User talk:Ec5618/Dan Watts

You extended an offer to discuss your beliefs

Archived talk

I am now asking again: Do you truly believe that "All of these people ... believe in ... a book that they know nothing about."? Dan Watts 02:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1

Please comment on my posts below them, to preserve a readable timeline.

I came across a quote on Wikiquote, that I have found myself agreeing with.

"I'm not a complete atheist. Every day I try to find a sign of God, but, unfortunately, I can't find it." -- José Saramago

I was recently told that a person who had not seen evidence of God, probably hadn't been looking in the right places. I found that comment infuriating. I have seen a child's tears, I have stared at spiders webs, and I have faced the majesty of centuries old trees. Yet, where others seem to need to see divinity in these things, I see beauty. I see majesty. I see incredible ingenuity (though I don't see design). I find the idea that all life on Earth is connected, because it all originated from a single progenitor, or even a single (simple) chemical reaction, both awe inspiring and unendingly beautiful. And I find the idea that all were created in an instant, as they are now, to be insultingly underappreciative of their complexity and ingenuity.

On the validity of the Bible. These points have been argued far more eloquently before, ofcourse.

The Bible consists of different texts, with different authors. These individual texts were written between the time of Mozes and some 1600 years ago, if I recall correctly. These texts were then compiled and published, translated, translated again, interpreted and reworded. Specific books were included, and others were not.

I have asked these questions before, and they were answered by a very stubborn Bensaccount. I will ask again:

• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been altered by human hands, even if we assume that a deity inspired it?
• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been written by human hands, without divine help?
• How then can you (a creationist) justify to yourself that you believe in it?

How can anyone look at this book and reasonably believe in it? What logic is there to believing something without reason?

You may argue at this point that belief, and faith are not reasonable, but are felt in the heart, to which I have two replies: One; belief is bound to reason, as disproving something should end belief. Two; a young child may fall in love, and feel in his heart that the love is pure and undying. Most people come away from such an experience knowing that they were wrong.

Despite all these objections, these texts now hold great sway over people. I find myself at a loss to explain why. The only plausible explanation I have yet seen suggests that humans inevitably will seek (and find) divinity, as in the examples above. Still, I do not delude mself into believing I know the answer.

Another quote, to illustrate a point:

"One who doesn't believe in himself believes in God" -- Aravind Chandrasekaran

I recently had a talk with a person who cited god as his raison d'etre. He had not always believed in god, you see, but when he started to, he was transformed. His life now had form and function, and he was happy.

While I am happy for him, I find his talk upsetting. There are (and have been) millions of people in this world who have turned their lives around. They have quit a nasty habit or addiction, have started following their dreams, have found a purpose. I am proud of these people. But the person I was talking to wasn't proud of himself. He had not made the change in his personality, a divine and invisible entity had. He wasn't strong, he had been molded. He wasn't deserving of a good life (he was a sinner, after all), but he had received it, nonetheless, as 'God loves all'.

In conclusion I would like to argue that I am not missing out on support/ guidance/ beauty/ purpose/ etcetera.

I do not dislike religious people. I do not, as a rule, pity them either. I do pity anyone who believes that spirituality is by necessity a religious concept, and that people of science are soulless and are 'missing out'.

-- Ec5618 11:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

As for looking for God, in Jeremiah 29:13 the Bible says "You will seek Me and find {Me} when you search for Me with all your heart," (New American Standard Version, but there is little difference between all reasonable translations - New World translation (Jehovah's Witness) is NOT reasonable) so finding God appears to be more related to desire than continued observation.

On the topic of the trustworthiness of the Bible, (which was written from the time of Moses to about 100 AD {Revelations}) fulfilled prophecy is probably the most directly testable evidence. Psalm 22 (never doubted to be written befor Jesus' birth) and Isaiah 53 (of which the Dead Sea scrolls of Isaiah are 1000 years older than any other copy of that book - and no, it is not different) both describe Jesus' death - read them yourself. Where is the proof that the Bible is wrong? Dan Watts 15:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions, although I have not seen your answer to the one which heads this section:

• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been altered by human hands, even if we assume that a deity inspired it? - Not in the prophecy part if there is any hope of being 100% correct.
• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been written by human hands, without divine help? - See previous answer.
• How then can you (a creationist) justify to yourself that you believe in it? - Fulfilled prophecy.

