|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 4, 2011 14:01:48 GMT -5
"Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible." www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/29/algorithm-answers-who-wrote-bible/Scoffers will be hitting us with this I'm sure. We may as well go ahead and work out the apologetics. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that for every problem they create, there is always a reasonable answer if we're willing to look for it. I have a Brother-in-law who said he could rip the Bible apart and show it to be false. I quickly found that to him, everything he did not understand was proof that the Bible was false... |
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 4, 2011 14:19:37 GMT -5
It seems I remember that in the New Testament Paul often used Scribes. Wouldn't this account for a difference in writing style? With the painstaking work (All done by hand) it would seem likely that Old Testament Prophets and writers also used Scribes.
In a similar manner, the four Gospels, in some respects, don't "appear" to agree simply because they were written from four different points of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by shann0 on Jul 4, 2011 14:27:16 GMT -5
It really doesn't matter how many wrote it. What matters is God inspired it. Scripture is God breathed and therefore has a continuity which no other book on the planet can match.
|
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 4, 2011 15:56:15 GMT -5
I agree, however, we are are looking through the eyes of believers. Those we wish to persuade will need more explanation. Some of the arguments have to do with timing. This is one of the arguments skeptics use to claim that parts of the book of Daniel were written much later. My point is, I know I don't have to convince you, it's unbelievers I'm worried about. They have seldom reached the point of understanding that you have. They would say the continuity was written in over time. Your point is well taken though.
|
|
|
|
Post by shann0 on Jul 4, 2011 16:44:43 GMT -5
The only way to battle ignorance is by sharing the truth. It doesn't matter what claims skeptics come up with. The bible has a long, well documented history. People have been criticizing it for centuries, and no one has been able to come up witha decent refutation of it yet.
Regardless, I don't think that this new computer analyzation of the bible will do anything to hurt the credibility of the bible since it is mostly affirming the same understandings that scholars already had about it. There were a couple differences, but over all not significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 5, 2011 15:00:48 GMT -5
I agree, there is no credible evidence to against the Bible. There are however, more than ever before, a multitude of people making that effort, and fewer people defending it.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” - Adolf Hitler
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Lenin
This is why The theory of Evolution is now considered fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by emortimer on Jul 5, 2011 15:36:11 GMT -5
Here is the key in all of this "new software seems to be in its ability to take criteria developed by scholars and apply them through a technological tool more powerful in many respects than the human mind, Segal said." they can make it do what ever they want.... only history book there is the Bible... by the way who ever says that evolution is fact is wrong...in the scientific community they do not says this and have to much proof showing this is false.....  |
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 6, 2011 8:31:40 GMT -5
This is true. They just created a computer program that backed up what they wanted it to back up.
When kids in the 1960s were being indoctrinated with Evolution Theories and lies, there were not that many apposing arguments available. Now many scientists are beginning to question its validity, but the lie has been ingrained in the minds of the majority.
I recall watching a short Creation vs. Evolution debate on fox news (Brit Hume) a while back. I was amazed at how they didn't dare to question Evolution. At the same time, they didn't dare imply Creation was in any way scientific. Yet the underlying implication was that they wanted to argue in favor of Creation. Go figure...
|
|
|
|
Post by emortimer on Jul 6, 2011 8:41:57 GMT -5
yea I listened to a scientist that goes to my church and he said the standard is they believe in the Big BANG and that there was no evolution...this is proven because Darwin said that micro-organisms moved to larger animals groups...but by the fossil record they can not prove that....according to the fossil record large animals just appeared and the micro were there the whole time....the Big Bang he equates to God making everything and when God did that the light from far off stars that take millions of years to reach earth was here at the same point...which means God made the light hit the earth from those stars at the same time...they supposedly can prove this by the echo from light (no clue he lost me) waves and tell exactly when they arrived which points to the same time as the big bang
|
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 6, 2011 9:11:06 GMT -5
There are several theories now that agree with Creation and seem much more logical than Evolution. Evolution was a "Bait and Switch" anyway. They sell you natural change and then give you, one species turning into another. They determine the age of a fossil by the age of the rock and the age of the rock by the age of the fossil. One apposing voice in the 1960s was a man named Robert Jastrow. He was actually a rocket scientist at NASA. He had the guts to say scientists of that time were unduly atheistic, but he himself was an agnostic. He wrote some very good books on the subject. "God and the Astronomers", for one. I thank him for helping me not to be brainwashed before I knew the Truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by emortimer on Jul 6, 2011 12:09:27 GMT -5
That is how I showed my boys (used to be in public school) that evolution was wrong...was watching a old nature history show about some bear.....now they said this thing that was HUGE brownish black meat eater turned into the panda bear I think.... so I asked how could this be? It changed size, color and diet....where is it in the middle of this change? They got it straight then....youngest agreed quicker since he had 3 less public school years....
|
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 6, 2011 15:01:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I think I read somewhere that the Panda is more of a distant cousin to the Badger family than the bear. Even that is a stretch for me. It would take millions of missing fossils to make evolution work. I think now they're trying to say evolution happened in spurts. What's up with that? Did a fish give birth to a monkey? In the movie "Expelled" a prominent evolutionist suggested alien intervention. They make it up as they go along. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by shann0 on Jul 6, 2011 15:08:08 GMT -5
Fossils aren't evidence of anything but dead creatures. Fossils that look similar to other fossils do not prove genetic relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by emortimer on Jul 6, 2011 15:08:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DUST IN THE WIND on Jul 6, 2011 21:36:38 GMT -5
Try this:  |
|
