Seun:
The funniest thing about creationists attacking the theory of evolution is that their creation hypotheses cannot withstand any rational scrutiny. I welcome their skeptical attitude towards evolution and I hope they will extend that skeptical attitude to their creation hypothesis, too.

It cannot withstand rational scrutiny because it's not science but religion

Kalatium:

I didn't say the writers of the gospels are eyewitness, but eyewitness pass down this info wich was written about 3 decades later.

And you don't think that there are hoaxes in what the 'eyewitnesses' passed down.

if there are no hoaxes then what was the year that Jesus was born?

Seun:
The funniest thing about creationists attacking the theory of evolution is that their creation hypotheses cannot withstand any rational scrutiny. I welcome their skeptical attitude towards evolution and I hope they will extend that skeptical attitude to their creation hypothesis, too.

Consider things from this angle. That things were brought about through intelligent design. It is not about how long that process took, what came first or what the holy books say. Remember not to fix your mind on the bible or any other 'holy' book. Just think about intelligent design vs chance. Then when the whole stuff about the ''imperfection'' in the universe- which is the usual argument - comes to mind, consider the possibility that the intelligent mind is not perfect just like you and I are not. Remember it is not all religions that preach that the gods are perfect. Look at all the things we have made as man, they are not perfect but it does not say we are not intelligent. Nairaland experiences glitches every now and then but it does not mean there are no intelligent minds behind it.
The problem I see in creationism is the problem of how the creator(s) himself came about. No one can answer that, but I do not find it hard to believe that that creator after he has lived for gazillion years could have figured out how to create inferior minds. This is because I believe man, if he lasts long enough in the universe, will achieve the same thing. I don't accept the details of both theories but I am mostly afraid that evolutionism is becoming the bully that creationism has been. It is being spread the way religious leaders spread their holy book. They are flawless until someone who is really serious examines them. When they teach evolution it is presented as undisputed fact, as if to say if the holy books are wrong this has to be right. They should present both the intelligent design theory and the evolution theory. This is what honest people do. It is not fact that we evolved. It is a probability.
In science we have all kinds of theories. When there are different theories that explain phenomena and non has been proven they are all taught.

PastorAIO:


And you don't think that there are hoaxes in what the 'eyewitnesses' passed down.

if there are no hoaxes then what was the year that Jesus was born?

In case you struggle to answer, please read this:




In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1–5)

The census in fact took place about ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE.[10] Some scholars have stated that many censuses took place over time in Judea,[11][12][13] and some biblical scholars and commentators argue that the original Greek text of Luke's gospel can be translated as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria," i.e. that Luke was actually referring to a census other than that of Quirinius.[14] Some biblical scholars and commentators argue that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod’s reign,[15][16] but Géza Vermes has described such approaches as "exegetical acrobatics,"[17] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made an error.[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

PastorAIO:


And you don't think that there are hoaxes in what the 'eyewitnesses' passed down.

if there are no hoaxes then what was the year that Jesus was born?

It was never mentioned which year Jesus was born, but scholars calculated it to 4 or 6 BC if am not mistaken

WORLDPEACE:

Consider things from this angle. That things were brought about through intelligent design. It is not about how long that process took, what came first or what the holy books say. Remember not to fix your mind on the bible or any other 'holy' book. Just think about intelligent design vs chance. Then when the whole stuff about the ''imperfection'' in the universe- which is the usual argument - comes to mind, consider the possibility that the intelligent mind is not perfect just like you and I are not. Remember it is not all religions that preach that the gods are perfect. Look at all the things we have made as man, they are not perfect but it does not say we are not intelligent. Nairaland experiences glitches every now and then but it does not mean there are no intelligent minds behind it.
The problem I see in creationism is the problem of how the creator(s) himself came about. No one can answer that, but I do not find it hard to believe that that creator after he has lived for gazillion years couldn't have figured out how to create inferior minds. This is because I believe man, if he lasts long enough in the universe, will achieve the same thing. I don't accept the details of both theories but I am mostly afraid that evolutionism is becoming the bully that creationism has been. It is being spread the way religious leaders spread their holy book. They are flawless until someone who is really serious examines them. When they teach evolution it is presented as undisputed fact, as if to say if the holy books are wrong this has to be right. They should present both the intelligent design theory and the evolution theory. This is what honest people do. It is not fact that we evolved. It is a probability.
In science we have all kinds of theories. When there are different theories that explain phenomena and non has been proven they are all taught.

Wow... Nice write up

Kalatium:

Wow... Nice write up

Thanks.

PastorAIO:


And you don't think that there are hoaxes in what the 'eyewitnesses' passed down.

if there are no hoaxes then what was the year that Jesus was born?

It is only possible but not probable

Kalatium:

It was never mentioned which year Jesus was born, but scholars calculated it to 4 or 6 BC if am not mistaken

Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius' census. Quirinius' census happened in 6CE.

The same chapter tells us that Herod was alive then, but Herod died in 4BC, that's is ten years before.

That means that that whole story of Herod killing all the babies is a hoax.

And indeed there is no historical record of such a thing happening.


Whether you want to call it possible or probable or certain, you cannot get around the fact that the passage is palpably false.

PastorAIO:


Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius' census. Quirinius' census happened in 6CE.

The same chapter tells us that Herod was alive then, but Herod died in 4BC, that's is ten years before.

That means that that whole story of Herod killing all the babies is a hoax.

And indeed there is no historical record of such a thing happening.


Whether you want to call it possible or probable or certain, you cannot get around the fact that the passage is palpably false.

What you are saying is not new, biblical scholars have said this already but the thing is that we don't know why Luke wrote it that way. I prefer to call it discrepancies not hoax

Pls create a new thread to discuss biblical discrepancies.

Seun:
Pls create a new thread to discuss biblical discrepancies.

Hehehe... If I open am, e go enta front page?

Kalatium:

What you are saying is not new, biblical scholars have said this already but the thing is that we don't know why Luke wrote it that way. I prefer to call it discrepancies not hoax

I'm not arguing for novelty. I never said it was new. Please this is not a matter of writing it one way or the other, either.

If this matter was true 20 years ago it will remain true today. If it was true 1000 years ago it still remains true. So whether it is new or not has no bearing on the validity of it.

It is not a discrepancy. It is an outright untruth.

Discrepancy may be unintentional but hoax is very intentional. Luke intentionally wrote everything that he wrote.

Therefore it is a hoax.

Now to bring it back to the subject of this thread. You said that the hoaxes proving Evolution are 'indisputable facts against evolution'.
Now would you use the same logic and argue that the numerous upon numerous hoaxes involved with christianity are also 'indisputable facts against' christianity?

PastorAIO:


I'm not arguing for novelty. I never said it was new. Please this is not a matter of writing it one way or the other, either.

If this matter was true 20 years ago it will remain true today. If it was true 1000 years ago it still remains true. So whether it is new or not has no bearing on the validity of it.

It is not a discrepancy. It is an outright untruth.

Discrepancy may be unintentional but hoax is very intentional. Luke intentionally wrote everything that he wrote.

Therefore it is a hoax.

Now to bring it back to the subject of this thread. You said that the hoaxes proving Evolution are 'indisputable facts against evolution'.
Now would you use the same logic and argue that the numerous upon numerous hoaxes involved with christianity are also 'indisputable facts against' christianity?

But why I was talking about the hoaxes in evolution you didn't accept it, until you want to disprove the bible then you are now accepting it

PastorAIO:


I'm not arguing for novelty. I never said it was new. Please this is not a matter of writing it one way or the other, either.

If this matter was true 20 years ago it will remain true today. If it was true 1000 years ago it still remains true. So whether it is new or not has no bearing on the validity of it.

It is not a discrepancy. It is an outright untruth.

Discrepancy may be unintentional but hoax is very intentional. Luke intentionally wrote everything that he wrote.

Therefore it is a hoax.

Now to bring it back to the subject of this thread. You said that the hoaxes proving Evolution are 'indisputable facts against evolution'.
Now would you use the same logic and argue that the numerous upon numerous hoaxes involved with christianity are also 'indisputable facts against' christianity?

Luke actually didn't wrote the so called hoax intentional, that's what he got from oral tradition.
Read Luke 1:1-4

raphieMontella:
@the underlined...
Which creationist/biblical site has been feeding you with these lies?

Gerara here... I research in Wikipedia and other scientific journals not creationist website, go and search non of this is a lie.

PastorAIO:


I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about hoaxes.


For example 1John 5:7. 'And these three are one'

Or any of the other numerous additions and deletions in the bible.


These were hoaxes. Now following your logic that must mean that Christianity is fake. Or rather an 'indisputable fact against christianity'.

I don't understand the point you are making

Mind you, the so-called addition and subtraction are not what you think. Years after the bible was written many scribes copied the bible by hand unlike today. As scribes copied, errors and mistake usually occurs (you can testify your note and your classmate are not the same.).
No two Greek manuscripts are the same some are longer while others shorter.
Christianity is not a hoax (stop using this word pls), but there are discrepancies and other problems in the bible
Time will not allow me to write in details about this.

PastorAIO:


Oh, I thought you were one of those christians that say that we get our ethics from religion.

So do you admit that people have ethics without being religious?

Anyway, a great deal of opposition in the time of George Bush jr was from the Christians and that had a big influence on why he blocked the research.


Did Isaac Newton tell you he was a unitarian? or did he write it anywhere? If the sole definition of unitarian is 'does not believe in trinity' then are Arians not unitarians too?

Yes Newton acknowledge he was a unitarian, he did not believe in trinity. He complained about the reading of King James version on 1 John 3:7, he said three of them are not one. Read on biblical studies of Isaac Newton on Wikipedia. Arians deny trinity but not the preexistence of Christ but unitarians deny both trinity and Christ preexistence. Got it?

Kalatium:

Gerara here... I research in Wikipedia and other scientific journals not creationist website, go and search non of this is a lie.

see this one?
Research ni...research ko?
Tell me the scientific journal where you got the FACT that newton is the greatest mind to ever exist..
Or you keep calm bro.

raphieMontella:

see this one?
Research ni...research ko?
Tell me the scientific journal where you got the FACT that newton is the[b] greatest mind to ever exist[/b] ..
Or you keep calm bro.

Why do you often misquote me... Na wa oo
I said Newton is the greatest mind science had produced not the greatest mind to ever exist. Bro

Albert Einstein is another great mind since the time of Newton . Haven't you come across many articles referring to this?

Kalatium:

But why I was talking about the hoaxes in evolution you didn't accept it, until you want to disprove the bible then you are now accepting it

You're really talking like a typical hoax mongering christian. Abeg, Where did you see me not accepting your talk about hoaxes in evolution.


You are the one that made a statement that Hoaxes used to 'prove' evolution is 'indisputable fact against evolution'. Abi nor be so?

I then asked you if you are willing to take exactly that way of reasoning that you employed there and apply it to christianity. Then you started to shake and fail to answer any simple question again.

And in case you don't get my point, I will spell it out.

Just because someone presents a hoax to support a postion that does not mean that the position must necessarily be false. I am very aware of hoaxes such as the Piltdown man that were presented as proofs of evolution. It was scientists in the science community that investigated these hoax and found them out to be hoaxes.

This is the level of self criticism and investigation that goes on within the science community that makes Science so much more superior to your Hocus Pocus. You now want to use this self criticism of scientists and point it against a Scientific theory and claim that because scientists were not happy with certain 'proofs' therefore the scientific theory is false.

Can you see how daft that kind of reasoning is?

Christianity is riddled with hoaxes.

One such hoax is the Johannine Comma. Though it has been removed from the bible that does not stop trinitarians from continuing to believe in their trinity.

Kalatium:

Why do you often misquote me... Na wa oo
I said Newton is the greatest mind science had produced not the greatest mind to ever exist. Bro

newton is not the greatest mind in science(at least you can't be certain).read about Leonard Euler,James Clerk maxwell...Einstein is arguably the best mind.

Kalatium:

It cannot withstand rational scrutiny because it's not science but religion

In essence,we are meant to accept everything religion says without questioning.Obviously,that's what religion is about;LACK THE QUESTIONING ABILITY AND YOU BECOME A TRUE RELIGIOUS MAN.

Lucasiangrey:
newton is not the greatest mind in science(at least you can't be certain).read about Leonard Euler,James Clerk maxwell...Einstein is arguably the best mind.

Mtcchwwwww... That's what I say in scientific articles and journals. Go and argue with them not me

Lucasiangrey:
In essence,we are meant to accept everything religion says without questioning.Obviously,that's what religion is about;LACK THE QUESTIONING ABILITY AND YOU BECOME A TRUE RELIGIOUS MAN.

No, you can question religion

PastorAIO:


You're really talking like a typical hoax mongering christian. Abeg, Where did you see me not accepting your talk about hoaxes in evolution.


You are the one that made a statement that Hoaxes used to 'prove' evolution is 'indisputable fact against evolution'. Abi nor be so?

I then asked you if you are willing to take exactly that way of reasoning that you employed there and apply it to christianity. Then you started to shake and fail to answer any simple question again.

And in case you don't get my point, I will spell it out.

Just because someone presents a hoax to support a postion that does not mean that the position must necessarily be false. I am very aware of hoaxes such as the Piltdown man that were presented as proofs of evolution. It was scientists in the science community that investigated these hoax and found them out to be hoaxes.

This is the level of self criticism and investigation that goes on within the science community that makes Science so much more superior to your Hocus Pocus. You now want to use this self criticism of scientists and point it against a Scientific theory and claim that because scientists were not happy with certain 'proofs' therefore the scientific theory is false.

Can you see how daft that kind of reasoning is?

Christianity is riddled with hoaxes.

One such hoax is the Johannine Comma. Though it has been removed from the bible that does not stop trinitarians from continuing to believe in their trinity.

The Johannine Comma has not been removed from the bible still found in King James Version which was translated from an inferior Greek text. The Greek text used in translating our modern Bibles don't have it that's why you can't find it . Read my thread about problems with KJV.
Other books like John, Paul letters etc still talk about the trinity
Mind you, it was a Roman priest that makes Erasmus to insert the Johannine Comma into 1 John for the first Greek text (textus receptus) of the bible.

Lucasiangrey:
newton is not the greatest mind in science(at least you can't be certain).read about Leonard Euler,James Clerk maxwell...Einstein is arguably the best mind.

Go and search in Google... Einstein is the second greatest mind since the time of Newton.

PastorAIO:


Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius' census. Quirinius' census happened in 6CE.

The same chapter tells us that Herod was alive then, but Herod died in 4BC, that's is ten years before.

That means that that whole story of Herod killing all the babies is a hoax.

And indeed there is no historical record of such a thing happening.


Whether you want to call it possible or probable or certain, you cannot get around the fact that the passage is palpably false.

You are not the first to question this, many scholar's try to know why Luke wrote this but non make your conclusion
. You don't have enough evidence to say the passage is false. I guess to committed another fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question). This time don't say I am the one committing the fallacy

Kalatium:

The Johannine Comma has not been removed from the bible still found in King James Version which was translated from an inferior Greek text. The Greek text used in translating our modern Bibles don't have it that's why you can't find it . Read my thread about problems with KJV.
Other books like John, Paul letters etc still talk about the trinity
Mind you, it was a Roman priest that makes Erasmus to insert the Johannine Comma into 1 John for the first Greek text (textus receptus) of the bible.

What's wrong with you? Are you capable of following an argument? Christianity has been supported by many many hoaxes.

Another one for example is the insertion of Jesus into the Histories of Josephus. Does that make Christianity False?

Because that is what You are saying.

You are saying that if something is supported with a hoax then that thing must be false. If Evolution has been supported with a hoax then Evolution must be false. Abi, did you not say that?

If you know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong then why don't you just run away from the thread like your type tend to do. Why all this tangential chit chat about 'read my thread on KJV' etc?

Kalatium:

Go and search in Google... Einstein is the second greatest mind since the time of Newton.

I wonder what criteria they used to measure these minds. Was it done with a ruler? Or a thermometer?

And google has the answer, of course. Gugu has answers for everything.

Kalatium:

You are not the first to question this, many scholar's try to know why Luke wrote this but non make your conclusion
. You don't have enough evidence to say the passage is false. I guess to committed another fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question). This time don't say I am the one committing the fallacy

If you like let me be the 1 billionth person to question this, that does not in any way change the fact that there are many hoaxes in the bible.

So according to your logic the bible must be 'indisputably' false. Abi?

If you like hide behind 'lack of evidence'. Simple basic laws of logical rigor will tell you that if Jesus was born in 4AD and Herod died in 6BC then Herod could not have tried to kill Jesus. I don't know what other evidence you are looking for.