Dan Watts 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find your suggestion about looking for god a little pedantic. Children will often have imaginary friends, and while I do not wish to belittle faith by comparing it to a childish escape mechanism, the notion that anyone can find god, if they badly want to, is hardly proof of the existance of a divine entity.

I have tried to make my feelings clear, in my previous post. I'm sorry you feel I haven't answered your primary question. I would have thought it was rather obvious now: I feel, to the point of knowing for certain, that most people who claim to be Christians have never read the Bible. And of those that have read it, most know nothing of its origins. Most don't feel they need to; they know enough. I loathe 'believers', who simply believe whatever was put in front of them at an early age.

Psalm 22, have you read it? I mean no insult, but it never mentions specifics. I'm not even sure it mentions a messiah, though I am not a Bible scolar, so I am not adept at interpreting it. This Psalm makes no mention of a name, a birthdate, no virgin birth, no place of birth, no distinguishing mole, in fact, nothing to identify this coming messiah by. How is this prescience? And if this Psalm was such fool proof evidence of the Christs identity, that why haven't Jewish leaders accepted his arrival?

Isaiah 53, same thing. I also note that you have no qualms accepting scientific dating techiques in determining the age of this artifact. Isaiah mentions a man, who will suffer at the hands of men, but will not speak, and mentions that god will enjoy the view. There is even mention of a grave, though I'm sure that I misinterpreted that line. Nevetheless, I see no evidence that this man was your messiah. I see rumour, hearsay, and speculation.

You say you trust in the validity of the bible, as it was written over centuries and made predictions of the future in its pages. That the predictions later came true, or seem to some to have come true, is evidence enough, for you, that the bible was inspired by the divine.

A thought experiment, please bear with me:

The questions I asked before had a purpose, you see.

• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been altered by human hands, even if we assume that a deity inspired it?

Lets assume for a moment that the bible was indeed written centuries ago. I propose to you that the bible was altered after this date. Sections were added, sections were not. How can you believe that it is impossible for a person to alter the bible? Could an uncrupulous person have snuck in a page? Removed a page? Changed a word?

• Could a book like the bible conceivably have been written by human hands, without divine help?

You cite the profecy, and claim that its prescience is proof of its devine creator. All right, as long as you believe that the profecy predicted Jesus' birth, life and death, you've got a point. Does it though? It still seems awfully vague to me.

• How then can you (a creationist) justify to yourself that you believe in it?

You seem to be refering to the profecy that "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." or something similar. A rather bold profecy. The correctness of this profecy would seem to be linked to the correctness of the previous profecy. I have seen nothing that would convince (and I imagine, should convince) a person that the previous profecy was anything but vague, and open to interpretation. -- Ec5618 10:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not attempting to prove the existence of God. My belief on that subject (proof of the existence of God) is that, by design, it must remain an open question as far as facts are concerned (not that my opinion should have much weight). The Bible appears to me to be quite clear that faith is necessary for belief in God. Hebrews 11:6 plainly states that. (I prefer this web site because it shows what words were not in the original text - usually added to make a more readable translation.) I see that you state that MOST believers are abysmally ignorant of the Bible. You do not need to educate me on that point. My denomination (Baptist) has traditionally been the one that the highest percentage of cult followers came from. However, your initial statement ,which I quoted in part, was concerning ALL believers. This Bible contains an admonishment to study, and a subject that should be contained within that study is 'How we got the Bible'. (II Timothy 2:15)

As for your charges of vagueness in Psalms 22, verses 7 and 8 refer to the scorning crowd at Jesus crucifixion. See Matthew 27:41-43 for the chief priests' reported scorn. Or the very first words of Psalm 22:1 are reported in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. Verses 16 and 18 tell of being surrounded by dogs (a Jewish euphemism for non-Jews),for having his hands and feet pierced, and gambling for the clothes. (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34 and John 19:24 all record the gambling and John 20:25 remarks about the nail prints). Why haven't the Jews accepted Jesus? It is for the same reason that the Jewish scholars did not go to Bethlehem when Herod asked them where the King of the Jews was to be born (after the wise men had enquired of Herod of the birth of the King of the Jews). They were not interested. He didn't come in a way that they cared to accept. I never said that this is foolproof (fools are too ingenious.)

