Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor Limbaugh Debunks Junk Earth Science (Creation/evolution linked to environmentalism)
Rush Limbaugh | August 10, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 09/06/2005 7:02:43 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Bill Moyers was forced to apologize publicly when he claimed that Watt made the statement "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back". In fact, one of Watt's detractors said it, in a caricature of his views.

That just goes to show that if you sling enough feces, some of it sticks.

It does not, however, change my opinion of what Rush said.

There are true loonies who believe a few nuclear bombs could change the earth's orbit. Rush makes fun of them, and rightly so.

It is, however, possible to make the environment of the earth less friendly to humans, just as it is possible to let your kitchen fill up with garbage.

51 posted on 09/06/2005 11:44:17 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
He's a Congressman.

Patrick ("Patches") Kennedy;

"In 2000, Kennedy was accused of pushing a security guard at LAX. City prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring criminal charges against him and he paid an undisclosed civil settlement to the alleged victim almost two years later. In 1986 Patrick was hospitalized for cocaine abuse."
-- from Wickpedia
52 posted on 09/06/2005 12:01:49 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I knew I was forgetting something, and that was it.

Actually, it IS what you're forgetting.

Too bad you can't take a few steps back from your Ivory Tower mentality and intellectual seclusion, and see how illogical and irrational your belief system is.

Love, a goatherder who cares about you.

53 posted on 09/06/2005 12:18:18 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

just like those illogical and irrational chemists and their illogical and irrational periodic table belief system


54 posted on 09/06/2005 12:43:45 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

>then we've got to try to make guesses as to we were all spermazoid, promozoics.

"Promozoics?"

Uhhh...


55 posted on 09/06/2005 12:51:35 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Too bad you can't take a few steps back from your Ivory Tower mentality and intellectual seclusion, and see how illogical and irrational your belief system is.

Yeah, and those drug companies that study microbial evolution in order to get new pharmaceuticals should get with the real world.

One of us certainly is detached from it.

56 posted on 09/06/2005 12:53:00 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Great Rushbo has spoken. And we all know how impressive his academic and scientific credentials, especially those in the fields of biology and climatology, truly are.

I guess we just need to pack up our marbles and go home.

57 posted on 09/06/2005 12:58:22 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; bobdsmith
The problem is not with the details you study. The problem is with the fantastical, imaginative and miraculous conclusions you draw based on those details.

They defy logic. (Not to mention scientific reality).

And prof...........why is it that you are allowed to name-call and use disgusting condesencion toward us, but you are offended when we respond with a tiny bit of your own medicine to you?

Engage your mind, and answer without insult or sarcasm, please.

(If you don't realize you're doing it, check out my post, and your post that I responded to. Goose? Gander??)

58 posted on 09/06/2005 1:01:53 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
The problem is with the fantastical, imaginative and miraculous conclusions you draw based on those details.

Please specify. You mean conclusions like the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC, at nine in the morning?

And prof...........why is it that you are allowed to name-call and use disgusting condesencion toward us, but you are offended when we respond with a tiny bit of your own medicine to you?

I'm not offended. I relish the opportunity to fight fire with fire, and am not encumbered by the hypocritical need to tell someone I really love them after I've insulted the heck out of them.

59 posted on 09/06/2005 1:09:57 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Why is there always a prime between a number greater than two and the total of that number multiplied by two?


60 posted on 09/06/2005 1:20:04 PM PDT by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You mean conclusions like the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC, at nine in the morning?

Pitiful. This sort of comment is as disingenuous as Creationists conflating evolution with the origin of life or the universe.

61 posted on 09/06/2005 1:20:57 PM PDT by Sloth (Archaeologists test for intelligent design all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Pitiful. This sort of comment is as disingenuous as Creationists conflating evolution with the origin of life or the universe.

So you claim no one ever came up with a date and time this specific?

Or that YEC's don't believe the earth was created in exactly one week 6000 years ago?

62 posted on 09/06/2005 1:24:24 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Why is there always a prime between a number greater than two and the total of that number multiplied by two?

What does this mean? You need at least two numbers to generate a total.

63 posted on 09/06/2005 1:25:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
They defy logic. (Not to mention scientific reality).

You keep saying this, but you've not actually supported it. Methinks your problem might be ignorance of what the theory of evolution actually says.

64 posted on 09/06/2005 1:26:46 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
So you claim no one ever came up with a date and time this specific?

Sure, somebody somewhere in the history of all of human existence did. Is that how low your threshold is for bringing it up in a discussion? Why should someone who disagrees with you be automatically responsible for every dumb thing any moron said in history?

Or that YEC's don't believe the earth was created in exactly one week 6000 years ago?

Many do.

65 posted on 09/06/2005 1:28:22 PM PDT by Sloth (Archaeologists test for intelligent design all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I really like Rush. But even he has limitations.


66 posted on 09/06/2005 1:28:26 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Discoveries attributable to the scientific method -- 100%; to creation science -- zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies has a great PolySci Department, but its Natural Science Department leaves much to be desired.


67 posted on 09/06/2005 1:30:36 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Rush's recent extended conversations with callers who are able to have extended conservations and have vastly different points of view than Rush are interesting. Some of the callers are representative of widely-held erroneous opinions, so if Rush can at least converse with them it is good work. Maybe some Rushbots don't like it, but converting or actually trying to convert mindless Libs to thoughtful Conservatives or to at least thoughtful Libs is a move in the right direction.


68 posted on 09/06/2005 1:32:54 PM PDT by RightWhale (We in heep dip trubble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Sure, somebody somewhere in the history of all of human existence did.

Actually a couple of very eminent biblical scholars did.

Why should someone who disagrees with you be automatically responsible for every dumb thing any moron said in history?

Pitiful! From the link:

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself

Looks like a highly respected Christian scholar, whose words were read and believed by millions, not 'any moron'.

69 posted on 09/06/2005 1:33:56 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

If I multiply 2 by 2, there's a prime between 2 and 4. If I multiply 3 by 2, there's a prime between 3 and 6. If I multiply 10 by 2, there's a prime between 10 and 20.


70 posted on 09/06/2005 1:38:18 PM PDT by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You mean conclusions like the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC, at nine in the morning?

This is both insulting and sarcastic (you just can't help yourself, can you?). Even most young earth creationists don't place a specific date on anything, and many creationists don't place the date of the earth at 4,000 B.C. We are, however, amused as evolutionists have increased the age of the earth as preposterous claims have been disproven by fact. I've lived long enough to see evolutionists do backtracking dances many, many times.

And, btw...........I do love you, and it's not hypocritical in the least. I want you to know the truth about the Creator, and not depend on man made idolatry to base your life on. Sorry if that offends you, sir.

(btw, did you go back and realize that I used your own words used flippantly against me, to describe you? It was just fine when you said it, but offensive when I did..... Can you not see your own double standard?)

71 posted on 09/06/2005 1:41:11 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I read what you evolutionary zealots say on these threads (as well as reading articles, and reading the works of Darwin), so unless you are all lying, I know what the theory of evolution 'actually says.'


72 posted on 09/06/2005 1:44:11 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
This is both insulting and sarcastic (you just can't help yourself, can you?). Even most young earth creationists don't place a specific date on anything, and many creationists don't place the date of the earth at 4,000 B.C. We are, however, amused as evolutionists have increased the age of the earth as preposterous claims have been disproven by fact. I've lived long enough to see evolutionists do backtracking dances many, many times.

Answers in Genesis is one of the major creationist web sites, run by Ken Ham, who's a major figure in Young Earth Creationism. This is what they say about Ussher's date.

Ussher was neither charlatan nor naive; in fact, he was one of the most learned men of his day. Understanding the assumptions with which he began his calculations (particularly the one we should all begin with, namely that God’s Word is true and reliable), we can readily understand how he arrived at his date for creation. In fact, if one assumes that there are no deliberate ‘jumps’ or gaps in the later genealogies (for which the evidence in my view is inadequate), then his date is a perfectly reasonable deduction based on his detailed knowledge of and reverence for the Word of God.

(btw, did you go back and realize that I used your own words used flippantly against me, to describe you? It was just fine when you said it, but offensive when I did..... Can you not see your own double standard?)

Until you learn to stop insulting others, stop whining about insults.

73 posted on 09/06/2005 1:47:12 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: durasell
If I multiply 2 by 2, there's a prime between 2 and 4. If I multiply 3 by 2, there's a prime between 3 and 6. If I multiply 10 by 2, there's a prime between 10 and 20.

