Comments |
 |
Comments
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
Comments |
|
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
I wonder if it would be possible to get the photographer Robert Vavra involved. He has taken many marvelous photos of horses as well as the alleged cousins unicorns. You can see some of his unicorn photos at http://www.robertvavra.com/stock_unicorns1.html. (No, I am not related to, do not work for and have never met Mr. Vavra. Just a fan of his work.)
Unicorn is used to translate the Hebrew word meaning some species of wild bull - a powerful, not easily tamed creature:
Whatever helps you sleep at night… But unicorn means unicorn!
Believe it or not, the Jewish scriptures were nto written in middle ages English:
“So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is ראם (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.
It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/re’em were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).
The real re’em or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle.”
That’s rich:
So this god figure decides to inspire a group of folks but figures there is no need to inspire translators and be accurate in other languages. Now that’s “intelligent design” for ya,
Can you tell me more about your explanation for the unicorn based in Assyrian art? On the face of it, it cofuses me. Whether the Assyrian’s depicted animals from one side or not, don’t most mammals with horns have pairs which are symetrical? Wouldn’t people who lived with many of these animals understand that the depicted animals have two horns? If the second horn was hidden by the profile angle of the Assysyrian drawings, wouldn’t these same people then assume that the animal had only one eye and ear? I think a cycloptic animal would be much more notable than one horned animal. Thanks.
Remember that the Hebrew word is re’em; the Assyrian word is rimu. This is the creature that the Greeks, translated into monokeros, which means “one horn”, as does the word, “unicorn”.
People often describe things, based on their appearance. As I said some time ago, the creatures we call “millipedes” don’t really have 1,000 feet; they just look as though they do.
If the only reference to the re’em/rimu, due to its extinction is a shot of it, with only one horn, then it’s not hard to see how the Greeks would translate that.
The point, that has been made time and time again, is that this creature is NOT the horsey-like critter we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
I (and a number of posters here) have repeatedly the folks here, who are yucking it up and claiming that Christians believe that unicorns exists, to actually show that the ancient Hebrews (Moses, David, Isaiah, etc.) were referring to the critter, depicted on this site.
To this day, no one has done so.
The same art depicted here could be shown to describe another possible creationist theory. Halos were used to show the holistic presence in many of the religious media paintings. If taken from a 2-dimensional viewpoint these halos could be construed as globes, or space helmets.
Thus giving more strength that the Egyptians were visited by aliens and we transcended from there.
Relate that.
What are you saying, Rob? Are you really saying that God has made the text infallible in Hebrew that at times is very hard to decipher but yet has not made sure translator get it right as well? Where’s your belief and trust in God? Of course he makes sure translations are correct too. There would be no point making the original infallible is the translations are not. Besides, we do not have a sinlge original Biblical text so if He does not make sure translations are also correct we could never know the Bible.
OK, see you at the Unicorn Musuem next summer!
What Rob appears to be saying (as I have said) is that the re’em creature is NOT the horsey-looking critter that we’ve come to know as a “unicorn”.
Again, the whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
Month after month has passed by; but, we’ve yet to see anyone show that when David, Moses, Isaiah, and the other authors of the books, containing those nine verses that used the word, re’em, they (in fact) were making reference to the creature depicted on this site.
//Believe it or not, the Jewish scriptures were nto written in middle ages English://
And, believe it or not, there ARE people who SWEAR that the King James Version is the literal word of god.
These people deserve to be mocked for many, many reasons: but that one especially.
what do you mean by that?
The whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
On several occassions, the explanation has been given that the Hebrew word in those verses is re’em. Archaeological research has pointed to an extinct creature, a form of wild ox, as being the actual creature being reference.
The Assyrian word for this creature is rimu, similar to the Hebrew word, re’em. Add to that, the fact that this creature is described as having brute strength and is often compared with cattle in the Bible. The KJV Bible was translated from the Septuagint (in Greek), and apparently, their only reference to this creature was ancient artifacts, displaying (in profile) one horn. Hence the re’em got the name, “monokeros”, which means one horn.
Therefore, the challenge was made to our friendly neighborhood atheists, Bible skeptics, and agnostics to show that when the ancient Hebrews (King David, Moses, Isaiah, etc.) penned their verses and used the word, re’em, that they were, indeed, referring to the creature depicted on this site, that we’ve come to call a “unicorn”.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE has done to to this day.
Actually unicorn means “one horn”. I believe the problem lies in translation. I believe that they were describing a one horned animal using the word unicorn. The KJV was translated from the Septuagint which used the word monokeros, which also means one horn. The other problem is that people today want to take everything at face value. Oh, it said unicorn and they do not exist. Huh, huh, that means the Bible isn’t true. My comment to that is, as you said, “Whatever helps you sleep at night.” You can choose to believe or not. But I will say this. If there is no God, then even as a believer I am still better off. Because if there is a God and his son Jesus Christ came, then I am going to heaven. And unfortunately you might not (unless you one day choose to believe). But your probably a really good person, and you are apparently a real smarty pants. Hopefully you’ll be OK.
You might want to try forgetting all you know, or think you know, and try putting yourself in a position of translating one language to another. You might find that it is not as easy as it would probably seem. Also, words that we use today were not common place for that time. It’s like physics. Physicists have known about forces for quite some time. But they did not always qualify them into four groups: gravitational; weak nuclear force, string nuclear force, electromagnetic force. If I were like you — I guess I could just pick fun and label that physicists that did not name things the way I know them as idiots. That would not be fair. And it is incorrect to do so. Humans have come a long way in language. And to a large extent we use it incorrectly everyday. Anyway, I will leave you to chew on that for awhile.
What would you call an unknown one horned animal? Oh, and you have to only use Latin to come up with the word to describe it. Would you maybe choose unicorn.
And it turned out that the word always thought to mean “virgin” actually meant “young girl” but you don’t see Christian groups recalling their bibles and changing their dogma.
At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.
“At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.”
Or they were–gasp–sneaky and didn’t let on that they’d Done It because they knew they’d be shunned or stoned to death. Further, are we to believe that there was *no word* for “virgin” in ancient Hebrew that the writer couldn’t’ have used if he had really meant to say “virgin” instead of “young woman”? Please.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched. To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely. Alot of fathers and family would take advantage of young girls (BTW you were married long before 21 and most likely around 14-17) who were about of age. The first born in some cultrures was slain and thought to be the son of man fathers, as they thought that the male seed could last forever in a woman, as long as she has not given birth, and that multiple men could potentially father a single baby. The catholic church changed the meaning long ago to say that a “virgin” was an untouched woman to control the population of some peoples and to have definitive proof that the sons and daughters of a notable person was, indeed the son/daughter OF that person. The punishment that went with new law was stoning (no pot involved, unfortunately) if caught or showed signs (broken heimlen (sp?), bleeding, or bruseing) of having sex.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched.
That makes no sense. Women who were unmarried, yet sexually active, were/are called a lot of things. But, “virgin” ain’t one of them.
The mention of marital status implies that unmarried women were expected to be “untouched”.
To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely.
And what society was this? It wasn’t those in the Middle East, especially the Jewish or Arab ones.
As far as the Bible goes, did you happen to notice that many of the verses that use the word “virgin” state, in the surrounding context, that the woman hadn’t been sexually involved with anyone? A few examples:
Lev. 21:14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could marry: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, [or] an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Now, if they couldn’t take a widow, divorcee, harlot, or profane woman, that left only one type of woman: a virgin, one who has never had sex.
Gen 21:14 describes Isaac bride-to-be, Rebekah, And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Young unmarried women were expected to be virgins and were deemed as such, unless there was evidence to the contrary. That title certainly DID NOT go to a unmarried woman, known to be sexually active.
You, like Whitecat, make the gross assumption that, in ancient Hebrew times, the terms were mutually exclusive. Again, check out Leviticus 21:13-14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could and could not marry.
And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
A young unmarried woman was a virgin, a harlot, or profane (read “defiled”, aka slut).
A once-married woman (young or otherwise) was either a divorcee or a widow.
So, from the looks of things, there’s plenty of context to suggest that the word, translated as “virgin”, referred to a woman was known to be sexually pure. And, similarly, to get back on topic, there’s plenty of context in those 9 verses to suggest that the re’em creature, that the Greeks translated as “monokeros” is NOT the horsey-looking critter, we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
Don’t tell American Evangelicals this. The Bible was written in modern English two thousand years ago and has remained unchanged and unedited since then.
Ha! Ha! Yeah, but I bet the thumpers wish they could manipulate it at will to strike their current fancy. As when one of their number is caught diddling little boys they could zip in some quickie Jesus quote about boy diddling being okey-dokey so long as the diddler goes to rehab and apologizes.
Ooh, I get it. When it says “unicorn”, it doesn’t actually mean unicorn. It means something entirely different.
See, it might say unicorn right there in black and white. But it doesn’t actually mean what it says. It means something else. And you’d never think of it unless someone told you.
It’s good to know that when I read something that seems plain wrong, it doesn’t mean what it says. That certainly helps give me confidence!