You are absolutely correct concerning a mention of a grave in Isaiah 53! Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimethea's tomb (see Matthew 27 which also tells of the Roman guard, Mark 15, Luke 23, and/or John 19) after the crucifixion. That was the reason that the chief priests had a Roman guard set up at the tomb.

Concerning where the Bible came from, the oldest New Testament known (to date) is from ~350 A.D., with papyrus manuscripts (partial) dated back to 200 A.D., and some fragments dated to 120-150 A.D. All in all, about 10% of all ancient Greek manuscripts found are of the Bible (5000+ of ~55000). Clement (~95 AD) quotes from the New Testament, so it was (at least partially) in existence and well known then.

The Dead Sea scrolls cover a time range of about 300 B.C. to 70 A.D. and there are (at least) parts of all Old Testament books with the exception of Esther in this collection. There is no significant variation of the messages with respect to the current translations to be found.

If you want a specific discussion of the reliability of Genesis, I will attempt to gather such information. Dan Watts 02:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2

You say that you are not trying to prove the existance of god, as proof would make faith impossible. I am not trying to disprove the existance of god, though I am trying to sow doubt in your mind, and the minds of other believers. More to the point, I am not trying to discredit the concept of divinity, but of the accuracy of the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran and ofter religious texts. I find the idea that a person can know anything about divitity rather arrogant. At best, individuals can speculate. Speculation. You have no reason to believe that the bible was written through god, and your arrive at that point through circular reasoning. The bible is written by god, as it contains profecies. Other chapters of the bible prove the profecies. Since the profecies came true, a divine entity must have been responsible for the bible's creation.

Consider this; while no-one can prove that the bible is accurate, it is possible to prove sections of it wrong. And it does contain obvious inconsistensies. I don't need to point them out, I'm sure. The bible has erred.

You said: "There is no significant variation of the messages with respect to the current translations to be found." That may be true, though it is of course untestable. There are significant variations between individual books of the bible however. The bible as a whole is not a well edited and consise book. And while some points are repeated in almost every book, some points are oddly mentioned only in parts of the bible. the admonishment of the bible of homosexuality for anything but hygienic reasons seems to be mainly contained to Romans. Does this not suggest that not all books were equally god inspired? Or that personal opinions of the inividual authors snuck in? Let me ask you, does the bible admonish homosexuality?

I did indeed suggest that MOST believers are abysmally ignorant of the Bible. But, while many believers may not be completely ignorant, very few people seem to be able to allow themselves to realise that it is possible that the bible was either corrupted or written entirely by man. Not a single person, alive or dead, knows where the bible comes from. Why do you, or anyone else for that matter, believe so vehemently that it is 'the good book'? Why could it not have been created only recently? Been modified recently? (And why do you trust the age of the Dead Sea scolls, as determined by science, but no other dating?) Is it conceivable that the profecies were lucky guesses? Is it possible that the profecies have been altered to match actual events? Is it possible other profecies, profecies which failed to come true, have been removed? Is it possible that the bible was never intended to be a truly enlightening book, but rather, comparably to Leviticus, as a means of controlling a population though the 'fear of god'? (Leviticus was a book of law, written by priests, if I understand it correctly, and was accepted as law, because it was 'god's law'.) Is it possible that during times of great turmoil, wellmeaning priests 'clarified' the texts? In other words, is is conceivable that the bible is not the high and holy book you take it to be? Could god, the almighty, be different than you imagine him to be?

