing something is not the same as saying that thing never existed.

But, she didn't ask for "established thought", she specifically requested a specific type of evidence. You failed to provide the evidence.

[Bluegoat]

I don't understand why proving the historicity of the person of Jesus one way or the other affects the age of the earth at all.   Plenty of people have no doubts about Jesus' existence & some even believe in him as a god & yet also accept an old earth.

 

Yes, it doesn't really.

 

I think there are quite a few people who think that if we can understand Genesis wholly or partly as a spiritual allegory, then what is to stop people from saying that the gospels are only an allegory.

 

Its not really a valid way to put the question though - just because one thing is allegory or poetry, it doesn't mean another is.  They are two different texts, despite the fact they were later compiled into one book.

 

The fact is, at no point has orthodox Christianity claimed that the gospels are not intended as a historical narrative (though not with modern conventions.)  And all the textual evidence is that that is what they were meant to be, that is how people understood them at the time.

 

On the other hand, the creation account has always been controversial, simply based on the text itself - people in the second century were already arguing it must be allegorical.

 

So really, the question of the historicity of Jesus is a red herring here. 

[Audrey]

I agree. Scary. My kids have to live in this "growing numbers" world. I'd like to see them inherit a progressive rather than regressive society.

 

 

I am very sure that they will (inherit a progressive society).  Currently, there is a paradigm shift toward scientific reasoning, whereas we had a bit of a mini-Dark Ages in the past 30 or so years.  With every paradigm shift comes discontent from the established status quo, however, and like those before them, this era's status quo are rather vocal and unwilling to give up their reign.  Hence, you will be more likely to hear their objections, even while their own numbers dwindle.  This applies repeatedly to every age and its ideas -- the old must relinquish to make way for the new.  They may fight it tooth and nail, or they may go quietly -- either way, change will come.

[Bluegoat]

But, she didn't ask for "established thought", she specifically requested a specific type of evidence. You failed to provide the evidence.

 

Some was given by earlier on, but the fact is, if you don't know how to interpret the it, it doesn't do much good.

 

It is like any other area of study - there are conventions, and they are used for a reason.  Unless you are willing to learn them, you have no business disputing the interpretation of the evidence by the experts.

 

I have no problem if people don't want to do that - we all have different interests.  But it gives no basis to make any claims on the scholarship.

 

I gave a link which gives a good overview of the evidence and also why it is understood in the way it is.

 

I find it totally bizarre that people that go to great lenghths to defecd science against people who they think do not understand its methods turn around on a question like this and do precisly the same thing.

[albeto.]

Some was given by earlier on, but the fact is, if you don't know how to interpret the it, it doesn't do much good.

 

In this thread there has been no evidence to interpret. There has been evidence to support the existence of a community of believers, not the figure upon whom this belief is based. 

 

I'll wait for another thread about this topic for further comment. 

[fraidycat]

Some was given by earlier on, but the fact is, if you don't know how to interpret the it, it doesn't do much good.

 

It is like any other area of study - there are conventions, and they are used for a reason. Unless you are willing to learn them, you have no business disputing the interpretation of the evidence by the experts.

 

I have no problem if people don't want to do that - we all have different interests. But it gives no basis to make any claims on the scholarship.

 

I gave a link which gives a good overview of the evidence and also why it is understood in the way it is.

 

I find it totally bizarre that people that go to great lenghths to defecd science against people who they think do not understand its methods turn around on a question like this and do precisly the same thing.

Because science and history are not the same thing?

 

There's a lot more room for "gray area" in history, no matter what the established conventions are.

 

Albeto's argument of Jesus followers vs. Osiris followers is a solid one. We have historical evidence of both. What we don't have is historical evidence of the existence of the "actual Gods" these followers are worshiping.

 

So you can accept "convention", I want evidence. Just like science gives me.

 

I'm open to there having been an actual person named Jesus who was a pretty awesome guy.

[Shawna in Texas]

 

 

It is like any other area of study - there are conventions, and they are used for a reason.  Unless you are willing to learn them, you have no business disputing the interpretation of the evidence by the experts.

 

 

 

Agree 100%.

[Professormom]

But, she didn't ask for "established thought", she specifically requested a specific type of evidence. You failed to provide the evidence.

I feel like I am being clear here, but maybe not. That IS the evidence. There is no "failing to provide" involved. What she wants to see may not be there. That does not mean that there is no evidence or it is somehow "not enough". That is the evidence.

 

A YEC person may ask me for a "transitional fossil". I can't give her one. I am not "failing to provide" as there is adequate evidence and scientific scholarship that tells me what I need to know without that particular item.

 

This is where I bow out of this topic. I have to get some good ole fashioned homeschooling done:-) If anyone wants clarity from me on anything, feel free to pm me.

[fraidycat]

I feel like I am being clear here, but maybe not. That IS the evidence. There is no "failing to provide" involved. What she wants to see may not be there. That does not mean that there is no evidence or it is somehow "not enough". That is the evidence.

 

And all I see is evidence that even a long, long time ago people heard of a guy named Jesus who did awesome things.

