I have been banned. March 25, 2011
Posted by rm42 in Life, Uncategorized.trackback
I have been banned from the PCLinuxOS forums. Yeah, I am rather shocked. But, I shall be the first to admit that I deserved it. I broke the rules of the forum, I spoke about religion. My bad. I shouldn’t have. It was a moment of weakness.
You see, it is hard not to respond to statements that one strongly disagrees with. In this case, someone wrote a post talking about “Understanding Evolution”. While that post purported to speak about the evolution of the PCLinuxOS forum, it also made reference to the idea of Biological Evolution and provided a link to a website dedicated to the propagation of the idea that Biological Evolution is a fact.
In my mid twenties I started to question the beliefs that were handed to me by my parents and the society I grew up around. Among those beliefs was the theory of Evolution. After reading a few books on the subject, I came to the conclusion that Evolution is a myth based on circumstantial evidence and a biased religious belief.
According to Wikipedia:
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
The fossil record is comprised in its entirety of evidence that fits that description. That same article states: “An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out”. Since evolutionists feel justified in ruling out alternative explanations as “impossible”, they now want everyone to treat the idea of evolution as a fact.
While it is true that Earth species are tremendously adaptable, it is a stretch to conclude that adaptability can actually lead to new species being formed. No one has been able to observe this and there is no direct evidence of this in the fossil record.
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.)
In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case. What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.” (See: Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.)
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent and to agree with the findings of Gordon. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body parts appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
Regardless, I do recognize that the PCLinuxOS forum is not the place to discuss these type of issues. I regret having done so. I deserve to be banned and banished to the land of the ignominious. However, I find it sad that a bias exists and that posts supporting the Evolution myth are allowed to stand. If posts expressing skepticism about Evolution are going to be removed, shouldn’t fairness dictate that those supporting it be removed as well. Otherwise what we have is a one sided argument.
Any way, for any one interested in seeing what happened, I saved the thread as a series of PDF documents (please excuse the formatting).
After the first post, a few comments that followed were deleted, admittedly on both sides of the issue. This is what ensued afterwards.
Latter on, someone posted a link to a YouTube video making fun of the idea of an intelligent creator. The post was allowed to stand for several hours. I was surprised about this, and to be honest, a little upset about what I perceived to be unfairness. So, I posted a response. You can see the discussion here:
This morning I woke up to find out that I have been banned from the PCLinuxOS forum. Wow! And to top it off, I find that only the posts that fit with the moderator’s view point have been allowed to remain? Well, what can I say. Bias is a hard thing to detect in one self. This is the way the last page looks today.
As Jason David BeDuhn states in his book, Truth in Translation (p.10), “Bias is not the same as maliciousness or dishonesty. Biases are unconscious assumptions or unrecognized blind spots.” This I am afraid is what we have here. Or I should say, I hope that is all this is.
As you can see from this blog, and from my PCLinuxOS post history, I avoid getting into religious arguments with people over the internet. On occasion, when I run into comments that I see as clearly false (really that happens on the internet sometimes 
) I have fallen into the temptation of responding. I have to work on that, I guess. But, for this time, I just couldn’t help myself.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Evolutions has holes in it but it is the best scientific explanation for the life diversity we observe on this planet. If you think evolution is a myth, then what do you have to account for the diversity we have? To poke holes on others explanations without proposing a credible alternative is hardly constructive.
The other possible explanation is “GOD did it as is explained in the bible”. Well, this explanation also has holes in it. The biggest one being the earth is around 6000 years old. Do you think this is so? Then how do you explain physical evidence like fossils and rocks age that contradicts this view?
Identifying holes in any scientific explanation is very much welcomed. The theory of evolution needs it short coming to be identified and explanations for those shortcomings proposed. This is how any scientific theory moves forward.
I am fairly certain the science community will gladly put evolution aside if another credible explanation is proposed but i am not aware of any, do you?
Now, if you or anybody else want the biblical explanation to be considered as science, then you should also be open to passages in the bible to be altered to reflect what is observed and that 6000 years old earth should be the first to be looked at.
We have no idea what gravity is but we do not go around calling it a “myth”. The explanations we have about gravity seem to fit well with observations and most people are comfortable with it while still looking into it, same as evolution.
mtz,
Thanks for dropping bye. I am a little tired. I need to go to bed, so I’ll be brief.
I addressed that point in the second PDF I posted above. For expediency sake, please allow me to quote what I said:
“Yes, some who claim to have faith hold to the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in a period of 7 literal days. I think that it is unfortunate because it has led a lot of people to think that this is a Bible teaching. The Bible has many types of writings. Some of course are to be taken literally. Others are symbolic. Others yet are narrations of visions that may or may not be symbolic. In this case, the creation account found in Genesis chapter 1 is the narration of a vision, from the point of view of someone standing on the Earth, in which the writer saw how the planet was molded in a series of 6 successive symbolic days or periods, until it reached the state it has today. It is a beautiful account that, impressively, is quite sound from a scientific point of view. ”
See here for a nice explanation.
I love science. I think it is a wonderful way of learning about our world, our universe, and ourselves. The more we learn about this, the more grateful we should be at the wonderful way things are made. It is a shame that many scientists, as people in all other endeavors, have allowed their ambitions and their biases to cloud their sense of fairness. But, I am heartened to see that many scientists are now mustering the valor to speak up.
The Second International Congress of Human Paleontology, recently held at Turin, Italy, it was clear that many scientists still have misgivings on the matter.