( PS - can someone clarify what “lion” means? Just feel like I need to double-check. A picture would help. )
thanks for the translation!!……. :D :D
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-unicorn-video-ap.html
While you’re at it, you could also compile a list of possible “real” unicorns. For example, the one that is most likely is an extinct animal called the aurochs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs), which, as you can see, has two horns. However, its horns are symmetrical and thus could be viewed in profile as one. This is most likely what was meant by the Assyrian “rimu”, which is similar to the Hebrew “re’em” (which was translated into the Septuagint as “monokeros”, perhaps as the proper understanding of the Hebrew word, which has also been translated as “wild ox”). There has also been thought that it is really an oryx (also a symmetrically-horned animal that is translated into Modern Hebrew as “re’em” which is also similar to the Arabic “raim”, a lightly colored gazelle), but its goat size may be a problem. But yeah, if you’re gonna do this, first emphasize the medieval notion of the unicorn before delving into what was really meant prior to mistranslations from the Septuagint.
So last week I was at a bar hanging out with my friends when this guy in a cloak wouldn’t shut up about “re’em’s.” Wild ox this, rimu that, over and over with the auroch skit. . .give it a rest already!
Turns out his name was Joshura. That’s right Josh, you’re about as fun as a stick. A stick with a cloak and the voice of “comic book guy” from the Simpsons. Maybe we could make a list of “real” unicorns. . .or we could make a list of pet names for our toenails? Anyway, good luck and P.S. it’s not cool to drink lemonade mixed with sprite while sitting at the bar.
Just a few things:
1. Yes, I am a scientist, currently advancing to Ph.D candidacy in Molecular Genetics/Biochemistry.
2. Yes, I enjoy the TWIS podcast and enjoy it regularly.
3. However, I will not have my religion or, for the matter, the field of Biblical archeology disparaged in the way you just did, Andrew. I was just saying that this site needs a page on the origins of the unicorn/wild-ox/whatever, and you turn it into a form of bashing religion (you don’t think I can read between the words?). Shame on you.
Josh!
I’m sure that Kir and whatshisname will include lots of stuff on whatever the original unicorn might have been when they get the museum going. If you post info on the possible origins of the unicorn myth, I’m sure they’ll list your website. I think, right now, they are just interested in a billboard that makes a statement leading nowhere.
Leading nowhere? That’s your opinion. The statement seems pretty clear to me: “The Bible is full of fantastical stuff that no clear-minded adult would ever believe were it not encased in the pages of a mystical handbook.” Where does it lead? To logic, rational analysis, and skeptical inquiry, all things sadly missing in American life these days.
Ph.D. candidate? Where? Oral Roberts U?
Heh, no. Bob Jones University. ;)
Try the University of Pittsburgh. And no, I wouldn’t have anything to do with ORU, BJU, Regent, Liberty, Pepperdine, etc., for a few reasons:
1. I’m Jewish (that’s probably the biggest reason right there)
2. I’m a Democrat
3. I’m a scientist
Contrary to your belief, faith in G-d and faith in science are not mutually exclusive. That’s one of the bases behind Bibilcal archeology (oh, and that’s the American spelling, for some Brit out there who doesn’t understand how we spell things in the states). Additionally, science may give us the “how”, but not necessarily the “why”. And sometimes, we may never be able to understand the “how”. For example: the Big Bang. Where did all the matter come from, if nothing existed prior? Or if another universe did exist prior, but contracted into the dense ball, well all the matter still needed to come from somewhere in the first place, rather than in an infinite a priori loop. I’m not saying there will never be a scientific explanation for the first appearance of matter in the dense ball, but the general problem will always come down to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in which all the energy+mass that exists in the universe remains constant from Day One. That is where I take a leap of faith, because based on that, I don’t think there will ever be a good explanation that follows this first essential law.
Amen to that! Have you heard about the “artificial life” they are coming out with now. They will begin form “Scratch” just like it would have been with the big bang. The big bang apparantly began with nothing. How do they know what was there. And if evolution does not take place they will implant the things that it will need to take place. They say this will completely prove evolution. Load of crap.
As I said to another poster, all these guys are doing is validating a principle that Louis Pasteur demonstrated long ago, when he basically hacked down the “spontaneous generation” tenet of evolution nearly two centuries ago: Life comes only from life. It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
This proves that “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution occured how?
It took God less than a week to create life, and He made far more complex creatures : )
Funny… you just kinda shot yourself in the foot MCWAY.
If “Life comes only from life.” that means god is ‘alive’ if god is alive… where did his life come from?
You must believe that ‘life’ can be spontaneously generated - otherwise who made your god?
Let me guess, the rules don’t apply to your god… you know because he told you so… he’s outside the bounds of reason…
Generally YE creationists spout a load of nonsense, claiming that they apply science and reason to their arguments - but wait! “How dare you apply logic to my beliefs… you can’t do that… ” blah blah.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear - but then expect people to believe a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
It’s idiotic.
First of all, I never claimed that a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
To the contrary, the short answer would be that God is, as the Bible describes Him, “from everlasting to everlasting”; He has always existed. That concept isn’t hard to grasp.
Of course, “from everlasting to everlasting” isn’t a problem for followers of “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution either. They simply refer to it as “matter”; hence, we end up with the dogma known as materialism (or naturalism), the paradigm on which evolution is based (as Rob pointed out earlier).
You have no origin for matter and no explanation for it. So, your griping about my not being to do the same with God is downright silly.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear.
That part of your statement is correct, for one simple reason, the one I mentioned in my earlier post: It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
If that “simple” life took that much DELIBERATE effort and intent, there is no way that such “simple” life can randomly form with no guidance, no intent, and no design, whatsoever.
In short, the major difference between your beliefs and mine is what we hold to be “from everlasting to everlasting”. For me, it’s the living, sentient, supernatural God; for you, it’s non-living, non-sentient, inexplicable (for lack of a better term) “goo”.
You truly are a man of science McWay. ‘I believe God is “from everlasting to everlasting”, so there. Yep, end of. That’s the way it is. My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him. Oh no, this isn’t base on faith - my beliefs are scientific.’
Then, I’m in good company, with guys like Pasteur, Newton, etc. Although I’m not a scientist, they were and they believed in the same God that I do.
No logic can reach your sacred 5-billion-year-old, inexplicably (but not supernaturally derived) blob of “goo”, either.
But, that hasn’t stopped you from adhering to the dogma that you are the product of series of “accidents” and random occurence with no sentient guidance.
How about I stick with my “sky daddy”; you stick with your “goo”; and we’ll call it even.
MCWAY you have no reasoned argument to offer… I’d leave it to Rob if I were you.
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
Either Newton believed in Creation or he didn’t. And from all appearances, he did. So squashed the atheists’ claims of believing in Creation being a hindrance to scientific progress.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
I thought the latest “Goo-to-you…..” flavor of the month was named Dawkins. Whatever his name is, he won’t be the first and he certainly won’t be the last atheist to have his blustering, blown by the wayside, as Christianity is and will remain.
Logic had little to do with how the theory of evolution came to be. It’s the result of a naturalistic mindset, with a deliberate intent for a godless explanation for life on earth. Evolutionists, past and present (including Darwin himself) have admitted such.
Science isn’t dogmatic; materialism/naturalism, the philosophic engine that drives evolution, is. That point repeatedly escapes you.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
I’m sorry!! You referred to God as a “sky fairy”. BTW, how’s the search for your standard or measuring stick for morality?
Was there a point to your last post? I think I missed it.
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.
Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?
As for the point that “repeatedly escapes” me; the “engine” the drives evolution is the same “engine” that drives all science.
Again… social morality I thought we’d covered this MCWAY how long can you ignore the point? Try this [Robin Allott. 1991. Journal of Social and Biological Structures. 14(4) 455-471.] An online version which is publicly accessible is here… http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm
So to finish… How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
“My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him.”
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
“I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.”
***the point is belief in the need or existence of a prime creator, not any particular specific belief of this beings intent.
“Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?”
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
Rob, don’t be silly - why uncreated?
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
A good old fashioned false dichotomy.
why uncreated? simple logic - how can a first cause be created?
a dichotomy? what are you talking about????
So how does something that is “Uncreated” exist?
The false dichotomy is…
“you are either purposely evil .[snip]. or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.”
interestingly enough the “scientist” shwunie must believe in both spontaneous generation and lamarckian evolution!
Biblical Archaeology? Are you kidding? No, come on, seriously, you are kidding, aren’t you? I mean, if you were serious you’d probably be able to spell “archaeology”, right?
please list for us the archaeological finds that refute any biblical history (then I will list the thousands that confirm it):
*cough
Evolutionary fossil record anyone?
and before you even think about telling everyone there are gaps, stick your head in a toilet. The thing is, every time a fossil fills a gap, you are delighted to say there are two gaps now: either side of it.
Here’s some news for you: one fossil in the wrong place or of the wrong age would completely decimate evolutionary theory.
Go fucking find one. There are millions out there
I don’t think Rob was talking about Creationism. Or if he was, I certainly didn’t read that into what he said. Biblical archeology is a different field, relating to the cultures and religious practices of the ancient Middle East. If you had taken the time to take your head out of your ass, you would have realized that.
please look up the words “archaeology” and “paleontology”, then get back to me……..
oh, by the way, there are thousands of “out of place” fossils - they are all dismissed as intrusions or something else since they do not fit the dominant paradigm. Though this has nothing to do with me beliefs about science or Christ….in my opinion, the language of the bible allows for yom to mean either a day or an era, and does not disallow death of animals befor eman. On purely scientific and historic evidence, I believe darwinian evolution to be very poorly supported, and only still extant because it is the best PURELY NATURALISTIC theory going, not the best theory that fits the evidence.
One thousand archaeological finds can not confirm any biblical history because examples can never prove something true. However, a single example to the contrary can DISPROVE something. Still, though, I’d be interested in seeing what you believe to be historical evidence supporting any of the fantastical claims in the bible.
Please define what you mean by “any of the fantastical claims in the bible.” There are thopusands if not hundreds of thousands of bits of archaeological, inscriptional and manuscriptual evidences for the accuracy of the histories and accounts of the Bible, so I am assuming you mean something else?
As with all great stories, the background story on which the primary narrative sits is generally factual. It’s true the bible has a good track record in some regards.
However, for example, just because I read a James Bond story that’s set in England, London, with Queen Elizabeth II ruling as queen, Brown as Prime Minister in 2007… doesn’t mean that I believe any of Bond’s exploits are true.
Although this isn’t strictly ‘archaeological’ example… we can find some rather dodgy chronology in the bible. The census called which required Joseph to return to Bethlehem is, well, a little premature.
This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth.
This is one example of bible errancy, there are of course many more.
Well, first, skeptics used to claim the romans conducted NO such censuses where people wer required to return to their ancestral city. they don’t any more.
there are a number of ways to reconcile the census in Luke (one of the best sources extant for roman history in this area and time) with other hisotrical acocunts (which you assume to be accurate on a far more flimsy basis than the account of Luke, I believe becaus it supports your skepticism).
—-Luke 2:2: Making Sense of the Date of Jesus’ Birth
John M. Rist
Cambridge
—-The suggestion made in this note is that in Luke 2:2 we should read ‘Quintilius’ instead of ‘Quirinius’. The evidence is primarily that of Tertullian, and the conclusion is that Luke 2:2 as emended confirms that the evangelist or his source held that Jesus was born not in AD 6, but in 7 or 6 BC, in line with other evidence in Luke himself and in Matthew. Further textual suggestions as to how we could make sense of the census are appended.
For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child.
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?
2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings in his ABC Special “The Search for Jesus,” and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi told me:
Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee. And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem. One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that he didn’t have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.
An Empire-wide census?
Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.
Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.
But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: “Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12.” This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.
Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.
So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.
The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, “…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions.”
But what about Luke’s reference, “this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?” When Luke says this was the “first” census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated “first,” according to some Greek scholars can also be translated “prior.” If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
—-Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, “It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census.” This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.
I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?
—–Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?
This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.
Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.
Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.
Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.
So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
This is all conjecture… there’s no proof of the census… you take it on faith because it’s mentioned in the bible. Pure and simple.
well, now you change the argument. i was answering a challenge to provide any historicla evidence supporting th ebiblicla account. first, please define “proof” in a historical context. second, actually read the post. it mentions many non-biblical sources, and non-biblical reasons why something in luke makes sense.
it is also not proper to use standards that you do nto apply to toher historical documents. the likelihood of like being correct from a purely historical standards view is very high.
I didn’t bother really reading your post - as I’ve already read previously - as you stole it from Dr John Ankerberg. So please shut up!
‘You’ haven’t done anything.
Ankerberg’s work is not worthy of publishing anywhere… including this page.
then you ahve read it..so either refut eit factually or give your evidence for claiming “This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth. “
So you’re not ashamed that you attempted to pass off someone else’s work as your own?
Why would I waste my time? If Ankerberg can get it published then it would be proven as worthy of note. A previously unknown census would be big news.
You need to prove that it’s true, not me.
sorry, that snot the way history and textual criticism works. hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood. simple lack of verifiability in other surviving documents is not reason to deny an event occured. there is a long oist of such claims that have gone by the wayside when new manuscriptural or inscriptional evidence has been found.
most casual critics such as you have no real concept of how few surviving documents there are from this era, and how reliable the biblical acocunts (minus the resurrection and such) are viewed by secular historians.
So I’m a “casual critic”. What are you Rob?
Are you saying as a “casual critic” I would have to prove that the following as presented in Luke didn’t happen?
Luke 1: 11-12 (also 28) ?Sky fairies appearing
The whole virgin birth thing?
Chapter 4:
The whole devil temptation thing?
Quote “What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!”
Various healing stuff?
Chapter 5
Magic Fishing?
Curing leprosy?
Curing a paralytic?
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
I’m sorry. I thought this little blurb was about the accuracy of Luke’s census.
Rob stated that hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.
So, instead of attempting to show that Luke’s census was false, to support your earlier claim of the census being a gospel invention, you start yapping about the supernatural accounts within Luke’s gospel.
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
No more foolish than you are. The miracles were “hugely rare events”. Certainly, you don’t have a problem with “hugely rare events”. Oh the irony!!! Someone who believes that life came from non-life dismissing claims of resurrected dead (and other supernatural events).
shaunie
no, please try to follow a line of communication. i clearly stated what it is up to you - to prove falsehood concerning THE CENSUS. no it is not up to you when it comes to a miraculous event, but that is not what you made the claim o ffalsehood concerning - it was the census.
now how about getting back on track?
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did.
What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 08:56:09
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did. ”
***no, it simply is not. over the past couple of hundred years, skeptics ahve sued this argument, simply changing the argument from silence from one subject to another as their previous arguments are shot down by new archaeologicall or manuscript evidence. it si never ending. when, in every instance where luke can be verified or falsified by such evidence, he is verified, it is correct to assume he is also correct in other areas unless shwon otherwise. the hdefault position when judging historicity of manuscripts is not that they are false.
“What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.”
***what utter nonsense. find an actual historian, especially one specializing in ancient roman or judean history. ask them. luke is considered a very important historical source, and very reliable. it appears you ahve not read it to make such claims. does he record the statements of eyewitnesses to miraculous events? of course….but the vast majority of luke - and i would include acts as well….is simple history. here is how it begins:
So many others have tried their hand at putting together a story of the wonderful harvest of Scripture and history that took place among us, using reports handed down by the original eyewitnesses who served this Word with their very lives. Since I have investigated all the reports in close detail, starting from the story’s beginning, I decided to write it all out for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can know beyond the shadow of a doubt the reliability of what you were taught.
During the rule of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest assigned service in the regiment of Abijah. His name was Zachariah. His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron. Her name was Elizabeth. Together they lived honorably before God, careful in keeping to the ways of the commandments and enjoying a clear conscience before God. But they were childless because Elizabeth could never conceive, and now they were quite old.
Rob this is idiocy…. Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.
That’s funny!!
“Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental. A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.” - F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
“The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At this point we are describing what reasons and arguments changed the mind of one who began under the impression that the history was written long after the events and that it was untrustworthy as a whole.” - Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
And when Rob produces more sources, citing Luke’s accuracy, your excuse will be…….
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!
It’s the old skeptic “He don’t count” game……I see!!!
You claimed that no historian claimed that Luke’s gospel account has verifiable facts.
I produced two. Rob, should he feel like doing so, will produce some more.
Plus, what makes you think the work of Ramsay or Bruce wasn’t “peer-reviewed”?
And, of course, you have YET to show that Luke’s census was fabricated, as you claimed.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-22 06:58:49
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!”
***you really gotta use that phrase more judiciously - why would experts commenting on luke’s accuracy be “peer-reviewed”??? you really are talking off the top of your head. your game is never ending - as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.
tell me now how many confirmations of luke’s accuracy is enough, and i will provide them.
—Dr. William F. Albright:
“The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details.”
—Sir Frederic Kenyon says:”… the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge.”
—He [Ramsay] was trained in the German historical school of the mid-Nineteenth Century. As a result he was taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-Second Century A.D. He was firmly convinced of this belief and set out to prove its teaching. However, he was compelled to a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the readers. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a Second Century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for First Century condition, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.”
Ramsay also maintained nothing but the highest regard for Luke’s abilities as a historian: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historical sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the (progression) of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatests of historians.”
—The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay’s work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted
—Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.
— Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.
—Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.
It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
—Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity. But he wanted above all to eliminate doubt as to the accuracy of the things that had been fulfilled, that is, the saving work of Christ, and desired to give assurance to Theophilus and his other readers regarding events in Christ’s life.[9]Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” BSac 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71.
Well, Shaunie.
Start with the excuses. Or, if you prefer, you can actually show your support for your claim that no historian believes that Luke’s gospel is full of verifiable facts and that the whole thing was fabricated.
sherwin-white, ramsay, albright, kenyon…….how many more would you like shaunie? or will you finally admit this: “Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.” was pulled from the same dark region as most of your other claims of fact?
Oh my you’ve busy nicking little bits of info from various websites.
Again, I can only go back to what I said earlier… the point of which you totally ignored.
Most fictional stories have elements of truth… the Da Vinci Code is full of ‘historically proven facts’. That does make the whole book true. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, the fact is you don’t have any.
I like this quote “as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.”. Although this isn’t true, (most skeptics have issue with the supernatural parts of the bible… where are the discoveries to falsify this?) it is ironic… sounds a bit like ID!
Anyway…
Dr. William F. Albright - A brief look on wiki shows how his research has been surpassed. It’s not generally accepted.
Sir Frederic Kenyon - His research is over 100 years old! Is that quote about Luke, or Genesis perhaps?
Who’s Ramsay?
A.N. Sherwin-White. I think we missed a bit of his quote…
“For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.
Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions.” So as I said… there are elements of truth, but ultimately just ‘propaganda’.
Oh wow… ‘district’! Jesus must be God! I’m sure some other words and descriptions are accurate, some places, leaders etc…
All these things don’t make the extraordinary claims in Luke true. It’s this type of clever framing that makes stories believable… which is probably why people actually believe the nonsense in the Da Vinci Code.
Luke is a story… it does of course have verifiable facts in it (that I made clear) however it’s not ‘full’ of facts it’s a fictional story, based in the real world. I wouldn’t describe Luke as full of ‘facts’ anymore than the Da Vinci Code? Or would you describe that book as such, because Brown mentions historically accurate places, names etc…?
As I said… what Luke is full of is “magical claims and narrative - nothing more.” You’ve not answered my previous posts regarding this?
What you claimed is that NO historian considered Luke to be filled with verifiable facts. When Rob and I gave examples of historians who did such, you did what you do best: make excuses, change the arguments, and resort to insults to cover your behind.
MCWAY do actually read the threads before writing the rubbish you do?
This started from “This is all conjecture… there’s no proof of the census… you take it on faith because it’s mentioned in the bible. Pure and simple.”
Then Rob tried to make out Luke is some kind of totally accurate historical document…
I pointed out that “Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.”
Meaning that although there will be historicity to the document, primarily historians realise that Luke is a story. (A point I’m trying to demonstrate with the Da Vinci Code story).
If you can’t understand that, then you clearly are not trying.
Where’s your evidence for demons by the way? You’re still strangely quiet about it?
Bite me Joshua. And oh by the way, stop being such a sniveling bitch. You and every other self righteous, soul destroying, mind numbing, bile spewing religious right asshole ought to be chain whipped for the damage you’ve done to this country. LOL and finally, your god blows!
I just stumbled into this forum, and I may not know anyone here or be able to plaster my opinion about who is “right” and “wrong”. However, I can not in good conscience pass up the above comment without defending my God.
If we are attempting to debate what He has done to this country, let’s start by talking about why this country exists. The idea of “America” was created by the colonies citing 27 BIBLICAL immoralities being enforced against them. 52 of the 55 fathers of the US constitution were active in their church (the people and the cause, not the building); these are the same men who claimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of the American system.
If we are to debate what type of person or religion is “self-righteous” or “soul destroying”, let us compare motives. Atheists would battle their point to what end? To be “right”? There is no personal advantage to “witnessing” atheism. Meanwhile, the motif for Christians is the love of another human being (although admittedly, most do this very poorly). I would speak that message to Hitler himself, solely for the sake of saving a single soul from death.
And finally, if you are looking for a cheesy punchline from all of us “sniveling bitches” to try and put you in your place, tough luck. It takes a bigger man to look into an opposing belief with an open mind and decide afterward than it does to mock anything that isn’t tangibly in front of us. I ask that you don’t publicly disrespect other people with your personal business. Even if this Joshua isn’t your kind of guy, the better thing to do would be to look into what he’s really talking about (if you care so much); then, take it up with him.
(Also, even though I seriously doubt I will influence your beliefs, I encourage you to pick up a Bible and do a little reading - even if it’s just for a night alone at home. I think you’ll be surprised by some of the things written in those pages. The Gospel of John from the New Testament is a good place to start if you’re interested.)
I’m sorry, but I take issue with your comment that “there is no personal advantage to ‘witnessing’ atheism.”
First of all: why does there have to be a personal advantage to make it worthwhile? Why can’t it be an advantage for someone else?
Second: I think people would be spared a lot of guilt and anxiety (about hell), arbitrarily defined “sins” (like homosexuality) that should not be called sins, hatred, intolerance, and holy wars to name a few things, by giving up religion. Not that religion is the sole cause of these things, but it’s a major one.
It’s hardly a new or original point, either. Surely you’ve heard this argument in favor of atheism before. Most Christians and other monotheists I know respond that “not all religious people are like that.” This is very true: many religious people are not like that. But most religions are.
Third: I would say many atheists argue not to be “right” but to find truth. I believe you’ve put an unkind spin on this motivation out of misunderstanding or some other ill feeling. It’s not very Christian of you to do so, either. Besides, question your own motivations. You come across as rather self-righteous even as you try to prove otherwise. Is it neighborly kindness and charity for its own sake, or for some heavenly reward, or feeling proud of yourself?
Can anyone who’s not Christian have pure motives? You seem to say we can’t.
Anyway, seeing as this is only the internet, I’m going off now to get a little sunshine and fresh air. Cheers.
First of all, I’d like to apologize for the way I came off to you (or anyone else reading); it was not my intent to sound self righteous at all, or attack anyone’s motivation for their beliefs. My goal, in writing what I did, was to place my frustration in strong, simple words for Bill. He seems very cynical and condescending, based on his post. I only wanted to try and deter him from being so blunt and hateful in the future.
Secondly, “personal advantage” was a bad way to phrase that thought. I agree with you almost entirely. It is a search for truth, and what every person believes is their own prerogative. However, I also take issue with a comment of yours. Your second point seems to be a very overly stereotypical view of the term “Religion”. And actually, you have the concepts wrong (as per true Christianity anyway). No sin is arbitrary, and two of the greatest sins ever mentioned by Christ himself were Hate and Indifference (a more passive form of intolerance).
Either way, my interest doesn’t lie in winning any debate. I’m not here to fight. The goal of living as we do is to find the truth, and I hope we do someday.
We as human beings should be more interested in seeing people’s faces and not their affiliations. I’ll be the first to admit that I do this horribly, but I try. Along with that, focus on the things that matter, such as poverty (mentioned repeatedly in many books of the Bible) as opposed to homosexuality (mentioned only a couple times throughout the entirety of the text).
Oh, and for the record…the reason I call myself a “Christian” and not a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc is because I am sick of the same things you seem to be. I left my church some time ago in search of more real Christians who are more open and honest, and will objectively look for the truth. Not to try and judge, mind you; however, I became uncomfortable with the feeling of hypocrisy all around me. Thought you might be interested, for the sake of seeing my face through the affiliations.
The thing that is so unpleasant about religious indoctrination is that it sets you up for a life of searching for something that is not there. You say you left your church and now aim to “objectively look for the truth”. The problem is that you’ve already set yourself up for failure by only looking for “real Christians”. I hate to break it to you - and I doubt you want to hear it - but some day perhaps you will realize that there are lots of people out there who “objectively look for the truth”. These people are called scientists. If you really take the time to dig into geology, anthropology, biology, chemistry and physics, etc… well you will find all the answers you really ever need. Some of those answers may not make you happy - but that doesn’t invalidate their validity. No one said the universe existed to make you feel good about yourself.
Happily, after sifting through that information, you will discover that it is possible to create an entire world view that is entirely self-consistent. There are excellent reasons why people should and do cooperate and live in relative harmony and happiness - no religion required. Honest.
That “hypocrisy” you mention… a big chunk of that is something we might call congnitive dissonance. Basically, when you realize that you “believe” several contradictory facts, your brain has to pick one belief or find some accomodation between those beliefs. Generally, this process will make you uncomfortable and/or upset. No one likes to believe they aren’t thinking clearly. It isn’t your fault a lot of bad facts were stuffed into your head as a kid. When an entire belief structure - the religious indoctrination you received as a child - is called into question… Well there are two responses. The cowardly way is to stick your head into the sand and pretend that all those precious “truths” you learned in Sunday school *must be true*. The brave way, the adult way, is to own up to the fact that your caregivers were imperfect and they taught you some shit that doesn’t, on reflection, make a lot of sense. Move on, learn for yourself. And for god’s sake, don’t try to learn anything from “real Christians”. Those people are probably just as confused as you are.
…not to try and be a jerk, but now that sounds self-righteous.
Please do not assume that my beliefs are just force fed from my parents - they are not. Do not assume that only scientists are objective - many are not (and many others are). And for crying out loud, do not use the phrase “For God’s Sake” in an anti-religious argument! I’ve worked long and hard over the years to figure out just what I can and can’t believe. I believe the scriptures as history, just as you believed your high school textbooks about WW2. Call me cowardly and childish if you will, but first give me a single error in the Bible, with scriptural and historical context for its disproof. This would only require a second grade critical reading ability and a lot of elbow grease. Trust me, this is not my parents’ religion…
Now, I would like to end my part of this thread gracefully. I don’t frequent this forum, and I keep forgetting to keep checking back here. Sorry.
First of all, look up the word “hypocrisy”. I’m not sure where you were trying to go with “cognitive dissonance”. Nice, fancy term - but it doesn’t really relate.
And secondly, when was it stated that I was confused in my beliefs?
I do happen to be unhappy with “Sunday Christians”, but that is not in any way to assume that I don’t stand 100% behind my convictions. I have done all the research I can get my hands on, and I continue to research whatever new information I find. The fact of the matter is that I believe a man named Jesus (far and away, the most historically documented man of his time), (as written) the son of God, died to save the world from sin and death.
That being said, this is an eternally pointless debate. To “prove” one side over the other (if we are truly debating religion vs. science) is not possible; and honestly, I think the truth lies somewhere in both. Science and religion cover a lot of similar ground. To separate them, I believe, is counterproductive.
Finally (for the record), when I search for truth in my life, it’s in the little things. I no longer ask “Is there a God?”. I challenge myself to find God’s will in everything I do. I felt saying “objectively searching for the truth” was a more clear-cut, secular phrase that would elaborate for me without making people uncomfortable. Apparently I was mistaken, and I apologize. Unfortunately, choosing words carefully has never been my strong suit.
Anywho… I wish you all the best of luck with the unicorn project!!!
By the way, most founding fathers where deist, not christians, which is why you have a separation of church and state in the US. America is not a christian nation, it is a secular one.
Untrue. Actually the terms ‘deism’ and ‘Christianity’ cover the same territory in this case.
This proves both our points, however, just using different wording. Although the US is a secular nation, it was founded in principles of deism, or the finding of God (or truth, if using “God” is uncomfortable for you) in reason and personal experience. The majority of America’s founding fathers did this by way of Christianity. I beat around the bush, but anyway yes, you have a good point that I neglected- America is free to all beliefs, not only a choice few.
* I have read the Bible…
* It’s poorly written…
* Needs editing…
* Much can be accomplished with bullet points…
* And what’s up with Job offering his daughters to be raped by the horny mob?
* And what’s with them raping him later?
I think you meant to say Lot, not Job.
Thsi si one of the reasons I decided, in my 40’s, that Christianity and its claims deserved an honest assessment……..the Christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the anti-christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks. This observation was so consistent, it finally gave me pause to wonder why……..
“…the Christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the anti-christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks.”
Umm, you mixed that up. Change it to “…the anti-christians always used rational, consistent, science based arguments, and the Christians used straw men and ad hominem attacks.”
Unless you were using irony?
no, no irony. you can begin your own sampling right here.
What do you mean, “I will not have my religion disparaged”? What are you going to do, file a frivolous lawsuit? Unleash a virus? Track the guy down and beat him up?
People need to lighten up and toughen up as well. This is freedom of speech. If you were really secure in your beliefs, would it bother you so much?
I realize religion is a deeply held belief that invokes powerful emotions in a lot of people. So does any mention of Santa Claus in a typical American five-year-old.
But, okay, this is the internet. Everything else aside - it’s the INTERNET, people.
As for the guy who says someone would be surprised by some of the things written in the pages of the Bible- I’ve read most of those. And the verses are surprising, indeed, I won’t argue there.
I recommend starting with Leviticus, Numbers, and Revelations.
What I meant by that is I wasn’t going to go down without a fight. And no, not frivolous lawsuits, but I guess since you want a flame war, you got one. While I am somewhat religious (I regularly go to Hillel and Chabad House at Pitt), I am by no means on the Religious Right. If you must ask, I find this stuff so upsetting because it’s coming from people who should know better, but instead resort to the same tactics as the Literalists, making them no better than the Religious Right. You would be surprised to see the degree to which the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) is interpreted by the Tzadikim (sages) in order to find the hidden meanings. The Tanach is often described in Jewish circles as the “Cliffs Notes” version of the Law and history, and by no means the be all and end all.
And how does this relate to the unicorn? Let’s look at the writings of the great sage Rashi:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=27&letter=U
The aurochs is mentioned in the Talmud under the name “shur chever” (= “ox of the plain”), in explanation of “torbala”, the rendering of “to’u” (Deut. xiv. 5) by the Targum, which Rashi (Ḥul. 80a) explains as the “ox of the Lebanon.”
As an atheistic agnostic I certainly don’t believe, but I can respect a faith accepted as pure faith. Judaism is a pretty simple religion (theologically) despite all the interpretation, and I can see it as one comfortable for someone scientifically oriented. What I don’t get, especially from someone studying science is a confustion of fact with faith. The Chabad folks tend to be fundamentalist and therefore I wouldn’t trust them.
You are right that there are likely many things we’ll ever know or understand, but the inference that there is a deity as consequence is unwarranted.
I recommend starting with Luke and Acts written in a language you speak.
You will not have your religion disparaged [by us non-believers]? No problem, you believers have had 2,000 years of doing way more efficiently than we ever could. Enjoy your outmoded make-believe lifestyle.
outmoded? what does the year have to do with truth?
and “make-believe lifestyle”? it is a REAL lifestyle……now you could claim it is a real lifestyle of make-believe, but not a make-believe lifestyle.
This is rad.
This is the best idea ever.
If it is mentioned 9 times in the bible please list the other 8 instances. As my bible in Jobs 39, 9-12 Says wild ox.
“If it is mentioned 9 times in the bible please list the other 8 instances”
The King James Bible mentions unicorns by name on the following pages:
Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7
Well, Job also mentions “behemoth” (Job 40:15 KJV) as well as “Leviathan” (Job 3:8, Job 41:1, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, Isaiah 27:1 KJV), and where are these creatures today. It is possible they were real and have become extinct, or continue to exist but the translation from the original language to english at the time the KJV was written was the best they had.
Also, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1261.asp
Wait…….so, the Bible ISN’T supposed to be taken literally??
I’m really confused here.
On the Answers in Genesis website, they have already addressed the use of the word “unicorn”.
The articale addressing it is even from 15 years ago!http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
Since the King James was written 400 years ago, I can see the valid point of languages evolving (pun!) and the translators using the wrong word. After all, no Christian believes that the King James bible is the word of God. They all believe its a translation of the word of God.
Can you put a rebuttal of their argument on your site please? Open minds like to weigh arguments. Especially since your site is supposedly on the “science” side, I think it would bolster your case.
“After all, no Christian believes that the King James bible is the word of God. They all believe its a translation of the word of God.”
This couldn’t be further from the truth. Many, many Christians believe that the King James Version is the literal, inerrant word of God (just look up the King James only movement or even google “King James Bible errors” and see what comes up).
Second that. Almost every person in my family, in my family’s church, in my family’s church’s town believes that the King James bible in the word of God. The reasoning goes something like “G-d wouldn’t have made it so popular if it weren’t true”.
That’s funny, John; I was raised in a Baptist chuch where we were taught that the KJV was, in fact, the inerrant Word of God, indisputable and Holy in all manners. Thank Whoever is actually running this gymkhana (assuming of course that Someone actually is in charge. . .) That I got to grow up and reason and learn and choose to be my own person with my own beliefs; many are not.
The better part of half of Christians in the south USA believe that the KJV of the bible is the official translation of the bible by God and is 99.9% correct. Any comments saying otherwise is argued until you give up. While there is tons of old ways of saying things that mean completely different things now, most of the denominations of Christianity will fight to death over the littlest things. For example the Baptists skip the book of Acts almost completely, the Methodists pick parts from it at times, but the whole of penticostals is based on that one book and not much else.
The baptists believe that the “holy spirit” comes to you when you are baptized and is like Jimminey cricket or you other conscience. Otherwise it is like God’s email or the messenger.
Methodists and most prodistants hold a similar view but to more degree.
Pent.s believe that the “holy spirit” comes into you during church on Sunday and you jump around, have full body seizures and speak boobley-boobley because the “holy spirit” is in you and talking to people.
To add to the point, these different churches will argue, civily, about just these few passages in an otherwise lengthly book. The church actually split from prodistants to all of the different denominations just because they could not agree on the actual TRANSLATION or MEANING to the black and white words in front of them.
Why can’t people read a book, get their message from it, live a good life and quit fighting over who has the biggest group of friends to meet up on Sunday to compare how much we are better than “those people” who say that our message is wrong and their’s is right.
Amen:)
why? because if christianity is not true, it is the most useless thing for mankind. if it is true, it is the most important thing for mankind. truth is the issue.
by the way, without a sentient creator lawgiver, how does one know what a good life is?
I did a google search and found a discussion of biblical quotes in the “Designed Universe” which includes the following six for Unicorn references in the Bible,
http://www.designeduniverse.com/webthink/index.php?showtopic=58&st=0.
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalms 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Ed Dyer
Thanks Ed. Here are the final three:
Deuteronomy 33:17 - His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Psalms 22:21 - Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Isaiah 34:7 - And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Has anyone else noticed that, in the verses that mention “unicorn(s)” in the KJV, the “unicorns” are compared with bulls/cattle or with other animals of great strength and ferocity (i.e. lions)?
Last time I checked, great strength and ferocity weren’t exactly hallmark traits of the “unicorns”, as presented in this site, for purposes of mocking the Creation Museum and creationists, in general.
I’ve also heard arguments that, at least in Psalms 22, that the word “unicorns” is better translated “unicorn”, thus making the statement to read, “…for thou hast heard me from the horns of the [b]unicorn.[/b]
In Job 39:10, God asks if Job can bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow. The mystical unicorn that we’ve come to know are always presented as docile creatures, hardly in need of binding. A wild bull or ox, on the other hand, would definitely need some restraints.
“The mystical unicorn that we’ve come to know are always presented as docile creatures”
Um…where? Even in The Last Unicorn (which is referenced on the front page) the Unicorn is anything but docile - only the virgin (in this case the young boy) can touch her without her freaking out. The ferocity of unicorns is where that whole “only-a-virgin-can-tame” story came from…if they were docile than *anyone* could tame them.
That leads us right back to square one, an invitiation made several times, by several people, yet left unanswered: provide the evidence that the re’em> creature being referenced, that the Greeks (when writing the Septuagint) translated as “monokeros”, is indeed the horsey-type creature depicted on this site and in this movie of which you speak.
Others have shown the evidence, supporting the re’em as some sort of ox or wild bull, which explain why every other translation of the bible has “wild ox” as its translation for that word.
Hill Troll Animatronics…AHH!
Unicorns suck!
I think the billboard should have a hill troll on it!
That’s all I got…
Can that hill troll be a picture of Andrew?
I think this is one of the most brilliant ideas that has ever had the privilege of gracing my ears. I’m not a graphic artist nor a marketing consultant, but I think the ideal billboard would be to have images of Justin and Kirsten with superimposed (or actual if we can locate a couple) unicorn horns coming out of their foreheads, looking dreamily into the great beyond, resting their weary heads upon their cupped hands, laying on a round white bed resting in the clouds ,with the phrase, “Keep The Dream Alive… The Unicorn Museum. It’s Not Science, It’s A Way Of Life,” tucked neatly below dragon setting the bottom of the billboard on fire.
Should the truth elude you,
let the Bible delude you.
This is great, I have been following the podcasts and was delighted to hear about this project. Right on!
I made my donation! Please keep us updated…. I might donate more if needed. I really want to see this billboard up near the museum. Also, would there be a way to place a small minicam there to see peoples reactions? just a thought.
This is hysterical! I love it. I live about 20 minutes from the creation museum (ggrrr!). And yes, there is ‘an across the street’. Just a field, perfect place to erect a billboard promoting the upcoming unicorn museum. I will be checking back!
I live right there and billboards arent allowed in that part of kentucky… bad for you. good for me!
King James Version
Numbers 23:22
“God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
Unicorns therefore have the strength of a god!
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.
psalm 91:11. But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn: and my old age in plentiful mercy.
UNICORNIS, the Unicorn, which is also called Rhinoceros by the Greeks, is of the following nature. He is a very small animal like a kid, excessively swift, with one horn in the middle of his forehead, and no hunter can catch him. But he can be trapped by the following stratagem.
A virgin girl is led to where he lurks, and there she is sent off by herself into the wood. He soon leaps into her lap when he sees her, and embraces her, and hence he gets caught. …. The Unicorn often fights with elephants, and conquers them by wounding them in the belly.
This is an excerpt from “The Book of Beasts”, a translation from a 12th century Latin manuscript, edited by T.H. White. Since the Church has accepted quite a number of inventions from the 12th century as dogma, why shouldn’t the Unicorn Museum? I would love to see Unicorns conquering Elephants.
By the way, the article about Elephants in the afore mentioned book begins like this: “There is an animal called an ELEPHANT, which has no desire to copulate.”
Great site and great show, as well!
Can you also include an exhibit of dragons in their pleasant palaces?
Isa.13:22
Read in context, that verse is a reference to the desolation that would befall Babylon after her destruction. Moreover, that is not “dragons” per se, but rather “wild-dogs”. The proper translation of dragon is “tannin”. In the context of the era, it was understood that “dragons”, much like the Leviathan (”livyatan” in Hebrew, a word which has actually taken to mean “whale” in Modern Hebrew), were a metaphor for chaos and the threat to B’nei Yisrael, which is why In eschatological understanding, the Leviathan will be defeated in the End of Days.
But as to finding the physical basis behind the Leviathan or dragon, it’s believed that from descriptions made in Job 40 that it refers to the Nile crocodile.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=275&letter=L&search=leviathan
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=894&letter=C&search=leviathan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
Please remove the text on the main page saying it’s a parody!
It will work much better without that. Smart people will figure it out especially if you push things a bit, with subtlety. For the non-smart people, you will be having an even bigger impact.
1. I second the previous poster and suggest you remove all references to the site being a parody from the front page.
2. Develop an educational brochure to be handed out to people entering the Creation Museum. It would point out that, although unicorns are in the Bible, no unicorn fossils have ever been found and unicorns are not represented in the CM. Ditto for other fantastic animals in the Bible. Suggest that museum goers ask the staff why these animals have been left out of the CM.
3. Maybe there could be a protest held in front of the CM, demanding that unicorns be added to the exhibits.
4. Please don’t stop with only a billboard! This is a great idea! Can you collaborate with the Flying Spaghetti Monster people?
Nice job, but you really need to take down all the references to satire - all the best satire never acknowledges its satirical nature. Like the “Colbert Report”, the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, and “Shelly the Republican”.
You guys are doing great =)
Ok I get it! :)
I’ve removed all reference to parody from the front page and replaced it with a truly bizarre bit about fantasy creature labor union disputes and those ’scabs’ the angels and devils.
Sorry Mark, don’t do subtle too well.
For all intents and purposes, why can’t the unicorn be a long extinct creature. You don’t question the existence of dinosaurs, but they don’t walk the earth anymore. BTW, the commenter Aristotle mentioned that there are no unicorn fossils; there are also no “missing link” fossils, and yet the THEORY of evolution is taught in school as a scientific LAW. If it was a LAW it wouldn’t be a THEORY.
Andrew, there ARE many fossils once known as missing links. If you believe the contrary you have been misinformed.
There are no unicorn fossils known.
Yes, evolution is a theory and a fact, like atoms.
Evolution is one model of what happened in the past to explain the present diversity of life and the existence of multiple layers of sediment filled with fossils. The Creation/Flood model is another. They are both views about the past, attempting to explain the present.
Atom theory is a model of what exists in the present.
To call either evolution or creation a “theory”, in the scientific sense, is absurd.
Evoultion is demonstrated in laboratories every day, evolution through man-controlled selection is the origin of all domestic races that have evolved from a previous common ancenstor. The definition of species is usually that two individuals can reproduce together, some dogs are not far from breaking this barrier.
So yes, Evolution is a scientific theory, tested, tried, and still not falsified.
Creationism can never be proved nor falsified, and therefore has no value as scientific theory.
My personal belief is that the world was created in 1976, on may 7, 9:03 local time. The creation was so perfect that my life before that glides seamlessly into my life after the world was created. Only a truly great God can do that!
Listen to what you just said, “evolution through man-controlled selection…… ”
If someone has to control the process for the process to glean the results, that ain’t evolution. At best, it’s super-strict speciation. And, it’s certainly no demonstration of man developing from “lower” life-form, through a series of concidences and accidents with no direction.
Dogs will produce nothing but dogs; they won’t produce cats, horses, or bunny rabbits. And, no matter how much “man-controlled selections” is involved, when you breed two dogs together, the end result is….DOGS, which sound strangely similar to something the book of Genesis mentioned about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
As I said before, show an observation of a dog “evolving” from a non-dog creature and business will pick up.
“If someone has to control the process for the process to glean the results, that ain’t evolution. At best, it’s super-strict speciation.”
That’s not wholly correct; speciation is an outcome of evolution. It’s an evolutionary process, an instance of evolution at work. Evolution (as defined in biology) is merely referring to a change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation, specifically to instances where heritable differences become either more or less frequent in a population.
In other words, speciation — natural or artificial — is itself evidence of evolution. At least in terms of biology, “evolution” doesn’t immediately translate into “human beings descended from apes,” which is what I find people react negatively to when discussing evolution.
“Dogs will produce nothing but dogs; they won’t produce cats, horses, or bunny rabbits.”
This is not a factually correct statement. Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) descended from mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild sheep native to southwest Asia, but sheep cannot produce viable offspring with mouflons anymore, as they have evolved to a degree where they are a different species than their progenitors; speciation — the outcome of evolution — has occurred. It’s possible that a population of dogs might, many years down the road, produce a species of non-dog animal (through any combination of evolutionary mechanisms) that, despite whatever superficial resemblance to dogs it may have, remains unable to breed with dogs.
This is also not meant to imply that “evolution” translates into human beings descended from apes.”
This is not a factually correct statement. Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) descended from mouflons (Ovis orientalis), wild sheep native to southwest Asia, but sheep cannot produce viable offspring with mouflons anymore, as they have evolved to a degree where they are a different species than their progenitors; speciation — the outcome of evolution — has occurred.
In other words, sheep produce sheep (i.e. creatures reproducing after their own kind). Wild or tame, they’re still sheep, not dogs, cats, or birds.
The claim was that evolution has been “observed”. So, the request was to give an example of someone observing a creature “evolving” from another creature completely unlike itself. Wild sheep producing tame sheep ain’t that example.
um….no it isn’t. when you breed dogs with scales and wings, THAT would demonstrate the POSSIBILITY of darwinian evolution (though it would still be guided by intelligence, not random mutation). Dog breeding depends on genetic information ALREADY present in the original canine population, and the specialized breeds have LESS diversity of infoprmation. Speciation oftne happens naturally this way, for instance camels and llamas, ,lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
One who does not even understand the claims of evolution should not be arguing the case.
For instance camels and llamas, lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
This is a pretty amazing claim. Of course, you have proof for this, as amazing claims requiring amazing proof. You know, evidence. You do have evidence? Or at least some scientific articles and papers that explain how it was deducted that there was some super-ancestor who, for some reason or another, carried within it all the molecular information necessary to bake a Tigers, Lions, Housecats, Ocelots, Fishercats, Bobcats, Leopards, Panthers, Snow Leopards, Mountain Lions, Lynxs, and my mother-in-law. You can also show the molecular pathway by which this super-ancestor was able to split itself - a la voltron - into all these cats in such a way that lions generally produce lions, and not maine coons; panthers, panthers, and so on.
It’s funny, because, generally, the proof that exists tends to support a genome that is flexible, capable of some innovation, and seems to have given rise to life through common descent and the natural modification of previous lifeforms over vast swaths of time.
But I don’t know, maybe you know something other people don’t know. Maybe you have special powers. I guess we should all defer to them. I mean, because you’re special and all.
Um…. yes there is. Just because you have never bothered to acquaint yourself with the evidence, doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. The most recent evidence has to do with genome research. The sequencing of DNA has demonstrated that various species of organism have particular sequences of DNA. The more closely related the species, the more alike the DNA. The research has progressed to the point where biologists can point to specific sequences of genes in DNA and state categorically where various species diverged from one another.
Before we were sequencing DNA, bones and fossils were very strong evidence for evolution. More recently, the fact that you need a new flu shot or need a different antibiotic every year is a demonstration that viruses and bacteria can evolve in a time frame of months, rather than centuries.
Do us all a favor, though. Prove your faith the next time you get sick. Demand that the doctor give you no antibiotics more recent than penicillin. After all, according to you, evolution doesn’t happen, so why should you need any more recent antibiotics?
that also is not evolution, it is selective breeding, and it happens nearly instantly to some extent.
The proof is everywhere, you just need to stop assuming that evolution is true to see it. First of all, no spontaneous increase in genetic information has ever been observed. Mutations, for example, can only decrease the amount of genetic information, or sometimes produce neutral changes (such as an extra copy of existing information). Genetic changes are always “downhill.” Also, several species have been successfully bred together: tigers with lions, goats with sheep, whales with dolphins, and even donkeys with zebras. If this isn’t evidence of original kinds, then what would be?
For instance camels and llamas, lions and tigers, whales and dolphins share a common ancestor that conatined all the genetic information present in BOTH species today.
This is a pretty amazing claim. Of course, you have proof for this, as amazing claims requiring amazing proof. You know, evidence. You do have evidence? Or at least some scientific articles and papers that explain how it was deducted that there was some super-ancestor who, for some reason or another, carried within it all the molecular information necessary to bake a Tigers, Lions, Housecats, Ocelots, Fishercats, Bobcats, Leopards, Panthers, Snow Leopards, Mountain Lions, Lynxs, and my mother-in-law. You can also show the molecular pathway by which this super-ancestor was able to split itself - a la voltron - into all these cats in such a way that lions generally produce lions, and not maine coons; panthers, panthers, and so on.
***first, i said lions and tigers. you made up the rest.
Second, they can still interbreed. do you think that is best explained by a common ancestor or coincidence?
It’s funny, because, generally, the proof that exists tends to support a genome that is flexible, capable of some innovation, and seems to have given rise to life through common descent and the natural modification of previous lifeforms over vast swaths of time.
***define “vast swaths of time”. Explain how genomes “innovate”.
But I don’t know, maybe you know something other people don’t know. Maybe you have special powers. I guess we should all defer to them. I mean, because you’re special and all.
***thanks!
Wow Andrew, seriously??? Unicorns were made up as a mystical creature in fairy tales, like the bible. Comparing unicorns to dinosuars because “they dont walk the earth anymore” is as lame as the “no missing link” statement. If you could kindly pull your head out of the dark, stinky place it is in you might do some research and see all the “missing link” fossils that have been found. And to a possible reply of “those arent missing links, they are different species” well then you just added more animals that had to hightail it over to Noahs arc. But of course the devil could have planted them there to trick man, right. For all intents and purposes, check out were unicorns came from before you presume they could have been real or else you might have to start explaining why you dont believe in the other mystical creatures that were invented in the same stories.
Perhaps, if you followed your own advice (regarding the pulling of the head thing), you would notice the point being made: The creatures being described as “unicorns” in those nine verses (in the KJV of the Bible) are NOT the docile horsey-like critters like the one depicted on this webpage.
Again, the Hebrew word is re’em, similar to the Sumerian word, rimu. And the creatures described by these two words in those two languages are closer to cattle (bulls, oxen, etc.) than to horses. As stated earlier, they are compared with cattle in the Bible and described as strong and wild, adjectives that are hardly associated with the horsey-looking “unicorn”.
1) There is less “truth” and knowledge about the “law” of gravity than there is about the “theory” of evolution. Much more is known about evolution than is known about gravity. We say that gravity pulls us down. This is simply a short explanation of a really complex set of scientific theories that involve fantasy creatures such as “quarks” and “stuff too small to see”. Science really screwed-up when it postulated the difference between “laws” and “theories”…Ain’t really none. Science is a process. Consequently, by the way, one cannot “believe” in science. And, “Truth” exists only in beliefs.
2) Everybody agrees on the definitions of “plausible and implausible” as well as “possible and impossible”. Scientists should use those terms. Scientists should never use the word “Truth”. They should leave that word for the creationists and bible thumpers.
There can’t be any missing link fossils. If we found the fossils the link wouldn’t be missing anymore.
Andrew, you’re clearly rather confused about the idea of a missing link. Technically, ALL fossils are links in a chain of evolutionary evidence. Thus, unless you have the bones of every single creature in that chain that died over millions of years, you will always have “missing” links. What you want is for everybody who ever lived to have died lying right on top of his parents all in a neat pile, and even then you probably wouldn’t be satisfied. And yet, you feel you need no evidence whatsoever to back up the Bible’s claims. Rather a double standard, don’t you think?
Oh but I forgot - “Truth” doesn’t need evidence. We’re just supposed to believe it. With our gut. Yeah.
So basically what your saying is: no matter what kind of fossils we find, evolution is proven no matter what. That’s funny, I thought scientific theories were falsifiable.
Kind of. Think about gravity instead of evolution.
Suppose that gravity stopped working tomorrow, or suppose we found evidence that gravity didn’t work at some time in the past. We’d have to modify our theory of gravity, but only a silly person would claim that gravity had never existed at all!
We know that gravity exists, because we’re observing it today. And we know it’s existed for almost all of the past several billion years…if gravity had been turned off for any significant length of time, the Earth would have left its orbit around the Sun and moved off into interstellar space.
It’s the same with evolution. We can directly observe it today, and we can make indirect observations that shows it’s been functioning the same way for billions of years. If somebody discovers an angel fossil, then we’ll have to modify parts of evolutionary theory, but the old theory will still be valid as a special case.
This is actually a point that I make all the time. Debating fossils is pointless if evolution has or has not been proven true. Science studies only the present because the past is not observable or testable. But you claim that evolution has been observed today. Can you give me an example? But please keep in mind that evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, and don’t give me an example of generic “change” in an organism.
Why does evolution require the addition of ‘new’ genetic information? Please don’t cite that ‘information theory’ nonsense. Its applicability to evolution has never been demonstrated by anyone, ever. And would that genetic material be nuclear or mitochondiral?
Why is debating fossils futile? I mean, they exist, right? Animals that are not found extant now, are in the fossil record, and modern animals are not found in the past, right? You only have two choices to explain this. The animals popped up, fully formed in a manner that they existed one day, one minute one second, and before that, they didn’t; or the animals and plants changed over tiime.
The first is called magic, the second is named evolution. So your theory, you know, an all encompassing explanation that takes into account ALL observation known at the time, and accounts for all of it (thats falsifiability), is EXACTLY what?
“You only have two choices to explain this. The animals popped up, fully formed in a manner that they existed one day, one minute one second, and before that, they didn’t; or the animals and plants changed over tiime.”
***Actually, this is precisely what the fossil record shows!
But please keep in mind that evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, and don’t give me an example of generic “change” in an organism.
I’m not sure what you mean by “new information”. One common type of mutation is called a “gene duplication”, and it gives you two copies of the same gene. If one of those genes gets any non-lethal mutation later on, then you wind up with all the original genes plus a brand-new one. That seems like it fits the common-sense definition of “new information”.
I do understand that creationists use their own private definition of “new information”. That’s OK, but the problem is that they don’t want to tell anyone what their definition is!
Would you be willing to break the silence? What we need is the formula that you’re using to measure the “information content” of a strand of DNA. Once you’ve given us that, we ought to be able to give you example of mutations that have increased information content. Thanks in advance!
Thank you. So much clearer than my post, with added directness!
DNA must be a bit of a problem for the fundamental spinners. I just watched an interview on the Colbert Report. The person interviewed had just been released from prison after 23 years because his DNA didn’t match that of the perpetrator of the crime. Colbert asked him if he believed in either science or democracy! He stated that the belief in scince’s DNA had usurped the power of the 12 jurors who had voted him into jail, and this belief constituted a basic threat to the jury system of justice.
mutations that result in coding for new organs or new biological processes that did not exist in the genetic code prior to the mutation.
awaiting my list…………
Evolution states that all organisms on this developed from one (or perhaps a few) simple single-celled organisms. These organisms obviously would not have contained all the genetic information for say, a human being. Therefore, evolution must have somehow produced this “new” genetic information.
Natural selection cannot explain it, because (by definition) it can only select from existing information. Mutations have only ever been demonstrated to destroy and reduce genetic information. Yes, a mutation can result in an additional copy of a gene, but this is not new information, does not produce new and helpful structures, and is actually harmful to the organism (like the vast majority of mutations).
You really should read this stuff at www.answersingenesis.org, they’ve answered these kinds of questions hundreds of times.
For Goodness Sakes! You ignore the question and refer to an authority not recognised in any scientific realm. Chaos Engineer, above, gave an adequate and simple explanation of how new forms of DNA are created. Creationism is not science–it’s belief. “Belief” uses such concepts as “Truth”, and nothing is testable. Stop the scientific posing. Stop positing your beliefs as scientific “facts”. The only reason I worry about your type, is that, given political power, you destroy scientific progress, you start wars, you hurt people. You are the Taliban, the NeoCons, the Sheites, and the Sunnis. Your rightiousness is validated by your God, and only Hell will satisfy Him as punishment for those who don’t agree. So, it’s okay to do just about anything to save us “ignorant and unwashed” from this fate that we don’t recognise…Including faking science to gain adherents.
Shucks, I’m at work and the building owner walked in when I was on this site. “Yeah, a 27 million dollar unicorn museum,” I said. I told him I didn’t know where they’re building it. Then I kept reading and sort of can’t get over that it’s a joke. I sort of don’t want to tell the guy that it’s scheduled build date is a hundred years away on a different planet! I’m not sure I’m going to tell him and leave him with a sense of wonder. He mentioned “They’re probably building it in [my town name]” so perhaps he was keener than me to catch a joke. Had a laugh except now I must get back on track and watch my blind spot for you tricks as now the building owner probably thinks I’m a idiot.
wow - maybe greg gutfeld from Fox’s Redeye could do some art. I understand he has a real knack for rendering unicorns!
Which Bible translation are you using? ‘cos non I can find say unicorn…
The KJV says “unicorn” and the Septuagint uses “monokeros”. However, “monokeros” is not a direct translation of the Hebrew “re’em”, which exegetically could be linked to the Sumerian “rimu”, or wild-ox (which, btw, has two horns, but when seen in profile, seems to have only one). Oh, and the JPS translation uses “wild-ox”. This is why there needs to be an exegesis page on this website. But some people here want to poo-poo Bibilcal archeology and comparative analysis.
You keep saying this. Was that wild ox only ever seen in profile? If not, why would anyone be silly enough to claim it had only one horn?
People in profile seem to have just one eye. Does that make you a Cyclops?
Hey Dave, why don’t you actually read the comments already posted. Someone has already given a link to a 15-year-old AiG article answering your question.
“You keep saying this. Was that wild ox only ever seen in profile? If not, why would anyone be silly enough to claim it had only one horn?”
Perhaps, it’s for the same reason that millipedes got their name, even though they don’t have 1,000 feet.
Gentlemen ~ as a couple of earlier commenters have already observed, a simple web search brings this whole issue to nought. (At least the issue at
the surface.)
The King James version of the Bible is widely regarded among discerning Bible Scholars as being less accurate in such uses of lexicon. Further, a
short visit to two web sites BibleGateway.com & Dictionary.com, quickly yield sufficient information to satisfy concerns about the
King James’ use of the word ‘unicorn’, by leading the reader to a sound understanding of the original author’s intent. This is a part of what is called exegesis, the surest method by which the Truth of Scripture is accurately gleaned.
I would expect Opponents of the Truth to use one of the most antiquated
English translations of Scripture to get their “beat on.” Find a different hide, fellas; this one just ain’t tight enough.
By the by: You may find it interesting to note that you, too, are mentioned in the
Scriptures.
Indebted,
ibcarlos
Well, yes, but “discerning Bible scholars” are also aware that the Universe is billions of years old and that the opening chapters of Genesis aren’t an accurate time table; they’re just a poetic way of saying that God is the creator of all things.
The Unicorn Museum isn’t targetted at discerning Bible scholars. It’s targetted at the sort of people who support the Creation Museum. They don’t need any of your fancy-schmancy New York “exegesis”; they just believe what it says in the Bible.
If you’re a discerning Bible scholar, I’d think you’d support the Unicorn Museum. When Creationists spout nonsense and call it Christianity, all they’re doing is to make Christianity look bad. More people ought to call them on their nonsense instead of just letting it slide. Don’t you agree?
Have you even seen what the Creation Museum says? Have you looked at the web site www.answersingenesis.org which is linked to the Creation Museum? They give scientific explanation, geological explanation, and sometimes just plain common sense explanation to back up what the Bible says. They give these explanations at four different levels, which you can choose to view depending on your technical expertise. So how can you say that they just plainly believe the Bible, in a way that suggests they ignore the science? They don’t just present the Bible, they present the scientific facts too.
See this extensive and detailed review of the “Creation Museum” (The Anti-Museum) at the National Center for Science Education website: http://www.ncseweb.org (July 10). It upset AIG so bad they did a really lame reply in late July.
Also, has anyone thought of claiming Nautiloid Cephalopod fossils (the genus “Orthoceras”) are actually fossil unicorn horns? A small display of these fossils would give the Unicorn Museum a big advantage over the Creation “Museum”, as the CM has very few local fossils.
I read NCSE’s review of the Creation Museum. Not much for a creationist supportor to respond to. The review talks about the museum’s “absurd” claims without explaining why they are absurd. Apparently not the review of an “open mind.” Yes, many Creationist claims are very different “interpretations” of the same evidence than evolutionist claims. But absurd? Not until proven wrong. And this review did not do that.
The NCSE page review actually points the reader to the _Counter Creationism Handbook_ by Mark Isaaks, 2004, University of California Press for refutations of standard creationist arguments such as those presented in hte “Anti-Museum”. If I recall, the review also links to a website that has much of the book’s content on line.
Can you prove that Santa is or is not living in his magical invisible castle on the North Pole? Of course you can’t, but that doesnt prove that Santa is living in his magical invisible castle on the north pole, does it? And no, many creationist claims are not different “interpretations” of the same evidence compared to evolutionist claims, they are wishfull believes only serving to ridicule the Christian faith. Period!
Proof positive that you wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the arse…
Possibly a Biblical Scholar could explain to me why Christianity is the only religion on the planet that needs Apologism to explain why their published dogma is so self contradictory?
The explanation would be that Christianity is the one religion that is so doggedly attacked (far more than any other) with such accusations, which apologetics have a neat tendency to rendering false.
Well perhaps we can discuss the Pauline Heresies then? The accusations are internal to the religion. No need for outsiders there. Paul says you can be saved, without following Jewish Law. Peter says Paul was crazy. Peter, with Christ for a year. Paul (Saul), one day. Of course, it didnt end with the Bible, did it? Clement I, the ordained disciple of Peter, called the Gospel of Paul what it is, heresy. Of course, considering Clement I founded the Christian church in Europe, what does he know? These attacks are internal, not external. The point I am making is that Christianity is so internally inconsistant, that it need apologetics to defend the faith from the faithful themselves! The point I am making is that IT IS THE ONLY RELIGION ON THE PLANET THAT HAS TO DO SO. Your “truth”, isn’t so truthy when your own documents are internally inconsistant. ‘Splain that buddy. Render the statements of Clement I false for me, would ya?
So, you are saying that, from your perspective, apologetics is a defense to outside critisism, not internal inconsistanties. Methinks you know not what the heck you are talking about.
And you really, really think that Christians are more persecuted than the Jews, than the Roma? Both currently and historically? Hitler killed more Jews in a day than the Romans killed in a yer! Give me a break!
Apparently you don’t read very well. I did not say that Christians are more persecuted than Jews. My comments were with regards to CHRISTIANITY, the religion.
Paul said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, Paul goes out of his way to state that the grace of Jesus Christ is no license for breaking the law.
Romans 6:14-15, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
The point Paul made was that Christians should follow the law, not to be saved, but because they are saved.
So Christians follow Jewish law? Their salvation depends on it?
According to Peter, yes. According to Paul, not so much.
I assume you’re Christian. What did you have for Kosher breakfast today?
because it makes claims that are particular and specific, and historically defensible. it is not “once upon a time”, but “in the ___ year of the reign of ____ in the district of ___, AND it goes on to say that if these things are not true, then none of it is. apologia merely means defense or exposition, and that it can exist with a “religion” in an dof itself says much to seperate those claims from other religious claims. it is nto a weakness but a strength.
Hi,
i love this,
but you should display the quotes from the bible
on your home page !
You should at least list the King James Bible verses referring to unicorns.
But here’s an additional comment. Because I’ve been an editor since the late 1970s, my eye readily caught the grammatical error in your proposed “Unicorn Skeleton” billboard. Part of the headline reads: “Prepare to Believe (what your told).” But that should be corrected to “what you’re told.” The meaning is “what you are told,” so the second-person possessive “your” is the wrong word.
I don’t say this to be nit picky, mind you. This is a BILLBOARD we’re talking about. (Though I voted for the Noah’s Ark billboard, anyway.)
– Fred
I think you should put which version these bible verses are coming from, if we are going to make the point. My husband looked up the Job verse in the NIV and it says oxen. I did an internet search for KJV and came up with the unicorn. I think the website should have it read Job 39: 9-12 KJV so there’s no confusion.
Well said Heather Cary. Indeed, providing transparency is crucial to preventing confusion. (That is, if doing so is of more importance to one than supporting feeble claims.)
Sorry, chaos engineer, but I simply can’t agree…on either point. (But creds to you for the biting sarcasm. (c;)
It all boils down to a fella’s (or fellarette’s) presuppositions.
You see, I happen to come from that school of thought which actually buys all that “malarkey” about the Scriptures being Divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant and infallible. (Yes, even the “debatable” creation narrative of Genesis 1-11.) And, though I’ve never personally lived in New York, I do know of people in every area of the country who hold the same convictions. From Doctors, lawyers and judges, all the way to small-town five-and-dime owners and single, inner-city mothers.
Broski, I could certainly chase down all the various, debate-worthy “issues” that come to mind when I happen upon a fanciful blog like this, but all that would likely amount to idle babble to the ears of one whose mind is already made up.
Only God can change such a mind.
And, though I know from personal experience that scoffing can be quite the enjoyable activity, those here actually wanting to discuss matters of Biblical veracity are warmly invited to bring your questions (and good-natured sarcasm) on over to a most excellent blog. Lot goin’ on ovah theah…and in 50 words or less, these days…how novel (or, un-novel, as the case may be).
But yah betta bring ya game on, homies! (c:
(BTW: the blog isn’t mine.)
What are you, Fred Thompson? All the aw shucks in the world isn’t going to change the fact that all the is comes from the Great Mother and that we knew that for thousands of years before the hebrew men figured out they could keep track of their boys by only doing it with virgins. And if you don’t care for evolution, then I would suggest you not bother with modern medicine at all, because it is certainly the fruit of that tree. But, I suspect your actual hypocrisy will jump up when it gets close to quitting time and you’ll take all the science you can get to stave off your judgement day.
But that Fred Thompson patois is just pathetic. Do you also have the trophy wife?