Concerning Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Vagueness indeed. A land under the control of the Romans, Romans who have the death sentence, and Romans who will rather commonly crucify criminals and subversives. In that land, a man is 'being surrounded by dogs' and 'having his hands and feet pierced'. 'Scorn' hardly seems unlikely at a public execution. Do you realise that this all happened in a time when the people were looking for a messiah? Looking for a savior? Freedom? A messiah? That Jesus wasn't the only person to be seen as such? This discription could have fitted many other people, both before and after Jesus' time, and during his time. Besides, the Jewish people are quite content with their faith, though they do not believe jesus was the messiah. Why? How? You can have faith all you want, faith that this person Jesus is your messiah. But really, that is all it is. Faith. You have faith in 5000 years of humanity, human generations. You have faith that none of them even lied about the bible to the generation that followed. How can you?

-- Ec5618 11:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You do not quite state my position correctly. I believe that there is no absolute-foolproof-undenyable-by-anyone proof of God's existence. Such a proof would not make faith impossible, it would make faith unnecessary. Your position on arrogance concerning knowing God is quite in line with the Bible. Psalm 25:4 has the psalmist asking God to show him God's ways. Jeremiah 33:3 "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." points out that God knows much that we don't. Isaiah 55:8-9 points out that God's thoughts and ways are beyond our understanding. Romans 11:33-36 points out God's ways are past our finding out. If God did not take the initiative, then we would know nothing of God. That is the Bible's stance on the subject. As for the prophecy in the Old Testament being fulfilled in the New Testament, I promise you that the Jews (for whom the Old Testament is known as the Torah) would not look kindly on having their scripture modified to make Christianity look better. The Torah, completed in ~400 B.C., (and while I'm on the subject, look at [1] for a report of paleographic AND radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, not JUST radiocarbon dating) is not, and was not in the time of Christ either, editable for any 'shoring up' of a particular theology, especially one which tells the Jews that they are wrong in rejecting Jesus because he is the Messiah, and there will be no other.

You may as well point out a Biblical inconsistency to me. I hope it isn't Genesis 1 viz Genesis 2. (I am not talking about scribal errors: haplography, dittography, metathesis, fusion, fission, homophony, or the like.)

I don't quite understand your statement on untestability of the consistency of different translations of the Bible. Please elaborate.

On Homosexuality, Genesis 19:1-11 does not put it in a kind light, and I didn't see anything about hygene there. I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 both list the homosexual as ungodly (King James Version translates the greek 'arsenokoites' as 'them that defile themselves with mankind'). Remember that Jesus said (Mark 7:20-23) that what defiles a person comes from within, so this is NOT about hygene. The Bible certainly appears to define homosexuality as a sin, and the verses that I mentioned could definitely be taken as an admonishment to stay away form homosexuality (as they also do for adultery and fornication). (Is 'admonish' the word that you meant to use?) How many times must something be called a sin for it to be one? Kidnapping for slave trade (men-stealing) also mentioned in I Timothy 1:10 is only mentioned there. Does that imply that it should not be such a bad sin?

Why could the Bible not have been created only recently? First, the Torah (read Old Testament) shows no evidence of changing since (at the latest) 200BC, and I believe that Talmud (Jewish study book) could be used to push that date back even farther. The New Testament, written from ~ 40 A.D. to ~100 A.D. has a history of known texts that I described above. Remember, Christianity arose in Jerusalem, the most Jewish city in the world, and the Jewish authorities did not look kindly on Christianity. If there were anything that could be pointed out in the New Testament as being untrue, I'm sure that it would have been done. Second, the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch fails from internal evidence: the climate(Exodus), weather (Exodus), trees and animals (Exodus-Deuteronomy), including clean and unclean animals described are indigenous to Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, NOT Palestine. The description of geographical references in Genesis 13:10 and Numbers 13:22 show a personal acquaintance with the scenery of Lower Egypt, and the date of the founding of Zoan in Egypt, but an unfamiliarity with the date of the founding of Hebron. There is more, but the point is that the JEDP theory is just that - a theory, and while there are those that believe it, there are Bible scholars that don't. "Could [G]od, the [A]lmighty, be different than you imagine him to be?" Since He is Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and totally holy, absolutely! He is quite different (more and other) than I imagine Him to be.

As for there being many messiahs, true, Jesus spoke of that, but look at [2] for a discussion of Daniel's prophecy of when the Messiah would arrive. Also, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom when Jesus was crucified. (Try to find any jewish statement at the time that it didn't happen) That didn't happen when the others were executed by the Romans. The reviling by the priests would be unusual because most false messiahs were political, and did not bother the established religion at all. Dan Watts 02:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3

Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible

As I alluded to earlier, my understanding of absolute biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs. There are probably copyist errors of omission or repetition of words or letters, and misreading of similar letters, as well as other types. (See Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1982, pp 32-42 for a discussion of them) The question regarding the Bible text is: Do we have objective proof that the surviving manuscripts of the Bible have been transmitted to us with such a high degree of accuracy that we can know that the information contained in the originals has been perfectly preserved? (See Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957 and Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament, London: Macmillan, 1961 for affirmation of that theory.)

See [3] for a short list of alleged biblical discrepancies. I will address the first ten non-repeated questions (#2 and #8 are the same question) to give examples of possible solutions to the percieved difficulties. You may not agree with the answers given here. That is not the point. The point is: resolutions to the supposed biblical contradictions other than “the Bible is wrong” are possible.

Question #1 – Who was Joseph's (the husband of Mary) father? Matthew 1:16 names Jacob while Luke 3:23 names Heli.

Answer #1 – Matthew traces Joseph's family line and Luke traces Mary's family line. Why was Joseph in Mary's family line? If Mary had no brothers and was the eldest (or only) daughter, then Joseph would legally become Heli's heir. Israelite law stated that genealogies were reckoned by the father, not mother. (See [4] for a Jewish reference to Heli being Mary's father. I would advise searching for Heli in the browser. The web site altogether is not very pleasant, but it is a separate place you can see the reference.)

Questions #2 & 8 – Was John the Baptist Elijah? John 1:21 states that John himself stated that he was not Elijah [Elias in King James version of the New Testament]. In Matthew 17:12-13 and Mark 9:13, Jesus identifies him as Elijah.

Answer #2 & 8 – In Jesus' own words “If ye will receive it” (if you can comprehend the MEANING of the prophecy) “this is Elias [Elijah] which was to come.” (Matthew 11:14) John the Baptist fulfilled the role of Elijah with his message and witness. A literal fulfillment was not intended.

Question #3 – Was Abraham justified by faith or works? Romans 4:2 and James 2:21 speak of faith and works separately.

Answer #3 – (See [5] for a detailed answer.) A short answer is that Paul was discussing self-righteousness and James was discussing mental assent (only).

Question #4 – In whose name are we to be baptized? In the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Answer #4 – (See [6] or [7].) A short reply is that the baptism “in the name of Jesus” means by Jesus' authority, and in His authority we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Question #5 – Did Jesus baptize anyone? John 3:22 viz John 4:2

Answer #5 – No. The verse John 3:22 was explained by John 4:2. Jesus preached repentance and His disciples baptized those who came to Him. So the verse John 3:22 is seen to mean Jesus caused the people to be baptized, bud did not personally baptize anyone. (See [8].)

Question #6 – Did Jesus tell His apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Matthew 10:9-10, Mark 6:8-9, and Luke 9:3 list different articles.

Answer #6 – No necessary contradiction. Matthew 10 states “Provide ... neither shoes, nor yet staves” can mean “Do not purchase these items.” The word translated 'provide' means ”to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess” - [Strong's Concordance] So the question of shoes/sandals can be “take one pair only, don't get/buy more”, and similarly “Don't take or buy multiple staves, just bring one.”

Question #7 – Did David sin? David sinned in numbering the people - 2 Samuel 24:10. David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah – I Kings 15:5.

Answer #7 – Look at I Kings 15:5 “Because David did [that which was] right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any [thing] that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” This verse states that only in the sin of having Uriah killed (II Samuel 11:17) in order to marry Bathsheba did David not immediately confess his sin, but in this case he hid it until Nathan the prophet in II Samuel 12:7 confronted him of his sin. (“Thou art the man”)

Q&A #8 – See #2.

Question #9 – Has anyone ever ascended into Heaven? No man has ascended up to Heaven – John 3:13. Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven – II Kings 2:11.

