• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for OT?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Since you went to Bible College, has Christianity changed, or just your opinion of Christianity.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Since you went to Bible College, has Christianity changed, or just your opinion of Christianity.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?

I never went to Bible College...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Ok so you didn't go. Any upstanding person could still answer the question. I am some leftwingernuts would be afraid to answer
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sorry, I may have misread a previous post, I'll rephrase the question...


since you took those religion courses in college....has religion changed, or just your opinion of religion.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?



Oldtimer said:
we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation. In fact, to deny the possibility that evolutionary processes were used is seen by some as an attempt to limit God's power.

"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.

badaxe- I was raised a Methodist- went thru all the Bible training- confirmation- took some religion class's in college- have participated in Bible studies for years afterward- and this has been the way it was interpreted with me- all that time...My wife was raised a Lutheran- and came into the Methodist Church before we were married- and was taught the same....

I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff- until it came up during GW's time....But that said- we have few southern evangelicals/pentacostals in this part of the country either...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You almost make yourself sound like a n expert on Christianity...so, maybe you can answer my questions...

I have a pretty good memory, eh?


Oldtimer said:
I was born, babtized, confirmed, and raised a Methodist- my wife was Lutheran... We went thru premarital studies and were married in the Methodist Church mainly because I was part of their weekly Bible study...

Studied religion while in college- and was more impressed by the similarities of all the major religions Christian, Judaism, and Muslim-- than by the differences which more reassured me in my faith in God...Spent years in weekly Bible studies- which not only answered a lot of questions but made anyone that thinks for themselves asking more (and hopefully not following a slick talking Bible Thumper wanting to rake in the cash)...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Sorry, I may have misread a previous post, I'll rephrase the question...


since you took those religion courses in college....has religion changed, or just your opinion of religion.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?



Oldtimer said:
we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation. In fact, to deny the possibility that evolutionary processes were used is seen by some as an attempt to limit God's power.

"Historical criticism" is an understanding that the Bible must be understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written.

badaxe- I was raised a Methodist- went thru all the Bible training- confirmation- took some religion class's in college- have participated in Bible studies for years afterward- and this has been the way it was interpreted with me- all that time...My wife was raised a Lutheran- and came into the Methodist Church before we were married- and was taught the same....

I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff- until it came up during GW's time....But that said- we have few southern evangelicals/pentacostals in this part of the country either...

Its apparent your Church doesn't offer Bible training and Bible studies if you don't know what they are ! :roll:

No change in my beliefs...
The Bible was written by men, from oral stories passed on between men over many years. The religious belief is that it was written by men but with divine inspiration. The Bible did not fall out of the sky. A lot of people sat down and wrote their message. Later on a group of people decided which books where supposed to be included in the Bible and which ones should be left out...

And with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous other gospels/books (like the Gospel of Mary) it appears as their is more proof that much of the decision of what should be included or left out of the New Testament was decided by men based on the politics and moral standards of the time period of The Council of Carthage in 397...

And like has been shown with all the hundreds of differing Christian denominations that soon came to be (and still appearing) - that the Bible, and Christianity was and still is still open to a lot of interpretation by the individual...
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
It might be well to know that the new testament books in the bible were all written in the first century, while the "other gospels/books" were written in later centuries.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Sorry, I may have misread a previous post, I'll rephrase the question...


since you took those religion courses in college....has religion changed, or just your opinion of religion.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?




Oldtimer said:
badaxe- I was raised a Methodist- went thru all the Bible training- confirmation- took some religion class's in college- have participated in Bible studies for years afterward- and this has been the way it was interpreted with me- all that time...My wife was raised a Lutheran- and came into the Methodist Church before we were married- and was taught the same....

I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff- until it came up during GW's time....But that said- we have few southern evangelicals/pentacostals in this part of the country either...

Its apparent your Church doesn't offer Bible training and Bible studies if you don't know what they are ! :roll:

No change in my beliefs...
The Bible was written by men, from oral stories passed on between men over many years. The religious belief is that it was written by men but with divine inspiration. The Bible did not fall out of the sky. A lot of people sat down and wrote their message. Later on a group of people decided which books where supposed to be included in the Bible and which ones should be left out...

And with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and numerous other gospels/books (like the Gospel of Mary) it appears as their is more proof that much of the decision of what should be included or left out of the New Testament was decided by men based on the politics and moral standards of the time period of The Council of Carthage in 397...

And like has been shown with all the hundreds of differing Christian denominations that soon came to be (and still appearing) - that the Bible, and Christianity was and still is still open to a lot of interpretation by the individual...



It might interest you to know that I am not a Christian, do not go to Church. I am an agnostic.

But you evaded the question.




since you took those religion courses in college....has religion changed, or just your opinion of religion.

Have you progressed left, or has Christianity become further "extremist"?

You appear to have become a bigot, since all your Bible studies, which would mean that you are the one that has become the extermist/radical, because the majority of people are definitely not bigots, like yourself.
 

Steve

Well-known member
seems to me the dead sea scrolls have reaffirmed the works of the Bible..

the beliefs you profess in them is what many "thought" upon their discovery.. that they would upend all the translations, but that is not what was found after decades of studies..



THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCROLLS

While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare the accepted text for accuracy of content.

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs.

Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=357

word for word identical... so much for politics..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff

then you might want to take another look in Genesis .. :roll:

No I meant the anti-evolution/anti science education stuff... I thought most of that got cleared up when Clarence Darrow made a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes case - when Bryan tried to defend that the Bible was to be taken absolutely "literally" on everything in it...
Ironically Bryan died 5 days after the end of the "monkey trial"..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff

then you might want to take another look in Genesis .. :roll:

No I meant the anti-evolution/anti science education stuff... I thought most of that got cleared up when Clarence Darrow made a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes case - when Bryan tried to defend that the Bible was to be taken absolutely "literally" on everything in it...
Ironically Bryan died 5 days after the end of the "monkey trial"..


