The Genesis Enigma - why the bible is scientifically accurate.

Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..:)
 
Last edited:
sky2979 said:
Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..:)
Click to expand...

Which version do you believe?

Old testament, New testament, The King James Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version or The New World Translation.

Del Boy said:
The Genesis Enigma - Dr Andrew Parker:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html
Click to expand...


On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.

Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.

Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.
 
Last edited:
Many fairy stories could be shown to be "Scientifically" accurate, but other than that they are very short on a few minor things, like facts, proof and logic. Funnily enough I don't believe them either,... but then again, I guess I'm just a sceptic at heart. Sorry Dr. Andrew Parker,.... FAIL!!

If god made everything, who or what made god?
 
The Bible itself is something I have some serious questions about. It's pretty clear that it has been edited, books added and books taken out over time. But thousands of years later, how are we even certain that this is what Jesus wanted people to read?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The Bible itself is something I have some serious questions about. It's pretty clear that it has been edited, books added and books taken out over time. But thousands of years later, how are we even certain that this is what Jesus wanted people to read?
Click to expand...

The problem with the bible is that it is an old book that shows it's age badly and as such it has been continually interpreted, "modernised" and politicised to give it some relevance in the modern world.
 
Guys - as this guy is a scientist, I want you all to obtain his book and give us your critiques.:smil:

Meanwhile - did you actually read the article ; nothing to do with the new testament of course?:smil:

Answers on a post-card.
 
MontyB said:
Which version do you believe?

Old testament, New testament, The King James Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version or The New World Translation.



QUOTE]


All the versions basically give one same message, in diffrent wording of course...I understand any version...Some are more difficult to read than others, but I personally like the King James Version..It's easier to read,:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
 
MontyB said:
-snip-

On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.

Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.

Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.
Click to expand...

I had planned to stay out of this discussion as they usually turn irrational and in the hope topic would simply go unnoticed, but I have to give you a sincere "Indeed!".

Rattler

P.S.: (no time atm except for a quick summary of my take, but ppl who are impressed by his arguments maybe would want to research what the symbols, names, etc in the bible mean, who introduced them when, and where they come from, you will realize they were - more or less in the same form - used for the past 3-5000 years by many religions). R.
 
Del Boy said:
Guys - as this guy is a scientist, I want you all to obtain his book and give us your critiques.:smil:
Click to expand...
Del Boy, I don't bother to read many books or articles written on the subjects like Flat earth, Over Unity power generation, free money, perpetual motion machines or religion.

It must be the world's longest running hoax, (2000 years) and as yet,... still without reproducible proof or logical explanation. I think that it's about time believers woke up to themselves.

The real answer fits in a postage stamp,... many times. "Hoax"
 
Last edited:
Now that just goes to show, Guys; you can't believe a word these scientists tell us these days. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we are responsible for global warming!

As for me, of course I never read current scientific output, so I can't comment on the content. Just thought you would all appreciate a good read.:smile:
 
Yep,... crap like that quoted here is another point demonstrating the questionable value of a tertiary education on some people. He's probably also President of the Flat Earth Society, or like Dr. Frederick Toben a noted holocaust denier.

Having a doctorate or degree is no guarantee against being a complete idiot or knowingly telling out and out lies.
 
Del Boy said:
Now that just goes to show, Guys; you can't believe a word these scientists tell us these days. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we are responsible for global warming!

As for me, of course I never read current scientific output, so I can't comment on the content. Just thought you would all appreciate a good read.:smile:
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is impossible to do impartial and accurate scientific work when you start with the answer and spend your time coming up with the theory to fit it.
Sadly these days far too many "scientists" are prepared to sacrifice sound and robust science for money.

I honestly think Darwin would be spinning in his grave if he could see how people are bastardising his work for their own ends which is a shame as his work gave us an invaluable background to the origins of man without any bearing on religion (it is a theory you can accept and still believe in a god without any second thoughts) and instead we bury it in dogma.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I honestly think Darwin would be spinning in his grave if he could see how people are bastardising his work for their own ends which is a shame as his work gave us an invaluable background to the origins of man without any bearing on religion (it is a theory you can accept and still believe in a god without any second thoughts) and instead we bury it in dogma.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with that statement for the most part. I for one don't believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive. In either case (scientific or religious), one is required to assume that things exist that are inexplicable. Science may call them theories and the religious may call them mysteries or miracles. It works either way. For example, just because religion attributes creation to God and science can't explain basic human emotions are not reasons to discount either.
 
I would not argue with DTop and MontyB on their take here.

And seriously, I have not read the book in question, but it looked like an interesting proposition to chew over.

I am glad that it created a little stir here. I will try to read it sometime, who knows, I might be impressed enough to come back for another bite.

After all, the early Egyptians had a lot going on in respect of science, did they not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top