Adam and Eve hunted dinosaurs!

[caribe]

Caribe, did you really write all of that? Damn. That is a long post.

No and you are right I need to clip it . I think Ray & Michelle will likely get pissed about the non climbing banter. things could easily deteriorate beyond where they are already.

[antichrist]

More proof Atheism is wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTd3jGUuksU

final proof happens in the last 5 seconds of the vid

[the lurkist]

From what I have observed of this bbs Ray and Michelle do have limits, but I don't think this comes close to crossing any lines. Your post (from what I read) seems down right scholarly and is one of the more informed and intelligent posts on here. Keep it up. We all might get bit more educated. What a shock that would be...

[Josephine]

But here's what's really interesting historically in the development, because the first gospel, Mark, is not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Historically what we can see from the analysis is that the gospels are written roughly in this chronological sequence, and at this time period: 70 to 75 for Mark; 80 to 90 for Matthew; 85 to about 95 are the usual dates assigned for Luke (I would say maybe as late as 100; again my own view is a little different than other scholars'); 95 is the usual date assigned to John, but John's gospel may not be completed until as late as 125, in the form that we now have it in the New Testament. If these are the dates, though, what I want you to notice is this. Notice we are a full century after the death of Jesus, within a year or two. We are a century after the death of Jesus before John is completed. More than that, though, notice that the gap between Jesus' death and Mark's gospel. We have a full generation in the development of Christianity before the first written gospel is put down. And we know there is a major important political event, a traumatic political event that occurs before that, and is a stimulus to that process.

i take issue w/mark's gospel being dated after the destruction of the temple. from my studies and what i've read while doing my undergrad and the first year of my MTS (Master Theological Studies) i personally believe that Mark was written between 60-65 CE - before the destruction of the temple. i think you've got Matt/Luke around the correct time - but the oldest fragment of the Gospel of John is dated to aprox 110 CE so i think 125 is a bit off. i would love to look it up and provide the supporting documentation. it is at home and i am at the red for the next two weeks

i think you're relying too heavily on the Gospels for your dating of what happened. You're forgetting that Paul was writing during the time after Jesus and before the gospels. i think (my books are @ home so i can't look it up) but i'm pretty sure that Paul's first work was written around 40-42. a 10-12 year gap still exists but i think Paul's letters give a clearer pic of what was happening in the early church.

anyways - i'm not sure what dating the gospel's has to do with creationism, but good post carbie.

[Pru]

uh, caribe cut & pasted that stuff from the link he posted... It is from a lecture given by L. Micheal White.

[JB]

question, do you non "christians" think that most "christians" hold to a literal interpretation of the bible and the creation story? i must know all the liberal "genesis is poetry" christians and the "that's missing the point" christians.

i'm sorry you guys run into people like that who open museums like this. there are idiots in every fanatical group i guess.

take climbing for instance...

[ynot]

I always wondered why the bible is so unclear or open to interpetation. If you were God wouldn't you have written it more like a set of instructions or a textbook.
You know,like Dragnet...Just the facts,,Nothing but the facts.
wait a minute. He presumably wrote the 10 comandments. eh,,, they were imposible for any of us to keep, what with everyone fornicating all over the place. Reckon he goofed? The questions just run too deep. Maybe I'll get a strait answer when I'm dead and gone.

[Zspider]

Pigsteak wrote:

..it is amazing that the folks who blast Christianity will turn around and talk about a "connection" to nature (with no scientific proof), will talk about a "love" for a person or place (again, a non scientific phenomenon), will say that "good vibes" are being sent (yup, not a scientific phenom folks) out, etc....

***********
Haha! Good one, Pigsteak. I found a hole in the ground BOY HOWDY just like american Pie I got connected to nature, wanna help?

ZSpiddy

[JB]

I always wondered why the bible is so unclear or open to interpetation.

actually, it's fairly likely (tic) that God only wrote the first two of the ten, then moses added the rest.... thus giving us the first documented twisting of god's words to control people. if you read the ten, the first two are in first person, then the others are in third.

the bible reminds me a lot of the x-files. all these ellusive questions.

[rockman]

question, do you non "christians" think that most "christians" hold to a literal interpretation of the bible and the creation story? i must know all the liberal "genesis is poetry" christians and the "that's missing the point" christians.

Geesh JB, Why all those labels??? Cant one of us just be wrong and the one other be right?

BTW, stop posting REALLY cool pics of your adventures. they make me sad.

I personally think most "christians" are probably really non "christians" to all the that's missing the point "christians"