I can buy all of this except that his DNA was normal. How can it be normal if it was missing the father side of genetic code? That makes no sense and is why I asked the question. I'm curious what religious people think about this. I personally see this as a huge problem and wonder why others don't. It needs a better answer than 'I don't know' if you're also going to accept the virgin birth out of hand. But that's just my opinion and the way I would go about thinking. This is a big part of the reason I am no longer religious or a believer.

Did you really expect to find a DNA sequence in the Bible? What about which string theory is correct or what happened before the Planck time? Since that's not in the Bible I guess it must be false, right?

maybe not DNA or string theory, but i would expect to find something that couldn't have been written by a normal first century person on his own without "divine inspiration."

fun how people will say "of course there's no current knowledge, it was written for folks in a very different time period" and then in the same breath say that it's applicable to our lives today.

i think it's time for god to give us an updated book, don't you?

I'm not sure if you really want to go there, because to be honest, I would expect a book dictated by the supreme ruler and creator of the universe to have some information that wouldn't be readily available to a cutting edge 1st century scribe. At least, it would have been nice if god thought to make some mention of germs, for example. Many people lost their lives in hideous ways on accusation of witchcraft, etc. I could go on and on, but that's not the point.

You seem to be saying that a miracle is a miracle and that one is no harder to believe than any other. I'm saying there are varying degrees of miracles and even if you're willing to take some things on faith, there should be a limit. Virgin births > turning water into wine. At least for me, the latter is much easier to shrug off.

Haha. I was creating my post while you were posting this. Sorry for repeating you.

For you and augie - if God wanted to prove he exists he could do so instantly and easily so, obviously, he doesn't want to.

In the Bible the issue isn't whether God exists but whether you will trust him. As to his existence, there are passages that comment on that and which say no one has an excuse - there's enough evidence now to hold you responsible.

It's not just about god wanting to prove he exists. What about him being a kind loving god and helping his creation just a titch? I'm not suggesting he should have wrote a manual on electricity or biochemistry, but it would have been nice if he could have at least said something about how diseases spread, etc. That would have saved a lot of suffering and misery for human kind. He spent pages and pages on things like who we should have sex with, when it's okay to stone your teenager or bride to be, and how to treat slaves... You'd think he could have at least mentioned penicillin.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that there is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century? It doesn't strike you as a clue that maybe it was written by mortal bronze age men and not an all-powerful, all-knowing being?

Logic has no place when talking about God. Go away.

There were a lot of rules in the OT dealing with heath and diet issues which were far in advance of their time. There is a wealth of wisdom literature dealing with many issues of economics and other important matters. There were laws that were meant to benefit debtors, the poor, orphans, servants and foreigners. Most of the laws were systematically ignored by the Hebrews to their detriment.

Of course, God could have laid out an enormous plan for exactly how everyone should live. No doubt he would have done so. Adam was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge - when he did so, he chose man's knowledge over God's, for which there are serious consequences. Man has taken thousands of years to learn things I think God would have revealed to Adam. It was man who chose to separate himself from God and his word. So he has let man follow the path he chose to demonstrate the real life results of self-centeredness and rebellion. The main issue now is how to solve the fundamental problem of man's rebellion. God has graciously done so through the incarnation and atonement. All else is secondary.

BTW, something that has impressed me lately, mainly because I've been reading a lot of Christian history and the early theologians. It's truly amazing how there is virtually nothing in the Bible that adopts the incredibly pervasive superstition and bad science of those times. Even the most intelligent of men, people like Aristotle for instance, got an enormous amount wrong about the real world. I don't even want to comment on the incredibly bad medicine of those days. Astrology was considered a hard science even as late as the Renaissance - most astronomers were also astrologers - and Newton was an alchemist. Yet there is exactly none of that in the Bible. How in the world did untaught, ignorant, lower class shepherds and fisherman avoid including anything embracing the almost total ignorance of their day? Even Christian theologians made serious factual errors, such as believing in the Phoenix. Why isn't any of that in the Bible?

You mean ignorance like talking snakes, talking donkeys, walking on water, and atonement for leprosy that involved getting sprinkled with bird's blood? Or how about how you can change the color of your cattle's offspring by having them next to striped rods?

That ignorant enough for you?

LOL, really?

I don't want to change the topic, but it baffles me that you say you are not an atheist (unless I misread something or missed some subtle sarcasm).

eta: from this post

Those are miracles. What it doesn't say is that donkeys talk or people walk on water. That clear enough for you?

I am an agnostic deist. What is it that "baffles" you?

Yeah, because that would be crazy.

Here's an example of what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

Earth, air, fire and water, universally(with some variations) thought to be the prime elements of reality in the ancient world. The list of intellectual miscreants is impressive, including:

Plato
Aristotle
Hinduism
Buddhism
Babylonia
Egypt
China
Japan
Medieval scholars

Who's missing?

Oh, yeah, the Bible. How did they manage to avoid this mistake?

Edit: Suppose the Bible said something about quarks. What would that have meant to anyone before the 20th century? But then, what if it turns out that what we say about quarks is wrong? What would that mean for the Bible when we discover it's a mistake?

Edit edit: If the Bible treated the classical elements the way the ancient world did I would not consider it the inspired word of God.

Ahhh Ok, I actually hadn't thought of that option - and to be fair, a deist is mostly indistinguishable from an atheist when it comes to most topics in RGT.

<-No longer baffled

The Bible didn't avoid the mistake, it avoided the question. This would only be valid if the Bible gave accurate descriptions of elements.

I suppose it would all amount to some sort of undulating Christian apologetics.

Ha! The Bible is right, science hasn't caught up with the Bible!
Ha! The Bible is right, science proves it!
Ha! The Bible is right, science hasn't caught up with the Bible!
Repeat ad nauseum.

Actually, I am most certainly distiguishable from a hard atheist in RGT. They can no more prove God doesn't exist, than I can prove that he does.

That's the agnostic part.

Huh? The majority of atheists here are agnostic.

Of course, you're not the first to say this. It seems to be a favorite line among Christians. Yet, why do you feel this way? Did YOU choose to separate yourself from god? It wasn't man who chose this, but Adam. One man. It makes my skin crawl to think that all of humankind has to pay for the mistake of 1 man. Don't you think that's a little CRAZY? Would you punish all of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and every ancestor to come, because one of your kids disobeyed you once?! What I find more disturbing than thinking of god as being this vengeful, is that Christians seem to accept this without much of a problem at all.

I agree with this and have said so before. I find it interesting that there isn't many more blatantly false scientific facts in the bible. I do think that's impressive.

Lestat you should read my post #23 in the Re: What we see is like a cinema show thread.

It might interest you since you're interested in human DNA/blood questions.

They don't.

Everyone has to pay to learn in this world. Some people pay with money. Some with hard won experiences.

Didn't you just say: