Clergy Project Nearing Goal of 10,000 Signatures

| 261 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

The Clergy Project letter now has 9,919 signatures, and their goal is to collect 10,000 signatures. This is a letter signed by clergy in the USA that asserts that religion and science are compatible, and further that evolutionary biology should be taught: “To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

So, if you are a member of the clergy, or if you know of a member of the clergy who has not yet signed, this is the final call for signatures. Instructions are on this page.

Update: The Clergy Project was at 10,002 signatures as of November 23rd, 2005. Congratulations to Michael Zimmerman, and thanks to the participating clergy.

The complete text of the Clergy Project letter:

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

(Most comments will be moved to the AE AtBC thread)

2 TrackBacks

It is good to see Christian clergy coming out in support of the teaching of evolution. This follows on the heels of the recent story about the Vatican scientist who debunked so-called intelligent design. The Panda’s Thumb is always a good source... Read More

The Clergy Project from Threads from Henry's Web on November 25, 2005 9:38 AM

Wesley Elsberry, on The Panda’s Thumb reports that the Clergy Project is nearning its goal of 10,000 signatures. As I write this, I see that it has attained that goal. I encourage all of my clergy friends to sign this document. It is not only ... Read More

261 Comments

Just sent this link to my sister–an ordained Methodist minister who ADORED (along with her clergy friends in the Twin Cities) the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I have had several members of the ‘pro-evolution’ clergy, who have signed the project, ask if we could get a list of those who have signed from each state or if a search function could be added for that purpose. I have e-mailed the originator of this valuable effort and made this suggestion, but have hadm no response. I hope others will make the same suggestion.

The clergy members who have asked for such a list wish to enlist members into the anti-ID efforts. Searching through 10,000 names is a major task.

One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!

Three, with a little knowledge and discernment these faithless clerics would come to appreciate that the Bible CAN BE READ LITERALLY and still NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That’s all it takes.

As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF

Just for the new folks who showed up only recently and who may not have seen Carol’s posts before, she works for the publisher of Judah’s book, and is just here shilling it.

And where is Carol’s evidence that any of the clerics associated with the Clergy Project is “faithless”? I have no problem taking Matthew 7:1 literally. Most of the antievolution flamers act like it isn’t even there.

Has the DI enlisted any more “scientists” to sign their “evolution skeptics” propaganda document?

I poked around on their website, but the only reference to the so-called “growing number of scientists” I could find was in their FAQ. They don’t link to the document, but state a number around 300. Which is actually about 100 less than I remember reported earlier this year, so perhaps they are also attempting to redefine “growing”.

Hey Wesley, do you believe in God? I’m a theistic evolutionist. Where’s the thread by Henry?

Since Henry’s comment and the reply did not follow the topic here, I moved them over to the After the Bar Closes thread for this post.

I express my ideas of classifying stances, and my position, in this essay, which has been up for about a decade, IIRC.

Bobby define God

Carol,

9919 religious leaders and scholars representing every *mainstream* religion in the United States either support the teaching of Evolution or do not find any conflict between teaching Science / Evolution and their religion.

Since you feel differently it could be because of one of these three reasons: 1) You don’t belong to a mainstream religion. For more information read: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/[…]boration.htm 2) You misunderstand your religion’s position regarding Science. For more information read: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ar[…]_19_2002.asp 3) You misunderstand Science’s position regarding religion / a creator. For more information read: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html http://talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you’re ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.

FYI, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis. If we are to read the Bible literally, then one of these must be wrong. Care to tell me which part of the Bible is wrong?

Carol Science can’t define faith. Your faith is different to my faith and yours and my faith’s are probably different to everyone else around here. Faith is a totally personal experience it is your relationship with God and that is the point of the Open letter. If you read the letter literally it is as plain as day they are not denying the existence of God. By literally I mean in a technical manner, it is an instruction on how to do something.

The Bible is a timeless and repeating tale that each generation can find meaning in, from ancient to modern. How timeless is that? A story that will never wear out even if scientists are able to find a gene for God or a group of neurons for God because it is the way we are. The story keeps repeating with each generation.

Do you read poetry ? You should, because the bible is poetry of the highest order, it includes imagery ,allusion, metaphor and the meaning is not always obvious but once you get it it makes the heart sing.