Instead of confirming that evolution is “one hundred percent” believable, the congress apparently exposed major differences of opinion between scientists over when and how man evolved. Paleontologist Bernard Vandermeersch, for example, underscored the fact that, as far as man’s origins are concerned, the results of paleontology “contradict the data furnished by genetics,” which point to one common ancestor.
The other credible (to many) explanation has already been dismissed with prejudice. This is thanks in no small measure to the fact that the people who took it upon themselves to speak as the legitimate representatives of that opposing view, were really not qualified to do so. To begin with, they misread and misinterpret the book upon which they claim to base their ideas from. But again, there are many scientists that are willing to have an open mind about this matters. See the story of this scientist for example:
See above for my response to the idea of a 6000 year old earth.
As for the Bible needing to be brought up to date. Well, the Bible was written many years ago and has had to survive many challenges. It is remarkable how well it has been preserved to our day. Yes, over the centuries, attempts were made to alter it in order to make it fit one idea or another. However, thanks to the work of dedicated historians and archeologists, we are now quite certain about what the original manuscripts said. Because of that, many spurious texts have been identified and removed from modern translations. Of course, there is still the matter of translating it accurately and without bias. To that effect, I recommend the book I linked to above from Mr BeDuhn.
The Bible is not a book about science. It was not written in order to teach us the secrets of the universe. It was written in order that those that may seek the truth about God can find it. Nevertheless, whenever the Bible touches a scientific point it is remarkably accurate. I already gave you a clear example on the first link I shared with you. Here are just a couple more.
What do you think people thought about the shape of the earth 2700 and some years ago? Well, lets just say that the prevailing idea was not that earth was round. It would have been very easy for this type of “human thinking” to enter the Bible. However, Isaiah correctly made reference to “the sphere of the earth”. (Isaiah 40:22) (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson) Two hundred years latter, we start hearing of some Greeks, such as Pythagoras, proposing that this might indeed be true. How did Isaiah get it right?
But lets go even further back, about 3500 years ago. What do you think the prevailing wisdom about what supported the earth was? It would have been very easy for myths, such as the giant turtle, or the Atlas of Greek mythology, to enter into the the Bible, if it wasn’t what it claims to be. However, Moses (who is credited with the writing of the book of Job) quoted Job’s poetic words where he states that God was “hanging the earth upon nothing”. I personally think this is remarkable.
I have been studying the Bible a few years. I have come upon many people who have been told that there are inaccuracies or contradictions in the Bible. However, if one is willing to sit down and calmly examine those claims, one can without fail resolve the supposed conflict.
Because we have no reason to believe it is. Our understanding of Gravity has had to be amended over the years, but it has not been controversial because we do not have an alternative explanation. The theory of Evolution is controversial, and many want it to be subjected to greater scrutiny, because it does contradict an opposing view. Sure, we can not prove the opposing view scientifically (and you can’t disprove it either). But we do have a good amount of circumstantial evidence and eye witness accounts to back it up.
Unfortunately, while some scientists are starting to break through the fog of myth, humbly admitting that they have misgivings about the factualness of Evolutionary theory, millions of people go around proclaiming their faith in a theory that most of them have never really honestly examined, much less understood. I guess that is just the age we live in.
I’m always amazed that the proponents of intelligent design never ask themselves, “Who or what created the designer or the designer’s designer?”. “Were did the designer come from?”
Proponents of “Intelligent design”, Always point to so called “holes in the fossil record” as lack of proof for evolution and then proceed to provide proof for “intelligent design” by either quoting from a 5,000 year old manuscript that was written at a time when humans had little understanding of the world around them, or they give the “ignorance as a strength” argument. They say, “I can’t understand how a bat developed echolocation, therefore, something must have designed it that way.” Then they follow up that reasoning with, “I can’t conceive of echolocation evolving, it must be proof that there is a designer”.
It’s faulty logic. Your whole argument is based on this on finding holes in our current knowledge of evolution as proof for an “intelligent designer!”(Btw, regarding echolocation and bats developing it, there are plenty of examples of blind humans developing echolocation because they needed too. You only to google, Daniel Kish, or Ben Underwood to see this. There are dozens of others. If humans can develop echolocation, why wouldn’t a bat be able to do it if it’s survival depended on it? Developing extraordinary hearing doesn’t need to take thousands of years. Ben Underwood did it in a single generation, and he only lived to 16!
Also, very few scientists argue against evolution or an alternative theory to evolution. They argue the about the details. Ie, Does evolution happen rapidly? Or slowly? Does the tree of life have a single root? Or many? There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and the fossil record is only a small part of it.
There is a great documentary that explains our current knowledge of evolution, how Darwin came to that theory, and discoveries since Darwin’s time. I doubt you will watch it, but if you are interested, here it is:
This is part one 1, there are 8 parts. It’s wildly interesting and the fossil record is barely mentioned.
I am sorry that I won’t be able to give your comments the time and attention they deserve. My wife’s grand mother passed away last night. I will be away from my computer for the most part the rest of this weekend. But here are just a few quick observations.
Of course we do. The answer is hard to grasp though. First think, how large is the Universe? Who created the time space continuum? We are talking about the God who is the source of the E that can be derived from all the mc2 in the universe. With that in mind, it should not be surprising that the answer that the Bible gives us is this:
(Psalm 90:2) Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.
(Isaiah 40:25-26) “But to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?” says the Holy One. “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.