Answer #9 – The context of John 3 is Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus of what is necessary for salvation. The previous verse (John 3:12) states : “ If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?” In this context, the meaning of John 3:13 is nobody has gone to Heaven to return and tell anyone about it (except Jesus).

Question #10 – Is salvation by faith alone? Salvation is by faith alone – Romans 3:28, Galations 2:16, etc. Salvation is not by faith alone – James 2, etc.

Answer #10 – See #3.

Question #11 – Who bought the potter's field? The chief priests bought the potter's field – Matthew 27:6. Judas bought the potter's field – Acts 1:18.

Answer #11 – Judas, by furnishing the occasion that it may be purchased (returning blood money to the temple which, by law, could not be returned to the temple treasury), caused the priests to buy the potter's field.

Dan Watts 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

4

I'm not interested in discussing literal scripture. I've yet seen anyone stump a religious zealot by quoting scripture, so I won't try.

My initial point stands: most christians have never bothered to read the bible, and no-one can be sure it was divinely inspired. You have quoted an example in which a future event was supposedly predicted. I am not equiped to rebut that. What I do know is that if what you say were scientifically plausible (through dating techniques and text analysis) I would have heard about this 'proof of the divinity of the Bible'.

I'd like to add that Evolution and the Bible do have one important thing in common: They are both so complicated that one could spend a lifetime studying it, without ever needing to stop. Major differences are that the Bible is an artificial construct that deals with law and morality (among other things), while Evolution is a purely logical system, based on observation and countless experiments. In other words, Evolution is science, while, in my opinion, the Bible is a book of fables and mostly outdated social laws.

ps: "When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?"

-- Ec5618 12:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any other form of scripture than literal, so it appears that we have reached an impasse.

Divine inspiration appears to be the most scientifically plausible explanation for the fulfilled prophesies in the Bible. (See [9] or [10] or [11] or [12] for resources concerning fulfilled prophecy -- you can read about the proof. See [13] concerning using anecdotal evidence such as 'I would have heard about this')

ps: The sacrificing of animals (including bulls) on the altar stopped in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed. As for smiting your neighbor, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. - Romans 12:19" so my advice would be to leave that to more capable hands.

--Dan Watts 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd to suggest that God should change his mind about animal sacrifice. As I recall he had no respect for Cain's offering of fruits, though he did respect Abel's animal sacrifice. Here, God was directly responsible for Cain's anger toward his brother. Yet he didn't reconsider the practice of animal sacrifice until several thousand years later.

I still dispute that there is any evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. As such, I cannot understand why anyone should choose to believe in it, and can only hope to be able to sow some doubts about the good book. -- Ec5618 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You COULD read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 concerning the completion of the sacrificial system. Also, Genesis 4:6-7 points out that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable. It surely appears that it was Cain's idea to get mad at his brother. Your exegetical approach seems to me to be unique.

Perhaps your dispute would be more widely understandable if it addressed the points mentioned in the links provided above. Dan Watts 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I read Genesis 4:5: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. It reads as though there were grievances. I'd like to stop discussiong scripture though. In my experience, trying to discredit a religion through quoting scripture is useless. You may try to convince a Spaghetti Monsterist that his religious is fictitious.

My dispute is not with scripture, as much as it is with people who adhere to it without proof. It seems you have seen evidence to convince you of the validity of the Bible. That's fine. I put it to you that most Christians have not seen such evidence. In my view, most have grown up with Christianity, and have come to associate it with goodness and community, and they simply cannot accept that it is possible that their entire community, family and friends, is wrong, or that the values of Christianity are not unique to Christianity, so they will be forever locked into faith, generation upon generation.

No offense, but in some ways, it seems religion is a social disease.

And no offense, but this discussion seems pointless. It started off good, when we were both making individual points, but we quickly locked into opposing viewpoints. -- Ec5618 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While I did not notice my position changing, I will not attempt to continue this discussion if you don't want to. Dan Watts 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A question I'd like to ask of the (neo)creationists: if Genesis began "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" would anyone have even come close to dreaming up ID?

Jim62sch 02:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. -- Ec5618 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)