The number of primes between 1 and n converges to twice the number between n and 2n, so, given that for any large n there is a huge number of primes, it would seem there have to be about half that number of primes - still a large number - between n and 2n.

Let me guess: you've been reading Derbyshire's book :-)

74 posted on 09/06/2005 1:59:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

nope. just one of those things you learn in 6th grade that stays with you. Goldbach's assumption, is it?


75 posted on 09/06/2005 2:34:01 PM PDT by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

wait. is goldbach the one where every even number over four can be the product of two primes...???? damn, i should have paid attention in math


76 posted on 09/06/2005 2:37:24 PM PDT by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Until you learn to stop insulting others, stop whining about insults.

LOL! I'm not whining, RW. I'm used to the insults.........most of them worse than yours.

I'm just amused that you feel free to insult others and cry foul when your own words are turned on you. It's kind of funny coming from a professor.....you'd think you'd have thicker skin than that.

btw, I don't get my info from Creationist websites. I do my own research.

But thanks for the link. I'll check it out sometime.

77 posted on 09/06/2005 2:59:05 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
RUSH: I believe in Creation.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I believe in God.

Rush is a straight-up honest guy who's willing to look at the evidence and determine what the most likely conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are, and there's no other answer. The basic evidence you get looking at our living world is that it was created.

78 posted on 09/06/2005 3:30:35 PM PDT by tamalejoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
I know what the theory of evolution 'actually says.'

Cool. So you can give us a short synapsis of it. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

79 posted on 09/06/2005 4:28:24 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

read later


80 posted on 09/06/2005 7:40:42 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

I'm still waiting for your synapsis of evolutionary theory. It can be summed up in a couple of sentences.


81 posted on 09/07/2005 7:29:34 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The entire evolutionary theory can be 'summed up in a few sentences?' Are you sure about that?

Let me make several brief observations. Something from nothing is scientifically impossible. Whether you claim that the evolutionary theory does or does not include the beginnings of life, the entire theory is predicated upon the presumption that it did.

One species has never been observed to have evolved into another species, so that saying that it has happened is also based on a presumption.

Please correct me if I am wrong that evolution (as has been argued by evolutionists on this forum) includes the progression of animal to human.

(btw, are you a scientist by profession, Junior?)

Oh, yes..........and you and I will never be 'on the same page,' because I believe in creation, and you do not. You believe the parts of the Bible that you feel like believing in (which, from my observation, is not a very large percentage of it), and I believe it to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. That's a pretty big page, Junior, and you're not on it.

82 posted on 09/07/2005 9:42:36 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
The entire evolutionary theory can be 'summed up in a few sentences?' Are you sure about that?

Yes. Simply put, evolution is "descent with modification." Evolution requires imperfect replicators, limited resources, and selection pressures. That, in a nutshell is it.

Let me make several brief observations. Something from nothing is scientifically impossible. Whether you claim that the evolutionary theory does or does not include the beginnings of life, the entire theory is predicated upon the presumption that it did.

In a way, yes. However the theory does not hold to any particular origins for life. Life could have arisen naturally, been zapped into existence by a diety, or started out as Thrintun food yeast. Evolution doesn't care. All it deals with is what happened afterward.

Please correct me if I am wrong that evolution (as has been argued by evolutionists on this forum) includes the progression of animal to human.

You are wrong. Evolution is simply change over time. Humans are no different from any other organism in this regard. Humankind being the ultimate example of evolution (which seems to be what you are implying) is an ID position, not a biological one.

(btw, are you a scientist by profession, Junior?)

No. I'm a computer geek. I am, however, a passable amateur paleozoologist (just love them big, dead critters).

Oh, yes..........and you and I will never be 'on the same page,' because I believe in creation, and you do not. You believe the parts of the Bible that you feel like believing in (which, from my observation, is not a very large percentage of it), and I believe it to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. That's a pretty big page, Junior, and you're not on it.

By "the same page" I wanted to make sure you weren't arguing a strawman version of evolution (which apparently you were). I do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, in that you are correct. I do not accept the inerrancy of any work of man (and there are enough goofs in the Bible to show, even if it were divinely inspired, it has been filtered through the brains of humans). This does not mean I do not accept the validity of the Bible and other works.

83 posted on 09/07/2005 9:55:19 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Desertification from overfarming and land clearance is a real phenomenon. You can't stop desertification. Once you've effed it up, it's effed up.

That latter half of what you said is not really true, or the entire planet would be nothing but desert. The process is reversible both naturally and through human action. The ebb and flow of the the Sahara and the Sahel in Africa is a case in point.

84 posted on 09/07/2005 10:13:33 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I wanted to make sure you weren't arguing a strawman version of evolution

Well, you'd better get your apologetic for the cause out to science teachers and professors, and liberal magazines all over the country, because this 'strawman' is what's being taught in schools and promoted by the left.

Which is why, according to recent statistics, the vast majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. It defies logic, and takes a faith that most Americans don't share.

(And there are no "goofs" in the Bible.......only your misinterpretation of what is there).

85 posted on 09/07/2005 10:15:48 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Well, you'd better get your apologetic for the cause out to science teachers and professors, and liberal magazines all over the country, because this 'strawman' is what's being taught in schools and promoted by the left.

Really? Examples, please. BTW, layman-level writings often get stuff wrong. You don't need a science degree to be a J-school graduate.

Which is why, according to recent statistics, the vast majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. It defies logic, and takes a faith that most Americans don't share.

Science is not determined by popularity. And, please show how "descent with modification" defies logic.

(And there are no "goofs" in the Bible.......only your misinterpretation of what is there).

Well, locusts do not have four legs, bats are not birds, and coneys do not chew their cud. The first can be chalked up to a transcription error, the second to the writers not knowing about bats (which means God was not the writer), and the third to the mistaken impression that eating one's feces was the same as chewing cud (another goof God would not have made, but men might).

86 posted on 09/07/2005 10:34:43 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I'll just address one issue with you, Junior, because I need to leave for class in a few minutes.

You have obviously spent a great deal of effort in looking for minutia in the Bible that may, or may not be what you think it is. Some of the Scripture is literal, some is not, but none of it is erroneous, unless it is misunderstood or taken out of context.

ALL of it is written by men who were inspired by God. Their personalities, and even feelings (read the Psalms, or the works of Paul) are contained in their writings, but what is in the content is accurate. Jonah WAS swallowed by a big fish.......not a whale, as it is often misinterpreted as saying.

You have chosen to believe what you feel like believing in the Bible, and that doesn't wash. Better to be honest, and dismiss it all than to pick it apart and believe only what suits your own philosophy.

We can continue this later, if you wish. I gotta go now.......

87 posted on 09/07/2005 10:47:40 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Cruising Speed; Right Wing Professor
RWP: ...Problem is, to tell the b.s. from the legitimate science, you really do need to know some science, and most people, on both sides of the issue, are not willing to do the hard work to learn science.

CS: The highest reading of chlorine in the atmosphere is 0.5ppb. In other words there are 1,999,999,999 other molecules for each chlorine up there--how is that going to destroy the ozone?

Me: Sigh. I feel your pain RWP, I feel your pain.

88 posted on 09/07/2005 10:51:01 AM PDT by 70times7 (An open mind is a cesspool of thought)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
You have chosen to believe what you feel like believing in the Bible, and that doesn't wash. Better to be honest, and dismiss it all than to pick it apart and believe only what suits your own philosophy.

Why should I "dismiss it all?" I don't toss out bibliographies because they got a couple of minor points wrong. Heinrich Schliemann didn't toss out the Illiad because of the anachronisms found therein.

You apparently have an "either-or" mindset. Life isn't all black-or-white. One can glean a lot from Scripture without accepting it as inerrant, just like some folks glean philosophican points from Plato, or Ayn Rand, without accepting them as inerrant.

89 posted on 09/07/2005 10:54:46 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Ah, but the Bible itself says it is inerrant. You can't treat it the same way as you do Ayn Rand, or Plato, any more than you can treat Jesus the same way as you do other historical figures.

He said He was God. You can't just say He was a good teacher and a nice guy and dismiss it at that. He was either a lying fraud, or divine. No in between works. Same with Scripture. You can't pick and choose what you like out of it. It is ALL inspired by God, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and teaching those who read it (2 Timothy 3:16)

Now I'm going to be late. Back later.

90 posted on 09/07/2005 11:02:03 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Ah, but the Bible itself says it is inerrant.

And the Lord of the Rings says Gandalf battled the Balrog in Moria. A book can claim anything. It's veracity is determined by its correlation to the real world, not to its internal consistency.

91 posted on 09/07/2005 11:04:58 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
He was either a lying fraud, or divine.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities.

92 posted on 09/07/2005 11:44:49 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
There are plenty of other possibilities.

Name one.

Other than insanity, that is.

Many people just want to make Him a "good man" and a teacher. But if He wasn't divine......as He claimed.........he is only "good" by the Bill Clinton definition........one which includes blatant dishonesty.....

93 posted on 09/07/2005 1:32:52 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; All

The same enviro-wackos and left wing scientists that STRONGLY object to any mention of a creator ARE THE SAME people who insist on teach "Gaea Principle" to their science clases. "Gaea Principle" is that the Earth is a LIVING, Breathing organism. (some say intelligent orthers just a living individual organism) Humans are just an microbe on the body like som man bacteria in the intestine.

It is worth noting the double standard.


94 posted on 09/07/2005 1:38:23 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Name one.

That some of the things later attributed to Jesus were never actually said by him, that the stories were embellished over time, that things which were originally understood figuratively were later literalized, etc.

95 posted on 09/07/2005 1:39:36 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Junior
We've been through this before, Junior.

By all standards of verification, the New Testament passes all the tests of being an authentic ancient text. It is not fiction, as your highly faulty comparison with LOTR implies. It is an historic document, not the work of a human imagination.

You may choose to believe it doesn't qualify, but your view isn't backed by archaelogical and historic research over two millenia.

Maybe you should start admitting the game you're playing. You have the facts. You just ignore them.

(I'm not sure why I continue to expect logic and rational argumentation from those of you who are evolution zealots. You always disappoint).

96 posted on 09/07/2005 1:39:43 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Ah.........but all of those things fly in the face of the historic evidence, malakhi.

Try again.

(The texts of the Gospels are the same now as they were when they were written within a generation of when Christ lived. There are ancient manuscripts to back that up).

97 posted on 09/07/2005 1:42:16 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
By all standards of verification, the New Testament passes all the tests of being an authentic ancient text. It is not fiction, as your highly faulty comparison with LOTR implies. It is an historic document, not the work of a human imagination.

And what tests would those be? By certain tests, it's obvious the Book of Daniel was written long after the events it portrays. By some tests, it's obvious the books of Moses were composed by four different authors and later edited together.

The most commonly cited contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus and Christianity include an insertion into Josephus' work that breaks the flow of his narrative and appears to be a later insert by an unknown editor; and a couple of references by Roman writers of the Christian movement (not Christ, himself) nacent in Rome.

The famous "500 witnesses" are only found within the pages of the Bible (sort of like the half-dozen winesses to Gandalf's battle are only found in the LotR). Indeed, all the "proof" that the NT is historical is simply self-referential.

98 posted on 09/07/2005 1:48:31 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Ah.........but all of those things fly in the face of the historic evidence, malakhi.

No, they don't.

(The texts of the Gospels are the same now as they were when they were written within a generation of when Christ lived. There are ancient manuscripts to back that up).

Not so, unless you count fragments. And among them there are literally thousands of variances.

I'm not going to dispute this with you. You are committed to believing one set of propositions, and you aren't susceptible to contrary evidence. If you ever are seriously interested, there are plenty of materials available for your perusal.

99 posted on 09/07/2005 1:52:37 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: malakhi; Junior
Since you two are arguing from the same playbook, I'll combine this.

There are numerous manuscripts in the original language and translations dating from an historically close time period.
There is corroborating non Biblical verification.
There is archaelogical verification.
There were eyewitnesses to the events that were still alive when the manuscripts were around who did not dispute the events.
The texts themselves point to their authenticity, in that they are not whitewashed nor 'enhanced.' (You don't write about your own betrayal and severe weakness if you want to promote your own philosophy........a test of authenticity that the Gospels pass).

Only when your philosophic forebearers came around in the 18th and 19th centuries did anyone posit the preposterous claim that Jesus was not an authentic historic figure.

And since you are now double teaming me, I will submit to your advantage, and leave this alone.

To each of you, I would suggest that you also do some research outside your own realm........including study of the Scripture itself with open minds. And may your Creator reveal the truths therein that you struggle so hard to deny.

100 posted on 09/07/2005 2:06:03 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson