Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
GMAN[/b]]It seems that when someone attempts to disprove something in the Bible they wind up proving it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssoutlaw
I believe you are right!!!!
Well, I did not start this thread to try to disprove the Bible (if that's what it looked like). But, we do tend to take the writings of the Bible, word-for-word, and when looking at the errors in translation that we are able to trace, we need to consider the number of times it may have been translated since the very first "inspired words" were written. How many more errors in translation were introduced before the earliest records we are able to locate? So far, the oldest records we have are the "Dead-Sea Scrolls". Yet, man was created around 40,000 BC and surely, there would have been records between then and 150 to 70 BC when the scrolls are believed to have been written. But, where are they? It would seem that most did not survive the ravages of time. And, Creation is an excellent example.
Between Archeology, anthropology, and paleanthology, many of the events given to us by the Bible have been proven to be reasonably accurate. Yet, the seven days of creation, that we are told lasted a whole seven days, have been proven inaccurate. That is, unless you take each day of Creation as a relative period of time, rather than a hard and fast rule of our 24 hour days. And, that "relative period of time" would seem to be supported even more by the events in Exodus. All natural events that occurred with IMPECCABLE TIMING. For a GOD that is so able to use natural events to impress HIS will on the earth and it's inhabitants, to simply snap his fingers to create something would be a bit out of character for him. Instead, it would seem far more within his character to have guided evolution over a period of time to create his masterpieces.
We also seem to assume that when GOD created man, man looked just like us. This too, does not seem to hold up to the test of science. There is no evidence of our species, "HOMO-SAPIEN, SAPIEN" before 6,000 BC. The earliest evidence of Homo Sapien, Cro-Magnon, is a fossil found that dates back to 37,000 BC, and they are thought to have showed up on the earth about 40,000 BC, and it's an interesting coincidence that GOD created the earth around that same time. Prior to that, Archaic Homo Sapien reigned on the earth form 180,000 to about 30,000 BC. According to mtDNA, Homo Sapien split off from Archaic Homo Sapien about 170,000 BC, yet, there is no surviving evidence of them from 170,000 to 37,000 BC.
The Bible talks about the "Sons of GOD" and the "daughters of man". Fallen Angels? Really? I have a feeling this is not entirely accurate either. During WWII, the Allies won the war because "GOD was on our side". The Hebrews were GOD's chosen people. Homo Sapien was far more advanced than any other species on earth. Want to bet... "Sons of GOD". And, Archaic Homo Sapien would have been the source of "the daughters of man". The Bible also talks about "
TAKING for wives, all that they would". There was no negotiation, or permission granted. The women were simply taken. Homo Sapien was far superior to Archaic Homo Sapien and would have been capable of doing just that.
Physically, Archaic Homo Sapien was not capable of throwing a spear or a rock. Skeletal Structure did not permit them to do so. Homo Sapien, on the other hand most certainly was. Science is at a loss to explain the disappearance of Archaic Homo Sapien, yet that passage in the Bible would suggest that they were hunted into extinction for the women. Again, science is not able to prove or disprove whether there were any off-spring between the two species, but the Bible says there were. mtDNA suggests there was not, but science also admits that there could have been a shift in the mtDNA, and only cellular DNA will answer that. It stands to reason that any off-spring between Homo Sapien and Archaic Homo Sapien would have been absorbed into Homo Sapien society, and that shift in mtDNA would have happened. And, at this point, science does not have the technology to extract cellular DNA from a fossil, so theories abound, and mine is as good as the next.
My whole point is not to say that the Bible is wrong, and there is no GOD. But, our understanding of the Bible is flawed, and most likely due to errors in translation. And, there were 39,630 years in which those errors would have happened, and in just the last 2,000 years of the new testament, there are thousands of differences between the two oldest complete Bibles in the world. Now, extend that ratio back another 39,000 years, and what are you left with? Considering how much of the Bible has been proven by science, the Bible is not an invalid record. Even though, science and theology do not agree on the date of the flood, they both do agree that it did happen. And, while the Bible would have us believe that the great flood was universal, it seems that a small outpost of Cro-Magnon did survive the flood without the aid of Noah and his ark, on the Canary Islands, until the 15th century. There is also no mention of a flood in their mythology. And, the fact that science does not discard the Bible would suggest that we do not either. But, where any other record is amended when proven wrong, the Bible is not. That may be our biggest error with regard to the Bible.