 

But a long, long time ago people heard of Zeus, Aphrodite, Osirisis, Thor, et. al who did some pretty awe inspiring things, too.

 

So, yes it is "failing to provide" just as my handing you salt when you ask for sugar is failing to provide. They may look alike, but they're very much not.

[DragonFaerie]

I feel like I am being clear here, but maybe not. That IS the evidence. There is no "failing to provide" involved. What she wants to see may not be there. That does not mean that there is no evidence or it is somehow "not enough". That is the evidence.

 

A YEC person may ask me for a "transitional fossil". I can't give her one. I am not "failing to provide" as there is adequate evidence and scientific scholarship that tells me what I need to know without that particular item.

 

This is where I bow out of this topic. I have to get some good ole fashioned homeschooling done:-) If anyone wants clarity from me on anything, feel free to pm me.

 

 

I'm going to try to clarify what I think is the disconnect, and I'm going to use a somewhat lame example, but I think it will sufficiently illustrate (so please don't jump all over me.  I'm just trying to help here).

 

What she is saying is that the evidence supports that there were followers and believers but it does not prove the existence of Jesus himself.  I liken it to saying that there are tons of children who believe in the tooth fairy (I know, I know; bear with me here).  There are stories about the tooth fairy.  Heck, there's even movies about the tooth fairy.  But that doesn't make the tooth fairy real.  Legions of "believers" will tell you she/he is real, and they'll have wonderful stories about how their best friend once got $20 for a single tooth, and they'll have their own questions such as why did they themselves not ever get $20, but none of that proves the existence of the tooth fairy.  But there, that $20 bill IS the evidence of the tooth fairy.  All those kids believing IS the evidence.  Or not.

 

And now I'm going to go hide in my cave and watch from a safe distance.  Please don't beat me up over my childish analogy.  I just thought it might help to clarify.

[Audrey]

Because science and history are not the same thing?

 

There's a lot more room for "gray area" in history, no matter what the established conventions are.

 

Albeto's argument of Jesus followers vs. Osiris followers is a solid one. We have historical evidence of both. What we don't have is historical evidence of the existence of the "actual Gods" these followers are worshiping.

 

So you can accept "convention", I want evidence. Just like science gives me.

 

I'm open to there having been an actual person named Jesus who was a pretty awesome guy.

 

 

This.

 

In history, yes... you are trying to validate primary sources, but the veracity of those sources is always open to debate.  We can even combine primary source documents with archaeological evidence, but then, too, there is much debate and interpretation within archaeology to be had.  History is not a science and cannot be held to the same values as science.  Archaeology, even though incorporating many scientific practices, is still not strictly/only adherent to science and cannot be held thusly. 

 

The argument isn't exactly apples and oranges -- more like apples and pears -- but the distinction is still critically important. 

 

FWIW, I have no dog in the "was Jesus a real person or not" fight.  It matters not to me whether there was or was not.  I still don't believe there is or ever was any such thing as a god, ergo - certainly not a son of a god.

[Audrey]

The misunderstanding of what the scientific method is and does bothers me quite a lot.

 

If we are going to be educators of the next generation, it requires us to produce students who understand science. And that means more than how to write up a lab paper.

 

 

Oh! Would that it could be that simple, eh?

[Wheres Toto]

This is one way in which anti-science sentiments spread, and one example why I do care what people believe. It matters because it affects others in a negative way. Children shouldn't miss out on education because some participants feel strongly about their personal religious beliefs. 

 

I agree.  I did end up doing the fossil activity with my kids and one of the other non-YEC families.  We had a great time with it too.  :D

 

I've been considering starting another 4-H group, which won't be a homeschool group so it may not matter as much but I plan to announce at the first meeting that we will be following generally accepted scientific ideas.

[Bluegoat]

Because science and history are not the same thing?

 

There's a lot more room for "gray area" in history, no matter what the established conventions are.

 

Albeto's argument of Jesus followers vs. Osiris followers is a solid one. We have historical evidence of both. What we don't have is historical evidence of the existence of the "actual Gods" these followers are worshiping.

 

So you can accept "convention", I want evidence. Just like science gives me.

 

I'm open to there having been an actual person named Jesus who was a pretty awesome guy.

 

 

Whether or not Jesus is God is a much more complicated question than whether he was a real historical person, and as far as I can see it wasn't being addressed here.

 

The question has been whether Jesus was a historical person.  And yes, the fact that all of a sudden a bunch of people appeared who were his followers, in some cases having known him or even been related to him, is considered historical evidence.  No one has made any similar claims about Osiris, and the character of stories about him are quite different.

 

If you want evidence, you need to learn the rules of historical evidence, which are different than those for scientific phenomena.  Even if you want to dispute them, you need to understand them first.  And then you need to treat the rest of history the same way, which is not what one sees from most people who try and argue that Jesus did not exist.

 

The study of history is in some ways more fractious than scientific study - though actually I think many people who are non-scientists think it is a much more objective and exact thing than it is - the philosophy of science is an area which is significantly misunderstood - but you know, with this question you actually have a somewhat unusual case of agreement of experts who differ widely on other questions, who have different religious beliefs, and different backgrounds.  And its considered a sure enough thing that if you take a different position, you would be very unlikely to even get a posting in a related university position.

 

Normally, rationalists will say that in areas where one is not expert, it would be irrational to decide to disagree with that kind of consensus without considerable deep examiniation of the questions.  Which would not include looking at websites by people with questionable credintials and obvious agendas. 

[Bluegoat]

The misunderstanding of what the scientific method is and does bothers me quite a lot.

 

If we are going to be educators of the next generation, it requires us to produce students who understand science. And that means more than how to write up a lab paper.

 

This seems to happen all over the place though, not just in one group.  many people who would tell you they "believe in science" have some rather odd ideas about it.

 

My husband, whose a chemist who also studied a little philosophy in university, thinks it is even pretty common among science students at the university level.

 

I think it must be a problem with the way it is taught - a lot of people seem to learn the scientific method in middle school, and they never really go back to the beginning of it again.  But most middle school students are going to be limited in what they are able to understand about the more fundamental questions.

[Aelwydd]

Whether or not Jesus is God is a much more complicated question than whether he was a real historical person, and as far as I can see it wasn't being addressed here.

 

The question has been whether Jesus was a historical person.  And yes, the fact that all of a sudden a bunch of people appeared who were his followers, in some cases having known him or even been related to him, is considered historical evidence.  No one has made any similar claims about Osiris, and the character of stories about him are quite different.

 

If you want evidence, you need to learn the rules of historical evidence, which are different than those for scientific phenomena.  Even if you want to dispute them, you need to understand them first.  And then you need to treat the rest of history the same way, which is not what one sees from most people who try and argue that Jesus did not exist.

 

The study of history is in some ways more fractious than scientific study - though actually I think many people who are non-scientists think it is a much more objective and exact thing than it is - the philosophy of science is an area which is significantly misunderstood - but you know, with this question you actually have a somewhat unusual case of agreement of experts who differ widely on other questions, who have different religious beliefs, and different backgrounds.  And its considered a sure enough thing that if you take a different position, you would be very unlikely to even get a posting in a related university position.

 

Normally, rationalists will say that in areas where one is not expert, it would be irrational to decide to disagree with that kind of consensus without considerable deep examiniation of the questions.  Which would not include looking at websites by people with questionable credintials and obvious agendas. 

 

 

The question I revolve around regarding Jesus, isn't whether he existed or not, but whether or not his mission was valid (i.e., sent to save the world through sacrifice). 

 

This is why evolution and the age of the world and all that is key for me.  I eventually rejected Christianity (although I am still open to the possibility of the existence of a deity), for multiple reasons.  Not the least of which are the unsatisfactory answers regarding whether Adam and Eve were actual historical persons.  To me, this is the salient point.

 

 Everything I have read in the Bible points back to Adam's sin, and Jesus as the Last Adam, as the reason for evil and solution to it encased in Christianity. I have also devoted a lot of time and reading to the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of this, and from what I can tell, theologians and scientists are attempting to reconcile two very opposed concepts. The idea that human kind descended from two individual humans rather than multiple populations of early hominids is in direct contradiction to scientific evidence. The Council of Trent elevated to dogma the teaching of Original Sin by propagation, and this dogma has only been further ensconced in RCC theology by Pople Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis:

 

 

 36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

 

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

 

 

 

 

 

But at least the RCC is wrestling with the apparent conflict between the body of evidence which shows that early hominid populations never suffered from a bottleneck of fewer than perhaps 10,000 individuals, and the Doctrine of Original Sin which states all humans descended from a population of merely two: Adam and Eve.

 

Other faith traditions range from avoiding the discussion to trying to come up with a theological solution to this problem. I have not been able to find any consistent treatment of this issue by the EO or by Protestants.  Liberal protestant churches such as certain Lutheran Synods, Presbyterian churches, Anglican/ Episcopalian, and Methodist churches seem more inclined to accept Adam and Eve as mythology, which then leads to a more metaphorical understanding of Jesus' mission on earth.  More conservative sects seem to go with an Old Earth/ divinely directed evolution, but no answer to how Adam and Eve play into this, as again, the consensus is that homo sapiens descended from multiple early hominid populations, and not a single pair of fully evolved human beings.

 

Anyway, not to send the thread on yet another spin, but I feel that this question of the evolutionary beginnings of human beings is absolutely germane to whether Jesus' existence even matters.

 

As far as how the evidence against a single pair of humans acting as parents for all humankind is treated by religions such as Judaism and Islam -- I am hoping to research those as well, although they each have multiple schools of thought, like Christianity.

 

 

 

ETA: I would like to add that the EO do not teach Original Sin, as such, and so I'm not sure how Adam's sin ties into Orthodox baptism.  Or, whether they believe the lack of grace inherent in the human condition (as a result of Adam's rift with God), is transmitted through propagation, as Western Christianity teaches regarding Original Sin.