Think of it this way suppose you took a technical book on how to build a 747 airplane; a book that must be read literally no allusion no allegory no metaphor back to the ancient biblical scribes and gave it to them and said this is how our modern world works, this is what we do. They would be fascinated I’m sure but it would not say one word to them about how we treat each other, what the love of life is, how to manage fear and doubt. But if you took back a story about you or a movie that that you think helped you or poetry that really sings to you or a modern Hymn. Do you think they would understand that?

Why?

Remember timeless truths Carol, not nuts and bolts.

You sound like the Med. student who came home to her boyfriend and said “I found out today love is just a bunch of neurons firing in my head” and he said “See! I told it was real”

One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

Wow…the tortured faces of two thousand years of authors just flashed before my eyes.

People like you should not be allowed near TS Eliot or Kafka. I am filled with horror at the thought of ‘literalists’ trying to be get anything out of either.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

Good point The Rev. Schmitt I’d personally like to thank the DI for renewing MY culture William Blake suddenly Makes sense.

[T]o not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.

–Carol Clouser

It seems to me that this attitude toward the Bible is the ultimate surrender to a “scientistic” worldview. For 95% of recorded human history, there was not a clear distinction between literal historical truth and the truth conveyed by nonliteral stories. If anything, human beings recognized that stories more powerfully communicated meaningful truths about existence than did a recitation of facts. It’s only quite recently that we have begun to belittle “mere stories”.

Jesus clearly understood this. Are his parables at all meaningful if read as simple, literal facts?

Of course words don’t mean what they say. They mean a great deal more. To amputate that greater meaning for the certainty that a literal reading supposedly gives is a sad surrender to the modern idea that only facts– not meanings– matter.

Carol got her three swings but they didn’t come anywhere near the ball. She’s out.

She might try to open her eyes during here next at bat, but she sure comes across like a bench-polisher with maximum experience in the lumber business.

Brian You have pointed out something I have long thought about the fundamentalism. Their purely mechanical and materialistic view of the world with no gaps at all for imagination.

It would seem their own inadequacy of understanding that there is more to life than material things and no value in art or creativity of the mind is projected onto scientists who they actually see as some sort of priestly caste in society. Thinking science is doing gods work with the simple task of finding a material god.

There seems to them a purity in seeking truth that is not available to them but is clearly available to science.

This seems like arrested development and they have postponed seeking truth. It is almost as though they are locked into a chasm between adolescence and adulthood. Controlled puerile and guilt ridden sexuality, no freedom of thought and most of all they won’t forgive Jesus for dying.

One noticeable feature is the complete dichotomy of truth and Truth and word and Word- That is nothing more than schizophrenia.

“To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

Well…technically it is just one theory among others…It also happens to be the best damn theory amongst all the others.

Just a minor nit-pick.

Steve:-Just a minor nit-pick Scaring fish is not an option for them.

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living. After all, if Genesis does not mean what it says, perhaps the ban on homosexuality or the ten commandments or anything else also does not mean what it says? Where does it end?

Is it not clear that these clerics are acting out of fear that the Bible has been, and may repeatedly again be in the future, disproven by science or other forms of persuasive evidence, thereby cutting out the legs from under the foundation of various religions?

This is why the fundamentalists are fundamentalists. And I cannot blame them. Give them credit for honesty and real faith. The error they make is in not adequately questioning and probing into just what the original Bible really says, based on an honest application of the rules of literal translation of ancient Hebrew. The book I recommend (that is “recommend”, Lenny, not “shill”) is one of a few that could be of great assistance in this endeavor.

And Jim, there is only one creation story in Genesis. Read IN THE BEGINNING OF, among others and get an education.

Carol said

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living. After all, if Genesis does not mean what it says, perhaps the ban on homosexuality or the ten commandments or anything else also does not mean what it says? Where does it end?

Now here this everyone:

What Carol want to do is move our basis for laws and courts from Ancient Rome to Jerusalem:-

RENDER UNTO GOD WHAT IS CAESAR’S and RENDER UNTO CAESAR’S WHAT IS GOD’S

That is the fundamentalist “Cris de Corps Mourants” (Cry of Dying Bodies) The living Mantra of the Fundamentalist The Killer blow to life as we know it The Death of Science, Art and Theology.

Has it happened before ?

You bet- 1100 AD When the Islamic Sunna cracked down on 500 years of world leadership in science and medicine.They decided The Word of God in the Koran was the only source and vehicle of truth. Scientific thought led to the “loss of belief in the origin of the world and the Creator” science and medicine died for them and Islam has never really recovered.

Carol I’m afraid the whole world is on to you.

Die

Looks like Carol cant stop shilling even when its pointed out to everyone. The shamelessness of these fundies never ceases to amaze me.

Carol said,

“Is it not clear that these clerics are acting out of fear that the Bible has been, and may repeatedly again be in the future, disproven by science or other forms of persuasive evidence, thereby cutting out the legs from under the foundation of various religions?”

Carol, the bible is full of nooks and crannies within which you may place your individual bias and prejudice.

You obviously do not take the whole bible literally (if you did, the inflicted psychosis would prevent you from functioning well enough to operate a computer), you only read as literal those parts which contain your bias. For example, I don’t need to know your viewpoint regarding the rapture in order to assure you that no matter what it is, there are many other christians with a viewpoint that is completely opposite and equally valid. That is because they have placed their bias in other nooks and crannies.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally.

Although I do agree, the “persuasive evidence” favoring science is pretty overwhelming.

carol Wrote:

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living.

Personally, I think the parable of the Good Samaritan is a wonderful guide to proper and ethical living, despite being self-evidently a work of fiction on the part of Jesus.

And… the Old Testament has never been a particularly good guide to ethical living IMO. Just read the book of Joshua - it makes it sound like the Israelites mercilessly slaughtered, pillaged and raped about half the continent. Given that this is certainly not considered acceptable practice these days, I fail to see how not taking another book of the OT literally harms its moral credibility further.

::sigh:: I love the ignorance…

Carol: …the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That’s all it takes.

No. Now, see - I speak Hebrew. It’s my mother tongue. I’ve been speaking it since I was 10 months old. And I am very sorry to tell you that even in the Holy Tongue there still are contradictions in the bible. The whole “double creation story” still holds in Hebrew, as well as Jehova’s ridiculous zoological rant in Job.

Oh, speaking of “literal reading” - I take it you don’t wear mixed wools and linens? ‘cause that is literally forbidden in the Old Testament, and while many take Jesus’ permission to eat non-kosher food to cover that as well…well, he doesn’t literally say that shatnez is OK.

So?

Posted by jim on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s)

Carol,

… This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you’re ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.

Please to note: this is not an Exclusive OR.

You had better make up your minds at T/O. One, someone obviously wishes all churches and all humanity to abandon Intelligent Design. That would make the Clergy all become atheists. Two, someone else wishes to enlist the Clergy’s support for teaching Evolution - exactly which of the many ideas about evolution is not stipulated - thus drumming up moral support. Moral support for.…. exactly what? Either there is a designer, and clergy can therefore offer legitimate support, or the clergy have all got there heads in pickle jars, and there is only a negative result in enlisting their support. (Reading history, enlisting the support of clergy in general regarding technical matters can be a real can of worms.) So, T/O has suddenly become pro- Design, because it places some credence in the Clergy. Or is this page yet another error?

Two technical questions: 1) Did the “Rev. Doctor” remember to sign; 2) Would an Alka-Setza assist anyone?

The good clergy will recognize the quote, “Many bore false witness against him; but their witness agreed not together”. Chances are, your correspondent might well have been one of those bearing false witness. If he wasn’t, it would only be by the grace of God.

OT/

Why would someone put a link to non existant web page on a Ukraine Telecom website ?? _christmas.seavenue.net_

82.207.80.94 RTT: 515ms TTL: 32 (evp.sf.ukrtel.net fraudulent rDNS) 82.207.80.2 RTT: 509ms TTL: 36 (www.seavenue.net ok) OT/

Someone should find the mealy mouthed propaganda piece that the Discovery Institute got their 400 “scientists” to sign and compare it to the straight forward presentation of what the 9000 clergy have signed. It will be very apparent that the Discovery Institute is dishonest about what they are pushing.

It seems quite clear to me that the by declaring anything in the Bible to be amenable to the suggestion that it is not to be taken literally, these clerics have eviscerated the Bible of any value as a guide to proper and ethical living.

Says you. (shrug)

Thanks for sharing your religious opinion with us. Why is it any more authotiative than anyone else’s? Why should anyhone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor’s my car mechanic’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

The book I recommend (that is “recommend”, Lenny, not “shill”) is one of a few that could be of great assistance in this endeavor.