It is important to examine the fossil record because many scientists want to give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed. As I have already explained, many honest scientists, such as David M. Raup, admit that “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
I don’t quote the Bible as proof for “intelligent design”. The proof of intelligent design is in the designs themselves. I quote the Bible to show its wisdom, reliability, accuracy, and veracity. (It is not 5000 years old, by the way.)
No, that is not our argument. What we say is that, the more we understand how living creatures amazing features work, the less inclined we are to accept that they were produced by blind chance, random mutations, and incredibly improbable events. Entropy is not a good designer.
To that we add the fact that the Bible is a book of superior wisdom that has shown time and again its reliability, accuracy, and veracity. Even when predicting things in advanced. This alone has convinced many of us that its claims are true, and our “hunch” about the existence of God is valid and reasonable. I came to that conclusion several years ago. The more I have learned about the Bible and from the Bible has only solidified that belief. Nothing that evolutionists have shown me has been sufficiently solid to merit a change in my perspective.
Thank you for that wonderful example. Think of it this way, a computer will not automatically compensate for one of its hard drives starting to fail, by transferring its data and work load, to any remaining healthy hard drives… unless, of course, it was designed to do that, maybe trough a Raid Array or some similar redundancy mechanism. The fact that Ben Underwoods’s, and many other people’s, disabilities could be compensated by their bodies trough other organs is a testament to their designer. Yes, they were intelligently designed! Earth’s creatures are incredibly adaptable. Adaptation is a fact. However, we are all still what we are. Earth species do not gradually become a different species. A puddle can still mate with a Saint Bernard, because they are still dogs.
The Bible states that God made Earth species to mate with those of “their kind” (Gen 1:21). A kind is therefore, Biblically speaking, a family or group of living creatures or things that are interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family. (That is, whose sex cells will unite to form, or begin to form, an offspring; but with those of another ‘kind’ or family are absolutely incompatible and unable to unite.) This definition is the same as the old definition once given to “species.” Then “species” was used to mean the offspring of a single specially created pair. But with the advent of the false theory of evolution “species” has changed meaning and according to present-day scientific usage numerous species may all be of the one Biblical kind. When variations occur within the one kind evolutionists speak of some of them as new species and as evidence that species change; according to their narrowed-down definition of “species” it is true, but species do not change if we hold to the old definition of the term and which coincides with the above definition of the Biblical kind.
Any way, I really have to go now. I am considering deleting this whole blog post. So don’t be surprised if it is gone all of the sudden. I can’t see anything useful coming from it. Sorry I didn’t get to respond to other people’s comments.
So you are saying the bible does not say earth is 6000 years old and was created in 7 literal days? Then how old does the bible say earth is and was created in how many days/months/years/decades/millenniums? Bible’s explanation is very light in detail and specifics must first be presented before this alternative theory can be considered.
“The Bible has many types of writings. Some of course are to be taken literally. Others are symbolic. Others yet are narrations of visions that may or may not be symbolic”
The above statement pretty much gives you a guarantee to free pass, you cant go wrong and hence you loose some credibility. It will allow you to claim literal reading of the bible to things supported by observations(you did) and symbolic readings/”narrations visions” to things that arent supported by observations(you did also)
“The Bible is not a book about science. It was not written in order to teach us the secrets of the universe”
How can you make the above statement and then want the bible and its explanation to be used as an alternative to a scientific theory?. If the bible is not a book about science, it simply shouldnt be present in a scientific discussion.
The problem with the bible’s explanation with the diversity we see is that it doesnt really say anything useful. GOD created the world in six days, ok, how exactly did he do that? How did our DNA be so close to those of chimps? Do you know that you share 70% of your DNA with a banana? How did this come to be? Evolution can answer this questions, the bible simple doesnt even attempt to. All is says is that GOD did it in seven days with whatever “seven days” may mean.
With the answers we have to the above question as incomplete as they are, allow us to do practical things with them, like examining how biological systems work in other animals and apply the knowledge on humans.
I am a christian, i believe in jesus christ and i love reading my bible and i understand why some christians feel the need to attack the theory of evolution. It is partly because it directly challenges what the bible says and partly because some people who challenge the bible uses evolution and some christians feel the need to undermine evolution to weaken these attacks, it is perfectly understandable. People bringing up evolution in church is wrong, people bringing up the bible and GOD in science classes is also wrong. Both can exist separately, just because i think the bible is not to be used as an alternative to the theory of evolution does not mean i do not believe in GOD, a lot of people have this view too.
The bible says jesus walked on water, was that literal or symbolic? Can that be used as a scientific proof that it is possible for humans to walk on water? The bible simply can not be used as an alternative explanation to scientific theories. Scientific theories should be put against other scientific theories. This has nothing to do believing or not believing in GOD, it is about consistency.
God has not given us every detail of how he made the Earth or ourselves. Would he have done so if man had not chosen to alienate himself from him? Will he do so in the future when all mankind is once again reconciled with him? We do not know. He has told us in the Bible what we need to know in order to live enough to find out.
When interpreting any scripture, the context needs to be taken in to consideration, both the immediate and the overall context. That makes it a lot less likely to misinterpret it. The Bible is full of gems that are hard to discover. The explanation of Genesis 1 that I pointed you to is one very good example of that.
Evolution could explain it, if God had used Evolution to accomplish what he did. But he didn’t. He told us so. That is why evolution is running into the problems I described above and myriads more.
Scientist should stick to science and stop trying to interpret their findings with assumptions based on a flawed religious doctrine. Namely, that God does not exist and that his word the Bible is incorrect. Otherwise they will just keep bumping their heads against the wall (figuratively speaking)
As to why it is that all living organisms share similarly designed DNA, could it be because they share the same designer?
How can you claim to believe in Jesus and not believe in the Bible? Jesus considered the scriptures as absolutely reliable and as the word of God. (John 17:17; Mark 7:13)
The apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17:
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
Take that to heart and you will do well.
As to Jesus walking on water, I’ll talk about that on the response to your other comment.
“Both can exist separately, just because i think the bible is not to be used as an alternative to the theory of evolution does not mean i do not believe in GOD, a lot of people have this view too.”
Not that I believe in God, but I agree with you on this and so does the Vatican:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
excerpt:”the Church’s unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose driven natural process, actively guided by God.”
Let me just share a quick link on this point:
Is Evolution Compatible with the Bible?
Sorry to hear about your wife’s Grandmother.
The death of a loved one is always hard. That is why man created God. It’s very comforting to believe that the ones we love will go to a better place. Having lost my mother three years ago, i know how hard a death in the family can be.
So, go ahead and take the time to mourn, and when you are back, you can read the following:
You are validating all your points by pointing to the bible as proof. The bible is nothing more than an ancient manuscript that attempts to explain our existence at a time when we knew nothing about our world. Most of the people who wrote the bible believed the Earth was flat! Seriously, how much credibility can that offer? In fact the Greeks had already discovered that the Earth was round, they calculated the circumference of the Earth with incredible accuracy, and the knew our distance from the sun. Then the Christians came and nearly destroyed all that knowledge by pushing the world into the dark ages.
I say in my previous post that the bible is 5000 years old because many of the bible stories are clearly plagiarized from ancient Egyptian and Summerian pagan stories, the oldest of which are %000 years old. For instance, there are incredible similarities between Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus. Both are the result of a virgin birth, both were accompanied by a star and had three kings worship them. Both were baptized at 30 years old. Both could heal the sick and walk on water. Only thing is that Horus is 3500 years ago instead of 2000. The Sumerians had a story of a great deluge that goes back even farther than Horus. The Torah which is the father of the old testament is 3,500 years old.
If the bible is the undisputed word of God, why did the Elizabethans feel the need to rewrite it in the form of the New Testament? The New Testament is just the Old Testament without the juicy sex and violence.
Those who wrote the bible were just guessing at our origins. We don’t live in those times anymore. We now know that world is round and not flat. We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. We know what really causes the tides and the seasons. We know what causes day and night and that the moon revolves around the earth. There are lots of other things to learn about our world, but if we continue to cling on to some ancient manuscript, we will never discover the truth about our world. In Galileo’s time, people were put to death for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun and that it was round. In our time, I have a friend who was ostracized and had rocks thrown at his window for questioning the existence of God.
To claim that something is so, because the bible says it is, is incredibly naive and a false argument. I have yet to see anyone prove that the bible really is the word of god, and I have yet to see anyone prove that the words of the bible are the truth. Even the Vatican has conceded that the bible is meant to offer allegorical lessons on how to manage our lives. Why do they concede? Because it’s very difficult to argue with hard evidence and because the bible is a mess of contradictions and fallacies.
The more we learn about our world, the more the bible will fade into history in the same way that the story of Asgard and the Norse gods have faded. The same thing will happen to the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Edda, Dhammapada, the Book of Mormon, or even Scientology’s “Battlefield Earth”. Nothing in the bible is more credible than the words and writings found in these alternative religious works.
So once again, where is your proof of a god or of intelligent design? Quoting from the bible is not the answer and it is not proof. If you start your response with, “The bible say…”, then you are not offering proof.
While you’re at it, please prove that the bible really is the word of god. Please explain all the discrepancies and fallacies in the Bible. Is the world flat? (Daniel 4:11), (Matthew 4:8), (Isaiah 40:18-23 ).
Is earth is stationary? (psalms 93:1), (Psalms 96:10), ( 1st Chronicles 16:30)
Is the Earth resting on a foundation or pillars? Where are they? (Samuel 2:8), (Job 9:6)
Which galaxy contains Heaven? And where are the pillars it is resting on? (Job 26:11).
Good luck!
mookiemu,
Thank you for your kind words. And I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your mother. I assume that you do not really believe that our loved ones go to a better place when they die. Would it surprse you to learn that I do not believe in that either. You see, the teaching of the immortality of the soul is not a Bible based teaching. That is just one of the many myths people have regarding the Bible and its teachings. If you are interested in seing what the Bible actually says regarding this I invite to read the following:
What happens at death?
Do humans become Angels when they die?
Will bad people burn in Hell?
Thank you for understanding that I will noy be ablt to respond right away. At the moment the only access I have to the Internet is through my phone. And to say that my connectivity is spotty is putting it mildly.
You bring up several interestiing points. I am glad to have the opportunity to address them. I will see if I can get to a fewof them before I get back home, as I have an opportunity.
As I said before, I do not use the Bible as proof of Intelligent Design (the proof is in the designs themselves). I do not even use it to prove that God exists. Millions of people, believe in God’s existence and do not base that belive in the Bible. However, the Bible does provide powerful corraborating evidence to his existence. Furthemore, it can be very useful in making the correct inferences from the availble evidence.
You may be surprised at how well the Bible stands up to criticism inspite of what you may have heard from others.
As I already mentioned on a previous comment above, the Bible correctly identified the Earth as being a “sphere” and as “hanging uppon nothing”. This it did hundreds of years before the greeks started to discern this. Did the Jews in general believed that? Probably not, but the fact that the Bible correctly stated that is remarkable.
As for the Christians being responsible for the dark ages I feel that I should address that point as well. You see, there is a big difference between the Christianity that Jesus preached and that was practiced by the first century Christians, and the “Christianity” that eventually appeared and usurped that name.
Jesus correctly profesied that this would happen in his parable of the wheat and the weed (Mathew 13:24-30):
“24 Another illustration he set before them, saying: “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man that sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat, and left. 26 When the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds appeared also. 27 So the slaves of the householder came up and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it come to have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ They said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No; that by no chance, while collecting the weeds, YOU uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the harvest season I will tell the reapers, First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up, then go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse.’”
His explanains the meaning of the parable in verses 36-43:
“36 Then after dismissing the crowds he went into the house. And his disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world; as for the fine seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy that sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen.”
As you can see Jesus (and therefore the Bible) predicted the appearance of a weed like type of “Christian” that would overshadow, or make it hard to distinguish, his true disciples.
The apostle Peter also warned about this development (2 Peter 2:1-3):
“1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.”
The apostle Paul gave us more details (1 Timothy 4:1-3):
“1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.”
Shortly after the death of the last apostle, John, at the end of the first century, some Christians began to deviate from the original Christian teaching. (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8) Slowly, over the next three centuries different sects of “Christians” appeared. The paganism that surrounded them, as well as other philosophical ideas began to influence them. Some of them even began to try to impose their views on other Christian sects by means of violence.
In the midst of this, in the fourth century, a warrior named Constantine became attracted to one of these sects ans even fought a few battles in their name. Once he became the Emperor, he called for a council to try to unify the worship in his empire. That was the Council of Nicea, over which Constantine himself presided and moderated. Out of that council began to emerged what came to be called the Roman Catholic (universal) Church. Many unscriptural teachings became accepted as dogmas of this church, such as the belief on an immortal soul, the teaching of the Trinity, the worship of the cross, the celebration of Christmas, etc. etc. etc.
Hapily, we are now living in the time in which true Christianity would be once again clearly discernible. (Daniel 12:1, 3-4, 9-10; Mathew 13:43)
I really should go and spend some time with my family. I will try to get back to your other points soon.
While the oldest book of the Bible is only about 3,500 year old, the information it contains takes us back to the earliest times. It tells us about the start of Human history and some of the most important events in the centuries that followed. One important event was the promise made by God of a future “seed” that would put a crushing end to the rebellion that one of his spiritual creatures had started by hiding behind the appearance of a snake. That very first prophesy is recorded in Genesis 3:15 where we see God telling the serpent:
“And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”
The meaning of that promise was a “sacred secret” for many centuries, but is was generally understood to mean that God would one day bring justice and peace to the world through a Saviour. This promise must have been well known to the ancients, and after the flood, spread by means of Noah’s descendants. Some of the earliest postdiluvian settlements were located in the areas where the Sumerian and Mesopotamian civilizations sprang up. The Bible identifies the founder of some of those settlements as “Nimrod”, “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah” (Genesis 10:8-11). So, it is no wonder that their belief system while distorted, may have included some traces from the original events. For example, with respect to the god Horus, there is evidence of the distortion of the Edenic promise concerning the seed that would bruise the serpent in the head. At times Horus is depicted as trampling crocodiles and grasping snakes and scorpions. According to one account, when Horus proceeded to avenge the death of his father Osiris, Set, who had murdered Osiris, changed himself into a serpent.
As monotheism was corrupted into polytheism, the true, original accounts were also corrupted to fit in with the variety of false gods. The Bible account of creation and of the flood was spread by word of mouth and new writings as peoples migrated, and variations and distortions flooded in. Tales are not purified by repetition, but undergo much change, some parts being exaggerated, others minimized or omitted, and still other parts twisted. The Bible contains the true, original accounts. Stories about demigods, giants, and a cataclysmic flood are found in ancient mythologies worldwide. For example, the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh mentions a flood, a ship, and survivors. Gilgamesh himself was described as a lustful, violent demigod, or part god, part man. Aztec mythology tells of an ancient world inhabited by giants and of a great deluge. Norse legend describes a race of giants and a wise man named Bergelmir who constructed a large boat and saved himself and his wife. Practically all ancient peoples have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few. The combined testimony of all such legends corroborates the Bible’s testimony that all humans have descended from the survivors of a deluge that destroyed an ancient wicked world.
You may wonder though, why should we believe the Bible’s account over those of other civilizations? Sir Issak Newton famously said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history whatsoever.” And he is not the only one to have felt that way after examining it. The discovery of ancient artifacts buried in Bible lands has supported the historical and geographic accuracy of the Bible.
Furthermore, Honest historians would record not just victories (like the inscription regarding Sennacherib’s capture of Lachish) but also defeats, not just successes but also failures, not just strengths but also weaknesses. Few secular histories reflect such honesty. For example, regarding Assyrian historians, Daniel D. Luckenbill explains: “Often it is clear that royal vanity demanded playing fast and loose with historical accuracy.” Illustrating such “royal vanity,” the annals of Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal boast: “I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am pre-eminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic!” Would you accept everything you read in such annals as accurate history?
In contrast, the Bible writers displayed refreshing candor. Moses, Israel’s leader, frankly reported the shortcomings of his brother, Aaron, of his sister Miriam, of his nephews Nadab and Abihu, and of his people, as well as his own mistakes. (Exodus 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Leviticus 10:1, 2; Numbers 12:1-3; 20:9-12; 27:12-14) The serious mistakes of King David were not covered over but were committed to writing—and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.
Such frank, open reporting indicates a sincere concern for truth. Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people, and even themselves, is there not good reason to trust their writings?
In court trials the credibility of a witness’ testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account—one in which every last detail is neatly arranged—may also betray a false testimony.
How does the “testimony” of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute details. However, the harmony is not carefully arranged, arousing suspicions of collusion. There is an obvious lack of design in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally. Consider some examples.
The Bible writer Matthew wrote: “And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever.” (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: “Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and . . . Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5, The New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact—Peter’s being married—is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew’s account but is conveyed incidentally.
All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—record that on the night of Jesus’ arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man’s ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: “The name of the slave was Malchus.” (John 18:10, 26) Why does John alone give the man’s name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: John “was known to the high priest.” He was also known to the high priest’s household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man’s name, whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.
At times, detailed explanations are omitted from one account but are provided elsewhere by statements made in passing. For instance, Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin says that some people present “slapped him in the face, saying: ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?’” (Matthew 26:67, 68) Why would they ask Jesus to “prophesy” who had struck him, when the striker was standing there in front of him? Matthew does not explain. But two of the other Gospel writers supply the missing detail: Jesus’ persecutors covered his face before he was slapped. (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64) Matthew presents his material without concern as to whether every last detail was supplied.
The Gospel of John tells of an occasion when a large crowd gathered to hear Jesus teach. According to the record, when Jesus observed the crowd, “he said to Philip: ‘Where shall we buy loaves for these to eat?’” (John 6:5) Of all the disciples present, why did Jesus ask Philip where they could buy some bread? The writer does not say. In the parallel account, though, Luke reports that the incident took place near Bethsaida, a city on the north shores of the Sea of Galilee, and earlier in John’s Gospel it says that “Philip was from Bethsaida.” (John 1:44; Luke 9:10) So Jesus logically asked a person whose hometown was nearby. The agreement between the details is remarkable, yet clearly unwitting.
In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?
So can the Bible be trusted? Archaeologists have dug up enough artifacts to confirm that the Bible refers to real people, real places, and real events. Even more compelling, however, is the evidence found within the Bible itself. Candid writers spared no one—not even themselves—in recording the hard facts. The internal consistency of the writings, including the coincidences without design, gives the “testimony” the clear ring of truth. With such “sure marks of authenticity,” the Bible is, indeed, a book you can trust.
I’ll address the scripture citations you asked me to explain in another post.
@mtz,
I hope to get to your post soon as well.
Lets see, where did we leave the conversation? Ah, yes. You were saying:
Are you claiming that the “New Testament” is a product of the Elizabethans?
I think you must have misunderstood something you read somewhere. Maybe you are referring to a translation of the Bible that was commissioned at the time? There have been many translations done over the years. As I said above, the work of many hard working historians has lead to a very reliable master text of the original scriptures in their original languages. Because of that, today’s translators are in a better position to translate the Bible than were people in the latter years of the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and beyond. To do so accurately and without bias is still a great challenge. But, it can be done, and it has been done.
I think I have addressed the rest of your post, except for the scriptures you asked me to analyze. Lets take a look at them first:
You appear to think that somehow those scriptures point to a flat Earth being described. The first two scriptures are describing what was seen in visions. (Visions tend to be highly symbolic.)
A Bible Encyclopedia defines Biblical visions this way:
“A sight or scene presented to a person’s mind by day or by night, usually through other than ordinary means, and sometimes while the recipient was in a trance or was dreaming. (Ac 10:3; Ge 46:2) It is often difficult to establish a clear demarcation between visions and dreams described in the Bible, and at times they are combined.
When a person received a vision from God during waking hours, it appears that the impression was made upon the conscious mind. The vision could later be recalled and described or recorded by the recipient, in his own words. Some persons, such as Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, also had nocturnal visions, or ‘visions of the night.’ These seem to have been impressed upon the subconscious mind while the recipient slept.”
That God would allow his Son to be tempted in such a powerful way is consistent with other such examples of allowances to Satan. (Job 2:1-6; Luke 22:31)
The third passage, is even less of a problem since it clearly states: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth”. (The Hebrew word hhug here is defined in A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson as “circle, sphere.”)
When the scriptures use the expression “cannot be made to totter” it usually refers to the permanence of what is being described. For example on Psalms 112:6 it says about the righteous:
“(Psalm 112:6) For at no time will he be made to totter. ל [La′medh] The righteous one will prove to be for remembrance to time indefinite. . .
What is clearly being said here is not that the righteous ones are stationary, but that they will be remembered.
Likewise, by saying that the Earth will not be made to totter is a promise by Jehovah that the Earth will remain forever. As Psalms 37:29 says:
“The righteous themselves will possess the earth,
And they will reside forever upon it”
The Bible uses figurative language many times. For example, a scripture I quoted above says:
(Psalm 90:2) . . .Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God. . .
Are we to take from those words that God actually went into labor and gave birth to the Earth? That is just not reasonable. What about?:
(Proverbs 27:1) Do not make your boast about the next day, for you do not know what a day will give birth to. . .
It is obvious that the Bible here is using figurative language. The same is true in 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6 and Job 26:11. After all, it was Job himself that said that the Earth was actually hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7)
The Bible is the most amazing book ever written. The old saying “you can’t see the forest for the trees” refers to the tendency to get caught up in the details, thereby missing the more important message in the big picture. How appropriate those words are in this case.
Speaking of walking on water, how exactly did jesus pull it off? Is this supposed to be read literally or symbolically?
The science of surface tension explains in detail how and why some insects can literally walk on water and why humans cant, we are simply too heavy for the surface of water to support us.
It will be odd at best if somebody stand up with their bible and challenge the physics of surface tension with this biblical story without even attempting to offer an alternative detail explanation. How exactly did he pull it off and what the rest of must do to do the same?
Here is where the bible comes short in science circles, it make statements with no interest at all at explaining them and to challenge others details without offering any of your own is asking a bit too much of others.
If creationism wants to be considered as an equal to the theory of evolution. It should first start with just as detail explanation of how diversity came to be. Biblical statements need to first be accompanied with supporting explanations.
“GOD did it” is not sufficient and statements that are meant to be read symbolically also wont do.
Please accept my condolences for the loss in your family. I may be coming across as a non believer of GOD and Jesus but i am and i am hope you will find comfort in the hope he brings to all of us.
As to the question of miracles, I was going to write a long explanation, but then I realized that there is already an excellently written article about it. Please do take a look at it and let me know if you are not satisfied with its explanation:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050215/article_01.htm
Meanwhile, I will see if I can address you last comment.
There is quite an impressive list of biblical quotes in this discussion i did not know about. We may not agree on our opinions but we are getting something valuable here from facts/biblical quotes that are presented with our opinions.
We are probably more in agreement than in disagreement here and i hope we all recognize this. Sometimes this doesnt show up in written text.
I just wanted to write this one to show how you just proved my point in two of your latest replies.
There is atleast one statement in the bible that suggests the world is round.(you pointed this out, below two were pointed by somebody else here)
There is atleast one statement in the bible that suggests the world is flat.
There is atleast one statement in the bible that suggests the world rests on a pillar(s).
Now, assume you are in 900 AD reading these statements, which ones would you say was correct and literal description of the world and which one was not correct and was meant to be read symbolically?
We have irrefutable fact now that the world is round so its easier now to tell, but what about then?
If somebody says the world is not round and the biblical statement that says that is supposed to be read symbolically, what would you say if
A. you lived in 900AD and is not known with as great a certainty as it is now
B. You live in 2011 and know for certain that the world is round.
How exactly does one decide what to read literally and what to read symbolically to things we are still unsure of when it comes to bibles description of the world/universe?
Can you see that selectively choosing to read some statements literally and others symbolically poses atleast some credibility problem?
mtz,
I have to tell you that I love this type of questions. It is honest and sincere. It shows that you are really thinking. I congratulate you for that. I hope you never loose that. There are great blessings in store for you if you don’t. As Proverbs 2:1-6 says: “My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure up my own commandments with yourself, so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God. For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment.”
Now to your question:
The answer is obviously that you wouldn’t. The question would probably not even come up in your mind. You may wonder, “how is that helpful then?”. Well, why don’t we see if we can find the answer in the Word of God, the “Revealer of secrets” (Daniel 2:27, 28).
One important factor to consider is the present relationship of God with the world. When God created Adam and Eve, he settled them in a beautiful garden that was filled with edible vegetation and fruit-bearing trees. Only one tree was out of bounds—“the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” Being free moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose to obey God or disobey him. Adam was warned, however, that “in the day you eat from [the tree of knowledge of good and bad] you will positively die.”—Genesis 1:29; 2:17.
This one restriction caused no hardship; Adam and Eve could eat from all the other trees in the garden. (Genesis 2:16) Moreover, the prohibition attributed nothing improper to the couple, nor did it rob them of dignity. Had God forbidden such vile things as bestiality or murder, some could claim that perfect humans had certain base inclinations that needed to be restrained. Eating, however, was natural and proper.
The tree of knowledge of good and bad was a literal tree. However, it represented God’s right as Ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft—taking that which belonged to God—but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination. Note that after lyingly telling Eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they ‘positively would not die,’ Satan asserted: “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”—Genesis 3:4, 5.
Satan did not call into question Jehovah’s power. Even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah’s power. Rather, Satan questioned Jehovah’s right to rule. By calling God a liar who withholds good from his subjects, Satan charged that Jehovah is a bad ruler. (Genesis 3:2-5) Satan implied that mankind would be better off without God’s rulership. This was an attack on Jehovah’s sovereignty, his right to rule.
Adam and Eve rebelled against Jehovah. In effect, they said: “We do not need Jehovah as our Ruler. We can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.” How could Jehovah settle that issue? How could he teach all intelligent creatures that the rebels were wrong and that his way truly is best? Someone might say that God should simply have destroyed the rebels and made a fresh start. But Jehovah had stated his purpose to fill the earth with the offspring of Adam and Eve, and he wanted them to live in an earthly paradise. (Genesis 1:28) Jehovah always fulfills his purposes. (Isaiah 55:10, 11) Besides that, getting rid of the rebels in Eden would not have answered the question that had been raised regarding Jehovah’s right to rule.
The book “What does the Bible really teach”, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses explains this this way:
“Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem.
Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance.
The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. Similarly, Jehovah knows that all honesthearted humans and angels will benefit from seeing that Satan and his fellow rebels have failed and that humans cannot govern themselves. Like Jeremiah of old, they will learn this vital truth: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23.”
Why, though, has Jehovah allowed suffering to go on for so long? And why does he not prevent bad things from happening? Well, consider two things that the teacher in our illustration would not do. First, he would not stop the rebel student from presenting his case. Second, the teacher would not help the rebel to make his case. Similarly, consider two things that Jehovah has determined not to do. First, he has not stopped Satan and those who side with him from trying to prove that they are right. Allowing time to pass has thus been necessary. In the thousands of years of human history, mankind has been able to try every form of self-rule, or human government. Mankind has made some advances in science and other fields, but injustice, poverty, crime, and war have grown ever worse. Human rule has now been shown to be a failure.
Second, Jehovah has not helped Satan to rule this world. If God were to prevent horrible crimes, for instance, would he not, in effect, be supporting the case of the rebels? Would God not be making people think that perhaps humans can govern themselves without disastrous results? If Jehovah were to act in that way, he would become party to a lie. However, “it is impossible for God to lie.”—Hebrews 6:18.”
Yes, the Bible clearly states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) When you think about it, does that not make sense? This world reflects the personality of the invisible spirit creature who is “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9) Satan is hateful, deceptive, and cruel. So the world, under his influence, is full of hatred, deceit, and cruelty. That is one reason why there is so much suffering.
So what does all this have to do with the question you posed? Well, all of this explains why the Bible was not meant to be a scientific book. In fact, if he had put some scientific information in the Bible that man could have taken advantage of to progress it would have likely ended up being used in selfish and destructive ways. It may have lead mankind to a premature finish of this independence experiment of ours. Instead, God is ensuring that sufficient time is given for the issue to be fully settled, once for all times.
The book Insight on the Scriptures (also by Jehovah’s Witnesses) explains this interesting point:
“The Genesis account describes the uniting of some part of the post-Flood human family in a project that opposed God’s will as stated to Noah and his sons. (Ge 9:1) Instead of spreading out and ‘filling the earth,’ they determined to centralize human society, concentrating their residence on a site in what became known as the Plains of Shinar in Mesopotamia. Evidently this was also to become a religious center, with a religious tower.—Ge 11:2-4.
Almighty God gave their presumptuous project a setback by breaking up their unity of action, accomplishing this by confusing their common language. This made impossible any coordinated work on their project and led to their scattering to all parts of the globe. The confusion of their language would also hinder or slow down future progress in a wrong direction, a God-defying direction, since it would limit mankind’s ability to combine its intellectual and physical powers in ambitious schemes and also make it difficult to draw upon the accumulated knowledge of the different language groups formed—knowledge, not from God, but gained through human experience and research. (Compare Ec 7:29; De 32:5.) So, while it introduced a major divisive factor into human society, the confusion of human speech actually benefited human society in retarding the attainment of dangerous and hurtful goals. (Ge 11:5-9; compare Isa 8:9, 10.) One has only to consider certain developments in our own times, resulting from accumulated secular knowledge and man’s misuse thereof, to realize what God foresaw long ago would develop if the effort at Babel were allowed to go unhindered.”
However, that does not mean that he likes to keep us in the dark. Jehovah is a God of love. He cares about people. (1 John 4:7-11) Despite his lofty position, he enjoys making humans his friends. Of one of his ancient servants, we read: “‘Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,’ and he came to be called ‘Jehovah’s friend.’” (James 2:23; 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8) As human friends share confidential matters, or secrets, so also does Jehovah with his friends. In this regard Jesus imitated his Father, for he made friends with his disciples and shared secrets with them. “I no longer call you slaves,” he told them, “because a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15) The private information, or “secrets,” held in common by Jehovah, his Son, and their friends unites them in an unbreakable bond of love and devotion.—Colossians 3:14.
The meaning of the name Jehovah, “He Causes to Become,” indicates his ability to become whatever he needs to become in order to accomplish his purpose. Unlike humans, Jehovah has no need to hide his intentions because of fearing that others might be able to hinder him in carrying them out. He simply cannot fail, so he openly reveals in his Word, the Bible, much of what he purposes to do. He promises: “My word . . . will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.”—Isaiah 55:11.
What, though, about all the harm that has been done during the long rebellion against God? We do well to remember that Jehovah is almighty. Therefore, he can and will undo the effects of mankind’s suffering. As we have already learned, the ruining of our planet will be undone by the turning of the earth into Paradise. The effects of sin will be removed through faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice, and the effects of death will be reversed by means of the resurrection. God will thus use Jesus “to break up the works of the Devil.” (1 John 3:8) Jehovah will bring all of this about at just the right time. We can be glad that he has not acted sooner, for his patience has given us the opportunity to learn the truth and to serve him. (2 Peter 3:9, 10) Meanwhile, God has been actively seeking sincere worshipers and helping them to endure any suffering that may come upon them in this troubled world.—John 4:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13.
mtz,
I hope this helped to answer you question. I know there is a lot to digest there and that you may have further questions. If you would like to continue this discussion, I think it would be better for us to do so privately. Send me an email and let me know what you think. We can talk more then. You can send it to my GMail account, “rmcorrespond” (I am sure you know how to format the address correctly from that info). My very best wishes to you.
The same goes for any one else wanting to learn more. Send me an email. At this time I am closing down the comments for this post.