by inkling 74 Replies latest watchtower bible
But Snowbird, just from a purely scientific viewpoint - wouldn't it be nice to know?
It wouldn't necessarily have to kill your religion & faith - just like when the astronomers found out that the sun (and everything else) did not revolve around the earth.
snowbird:
The problem is that those peer-reviewed finding are oftentimes thrown out as new information comes along.
That's not at all the problem. One of the great strengths of science is that it uses all the information available to construct an increasingly accurate view of the universe. Our understanding of human history is well supported by evidence, and in broad principle is no more likely to be "thrown out" than are our beliefs about the orbit of the moon.
No one knows how long Man has been around - and for good reason.
Not to the exact day, but we do know approximately - and with very good reason (i.e. it is supported by a lot of evidence).
Whether Man has been on Earth for 6 thousand or 6 million years matters not a whit to my belief in the Bible.
You should reflect on why that is. Why do you believe something even though it contains statements purporting to be factual that are demonstrably untrue? You could certainly continue to believe parts of the bible but if you are at all intellectually honest, when faced with the evidence, you must reject the bible's claims that humans have only been around for 6,000 years.
I do suspect, however, that the quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates is to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us.
There's no such quest. Humans have been around far far longer than the bible says, and it is those who cling to the contrary belief who have an agenda, one which they are usually quite open about.
How long? is the cry that resounds throughout the ages. What better way to make it seem as if God doesn't care than to cast doubt on the length of our sojourn here?
The bible has no relevance to science whatsoever. The purpose of science is to find out the truth about the nature of the universe and various aspects thereof. Whether the realities that are discovered correspond to what a tribe of nomads might have thought is utterly irrelevant.
But Snowbird, just from a purely scientific viewpoint - wouldn't it be nice to know?
Yes, it would!
Inquiring minds would like to.
Sylvia
I do suspect, however, that the quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates is to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us.
Isn't it possible, probable even, that the vast majority of anthroplogists and archaeologists are not on a "quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates" or attempting "to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us" but are simply recording their findings?
Do you really believe that they're all in on some Satanic conspiracy to discredit the Bible and destroy faith, snowbird?
Well, here is something to think over - the bible does not say the creative days were 7000 years, like the JWs do.
It literally says days.
The JWs (and practically every other major religion) have already compromised the literal interpretation of the length of the "day" anyway.
So what would be wrong with doing an "interpretation" that is halfway in agreement with established science, anyway? After all, 7000 years is just about as silly as saying a 24 hour day anyway - and the connection to anything biblical is quite tenuous.
Do you really believe that they're all in on some Satanic conspiracy to discredit the Bible and destroy faith, snowbird?
I strongly suspect the majority -wittingly or unwittingly - are.
I believe the Bible's account that a malicious and devious hater of any and everything good and right is out to do as much harm as possible.
Sylvia
Do you really believe that they're all in on some Satanic conspiracy to discredit the Bible and destroy faith, snowbird?
I strongly suspect the majority -wittingly or unwittingly - are.
So, in every case where scientific findings contradict the Bible, science is always wrong?
Say, are you on the WT writing committee? That point was made in the WT just 2 weeks ago!
snowbird:
I strongly suspect the majority -wittingly or unwittingly - are.
I believe the Bible's account that a malicious and devious hater of any and everything good and right is out to do as much harm as possible.
Then you should politely remove yourself from the discussion. By choosing to believe what you want regardless of the evidence you have declared yourself unqualified to participate in any worthwhile discussion about matters of fact. I respect your right to declare that you believe the bible no matter what but once you have done so you should leave, as you can have nothing more to add.
So, in every case where scientific findings contradict the Bible, science is always wrong?
Not at all. My premise is that men (generically speaking) write science articles that supposedly contradict the Bible and they're hailed as giants.
Men also wrote the Bible, yet they're dismissed as unscientific rubes.
Which has the greater agenda?
Sylvia
Then you should politely remove yourself from the discussion. By choosing to believe what you want regardless of the evidence you have declared yourself unqualified to participate in any worthwhile discussion about matters of fact
When I deem the "evidence" as incontrovertible, then I will politely remove myself without further ado.
Sylvia