“Shilling” is “shilling”, Carol. Were you honest, you would admit up front that you work for the publisher of Judah’s book, and therefore have, at least idnirectly, financial interest in “recommending” it.

But you’re NOT honest.

Hey Carol Harold Bloom recons Women wrote the OT By the way womem were not allowed to go to stonings is that right ? Bag of gravel please.

WOW! Now I am impressed. A yank that likes real beer! Come over to England, we have so much; the pubs sell it.

I don’t know who it was, but someone said that “American beer all tastes like it was brewed through a horse.”

:>

No one has the slightest evidence that Jesus ever existed,no artifacts,dwellings, self written manuscripts, nothing.Not a single contemporary Roman record of his death. No eye witness accounts,all documents were authored long after Jesus alleged death,hearsay provides no good evidence.Such writtings as Pliny Tacitus Suetonius and Josephus are either vague or are in Josephus case are obvious interpolations.As far as the Talmuds evidence for Jesus,the Yesua that is mentioned actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben Perachia,at least a century before the Xtian Jesus.Considering the Palestinian Talmud derived from the 3rd to 5th century CE and the Babylonian Talmud from the 3rd to 6th century CE,it cannot serve as any evidence for the historical Jesus.Facts do not require belief,facts depend on evidence,the evidence for Jesus simple does not match the criteria

No one has the slightest evidence that Jesus ever existed

Of course, there is MASSIVE contemporary evidence that Mohammed existed.

Which, of course, doesn’t make the Koran any more (or less) true than the Bible.

There is no doubt that all the three major western religions have little basis in fact,relying on tradition and myth,but faith requires no evidence.The last recourse of apologist is to fall back on allegory,when confronted with the many problems in the Koran or the Bible, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please

Indeed. Allegory works quite well for Aesop’s Fables, for example.

Carol Wrote : The real role of women depicted in the real Bible is not at all as described by the twin ignaramuses above.

Carol. You do realise that this one statement from you will cause me to disregard all future statements you make. Your interpretations are meaningless, biased, utterly useless and nothing else but a misrepresentation of the texts to support YOUR view. You rape your own holy texts and distort it, to make it say what YOU want/need it to say. Please refrain from uttering such nonsense. Be honest about things Carol. It is better to be honest than to be right. Stop lying to yourself.

Dr. Frank remarks “Of course, there is MASSIVE contemporary evidence that Mohammed existed.” Well, actually there isn’t. The Byzantines and Persians who were overrun by Arab armies didn’t leave any mention at the time of Mohammed, and the Muslim sources on the history of the earliest period of Islam were put together well after the events they narrate. While scholars have been examining Jewish and Christian scripture skeptically for something over 400 years now, serious philology on the Koran and other Muslim writings is in a much more primitive state. There are lots of unsolved problems over which a host of ill tempered academic debates are currently raging.

Perhaps people tend to credit the sacred history of Islam because it doesn’t feature very many impossibilities like the virgin birth or the ressurection, but the plausibility of a story isn’t evidence that it is true, just evidence that it isn’t false, quite a different thing. Maybe all that stuff happened in Mecca just as they wrote it down 200 years later, but my guess is that at a minimum the tale has been drastically improved after hundreds of retellings.

How true is this…

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one’s interpretation of it.

Thus…

To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Posted by Renier on November 28, 2005 04:06 AM (e) (s)

How true is this… Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one’s interpretation of it.

Thus… To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Very true indeed (at least to some degree).

Fundamentalism/Bigotry is an ugly beast.

Jim, I agree with your statement :

but my guess is that at a minimum the tale has been drastically improved after hundreds of retellings

The same is true for the Bible. The first new testamanet book could not have been written less than 70 years after the claimed death of Christ. People forget how much power hear-say can generate in 70 years. It also rules out the first person claims…

Renier,

The first new testamanet book could not have been written less than 70 years after the claimed death of Christ

That is utter, revisionist nonsense for many reasons, including circumstantial.

For example, there is no mention (except prophetically) of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Roman legions in AD 70. This means that these Jewish writers didn’t think it important to mention, even in passing, the massacre of about a million Jews and the enslavement and relocation of 200,000 others. Not to mention the desecration and destruction of their center of worship.

This would be akin to multiple Jewish writers penning a history of the twentieth century without mentioning the Holocaust.

This would be akin to multiple Jewish writers penning a history of the twentieth century without mentioning the Holocaust.

Or the Egyptians writing histories without mentioning the Plagues and the death of all their firstborn.

Or history writers not mentioning Herod’s Death of the Innocents.

Oh, wait a minute . ….

How true is this…

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one’s interpretation of it.

Thus…

To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Indeed. I have asked Carol and Heddle and others, repeatedly, what makes their interpretation any better than anyone else’s interpretation, other than their say-so. I have also pointed out that they seem to think that not only is the Bible infallible, but their interpretations of it are also infallible. Sorry, but I simply don’t beleive that Carol or Heddle or anyone else is infallible. I’ve asked them to demonstrate why I *should* think they are.

No intelligible response, yet.

Lenny,

No it wouldn’t be anything like that. Do you ever think before you post? Your “counterexamples” might (were they valid, which they are not, but let’s grant that) be reasons why one should not believe biblical accounts of Moses and the birth of Christ.

But to assume the gospels and the epistles, even if they are fiction, were written around AD 100 and didn’t bother to weave in the destruction of Jerusalem, an event known from independent accounts to be factual, is an entirely different argument. The only argument you could make is that the writers conspired thusly:

1) Let’s write a history of events from seventy (or more) years ago, so that we can have cushy ecclesiastical jobs, all that pesky persecution being little more than an annoyance.

2) Oh, let’s not mention our holocaust of AD 70 so that it will look like we wrote these before that event.

3) Oh, just for kicks, lets put fake prophecy about AD 70 into the mouth of our invention, Jesus.

4) Oh, but lets be very clever and make it vague. Not in the sense of the Oracle of Delphi, but so that in the distant future, many people will think it refers to a still future event, so that our descendants can continue to milk the same prophetic text as referring to a rapture and great tribulation.

And then you’d have to get Clement of Rome, just for another example, to insert into his writings of that era fictional references to Paul’s nonexistent letters to the Corinthians.

And of course, the failure to mention the events of AD 70 is just one reason why the late date is nonsense.

Carol I think you might need to update with this latesest news… The real reason why the Christians still owe the Jews a heap. http://humorvault.tripod.com/moses/moses_2.html

WAit a minute, I thought we were talking abotu Christianity here. Why would Christians want to talk about nasty things happening to Jews, given that part of the point of christianity is that it superseded Judaism?

Guthrie,

Christianity’s demarcation as a completely separate religion was not instantaneous. Early Christians still went to the Jerusalem temple. Christianity’s long and ugly period of anti-Semitism would not begin until the fourth century. Paul, Peter, James (not to mention Jesus) considered themselves (and in fact were) Jews. Now if they are all fictions, then they were portrayed as being Jews, and in-character they would have certainly commented on the 1st century holocaust—if those ghostwriters knew about it—which they would have if they were they writing after AD 70.

Do you ever think before you post?

Please, David, for someone who literally believes that Methuselah lived to be nine hundred years old, you could be a tad more humble…

Your “counterexamples” might (were they valid, which they are not, but let’s grant that) be reasons why one should not believe biblical accounts of Moses and the birth of Christ.

Um, can you show me some Egyptian records for this, Heddle? I’m pretty sure they would have noticed.

1) Let’s write a history of events from seventy (or more) years ago, so that we can have cushy ecclesiastical jobs, all that pesky persecution being little more than an annoyance.

2) Oh, let’s not mention our holocaust of AD 70 so that it will look like we wrote these before that event.

3) Oh, just for kicks, lets put fake prophecy about AD 70 into the mouth of our invention, Jesus.

4) Oh, but lets be very clever and make it vague. Not in the sense of the Oracle of Delphi, but so that in the distant future, many people will think it refers to a still future event, so that our descendants can continue to milk the same prophetic text as referring to a rapture and great tribulation.

I’ve found that to be a pretty good thumbnail description of most “prophecy”, Heddle. (shrug)

David

So you believe that the 4 gospels were written by the authors your Bible claim? Or is it possible that it was patchwork from hear-say?

If it was not written by the claimed authors, then it must have been from hear-say. This would explain the little errors found in comparison. There would have been no reason to mention the holocaust really, would there, since they were recording events PRIOR to it. They would have been really stupid if they did mention it. Unless of course, a little sneak prophecy, just to add some spice.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Wesley R. Elsberry published on November 20, 2005 4:43 PM.

U of Iowa faculty petition against ID released was the previous entry in this blog.

Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter