Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Steve, are you talking about the entire Bible or earliest copies of
    books?  The Septuagint (Greek OT) is dated about ~300 B.C.  I'm sure
    the Torah is even older.  There is a copy of the gospel of John found
    in Egypt that dates around ~90 A.D.  
    
    thanks,
    Mike

There is an almost complete copy of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls
that dates from the first century.

There are more extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible than of any other
book.

/john

Re .1

>    Steve, are you talking about the entire Bible or earliest copies of
>    books?  The Septuagint (Greek OT) is dated about ~300 B.C.  I'm sure
>    the Torah is even older.  There is a copy of the gospel of John found
>    in Egypt that dates around ~90 A.D.  
>    

I think that segment has been dated to around the year 120, based upon writing
style.  I'll check, however.

>    thanks,
>    Mike

/Mike

    The historic completion of the Old Testament is 450 B.C.  The Septuagint, 
    which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, was initiated in 
    the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphius (285-246 B.C.).  To initiate the Greek 
    translation in 250 B.C., the Hebrew text had to have been already written.  
    
    The oldest existing fragment of the New Testament is in the John Rylands 
    Library of Manchester, England.  Rylands comments, "Because of its early 
    date and location (Egypt), some distance from the traditional place of 
    composition (Asia Minor), this portion of the Gospel of John tends to 
    confirm the traditional date of the composition of the Gospel about the 
    end of the 1st century."
    
    The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the four Gospels were written prior to 
    the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to the Roman Empire.  They were all 
    confirmed to be written between 50-70 A.D.  Another example of an external 
    source confirming the Bible is found in the work Eusebius, in his 
    "Ecclesiastical History III. 39." It preserves the writings of Papias, the 
    bishop of Heirapolis (130 A.D.) which Papias got from John the
    disciple.
    
    These are the approximate number of NT manuscripts that are out there:
    
     5,309 Greek manuscripts (Uncials - 267, Minuscules - 2,764, Lectionaries 
           - 2,143, Papyri - 88, recent finds - 47).  
    10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts
     2,000 Ethiopic mss
     4,101 Slavic
     2,587 Armenian
       350 Syriac Pashetta
       246 misc.
    
    A grand total of 24,633 New Testament manuscripts that all confirm 
    it's contents with over 99% accuracy.  All recovered fragments are in
    agreement.  The fraction of a % taken off is due for spelling errors.
    
    The earliest versions of the Syriac and Latin versions of the New 
    Testament were dated around 150 A.D., which is close to the time of the 
    originals.  
    
    The Torah, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Targum, in addition to 
    those manuscripts above (most mss. had NT & OT fragments), prove the
    integrity and accuracy of the OT.
    
    Other notable manuscripts in existence:
    
    - Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.) located in the Bodmer Library of World 
      Literature and containing most of John
    - Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), located in the Vatican Library, and 
      containing nearly all the Bible
    - Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) located in the British Museum and containing 
      almost all of the New Testament and over half of the Old Testament.  
      Codex Sinaiticus  was discovered by Dr. Constantin Von Tischendorf in the 
      Mount Sinai Monastery in 1859.  
    - Codex Alexandrinus (400 A.D.) is located in the British Museum and is 
      written in Greek, contains almost the entire Bible
    - Codex Bezae (450 A.D.) is located in the Cambridge Library and contains 
      the Gospels and Acts not only in Greek but also in Latin  
    
    Mike

    The book of Mark is believed be be written around 70 C.E.  Either
    shortly before or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem.
    
    The book of Matthew is believed to be written between 75 and 105 C.E. 
    most likely around 85.  The book of Matthew refers to Bishop Ignasius
    who which is after the Fall and the book of Matthew contains
    allegorical parables which refer to the fall of Jerusalem.
    
    I haven't gotten to Luke of John yet but I know that both are
    considered to have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.  Luke at
    approximately the same time as Matthew and John later than that.
    
    The dead sea scrolls absolutely do not proof that the Gospels were
    written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem.
    
    Again, the need to date the Gospels closer to the time of Jesus is a
    Fundementalist need to reenforce the false claim that the Bible is the
    ineerant word of   God, and what the authors put into Jesus mouth in
    the Gospels are actually words that Jesus spoke.
    
                                         Patricia              
    
    

Re -.2 "Mike Heiser"

> The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the four Gospels were written prior to 
> the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to the Roman Empire.  They were all 
> confirmed to be written between 50-70 A.D.  Another example of an external 
> source confirming the Bible is found in the work Eusebius, in his 
> Ecclesiastical History III. 39." It preserves the writings of Papias, the 
> bishop of Heirapolis (130 A.D.) which Papias got from John the
> disciple.

How do the Scrolls prove the dating of the four gospels?  There is not a 
single New Testament document in them, nor is there any reference to N.T.
documents or their contents.  Moreover, the content of the Scrolls indicates
that the Old Testament, in its present form, was not at all finalized by
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

/Mike

Thanks for the information. Some questions/comments:

What is C.E?

>     The Torah, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Targum, in addition to 
>    those manuscripts above (most mss. had NT & OT fragments), prove the
>    integrity and accuracy of the OT.

This may bolster or prove the claims for integrity, it says nothing about
accuracy.

So for the NT the oldest physical remains (not record of remains but physical
remains) date from about the year 70?

Steve

RE:<<< Note 1002.7 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>


>What is C.E?


 Its PC for AD



JH

 Its PC for AD

Thanks. What does it mean, specifically?

Steve

    CE means Common Era.  It is AD without a specifically religious
    connotation.
    
    You know, the history of the OT and history of the NT take up a whole
    semester each at UCCS.  Our condensations are probably not doing the
    topic justice.
    
    We have no original manuscripts.  The oldest part of the New Testament
    is believed to have been written around AD (CE) 60, in other words,
    about 30 years after Jesus' death.  It is not one of the gospels.  It's
    one of the letters of Paul.
    
    Of course, something which hasn't been touched upon is the "oral
    tradition."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    >>Notes>
    >>Note 1002.11 is set hidden
    
    >>Note 1002.11                                                          
    >>11 of 11
                                                          4 lines 
    >>28-OCT-1994 15:37
    
    Welcome back Greg!
    

    STeve,
    
    The oldest physical remains are much later.  I will check for you over
    the weekend from my materials.  Scholars use a variety of methods to
    date the actual writing, a lot of the evidence from the concepts,
    ideas, historical references, style, words used in the texts themself.
    
                                         Patricia
    
                                         

 So then, are we to speculate that the Almighty God, creator of the
 universe, left us here with nary a trace as to His nature, His love
 for mankind, etc?

 Are we supposed to just make it up as we go along and hope we get it
 right?  Go by what *we* feel is right?  Or do you think that the Almighty
 God could have sufficiently protected His Word throughout the ages that
 we might know Him?



Jim

>    The book of Mark is believed be be written around 70 C.E.  Either
>    The book of Matthew is believed to be written between 75 and 105 C.E. 
    
    Are you quoting Unitarian "scholars" again?
    
>    most likely around 85.  The book of Matthew refers to Bishop Ignasius
    
    One thing to be cautious of here is different people with the same
    names.  Look how many different Herods there are in the NT.
    
    Mike

    Maybe, we can know what God wants because he is the living God and is
    still available to us?
    
    Maybe we can know what God wants because God gave us the Holy Spirit
    which surrounds us and lives within us.
    
    maybe we can know what God wants because "we have the mind of
    Christ(From 1 Cor 2)
    
    Or maybe with all these direct ways of knowing what God wants from us,
    we can really on what is cast in stone by some political/theological council
    1500 hundred years ago, interpreting all the evidence after 400 hundred
    years.
    
    

    No I am quoting evangelical scholars on this one.  The non fundemental
    types though.

>How do the Scrolls prove the dating of the four gospels?  There is not a 
>single New Testament document in them, nor is there any reference to N.T.
>documents or their contents.  Moreover, the content of the Scrolls indicates
    
    I'll have to re-check my sources.
    
>that the Old Testament, in its present form, was not at all finalized by
>the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
    
    Oh it most certainly was.  Like I said before, the Septuagint was
    translated in 250 B.C. so the Hebrew OT had to be done before that.
    
    Mike

RE:        <<< Note 1002.16 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > Maybe we can know what God wants because God gave us the Holy Spirit
   > which surrounds us and lives within us.
    
    How do you know that?

>    maybe we can know what God wants because "we have the mind of
>    Christ(From 1 Cor 2)
 

     Gee, but that's in the Bible, and we all know the manuscripts are not
     accurate, so how do we know that to be true?


  
  Jim    

    .14  Jim,
    
    	Where do you get such a funny notion?  Do you honestly believe
    God cannot be found without a book?  I doubt you do, yet you seem
    so unreceptive to anything else!
    
    Richard
    

    .15  Scholars, yes.  Not necessarily Unitarian.
    
    Richard
    

>    is believed to have been written around AD (CE) 60, in other words,
>    about 30 years after Jesus' death.  It is not one of the gospels.  It's
>    one of the letters of Paul.
    
    Paul wrote his epistles after the gospels were written.  Some of the 
    dates I've previously seen for NT books are below.  I'll have to
    double-check them though.
    
    John 85 A.D.
    Acts 63 A.D.
    Romans 56-57 A.D.
    1 Corinthians 52-56 A.D.
    2 Corinthians 55 A.D.
    Galatians 53-57 A.D.
    Ephesians 60-62 A.D.
    Philippians 61-62 A.D.
    Colossians 62 A.D.
    1 Thessalonians 51 A.D.
    2 Thessalonians 51-52 A.D. (6 months after the first)
    1 Timothy 62 A.D.
    2 Timothy 64 A.D.
    Philemon 61-62 A.D.
    Hebrews before 70 A.D. because the Temple was still standing
    James 50 A.D.
    1 Peter 63-64 A.D.
    2 Peter 63-64 A.D.  Nero died in 68 A.D. and executed Peter beforehand
    1 John 85-90 A.D.
    2 John 90 A.D.
    3 John 90 A.D.
    Revelation 95 A.D.

 >>   Maybe we can know what God wants because God gave us the Holy
 >>   Spirit which surrounds us and lives within us.
    
    Requirements:
    
    Hear - Believe - Receive
    We must be regenerated before the Holy Spirit can dwell within us.
    
    -Jack

Note 1002.22

>    Paul wrote his epistles after the gospels were written.

Uh, I may be off, but I'm not *that* far off.
    
Richard

PS  Your assertion contradicts your chronology (unless John ain't a gospel):

>    John 85 A.D.

>    Romans 56-57 A.D.
>    1 Corinthians 52-56 A.D.
>    2 Corinthians 55 A.D.
>    Galatians 53-57 A.D.
>    Ephesians 60-62 A.D.
>    Philippians 61-62 A.D.
>    1 Thessalonians 51 A.D.
>    Philemon 61-62 A.D.

Re.        <<< Note 1002.18 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>

>>How do the Scrolls prove the dating of the four gospels?  There is not a 
>>single New Testament document in them, nor is there any reference to N.T.
>>documents or their contents.  Moreover, the content of the Scrolls indicates
>    
>    I'll have to re-check my sources.
>    
>>that the Old Testament, in its present form, was not at all finalized by
>>the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
>    
>    Oh it most certainly was.  Like I said before, the Septuagint was
>    translated in 250 B.C. so the Hebrew OT had to be done before that.

Not necessarily.  The Torah and maybe the Prophets were recognized as canonical
by the time of the Septuagint, but the historical/poetical books were not.
There is considerable evidence that opinion amongst the Jews had not solidified
until the 2nd century C.E. (A.D. for you religious PC'ers :-8).  Even the
Septuagint reflects this, in that it contains numerous books that are today
considered non-canonical, by both Christians and Jews.

Also, it is more likely that the Dead Sea Scrolls actually came from Jerusalem,
and not from Qumran, as is popularly believed.  If this is the case, then the
fact that so much divergent material was hidden indicates that there were
many more sacred texts in existence then, and that there was no single opinion
regarding the content of the canon.  Indeed, there would seem to have
been no need to even have a single corpus of holy texts, as the center of
the Jewish faith was then the Temple and its ceremonies, and not the study of
the Law that developed after the Temple was destroyed.

>    
>    Mike

/Mike

re Note 1002.14 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  So then, are we to speculate that the Almighty God, creator of the
>  universe, left us here with nary a trace as to His nature, His love
>  for mankind, etc?
  
        Hardly!

        The universe is God's handiwork!

        Every blade of grass and bird in the air is God's handiwork!

        The earth is the word of God made rock, the word of God made
        water, the word of God made flesh, the word of God made light
        ("Let there be light").

        The Bible even says we are made in the image of God (which
        would be true even if every last Bible disappeared -- or had
        never been written!).

        There is more first-hand evidence of God's work and God's
        nature than there could be evidence for anything else  -- the
        volume of evidence of God's work and God's nature swamps all
        others.

        I must admit that I feel pity for the person who says "how
        could you know anything about God without the Bible?" 
        Actually, when I hear someone say that, I seriously question
        how well they know God at all.

        Bob

 No need to feel pity....I believe you (and Richard) misunderstood what I was
 saying...I agree with most of what you said (regarding God's creation..I'm in
 complete awe of Him just by observing my cat!  Nonetheless, without His written
 Word, we know nothing about Him, other than what we see around us.  We have
 no way of knowing about Him (other than He makes nice stuff)..without His
 written Word we are left to guessing and speculation.  And I can't believe
 that He left us here, in this maginificent world, to guess and speculate..I
 believe that the power that created what we see, also is able to preserve for
 us His written Word to us..




Jim

	re: .2 john

	There were several copies of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea
	Scrolls, most of them -- I seem to remember -- in cave 4, but
	not all.  There are some differences between them but not of
	major significance.

	None contain the later chapters. (Which are, by most scholars
	not regarded to be of Isaiah authorship anyway).

	re: .4 Mike Heiser.

	>The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the four Gospels were written
	>prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

	The DSS do not contain one scrap of any NT scriptures. Had they
	done so, it would have led to an up-dating of the scrolls rather
	than a down-dating of the Gospels, since the dating of the latter
	is, in scholarship circles, much more certain.

	Some confusion on this point (DSS and Gospel texts) could arise
	because of the reverse of your statement. The Gospels contain
	some materials which are also contained in the (earlier) scrolls.
	The Sermon on the Mount, for example. Also, the last supper as
	described in the Gospels, is a Community Rule look-alike. These,
	and many other, similarities lead to the obvious conclusion that
	the authors or the editors of the Gospels had some knowledge
	(first- or second-hand) of the Qumran community rituals and teachings.

	re: .22 Mike Heiser.

	> Paul wrote his epistles after the Gospels were written.

	Whilst it is true that some of the Epistles attributed to Paul
	were written after the Gopels (were written down), this is not
	true of the proven Pauline Epistles.

	You may be inadvertantly juggling facts here. It is certain that,
	from the crucifixion onwards, stories of the works and teachings
	of Jesus were in circulation and it is fairly certain that at least
	some of these were written down, more or less for private use, at
	an early date: although, for the most part, transmission by word of
	mouth was still predominant. However, the Gospelers did not gather
	these stories together and write them down until much later. With
	the possible exception of John, there is no evidence of "first-hand"
	experience and, in the case of John, if he had any first hand
	experience, he was an unususally old man when he finally wrote it
	down.

	re: .25 Mike Richard.

	> Also, it is more likely that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from
	> Jerusalem not from Qumran, as is popularly believed.

	I would sincerely like to know your sources for this. Apart from 
	a single reference to the "possibility which cannot be ignored" in
	one of the many "pop-scientific" works on the scrolls (by Baignet,
	I believe, but might have been Eisenmann), I have not encountered
	this assertion.

	Greetings, Derek.                                         

re Note 1002.27 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  Nonetheless, without His written
>  Word, we know nothing about Him, other than what we see around us.  We have
>  no way of knowing about Him (other than He makes nice stuff)..without His
>  written Word we are left to guessing and speculation.  

        I'm still incredulous!  That would be like me telling my wife
        that I don't know her because she has never written a book!

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Then you also know that sin has separated us from God.  How could we
    have a glimpse of the nature of God without the Word of God?  Without
    it, we would not know of His Holy nature and our sinful nature.
    
    -Jack

RE:<<< Note 1002.29 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16)" >>>
   

>          -< you must have strange relationships with people! >-



 Is it necessary to make such assertions when responding to a note?




re Note 1002.27 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>>  Nonetheless, without His written
>>  Word, we know nothing about Him, other than what we see around us.  We have
>>  no way of knowing about Him (other than He makes nice stuff)..without His
>>  written Word we are left to guessing and speculation.  

  >      I'm still incredulous!  That would be like me telling my wife
  >      that I don't know her because she has never written a book!

   

       How do you know your wife?


 Jim

| <<< Note 1002.23 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney Is My Best Friend!" >>>

| Requirements:

| Hear - Believe - Receive
| We must be regenerated before the Holy Spirit can dwell within us.


	Jack, I like the requirements you listed. I also think there is much
truth to them. But could you go into it a little deeper? I ask only because the
way they are listed above could leave it open to a wide interpretation. Thanks.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    I based this on Ephesians 1:13.
    
    "In whom also after you heard the truth, the gospel of our Lord Jesus
    Christ and after you believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
    promise."
    
    The Holy Spirit can only dwell within a rgenerated individual.  This is
    how the Father sees righteousness in us.
    
    -Jack

re .29

	Bob,

	I would say that written word is a very powerful way of communication.
	Notes conferences are a good example. The Bible is available 
	throughout the earth in many different languages.

	God resides in heaven and we on the earth, I see nothing wrong
	in Jehovah communicating to us through the Bible if he so chooses, 
        just as pen pals who can live vast distances apart communicate through 
	letter writing.

	The question is, is the Bible God's word or man's?.

	Phil. 

| <<< Note 1002.33 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| "In whom also after you heard the truth, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ 
| and after you believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise."

	Ok, that's cool. Now I understand where you are coming from completely.

| The Holy Spirit can only dwell within a regenerated individual. This is how 
| the Father sees righteousness in us.

	I agree with this 100% Jack. It really is a Jesus/believer thing, and
not a Christian/believer thing, right? 


Glen

    My apologies.  I was wrong in stating that all the gospels were written
    before Paul's epistles.
    
    Mike

    .36
    
    Thanks, Mike.  I appreciate your integrity.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    | The Holy Spirit can only dwell within a regenerated individual. This
    |is how the Father sees righteousness in us.
    
    >>I agree with this 100% Jack. It really is a Jesus/believer
    >>thing, and not a Christian/believer thing, right?
    
    Remember, Christian is a label only.  A christian is defined as one who
    has accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.  So in a sense Glen, it
    is both.  It is a Jesus/believer thing but at the same time, those who
    accept Jesus default to the "Christian" label.  
    
    It matters not which denomination they belong to.  It only matters who
    they are relying on for eternal life!   
    
    -Jack

re Note 1002.34 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

> 	God resides in heaven and we on the earth, I see nothing wrong
> 	in Jehovah communicating to us through the Bible if he so chooses, 
>       just as pen pals who can live vast distances apart communicate through 
> 	letter writing.

        And neither do I!

        I never claimed God couldn't or didn't communicate via the
        Bible.

        I merely challenged the preposterous suggestion by others
        that "without the Bible one would know nothing about God".

        Such a ridiculous claim would seem to be offered as if to 
        bolster an otherwise weaker case to accept a traditional
        interpretation of the nature of the Bible.  I was merely
        criticizing the claim, not the Bible.

        (One can object to a statement made in the defense of the
        Bible without attacking the Bible.)

        Bob

    I don't buy your definition of a Christian, Jack.
    
    A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Re: Mike Richard in .25
    
>Not necessarily.  The Torah and maybe the Prophets were recognized as canonical
>by the time of the Septuagint, but the historical/poetical books were not.
>There is considerable evidence that opinion amongst the Jews had not solidified
>until the 2nd century C.E. (A.D. for you religious PC'ers :-8).  Even the
>Septuagint reflects this, in that it contains numerous books that are today
>considered non-canonical, by both Christians and Jews.
    
    If the historical/poetical books are the only thing missing from the
    Septuagint, I wouldn't consider that such a big deal.  God hadn't
    raised up any prophet to speak to Israel through for a period of 400
    years prior to the ministry of John the Baptist.  There obviously
    wasn't much else to write about than to keep historical records.  The
    Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran Scrolls were all written during
    this era.  

>Also, it is more likely that the Dead Sea Scrolls actually came from Jerusalem,
>and not from Qumran, as is popularly believed.  If this is the case, then the
>fact that so much divergent material was hidden indicates that there were
>many more sacred texts in existence then, and that there was no single opinion
>regarding the content of the canon.  Indeed, there would seem to have
>been no need to even have a single corpus of holy texts, as the center of
>the Jewish faith was then the Temple and its ceremonies, and not the study of
>the Law that developed after the Temple was destroyed.

    I don't know where you get your information, but I've never heard the
    Qumran scrolls associated with anywhere else.  They were written by a
    Jewish religious sect called the Essenes.  This community of Essenes
    near the Dead Sea practiced celibacy and a strictly disciplined
    communal lifestyle, separating themselves from others.  The DSS
    describe the lives and beliefs of this group which lived in the last 2
    centuries before Christ.  They also include the oldest known
    manuscripts of the OT.  It contains fragments from every OT book but
    Esther.  
    
    Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the Elder also mention the Essenes in their 
    works because of their split from orthodox Judaism.  They preached the 
    same baptism of repentance as did John the Baptist.  
    
    Mike

    BTW - It's interesting to note from DSS written around 4 B.C. that the 
    Essenes were also expecting the Messiah to shortly appear.
    
    Re: Derek in .28 
    
>	There were several copies of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea
>	Scrolls, most of them -- I seem to remember -- in cave 4, but
>	not all.  There are some differences between them but not of
>	major significance.
>
>	None contain the later chapters. (Which are, by most scholars
>	not regarded to be of Isaiah authorship anyway).
    
    Chapters 1-37 of Isaiah were said to be in poor condition, but chapters
    38-66 were there and in good condition.  It's also interesting that
    these chapters contain most of Isaiah's Messianic prophecies!
    
    Mike

    >    A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
    
    I've always thought it was more interesting to read how Jesus Christ
    Himself referred to us.

   >>     I don't buy your definition of a Christian, Jack.
    
   >>     A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.
    
    Richard,
    
    To be a follower of Jesus Christ would also preclude accepting his
    teachings and most importantly, his claims about himself....being the
    only way and all that.
    
    Cordially,
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1002.38 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Remember, Christian is a label only.  A christian is defined as one who
| has accepted Jesus Christ as personal savior.  So in a sense Glen, it
| is both.  It is a Jesus/believer thing but at the same time, those who
| accept Jesus default to the "Christian" label.

	You know, when I wrote it I thought I should clarify it, but I did not.
Now I will. What you just said Jack is also a very true statement, but
unfortunately for you, I didn't explain what I meant properly. :-)  By a
Christian/believer thing, I meant one who believes in Jesus is the believer,
but there could be Christians telling this person they don't really believe
because of <insert reason(s)>. So that's what I meant when I said it was a
Jesus/believer thing, and not a Christian/believer thing. Does this clear it up
or did I just throw another money into the works....



Glen

    Oh....okay, now I get it.  You mean like...
    
    "You may believe in Jesus but you're not going to heaven because you
    don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word...or you're not really
    saved because your orientation is different than mine, etc?"
    
    Glen, I shun such teaching.  I makes a mockery of what Christ did on
    the cross.  Furthermore, it bases salvation on works.
    
    I believe there is a perception in this conference that because I am a
    fundamentalist, I feel I have the corner market on virtue and what God 
    says.  I have said it until I am blue in the face.  Let me try it this
    way.
    
    1. There are attenders of UU (fill in others) churches that are saved.
    2. There are attenders of Independent Baptist churches who are unsaved.
    3. I am a member of a independent fundamentalist Baptist church. I am 
       saved but the church to where I belong is mutually exclusive.
    4. Any form of righteousness eminating from me is borrowed.  I have a
       good view of myself but I acknowledge that I am wretched and a
       sinner saved by grace!
    
    The above points weren't directed at you Glen because I think you and
    I see eye to eye on this issue.  At the same time, I feel bad that you
    have the perception you do of the Bible.  
    
    Cordially,
    
    -Jack

RE: .14

 So then, are we to speculate that the Almighty God, creator of the
 universe, left us here with nary a trace as to His nature, His love
 for mankind, etc?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Jim, but you probably know that there
are a great many of us that feel this is exactly what happened, and you can
guess why we think this happened :^)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .26 Title:  how can you say that?!

        There is more first-hand evidence of God's work and God's
        nature than there could be evidence for anything else  -- the
        volume of evidence of God's work and God's nature swamps all
        others.

That's funny, I've yet to see any!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .34  Title:  Written word is a very effective form of communication for
persons who live vast distances apart

	The question is, is the Bible God's word or man's?.

It is obvious to me that it is man's. Given an omnipotent God, I have a lot of
trouble believing He couldn't write (or inspire) a much clearer, non-self
contradictory leaving no room for interpretation document than the Bible has
turned out to be!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the main subject, am I correct in my view (from these notes) that
various portions of the Bible turned up at different times, in different places,
in different condition and were pieced together later?

When were they all placed into a single book?

Steve

>        There is more first-hand evidence of God's work and God's
>        nature than there could be evidence for anything else  -- the
>        volume of evidence of God's work and God's nature swamps all
>        others.

>That's funny, I've yet to see any!


  Ever contemplated the complexity of the human eye?




Jim

re Note 1002.48 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

> >That's funny, I've yet to see any!
> 
> 
>   Ever contemplated the complexity of the human eye?
  
        One recent article offering some examples of God's
        *non*-existence used the human eye as they example:  although
        it is marvelously complex, it contains design flaws not found
        in the eyes of some other species.

        (You don't have to lecture me on the obvious flaws in this
        argument;  I was just offering the fact that some
        non-believers also cite the eye as an example.)

        Bob

| <<< Note 1002.46 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| Oh....okay, now I get it.  You mean like...
| "You may believe in Jesus but you're not going to heaven because you
| don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word...or you're not really
| saved because your orientation is different than mine, etc?"

	Well, that's part of it, but there is so much more to all of it than
just that. I was actually looking at it from the standpoint that person A has
their beliefs, person B has different beliefs. Person A says person B will not
get into Heaven because their beliefs are different. I guess I was looking at
it from an all inclusive view, and not really pin pointing any particular
examples. 

| Glen, I shun such teaching. It makes a mockery of what Christ did on the cross
| Furthermore, it bases salvation on works.

	Ok, that makes sense. 

| I believe there is a perception in this conference that because I am a
| fundamentalist, I feel I have the corner market on virtue and what God
| says.  

	I would never say or think THAT, Jack.... :-)

| The above points weren't directed at you Glen because I think you and
| I see eye to eye on this issue.  

	Yeah, you're right. I do think you're wretched! :-)  But seriously, we
do see eye to eye on those things.

| At the same time, I feel bad that you have the perception you do of the Bible.

	Why is that Jack? 


Glen

| Oh....okay, now I get it.  You mean like...
| "You may believe in Jesus but you're not going to heaven because you
| don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word...or you're not really
| saved because your orientation is different than mine, etc?"

>>	Well, that's part of it, but there is so much more to all of it than
>>just that. I was actually looking at it from the standpoint that person A has
>>their beliefs, person B has different beliefs. Person A says person B will not
>>get into Heaven because their beliefs are different. I guess I was looking at
>>it from an all inclusive view, and not really pin pointing any particular
>>examples. 

The ONLY time I would even think that is if somebody said something like, "I
believe Jesus was sent from God but I don't believe the cross was necessary
for our salvation.  I don't think the resurrection was necessary for 
salvation.  I believe Jesus was a great teacher and was sent to teach us to 
love one another"

Glen, the greatest act of hate toward God is to reject what Jesus did on the
cross.  It means that Jesus died in vain and his Word, his mission, his very
purpose is made a mockery of.  The gospel of grace is inclusionary to all those
who CHOOSE to follow Christ and receive Him as personal savior.

| At the same time, I feel bad that you have the perception you do of the Bible.

>>	Why is that Jack? 

I do not worship books but I do hold the scriptures in high reverence.  If you
look at the Mosaic law, the law itself was to be placed in the ark of the 
covenant.  God was extremely particular about the measurement of the ark and 
how it was to be transported.  In fact, a man lost his life for grabbing the 
top of the ark improperly.  The law was to be handled and looked upon with high
reverence.  

It's like the American flag Glen.  It isn't just a piece of artistic cloth.  It
stands for something and something that 100's of thousands gave their life for.
Same with the Bible Glen but even more.  It's own writers recognized that it
was inspired by God.  I find it interesting that many noters here speak on
all inclusiveness for many issues...but not when it comes to something as 
convicting as the Word of God.

-Jack

re: .48 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?"

  Ever contemplated the complexity of the human eye?

In detail. It is one of the things that shows me (as alluded to in the next
note) that:

1. God does not exist, or
2. God is fairly inept at design.

Just a few examples

1. The eye is built 'backwards', this is why we have a blind spot.
2. The eye has a much smaller range of focus and light sensitivity than it 
   could, why?
3. Where is the design in a person blind from birth.

All of this, BTW, is accounted for quite nicely by the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .48  Title:  many do consider the eye

        (You don't have to lecture me on the obvious flaws in this
        argument;  I was just offering the fact that some
        non-believers also cite the eye as an example.)

Oh please, lecture me! :^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .51 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

>It's like the American flag Glen.  It isn't just a piece of artistic cloth.  It
>stands for something and something that 100's of thousands gave their life for.

And that 100's of thousands gave their lives resisting...

Steve

 >>   And that 100's of thousands gave their lives resisting...
    
    Go to any American legion hall and proclaim this...then see if you come
    out unscathed!!!!!
    
    -Jack

Note 1002.47

>Back to the main subject, am I correct in my view (from these notes) that
>various portions of the Bible turned up at different times, in different
>places, in different condition and were pieced together later?

Well, kinda sorta; yes.  Except maybe the part about being pieced together
later.  Are you referring to the Dead Sea scrolls?

>When were they all placed into a single book?

A single bound volume?  I frankly don't know, Steve.

For a long time biblical texts were kept on scrolls.  Temple Shalom near the
Olympic Training Center (Colorado Springs) has a set.  Each scroll is quite
cumbersome.

Shalom,
Richard

re .39

	Bob,

	Thanks for clarifying I wasn't fully sure what point you
	were making.

;        I merely challenged the preposterous suggestion by others
;        that "without the Bible one would know nothing about God".

	What you say is true and the Bible confirms this:

	Romans 1:20,21 NWT reads "For his invisible [qualities] are
	cleary seen from the world's creation onward, because they
	are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and
	Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because although they
	knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank
	him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and
	their unintelligent heart became darkened."

	I think that the person that you challenged actually qualified
	their statement with this. That is God's qualities can be 
	perceived by looking at his creation (but I could be wrong). 
	If we can see the quality of love, then we would be drawn into 
	knowing more about him. Which we can do by reading and meditating 
	on God's word.

	About creation, Steve discounts it because of perceived design flaws.
	But whether these designs are perceived as flaws or not, a design
	requires a designer. The Bible simply reasons "Ofcourse, every 
	house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all
	things is God." Hebrews 3:4 NWT.

	Phil.

    ;        I merely challenged the preposterous suggestion by others
    ;        that "without the Bible one would know nothing about God".
    
    Phil:
    
    What I was saying is the Word of God is God's revelation of His Holy
    nature.  There is no doubt that we can learn vastly of the power and
    omniscience of God through nature.  However, the Bible is the only
    guide of understanding our position as humans before a Holy righteous
    God.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1002.51 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| The ONLY time I would even think that is if somebody said something like, "I
| believe Jesus was sent from God but I don't believe the cross was necessary
| for our salvation. I don't think the resurrection was necessary for salvation.
| I believe Jesus was a great teacher and was sent to teach us to love one 
| another"

	Jack, while I agree that this is your belief, aren't you being a little
hypocritical about it? This is what I just saw you say, and please correct me
if I am wrong. You would not ever say that someone else is not a Christian if
their beliefs were different than yours, EXCEPT if they say the cross was at 
all necessary. If this is the case, then can you see where you aren't any
different than the others? Other people could have just one reason, or several.
How are you different, or did I just misinterprete this?

| I do not worship books but I do hold the scriptures in high reverence. 

	Jack, I am glad that you don't worship books. I think too many people
hold books, well, the Bible anyway, at the same level as Him. Nothing can be at
the same level as Him.

| It's like the American flag Glen. It isn't just a piece of artistic cloth. It
| stands for something and something that 100's of thousands gave their life for
| Same with the Bible Glen but even more.  

	Jack, the American Flag is a symbol that reminds us what we fought for.
A symbol can't really be compared to a book that is supposed to be the inerrant
Word of God, can it? A mere symbol? I'm not sure how many would agree that it
is just a symbol. I would imagine that those who believe it to be the inerrant
Word of God would think of it as MUCH more. I could be wrong though. 

| It's own writers recognized that it was inspired by God.  

	Jack, David Koesh thought he was inspired by God. The authors claiming
that does not make it true. BUT, I am one who believes the book was inspired by
God. BUT, something inspired does not make it inerrant, and in this case does
not make it the Word of God. Inspired people can make mistakes. Why? Because
they are human, like the authors were.

| I find it interesting that many noters here speak on all inclusiveness for 
| many issues...but not when it comes to something as convicting as the Word of 
| God.

	I think you will find most people who do not believe it to be the Word
of God will say it's a great guide none the less. But they just don't hold it
at the same level you do, that's all.


Glen

	Jack & Bob,

	Sorry for interrupting your conversation and my bad manners.
	I'll let you carry on.

	Phil.

    Phil:
    
    Not to worry...you don't have bad manners.  
    
    Glen, reply coming!!!
    
    -Jack

    
Re:  DEMING::SILVA
    
>	Jack, while I agree that this is your belief, aren't you being a little
>hypocritical about it? This is what I just saw you say, and please correct me
>if I am wrong. You would not ever say that someone else is not a Christian if
>their beliefs were different than yours, EXCEPT if they say the cross was at 
>all necessary. If this is the case, then can you see where you aren't any
>different than the others? Other people could have just one reason, or several.
>How are you different, or did I just misinterprete this?

Glen, there is a distinct difference between Church/worship protocol/methods
and Christian doctrine.  There are teachings that many scholars will disagree
with one another.  Baptism by immersion vs. sprinkling, marriages outside the 
church, worshipping on Sunday vs. Saturday, Marrying a non believer, and many
other issues take a back seat to the paramount issue of obtaining eternal life.

All the petty arguments I brought forth above are the types of fodder that 
bring forth interesting discussion in C-P as well as other conferences.  I
may be right or I may be wrong but it doesn't matter because it's all going to 
burn in the end anyway.  However, what does make a whole lot of difference is
the object of the Christian faith, that being Jesus Christ.  
Belief in Jesus, NOT ONLY as a teacher and an example, but also to acknowledge 
Jesus as Savior and Lord of ones life is what is key to obtaining eternal life.
You cannot get to heaven by preaching, by witnessing, by attending church, by
reciting prayers, by feeding the poor, by visiting the homeless, by comforting
the sick.  This is the social gospel, it is indeed honorable but as a way of 
obtaining eternal life, it is a big lie, a cheap counterfeit, and an insult to
God. 

All righteousness is obtained by receiving the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is
obtained by redemption and atonement.  Redemption and Atonement are received
by mediatorship and justification.  The last two can only be obtained through
the saving blood of Jesus Christ.  It is not hypocritical or perjorative to
say that he who deny's the son deny's the Father.  This is the bottom line.
    
>>	Jack, I am glad that you don't worship books. I think too many people
>>hold books, well, the Bible anyway, at the same level as Him. Nothing can be at
>>the same level as Him.

Yes, but I find it interesting that you didn't address my dialog regarding the
sacredness God held for the Torah and how the nation of Israel were to rever
it!
                  
-Jack

re: .54 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "God's rascal"

I guess I am trying to figure out how something that is supposed to be the
inerrant word of an omnipotent being can engender so many different
interpretations. The first step in trying to reason this through is to find out
where and how it came about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .53 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"
(Barney is a newt! :^)

    Go to any American legion hall and proclaim this...then see if you come
    out unscathed!!!!!

Huh? I guess I don't understand your point. My reference was to the Bible as
something that 100's of thousands gave their lives for, not the flag. Looking
back I may have misinterpreted the quote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
re: .55  Title:  Who could make mere dust animate? chance?

	About creation, Steve discounts it because of perceived design flaws.
	But whether these designs are perceived as flaws or not, a design
	requires a designer. The Bible simply reasons "Ofcourse, every 
	house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all
	things is God." Hebrews 3:4 NWT.

Argument from design, a classic discussion. 

First, I discount nothing. I simply see NO hard evidence (and very little soft
evidence) to support creation as you see it. We agree about one thing, the Bible
reasons simply :^)

Second, wouldn't a perfect designer create a perfect design? You don't have to 
look far to see massive evidence of imperfect designs. They all work, mind you,
but most are far from optimal.

Third, I see no evidence of a coherent design. Given a starting point and what
we know about the early earth, the vastness of space and the huge amount of
time, (both beyond our real abilities to grasp it) I can understand how the
world as we now know it came about. And we are learning more all the time.

Finally, if I agree that a design requires a designer, who designed God. Your
premise that he always was... is no better than mine that the universe always
was...

Steve

RE:<<< Note 1002.52 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>3. Where is the design in a person blind from birth.



    One of my best friends was born blind...he's actually quite thankful
 that he was.  He figures that his blindness slowed him down some and had
 he not been born blind he would have been dead along time ago, and have
 died without Jesus Christ (and a selfish comment from me, I would have been
 deprived of his friendship, which I cherish).


 I belive it is Fanny Crosbie, who wrote many well known hymns in praise of
 God, who was also born blind.



 Jim

re .61

Steve

;We agree about one thing, the Bible reasons simply :^)

But that's the beauty of it, it's message directed to all mankind
and not any one group in particular such as scientists for example.
The Hewbrews 3:4 reasoning, is simple and can be understood by all 
people no matter where in the world or what time period they are 
living in. 

;Finally, if I agree that a design requires a designer, who designed God. Your
;premise that he always was... is no better than mine that the universe always
;was...

God has communicated that he has always existed, but goes no further than
that. It is something we as humans, who have had a beginning, find hard to
grasp. However, your thoughts of the universe always existing is an
interesting one that I have not heard of before, please expand. The Bible
tells us that the universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) also many
hold to the Big Bang theory today.

Phil.

| <<< Note 1002.60 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Glen, there is a distinct difference between Church/worship protocol/methods
| and Christian doctrine.  There are teachings that many scholars will disagree
| with one another.  Baptism by immersion vs. sprinkling, marriages outside the
| church, worshipping on Sunday vs. Saturday, Marrying a non believer, and many
| other issues take a back seat to the paramount issue of obtaining eternal life.
| All the petty arguments I brought forth above are the types of fodder that
| bring forth interesting discussion in C-P as well as other conferences.  

	Jack, they may appear petty to you, but for those who believe them, do
you really think it's petty to them? Jack, when I said it is a Jesus/believer
thing and not a Christian/believer thing, I wasn't specifying what the beliefs
these Christians could have. But they are beliefs that make it so they feel the
believer really is not one, as their beliefs are different. It could be one or
several of the ones you feel are petty, it could also be something else. The
bottom line is this. Either you believe that it is between Christ and the
believer, or that it is between a Christian and a believer. I don't see how you
can have it both ways. It's like saying it is a Christ/believer thing, but if
this were to happen, then it is now a Christian/believer thing. Doesn't that
put the Christian above Christ? Even with your scenerios, doesn't it still come
down to it being a Christ/believer situation? I mean, how can any of us really
know what's in anothers heart? This is where you keep losing me Jack.

| Belief in Jesus, NOT ONLY as a teacher and an example, but also to acknowledge
| Jesus as Savior and Lord of ones life is what is key to obtaining eternal life
| You cannot get to heaven by preaching, by witnessing, by attending church, by
| reciting prayers, by feeding the poor, by visiting the homeless, by comforting
| the sick.  This is the social gospel, it is indeed honorable but as a way of
| obtaining eternal life, it is a big lie, a cheap counterfeit, and an insult to
| God.

	Uhhh..... I agree, actions won't get you into Heaven, but what does
that have to do with Christians telling someone they aren't going to Heaven?
Again, you lost me on this.

| All righteousness is obtained by receiving the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is
| obtained by redemption and atonement.  Redemption and Atonement are received
| by mediatorship and justification.  The last two can only be obtained through
| the saving blood of Jesus Christ.  It is not hypocritical or perjorative to
| say that he who deny's the son deny's the Father.  This is the bottom line.

	I may not agree with all you just said, but Christ is important, and
should not be denied. So I guess what I am hearing from you is that Jack Martin
would never tell another she/he is not going to Heaven, UNLESS they don't
acknowledge Jesus Christ. Do I have this right? To me it doesn't sound too much
different than someone saying one will not get into Heaven because you believe
the Sabbath is on Sunday, when it really is Saturday. Can you see this?

| Yes, but I find it interesting that you didn't address my dialog regarding the
| sacredness God held for the Torah and how the nation of Israel were to rever
| it!

	Didn't think it needed it..... sorry..... you made a statement, I
didn't particularly agree with it, but thought it was jumping into another
isuue altogether. 


Glen

    >I may not agree with all you just said, but Christ is important, and
    >should not be denied. So I guess what I am hearing from you is that Jack 
    >Martin would never tell another she/he is not going to Heaven, UNLESS they
    >don't acknowledge Jesus Christ. Do I have this right? To me it doesn't sound
    >too much different than someone saying one will not get into Heaven 
    >because you believe the Sabbath is on Sunday, when it really is Saturday. 
    >Can you see this?
    
    Your first sentence doesn't do justice.  Christ is not just important,
    Christ is paramount.  Without Christ, there is no Christianity,
    nothing.  And yes, you heard it correctly.  When Jesus sent out the
    disciples by twos, he told them that if you go to their house and they
    do not accept you, then wipe the dust off your sandels and move on.  
    God gave us the ability to use the Christian doctrine as a focal point
    and draw conclusions based on that doctrine.  
    
    Church issues such as the Sabbath, Baptism, gay marriages...this is all 
    under the umbrella of living in the Spirit and testimony.  It has
    nothing to do with the importance of salvation.  So the answer is yes,
    I do draw conclusions based on my beliefs as does everybody else.  
    Jesus did the same thing and was rejected regularly for it.  
    
    "For broad and wide is the gate to destruction, and many are those that
    enter through it."
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1002.65 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| >I may not agree with all you just said, but Christ is important, and
| >should not be denied. So I guess what I am hearing from you is that Jack
| >Martin would never tell another she/he is not going to Heaven, UNLESS they
| >don't acknowledge Jesus Christ. Do I have this right? To me it doesn't sound
| >too much different than someone saying one will not get into Heaven
| >because you believe the Sabbath is on Sunday, when it really is Saturday.
| >Can you see this?

| Your first sentence doesn't do justice. Christ is not just important, Christ
| is paramount. 

	Jack, suffice to say that we agree on His importance. 

| Without Christ, there is no Christianity, nothing.  

	Was there nothing BEFORE Christ? What Christ did was very important, as
it showed once again the love God has for His children. It also proved it is an
ENDLESS love. But people believed in God long before Jesus came along.

| God gave us the ability to use the Christian doctrine as a focal point and 
| draw conclusions based on that doctrine.

	Draw conclusions. Hardly a fact based thing Jack. Look at how many
wrong conclusions there have been because of the human factor. I'm not sure
what point you were trying to make.

| Church issues such as the Sabbath, Baptism, gay marriages...this is all under 
| the umbrella of living in the Spirit and testimony. It has nothing to do with 
| the importance of salvation.  

	I'm glad you believe this way Jack. But you do realize that many people
will not agree with you on this. That the above can keep one out of Heaven.

| So the answer is yes, I do draw conclusions based on my beliefs as does 
| everybody else.

	But you do realize that you conclusions, my conclusions, anybody's
conclusions may NOT be correct.

| Jesus did the same thing and was rejected regularly for it.

	Jack, I know Jesus, and, well, you're no Jesus! :-)  The difference
between Jesus and us was that we make mistakes, He did not.



Glen

    Well, I guess we'll find out when we get there.
    
    The possibility of my being incorrect doesn't mean I should not speak
    my convictions.  And by the way, I know fundamentalists who believe I'm
    going to hell for an array of different reasons.  Rather than get
    offended, I simply say......
    
    
    Whatever....
    
    -Jack

RE:               <<< Note 1002.66 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>	Jack, I know Jesus, and, well, you're no Jesus! :-)  The difference
>between Jesus and us was that we make mistakes, He did not.



Yes...and many will regret the day they made the mistake of rejecting the
salvation that He so freely offers.



Jim

re: .62 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?"

I don't understand your point. There obviously are blind people that are well
adjusted, happy, etc. There are also some that are miserable. In this case,
blind from birth would probably be better than knowing what sight is and losing
it. In any case it has no bearing on my question which was how can a perfect
designer turn out such an imperfect design?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .63 
RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
Title:  Simple is often the best way 

>>But that's the beauty of it, it's message directed to all mankind
>>and not any one group in particular such as scientists for example.
>>The Hewbrews 3:4 reasoning, is simple and can be understood by all 
>>people no matter where in the world or what time period they are 
>>living in. 

I too look for simple explanations when I can, and when they work to explain
what I observe. In this case, however, there is no logic, there is simply an
assertion. In this case there is nothing to back up the assertion.

Expanding that the universe has always existed, I simplified :^) 
I believe that the big bang is the best current theory we have. Is it correct?
You've got me. Assuming that it is, however, the state of existance before the
event is not known (or knowable) at our present levels of understanding. 

The concept of infinity (both time and space) is beyond our grasp to understand,
at least conceptually. But creating a God to 'cap it off' doesn't answer
anything, it simply puts another layer of complexity into the equation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .67 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    The possibility of my being incorrect doesn't mean I should not speak
    my convictions.  And by the way, I know fundamentalists who believe I'm
    going to hell for an array of different reasons.  Rather than get
    offended, I simply say......

Me too, only I get condemned to hell by lots more folks than you do!

Steve

>Expanding that the universe has always existed, I simplified :^) 
>I believe that the big bang is the best current theory we have. Is it correct?
>You've got me. Assuming that it is, however, the state of existance before the
>event is not known (or knowable) at our present levels of understanding. 
    
    From Einstein's Theory of Relativity, we know time dilates relative to 
    mass.  It is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the mass 
    of the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by scientists, 
    and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 0.016 years, 
    or 6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A provocative analysis, indeed.
    
>The concept of infinity (both time and space) is beyond our grasp to understand,
>at least conceptually. But creating a God to 'cap it off' doesn't answer
>anything, it simply puts another layer of complexity into the equation.
    
    The very first Hebrew letter of the Bible in Genesis 1:1 looks like an
    uppercase 'U' lying on its side.  The enclosed end of the letter is the
    very first thing the reader encounters.  Hebrew sages have commented that 
    man can only know what's on the open end of the letter.  What's beyond
    the closed end is for God only.  
    
    Mike

 .69

 

    The point being that even in what looks like imperfection to us, God's
    perfect plan is at work..



 Jim

re Note 1002.70 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     From Einstein's Theory of Relativity, we know time dilates relative to 
>     mass.  

        Wow!  Einstein sure has revised his theory since I studied it
        in school!

        Bob

    BTW - that insight is from a nuclear physicist, not me.  

	RE: 1002.70 Mike Heiser

    > From Einstein's Theory of Relativity, we know time dilates relative
    > to mass.  It is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to
    > the mass of the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed
    > by scientists, and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result
    > is 0.016 years, or 6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A provocative
    > analysis, indeed.
    
	The mass of the earth is well known but the mass of the universe
	is far from clear. If it were so, there would be no argument on
	whether the universe will continue to expand for ever or will
	collapse back on itself.  Well over 90% of the mass of the
    	universe, according to many eminent scientists, is still not
    	accounted for. Others say "WYSIWYG": What you see is what
    	you've got.

	The age of the universe is also hotly disputed. The aptly-named
	Hubble telescope has recently produced evidence that it may be half
	as old as currently believed. Since current estimates range from
	20 down to 10 thousand million years, we may soon have to be
	thinking in terms as low as 5 000 000 000.

	Only one thing is known with absolute certainty: There is a race
	of fundamentalists who, regardless of facts, will always have a
	"constant" which, bottom line gives 6 days for the creation. Today
	it is the "expansion factor" of 10^12, tomorrow it will be the
	"divergence factor" of 1.33474 x 10^11 and, later, the "protracted
	factor of cohesive divergence" of .90326 x 10^(insert your own 
	potency). Main thing is 6 days bottom line.

        > The very first Hebrew letter of the Bible in Genesis 1:1 looks
	> like an uppercase 'U' lying on its side.  The enclosed end of the
	> letter is the very first thing the reader encounters. Hebrew sages
	> have commented that man can only know what's on the open end of
	> the letter. What's beyond the closed end is for God only.

	"My" Hebrew sage commented: God only knows why they can't use a
	font that is easier to read!
    
	Greetings, Derek.

	I think the fundamentalist belief that the 6 days were 24 hour
	periods gives the creation account a bad press to reasoning persons.

	The Hebrew word for day can mean age. In the creation account one
	can quickly reason that the sixth day was longer than a 24 hour
	period. For during this day Adam was created, Adam then had time
	to study and name the animals as well as Eve being created and
	God gave the command for both of them "to be fruitful". Nothing
	maybe impossible for God but there certainly are limitations on
	what a human (even a perfect one) can do in any 24 hour period.

	Genesis 2:4, further shows that "day" can refer to an age.

	The seventh day has not yet finished, for God has yet to pronounce
	it good.

	Phil.

| <<< Note 1002.67 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| The possibility of my being incorrect doesn't mean I should not speak
| my convictions.  

	AGREED!!!  It's the judgement, something that no human can really know,
that should not be done. 

| And by the way, I know fundamentalists who believe I'm going to hell for an 
| array of different reasons.  

	Jack Martin in Hell???? I don't think that place will EVER be ready for
that! Give them hell Jack!!! :-)

| Whatever....

	That reminds me of a song where at one part after the guy is hittin on
her she goes, "Are you talkin??? Pfffft Whatever!" 


Glen

    Phil:
    
    This is true; however, keep in mind that a chronology can be obtained 
    in the gospel of Luke from Jesus to Adam.  The discussion of seven days
    being 24 hours or 7 ages may be valid...however the million year thing
    is ridiculous.  That is unless some of Adams closer descendents
    miraculously lived millions of years and the Bible doesn't record it.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    The prophets were quite clear on the requirements of salvation...as
    were the writers of the gospels and the epistles of Paul.  
    
    -Jack

re .77
	Jack,

	I do believe the chronology you mention and that man has only
	been around about 6 thousand years. I have checked out
	artifacts in museum's such as the British Museum and many
	are dated with approximate dates until you get to 3000 BCE. Then
	they are given the approximate date 0f 3000-10000 BCE which
	sounds like a wild guess to me. 

	Man being around six thousand years old and the earth being the same
	age are two totally different arguements in my estimation.


	Phil.

>    The prophets were quite clear on the requirements of salvation...as
>    were the writers of the gospels and the epistles of Paul.  

... and James

(the epistle Martin Luther wanted to remove from the Bible)

    The Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 is the same Hebrew word
    used for "day" in Exodus 20:8-12.  These are 24 hour periods.
    
Exodus 20:8
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them
is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it.

Exodus 20:12
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which
the LORD thy God giveth thee.

    Mike

>	The mass of the earth is well known but the mass of the universe
>	is far from clear. If it were so, there would be no argument on
>	whether the universe will continue to expand for ever or will
>	collapse back on itself.  Well over 90% of the mass of the
>    	universe, according to many eminent scientists, is still not
>    	accounted for. Others say "WYSIWYG": What you see is what
>    	you've got.
    
    That's why I think this Dr. used the expansion factor, because the
    universe is still expanding.  I don't think that it is just coincidence
    that this worked out to 6 days.  Of course the expansion factor (Hubble
    constant) can vary as much as the age of the universe, depending on
    what scientist you talk to.  I've seen the Hubble constant range from
    50Mpc to 120Mpc.  I think the physicist used the commonly accepted values.  
    Einstien's Theory of Relative Time is the only explanation I know of right 
    now that can reconcile Red Shifts of a ~16B year-old universe with a 
    ~6K year-old earth.  
    
>	The age of the universe is also hotly disputed. The aptly-named
>	Hubble telescope has recently produced evidence that it may be half
>	as old as currently believed. Since current estimates range from
>	20 down to 10 thousand million years, we may soon have to be
>	thinking in terms as low as 5 000 000 000.
    
    That's interesting, I hadn't heard that.  What are your sources for
    this info and how come we don't hear about it in the press?  Sounds
    like a lot of textbooks would have to be revised too.  Maybe we should
    have a Hubble channel on cable TV where you can get updates as well as
    watching live footage of the universe. ;-)  
    
>	Only one thing is known with absolute certainty: There is a race
>	of fundamentalists who, regardless of facts, will always have a
>	"constant" which, bottom line gives 6 days for the creation. Today
>	it is the "expansion factor" of 10^12, tomorrow it will be the
>	"divergence factor" of 1.33474 x 10^11 and, later, the "protracted
>	factor of cohesive divergence" of .90326 x 10^(insert your own 
>	potency). Main thing is 6 days bottom line.
    
    BTW - if you apply the same formula to 5B years, you come out with 
    ~2 days.  I believe the Bible is inspired of God so I believe in the 6
    days of creation.  Because it took 6 days from an earthly perspective,
    Einstein's theory of time dilation says it wouldn't be 6 days from say
    Saturn's perspective.  Maybe if the Hubble Telescope continues at this
    pace we'll get it down to 6K years ;-)
    
    regards,
    Mike

re: .70 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"
 Title:  matters of faith and the heart

    mass.  It is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the mass 
    of the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by scientists, 
    and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 0.016 years, 
    or 6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A provocative analysis, indeed.

Last time I saw anything on this the mass of the universe was unkown. This is
also key to trying to determine if the universe will expand forever or
eventually contract back in on itself. Where did you get the 10^12 number, and
what is the expansion factor it is measuring? Do you have a reference for this?
(I'm not normally a stickler for references, I know that time to do this
research is difficult to come by, but I am truly interested as I haven't seen
this particular line of reasoning before).

    Hebrew sages have commented that 
    man can only know what's on the open end of the letter.  What's beyond
    the closed end is for God only.  

Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .71 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?"

    The point being that even in what looks like imperfection to us, God's
    perfect plan is at work..

Circular argument. God is perfect, so everything God does MUST be perfect, so
everything IS perfect no matter how flawed it appears, so God is perfect.

This sentence is semantically empty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .74 VNABRW::BUTTON "Another day older and deeper in debt"
 Title:  Expanding on expansion.

Thanks Derek, you said it better than I did. I was trying to give the benefit of
the doubt (LOTS of doubt).

Steve

Oops, hit 'enter' one reply too soon...

re: .82 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    That's why I think this Dr. used the expansion factor, because the
    universe is still expanding.  

OK, but without units it is meaninless. Does this mean 10^12 larger than at the
big bang, per year, per decade, what?

    I don't think that it is just coincidence that this worked out to 6 days.

Me either. I think the number was arrived at deliberately to make it six days.

    I've seen the Hubble constant range from 50Mpc to 120Mpc.

I've missed this. What are Mpc's? Are these the expansion units?

    That's interesting, I hadn't heard that.  What are your sources for
    this info and how come we don't hear about it in the press?

I have seen this in the local rag. The data was preliminary and there was lots
more work to be done, but it is fascinating.

Steve

re Note 1002.81 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     The Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 is the same Hebrew word
>     used for "day" in Exodus 20:8-12.  These are 24 hour periods.
  
        This may very well be true, but this in no way proves a
        claim that that word *always* means "24 hours".

        I can cite a dozen contexts in which the English word "day"
        means "24 hours".  Does this mean that the English word "day"
        *always* means 24 hours?  (Hint: it doesn't.)

        Bob

    I'll have to re-check my sources, but I take it that the expansion
    factor is the rate of expansion of the universe.  I'm pretty sure this
    is the same as the Hubble constant which is a velocity measured in
    mega-parsecs/second (Mpc/sec).  Here's an experiment you can try at
    home if you have the astronomy gear.  I did this in lab of an Astronomy 
    course I took last year.  
    
    First you need the absolute and apparent magnitudes of a galaxy and plug 
    them into this formula:
    
                               (m - M + 5)
                    log (d) = -------------
                                    5
    
    m = apparent magnitude, M = absolute magnitude, d = distance in parsecs
    
    Then you need to determine the frequency of calcium H and K wavelengths
    being emitted from the galaxies and calculate their deltas.  You're
    basically playing with Doppler shifts here.  The calcium lines are in
    the light emitted by the galaxies or target 'candle.'
    
    Delta H = H -393.367            Delta K = K - 396.847
    
    Then you can calculate the velocity of recession (in km/sec) for the H
    and K lines.  The C constant (speed of light) = 300,000 km/sec.
    
                        C x Delta H             C x Delta K
                 V(H) = -----------      V(K) = -----------
                          393.367                 396.847
    
    Take the average of V(H) and V(L) for the velocity value in the Hubble
    constant formula:
                                V
                           H = ---
                                d
    
    I ended up with a value of 60.9 for the Hubble constant the last time I
    did this.  You can then calculate the age T of the universe using this 
    formula:
    
                           3.09 x 10^19
            T (in Gyr) = ----------------
                         H � 3.16 x 10^16
    
    My answer came out to be 17.1 Gyrs and I received an A on the assignment.
    
    Re: Expansion of the Universe
    
    {this is from Dr. Gerald Schroeder, "Genesis & The Big Bang", p. 80-81,
    Bantam Books.  He's the nuclear physicist, MIT graduate, former employee 
    for the U.S. DoD, now lives in Jerusalem}
    
Oscillation
-----------
"The implications of increasing entropy in terms of cosmic thermodynamics are
considerable.  They have been dramatically described by Steven Weinberg in his
landmark book, 'The First Three Minutes.'  In each cycle of expansion and
contraction in an oscillating universe, the entropy must increase.  Such is
the nature of expanding and contracting fluids.  This is why your refrigerator
needs a motor.  It takes the extra source of energy from the motor to put
order back into the Freon (that is, to recompress it) after it has expanded
and cooled the cooling coils of the refrigerator.  If the universe is indeed
in an unending series of cycles, then in each cycle the entropy must have
increased.  This increase would appear as an increase in the number of photons
relative to the number of particles with a rest mass.  It is these same
particles that make up the matter of the universe.
    
Now if the law of entropy, which is always true on Earth, is cosmically
applicable (and recall that all leading physicists assume the laws of physics
that we observe on Earth are applicable throughout the universe; without this
assumption there is no basis for any calculations of cosmology), then in the
next expansion and contraction cycle of the universe, there will be more
photons relative to the particles than we have at present.
    
But there's a paradox here: If we are in an eternally oscillating universe,
then there was no beginning.  Time extends back to an infinite past.  To reach
the present, the "now" of our existence, from an infinite past would require
an infinite number of cycles of expansion and contraction.  That infinite
number of cycles would, according to thermodynamics, have raised the ratio of
photons to nuclear particles to infinity.  Because the number of photons is
finite, for the ratio to equal infinity, the number of particles must equal
zero.  Zero particles means that there would be no material universe.  Photons
would be the only components.  But our very existence attests that this is not
the case.  There is a material universe and we are part of it.  Based on this,
Weinberg was led to ponder that 'it is hard to see how the universe could have
previously experienced an infinite number of cycles.'  There must have been a
beginning."

>        This may very well be true, but this in no way proves a
>        claim that that word *always* means "24 hours".
>
>        I can cite a dozen contexts in which the English word "day"
>        means "24 hours".  Does this mean that the English word "day"
>        *always* means 24 hours?  (Hint: it doesn't.)
    
    Bob, neither does this prove that what works in English also works in
    Hebrew.  If you take the passages in context, they were 24 hour days
    from the earthly perspective.
    
    Mike

re Note 1002.87 by FRETZ::HEISER:

> >        This may very well be true, but this in no way proves a
> >        claim that that word *always* means "24 hours".
> >
> >        I can cite a dozen contexts in which the English word "day"
> >        means "24 hours".  Does this mean that the English word "day"
> >        *always* means 24 hours?  (Hint: it doesn't.)
>     
>     Bob, neither does this prove that what works in English also works in
>     Hebrew.  If you take the passages in context, they were 24 hour days
>     from the earthly perspective.
  
        Granted, Mike!  But it was *you* who were trying to prove
        something with this incomplete logic, not me.  You were
        claiming it "works in Hebrew", not me, while giving the
        flimsiest of support for it.

        Bob

re: .85 LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780,
MRO3-3/L16)"
 Title:  adding one more card to the house?

Then what words in the Bible *can* we trust to mean what we think they mean? If
what I consider now to be common words meant something else then, well, I guess
I can see why no two people can agree on the meaning of the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .86 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"
 Title:  H constant and Expansion

Thanks for entering this, I really appreciate it. I'll have a look at it. What
is a Gyear?

As for infinity, it is an interesting concept. I personally cannot conceive of
anything without a beginning, and it makes most math non-meaningful. I don't
know that we (humans) will ever figure that one out.

Steve

    I learned a tidbit of information yesterday in class.  A student asked
    a question regarding the merit of the King James Version of the Bible
    versus the New Revised Standard Version.
    
    The answer was the the KJV is based on medieval manuscripts of the the
    Bible whereas the NRSV of the Bible is based on 4th Century
    Manuscripts.  In all the archeological digging and recovering of
    historic information, the newer translations now go back to earlier
    manuscripts of the Bible than the older translations.
    
    It was recommended that we do not use the KJV for our exegisis.
    
    As I heard the answer, this also implies that the earliest source
    matterial for the translators is the 4th Century. 
    
    This was all oral Q&A and the 4th Century might be a little squishy. 
    He may have said  3rd or 4th Century manuscripts.
    
                                                 Patricia

>Thanks for entering this, I really appreciate it. I'll have a look at it. What
>is a Gyear?
    
    Steve, that's a gigayear or a billion years.

>    The answer was the the KJV is based on medieval manuscripts of the the
>    Bible whereas the NRSV of the Bible is based on 4th Century
>    Manuscripts.  In all the archeological digging and recovering of
>    historic information, the newer translations now go back to earlier
>    manuscripts of the Bible than the older translations.
    
    This is all from memory, but I believe the KJV (1611) was based on the
    Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was based on the Textus Receptus
    manuscript (probably from the Medieval era as you say).  
    
    The oldest manuscript that contains the entire Bible is the Codex
    Sinaiticus, which is dated around 400 A.D.  This is probably the one 
    you also refer to above.
    
    What confuses me about their comments is that the English Revised
    Version (1881-1885) and the American Standard Version (1901) were both
    based on the KJV.  I thought the NRSV was based on the ERV?!  
    
    Personally, I use the NAS (New American Standard) as my primary study
    Bible.  The NAS is based on the ASV, which is highly regarded for its
    scholarship and accuracy.  Both of these are still used today for other
    translation projects.  Most pastors and teachers that I talked to the
    last time I was in the market for a serious study Bible, all
    recommended the NAS.  The KJV continues to be my secondary study Bible.  
    The NIV is easy reading, but not always accurate so I wouldn't recommend 
    it for serious study.
    
>    It was recommended that we do not use the KJV for our exegisis.
    
    I don't believe accuracy is as big a problem as the old English. 
    Between the NAS and the Hebrew/Greek Interlinear Bible, I can do some
    serious study in Modern English.
    
>    As I heard the answer, this also implies that the earliest source
>    matterial for the translators is the 4th Century. 
    
    It's the earliest entire Bible only.  We have fragments that date
    earlier.  Also the Codex Sinaiticus is missing passages that earlier
    fragments have so we know it isn't complete.  For example, it doesn't
    have Mark 16:9-20 though later manuscripts do.  However, we know it
    should have that passage because early church fathers (Iranius and
    Hippolatus) make reference to it in their writings around 200 A.D.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    Mike thanks for the information on manuscripts.  That is good
    information.
    
    Your note about Mark also explains the three alternative endings
    to Mark based on descrepencies in the manuscripts.   The abrupt ending
    is the one identified as most likely.
    
                             Patricia

    Mike,
    
    I meant to say identified as the most likely in the NSRV.
    
                                   Patricia

      Hi,
    
        A couple things...
    
        Perhaps this was already mentioned, but in case it has not
        been.
    
        The Bible explicitly states that God made some things having
        a certain age.  Adam didn't start out as an infant or a fertilized
        egg, He started out as an adult.
    
        The time duration between how long it takes to go from infant
        to adult is a mute point.  The big point is that we know that
        God created things HAVING A CERTAIN AGE.
      
        Who cares if its 40 years or 40 quadrillion?  We already know
        that things were created in a moment of time such that they
        have age.
    
        Given this, its kind of ridiculous to estimate an age, deny that
        God created things with age, and thus deny the creation story!
        The creation account itself does not allow denial of the age part
        of it!  In fact, it insists on incorporating the fact of age!
    
        So what if a star might seem like its a few million years old?
        Adam probably appeared as if He was ~30.  How old is entirely
        irrelevent.
    
        Another good example is when God said "Let there be light."  Is
        He restricted to create a star as a star is when it first is
        and is He restricted to having to wait for its light to hit the
        earth?  I figure when God made the stars, He made it so that
        light emitting from the stars was hitting the earth from the time
        they were created thus implying an 'age' of many many years.
    
        And who cares?  Isn't God able?
    
        About different versions of the Bible...
    
        It is at least hypothetically possible that the textus receptus
        could have come from an older manuscript which then became lost.
        And the vaticanus and sinaiticus from a newer manuscript and yet
        the sinaiticus still be older than the textus receptus.
    
        My point:
         
        It is not logical to necessitate that an older text is better 
        than a newer one.  All that matters is how each one came to be.
    
                                                    Tony

    Tony,
    
    Then we can say they were both divinely inspired, even if the competing
    texts produce different interpretations. 
    
    Which is in fact no different than divergent Gospels producing
    divergent interpretations.
    
                              Patricia

>    Your note about Mark also explains the three alternative endings
>    to Mark based on descrepencies in the manuscripts.   The abrupt ending
>    is the one identified as most likely.
    
    Well like I said, early church fathers made reference to it at least
    200 years before the Codex Sinaiticus was scribed.  By this we at least
    know that it should be in there.  The NSRV should have it in there
    anyway and at least make a comment that some manuscripts don't have
    this passage in there.  My NAS does this.  It has the Mark 16:9-20 
    passage but comments that *some* manuscripts don't have this section. 
    When you read that passage, there are some very excellent truths in it
    so you know it's inspired as well.
    
    So do you know the answer to my question?  Does the NRSV come from the
    English Revised Version?  If so, it is based on KJV as well and not the
    4th century manuscripts.
    
    Mike

    the NSRV has it the other way.  It contains the text but indicating
    that this is an alternate translation.  

	The NRSV is a descendent of the RSV which is a descendant of
	the KJV.  Like the RSV, it was produced by the Division of
	Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches
	of Christ in the United States of America.

	Both the RSV and the NRSV went back to the best original sources
	available at the time (1950-1975 for the RSV and later for the
	NRSV).  It should be noted that a number of decisions on what
	to put in notes and what to put in text were _reversed_ in the
	latest editions of the RSV before the NRSV came out, making the
	RSV more in line with the KJV.

	The primary texts used by the NRSV are the "Biblia Hebraica
	Stuttgartensia" (1977) for the Old Testament, a number of
	different texts for the Apocrypha, and the most recent edition
	of "The Greek New Testament" revised in 1983 by the United
	Bible Societies.

/john

re .98

That is not accurate.

The NRSV states that _most_ authorities include the longer ending and
that only _some_ of these mark it as doubtful.

Here is footnote "r", which appears in the middle of verse 8, right after
the word "afraid", "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book
to a close at the end of verse 8.  One authority concludes the book with the
shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with
verses 9-20.  In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse
8, thou in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful."

Following "for they were afraid" appears the heading "The Shorter Ending of
Mark" and the rest of verse 8: "And all that had been commanded" through
"proclamation of eternal salvation".

Then appears the heading "The Longer Ending of Mark" and verses 9-20.

/john

re: .95 LUDWIG::BARBIERI "God cares." 
Title:  Created With Age/Bible Texts

I agree that God could have made creation 'old' at the beginning, but, why
bother? Again, why does he go to so much trouble to hide?

Steve

re Note 1002.95 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI:

>                        -< Created With Age/Bible Texts >-

        The reason I reject this idea, Tony, is that it comes pretty
        close to portraying God as a deceiver.  If God recently
        created a massive universe with a multitude of more or less
        consistent indications of great age, that would at least
        seem to be an act intent on misleading.

        (Actually, why bother with the universe?  God could simply
        have created the photons on their way 6000 years ago, without
        even creating the galaxies appearing to be their source!  Why,
        the dome of the heavens could really be a galactic
        planetarium dome with a hidden projector!  How do you know
        that you and the entire universe weren't created 5 minutes
        ago, complete with memories and artifacts indicating a
        history that never actually existed?)

        I just don't buy it;  sorry.  I guess that I'm just too much
        of a scientist (or is that humanist?) to believe that there
        is such a fundamental gulf between the honest observations of
        science and a fair reading of Scripture.  If such people are
        damned well at least I have taken that position sincerely.

    
>         About different versions of the Bible...
>     
>         It is at least hypothetically possible that the textus receptus
>         could have come from an older manuscript which then became lost.
>         And the vaticanus and sinaiticus from a newer manuscript and yet
>         the sinaiticus still be older than the textus receptus.
>     
>         My point:
>          
>         It is not logical to necessitate that an older text is better 
>         than a newer one.  All that matters is how each one came to be.
  
        About all one can say is that the *probability* is that the
        older document is closer to the source in content;  as you
        point out, generally age alone does not establish certainty
        in such things.

        (Besides, they might have both been created 5 minutes ago
        with the appearance of great age. :-} )

        Bob

    Thanks for the info, John.  It appears that the NRSV wasn't taken from
    4th century manuscripts as Patricia's instructors led her to believe.
    I knew when I read this that it didn't sound right.
    
    thanks again,
    Mike

      .101,.102
    
      Hi Steve and Bob,
    
        How can God be deceiving if He is up front about it?  He 
        tells us in very plain black and white that Adam was an
        adult.  He has _age_.  Likewise, He tells us that WHEN
        He said "Let there be light", there was light.
    
        He told us what He did and He did it!  To deceive would
        be like intimating that He created all at an infant-point
        and then having us see a universe with things with apparent 
        varied ages.
    
        But, He didn't do it.  The creation account essentially explicitly
        says, "I created things with age."
    
        No deception.
    
        God has given so much evidence of Creatorship.  I can spot the
        difference between something man-made and something not man
        made in an instant.  I can see when an intelligence worked to
        produce something.
    
        When I see any advanced life form or plant forms, I see such 
        complexity of design!  He has told me in a myriad of ways that
        there is a 'Master Designer' in back of it all.
    
        An Inteligence designed this universe.  It has order and does
        not follow the 'natural' law of entropy (increasing chaos/disorder).
    
                                                     Tony

        When I see any advanced life form or plant forms, I see such 
        complexity of design!  He has told me in a myriad of ways that
        there is a 'Master Designer' in back of it all.

I see a complex interaction of chemicals, that I can (to some degree) trace back
to the first self-replicating compounds. I see a large amount of evidence that
shows that an evolution type mechanism was at work, and a lot of evidence that
shows that if there was a designer he was not very good at it.

        An Inteligence designed this universe.  It has order and does
        not follow the 'natural' law of entropy (increasing chaos/disorder).

Of course it does. There is nothing in the laws of entropy that state that there
are not local reversals of entropy. But the energy that went into that reversal
is more than the total energy of the reversal, ie. a net loss results. The sun
spews out enormous amounts of energy that drive entropy reversals here on earth,
but the overall amount of energy IS declining, and overall the universe IS
tending (not rushing, but tending) toward disorder.

Steve

Entropy - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Entropy militates against the
theory of evolution.  Evolution postulates that everything goes from randomness
to complexity  and from disorder to order.  Entropy demonstrates that everything
is going in exactly the opposite direction - toward randomness and disorder.
Evolution is a low-grade hypothesis, while entropy is a well-documented law of
science.  Entropy will serve to remind you of many other scientific laws that
could be cited to refute the theory of evolution.  Among the others are the laws
of conservation and the law of cause-and-effect.

1) "Entropy applies only in a closed system" - There are 2 main problems with
this: First, the universe is a closed system; second, while the earth may be an
open system, energy from the sun does no decrease entropy.

2) "The 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be invoked because it merely deals with
energy relationships of matter, and evolution deals with the issue of complex
life-forms arising from simpler life-forms." - Entropy, however, is not limited
to energy relationships of matter.  Shannon's Law deals with information entropy
and militates against revolution on a genetic level.

Doesn't entropy exist on Earth?  Entropy is the measure of the disorder in any
system.  An increase in entropy means an increase in the disorder of the
system.  In almost every action, the entropy increases.  It never decreases.
    
The first law states that regardless of the reactions taking place within a
closed system, the sum of the energy and mass of the system remains constant.
A simple way of remembering the laws of thermodynamics is as follows:  If the
first law states, You can't win, then the second law states, You can't break
even.  The third law is You can't get out of the game!

    Re: more on Septuagint
    
    I found out last night that ~300 B.C., most of the Hebrews didn't even
    speak Hebrew so they didn't understand their own Bible.  Since they
    were scattered for so long, most of them spoke Aramaic or a form of
    Greek.  This is the reason why the project to translate the OT into
    Greek was initiated - so the Hebrews could read their own Bible.
    
    Mike

Re -.1
                                  -< Entropy >-

>Entropy - the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Entropy militates against the
>theory of evolution.  Evolution postulates that everything goes from randomness
>to complexity  and from disorder to order.  

  Mike, maybe you should read some bona fide literature on evolution, rather
  than some creationist tract.  You might see that the theory of evolution
  says nothing of the kind.

>Entropy demonstrates that everything
>is going in exactly the opposite direction - toward randomness and disorder.
>Evolution is a low-grade hypothesis, while entropy is a well-documented law of
>science.  

  Wrong.  It's one of the best documented theories of the past century.  Just
  because we haven't had 4 billion years to confirm it in controlled 
  experiments doesn't discount its validity as a scientific theory.

>Entropy will serve to remind you of many other scientific laws that
>could be cited to refute the theory of evolution.  Among the others are the laws
>of conservation and the law of cause-and-effect.

  Oh yeah?  Care to tell us how?

>
>1) "Entropy applies only in a closed system" - There are 2 main problems with
>this: First, the universe is a closed system; second, while the earth may be an
>open system, energy from the sun does no decrease entropy.
>
>2) "The 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be invoked because it merely deals with
>energy relationships of matter, and evolution deals with the issue of complex
>life-forms arising from simpler life-forms." - Entropy, however, is not limited
>to energy relationships of matter.  Shannon's Law deals with information entropy
>and militates against revolution on a genetic level.

  What does Shannon's Law have to do with thermodynamics?  All he stated is
  that in a communications system you are going to have information loss.
  Please show us how that relates to genetics.

>
>Doesn't entropy exist on Earth?  Entropy is the measure of the disorder in any
>system.  An increase in entropy means an increase in the disorder of the
>system.  In almost every action, the entropy increases.  It never decreases.
>    
  Where do you get this stuff?  Have you ever heard of photosynthesis, or 
  crystal formation?  How about muscular energy storage?  In each case, there
  is a decrease in entropy, with an increase in the larger environment.

>The first law states that regardless of the reactions taking place within a
>closed system, the sum of the energy and mass of the system remains constant.
>A simple way of remembering the laws of thermodynamics is as follows:  If the
>first law states, You can't win, then the second law states, You can't break
>even.  The third law is You can't get out of the game!
>
  I think that last two sentences show the level of understanding amongst
  creationists of the laws of thermodynamics.  Nothing personal, but I am
  amazed at how you distort science in order to make your theories credible.

    >  than some creationist tract.  You might see that the theory of evolution
    
    not a tract.  Most of that information is from a *SECULAR* book called
    "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.
    
>  Wrong.  It's one of the best documented theories of the past century.  Just
>  because we haven't had 4 billion years to confirm it in controlled 
>  experiments doesn't discount its validity as a scientific theory.
    
    You can't confirm it, but it is valid?!  doesn't sound like the
    scientific method to me:
    
          1. Observations/Experiments ------<-------<-
          2. Data Reduction/Analysis/Conclusions      ^
      -<--3. Hypothesis/Model                         |
      |   4. Further Tests for Confirmation ---->------
      ->--5. Theory/Revision of Theory                |
          6. Testable Predictions -------------->------
          7. Better Theory/Scientific Literature/Educational Textbooks
    
    Mike

re: .106 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" 
Title:  Entropy

Mike,

Your understanding of science in this case seems to be so distorted by what you
want to believe that meaningful discussion is probably impossible. If you have
read independant texts, and still believe this, I am certainly not going to be
able to show you the fundamental flaws in your logic.

Steve

P.S. How do you use:

          1. Observations/Experiments ------<-------<-
          2. Data Reduction/Analysis/Conclusions      ^
      -<--3. Hypothesis/Model                         |
      |   4. Further Tests for Confirmation ---->------
      ->--5. Theory/Revision of Theory                |
          6. Testable Predictions -------------->------
          7. Better Theory/Scientific Literature/Educational Textbooks

to prove God?

    I'm not sure how you could.  It might not be possible to apply this to
    a sovereign God.  You might be able to do it empirically.
    
    You obviously can't use it to prove the religion of (macro) evolution.

	Re: Mike -2 or 3

	Whilst I agree with the statement that the universe is a closed
	system, I have difficulty in understanding why anyone who believes
	in an infinate and universal God can subscribe to this.

	Surely, by definition, an open-ended God would require an open-
	ended universe?

	Greetings, Derek.

	BTW: With your obvious in-depth knowledge of the subject, you must
	know that, within the closed system of the universe, there are
	an enormous number of open systems. The point being that, when the
	entropy of an open system decreases, the entropy of the whole (the
	closed system) increases.

>	Surely, by definition, an open-ended God would require an open-
>	ended universe?

Not true.

God is both immanent (in the universe) and transcendant (greater than,
existing both before and after his creation).

/john

	Re .113 /john

	> Not true.

	> God is both immanent (in the universe) and transcendant (greater
	> than, existing both before and after his creation).

	Seriously John, do you understand what you've written there? Is
	there any way you could formulate it so that I might understand it
	too?

	I have this image of an infinate God and a finite universe:

	...- - - - --------------------GOD------------------ - - - - ...
		 	I---------universe---------I
					      I---heaven---- - - - - ...
			
	What does God do in the non-universe periods? Especially the pre-
	universal period. What *point* is there in a God with no domain?

	I sincerely don't get it.

	Greetings, Derek.
          

>	What does God do in the non-universe periods? Especially the pre-
>	universal period.

Your problem is that you cannot grok the concept of there being existence
outside our time-space universe.

But God transcends all that, being capable of loving and planning and
remembering all that there was and is and will be.

/john

	Sure that's my problem! But who can help me to "grok" it? I am
	not entirely senile and am open to any reasonable argument.

	Where do you get your information, John?  Or any of you out there
	who make similar assertions?

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek, John,
    
    I agree with John on this one.  ON the complete otherness of God. On
    the complete mystery and uncomprehensibleness of the Divine.
    
    For me it is sort of like reflecting on the concept of infinity. 
    Mathematically we can treat it like a number and observe relationships as
    things approach infinity, but then we can always add one to infinity.
    
    We can define attributes of God, and experience aspects of God in our
    lifes and all around us but we can never understand, experience, or
    comprehend the totality that is God.  Time and Space are all definable
    and limited.  God is beyond time and space and all human limits.
    
                                 Patricia

	Re: .117 Patricia.

    	> Derek, John,
    
    	> I agree with John on this one.  ON the complete otherness of God.
	> On the complete mystery and uncomprehensibleness of the Divine.
    
	I am forced to agree with John, too, because I am unable to "grok"
	the thing and, therfore, can offer no reasonable counter-argument.
	
	I do not believe that I made assertions in my recent notes but
	appealed for help in trying to understand.
	
	My "reason" would say that, outside of human (in)comprehension
	there is no God. If that is so, God cannot predate humanity. This
	is clearly not the consensus here and I am asking for help in
	getting, at least a little, closer.

	Greetings, Derek.

re .118

Outside of human comprehension, there is no sound made when a tree falls
in a forest.

/john

    Derek,
    
    A Good book and a classic is by Rudolph Otto, named "The Idea of the
    Holy"  He is the early twentieth century Theologian who first began to
    discuss the concept of "The Otherness of God".  Karl Barth is another
    Theologian with that concept as well, although I have problems with
    Barth's theology.  Barth wrote a much bigger books, a commentary on
    "The Epistle to the Romans".  Barth seems very negative about human
    nature though.  
    
    I would recommend that you start with Rudolph Otto.   In English or in
    his native German.
    
                                   Patricia 

	Re: .119 /john

	In reply to my "outside of human (in)comprehension, there is no God"
	you said:

	> Outside of human comprehension, there is no sound made when a tree
	> falls in a forest.

	Surely this misses the point.

	Quite apart from the fact that all the creatures of the forest hear
	(or otherwise sense) the falling tree, and the earth and air vibrate
	in sympathy, trees have only been falling since the existence of the
	forest.
	Leaving humans out of the equation, I might have said: Outside of the
	comprehension of the trees, there is no forest.

	I think our relative positions could be summarised as follows (correct
	me if I am wrong):

	"Without God there are no humans" would be your stance, and "Without
	humans there is no God" would be mine.

	Greetings, Derek.

re .121

I'm sorry that you believe that God is only a creation of the human mind.

Is that why you were made a moderator of this conference?

/john

    	Re: -1 John
    
    	> Is that why you were made moderator of this conference?
    
    	Frankly, John, I don't think that my being moderator has anything
    	to do with my view of the creation or of God's role in it.
    
    	And, as I have tried to make clear in previous notes, I am trying
    	to get a handle on the opposing view. Until I can understand it
    	(grok it, I think you said) I will never be able to risk that
    	famous leap of faith.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
    

    One's standing with regards to salvation is certainly no guarantee of one's
    ability to properly and effectively moderate a notesfile.
    
    Richard