Once again, you expose yourself for the narrowminded bigot, that you are.

You calling Conservative Christians "science hating backward extremists", is a tool that the left uses to demonize Christians in their attempt to discount their ideas and convictions. A fallacy, for sure....

This might surprise you....


Nation's Top Christian Geneticist Defends God and Evolution

Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health, gave a lecture Friday evening on “God and the Genome,” reconciling the Bible’s creation story with evolution and sharing how science should actually bolster a person’s faith instead of dismantling it.

“For me – as a scientist who is a believer [that] doesn’t think those things have to be compartmentalized – the exploration of nature and the discovery about good things about the human body becomes not only an exhilaration of personal resort but also becomes a glimpse of God’s mind,” said Collins.

“In that regard, science can be and should be a form of worship. You meet God in the laboratory and not only in a setting like this.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nation-s-top-christian-geneticist-defends-god-and-evolution-27142/


Are you going to answer my questions?

Did you learn in all of your extensive Bible studies how the Bible does not contradict science? Or is that an opinion you have gained since then, in an attempt to become more liberal and progressive?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff

then you might want to take another look in Genesis .. :roll:

No I meant the anti-evolution/anti science education stuff... I thought most of that got cleared up when Clarence Darrow made a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes case - when Bryan tried to defend that the Bible was to be taken absolutely "literally" on everything in it...
Ironically Bryan died 5 days after the end of the "monkey trial"..

then how can you blame this on GW?

I had never even heard of this "Creationalism" stuff- until it came up during GW's time...





what really bothers me is when one person discounts another interpretations, yet doesn't understand the context it was used in the writing..

did yom mean a day,.. a era? or a time?.. only GOD knows.. but the context accepted by most scholars is a day is a day..

So if you accept that the bible is inspired by GOD, you would think it if it was wrong GOD would have said so way back then..


The 'catch all' meaning of the word 'yom' is 'time period'

The precise meaning of yom in tanach has 4 meanings depending on the context.

Either Yom as in daylight (12 hours)
Yom as a single day (24 hours)
Yom as a year or two (As used in shmuel and Yehoshua)
Yom can be an indefinite amount of time, such as the word 'b'yom meaning 'when, or the phrase 'Ad hayom hazeh' (until this day)

In Bereshit(Genesis) both the first and second meanings of the word are clearly used and the 4th meaning of the word is arguably used. There is no single opinion agreed upon by everyone as to which meaning is used where.


could a GOD who created time itself not define a day as he wants?

so why laugh at or mock a person when you can not prove you are right and they are wrong?
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
The Scopes trial actually never came to any conclusion as to whether either side won. It is not really a question for a court to answer.

The Declaration Independence of our nation credits God as the creator. It says we are created with the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Notice that it acknowledges that we are 'created' not 'born' so the right to life comes before birth.) It does not guarantee us equality in anything else but 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'
We are not born equal, some are born smart, some dumb, some short, some tall, some with defects. We are equal in only our rights. God gives us our rights, not government. Government can only take away rights.
 

Steve

Well-known member
No I meant the anti-evolution/anti science education stuff... I thought most of that got cleared up when Clarence Darrow made a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes case - when Bryan tried to defend that the Bible was to be taken absolutely "literally" on everything in it...
Ironically Bryan died 5 days after the end of the "monkey trial"..

you might want to re-read up on that again before you make a monkey out of yourself on that issue...

http://diyscholar.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/everything-i-thought-i-knew-about-the-scopes-trial-is-wrong/






Many Americans know the Scopes trial not from history books but from "Inherit the Wind," an excellent work of drama and one of the most popular plays of the postwar era.

Along the way, "Inherit the Wind" became one of the most-produced plays in high school theater, meaning many millions of boys and girls were exposed to it in their teens. It's safe to say that 99% of viewers of the play and movie assume that what they are seeing is veracious history. They are not.

"Inherit the Wind" relentlessly distorts what happened in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925. The authors, Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee, originally asserted that "Inherit the Wind" should not be viewed as historically accurate: They changed Darrow's name to "Henry Drummond" and Bryan's name to "Mathew Harrison Brady," saying this was to remind audiences that they were taking liberties with the actual event. But lines of dialogue from the actual Scopes trial are used in the play, and the marketing of the Broadway version of both movies worked heavily to create the suggestion that audiences were seeing the actuality of the event. Reviewing the movie opening in 1960, for example, The New York Times proclaimed, "A fascinating slice of American history brought brilliantly to the screen."

"Inherit the Wind" differs from the actual Scopes trial in ways minor, middling, and substantive. Many minor differences are theatrical license. "Inherit the Wind" begins with John Scopes languishing in jail for the crime of free thought; Scopes was never jailed, and in fact, volunteered to be prosecuted.

Another middling difference between "Inherit the Wind" and the actual Scopes trial is the cartoonish depiction of William Jennings Bryan. In the play and the movies, Bryan is shown as a huffing simpleton interested exclusively in far-right views and in hearing himself talk. The real William Jennings Bryan was secretary of state during the liberal Woodrow Wilson administration and was, in his day, one of the country's leading male advocates of women's suffrage. (It is true that he liked to hear himself talk.) During his presidential campaigns, Bryan ran as a populist whose concerns were focused on economic opportunity for the urban working class and small farmers. Bryan was also a member of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and had debated some of the leading paleontologists of his day. Bryan might have been wrong about Darwin's theory, but he was wrong out of conviction, not ignorance.

While making Bryan seem a monstrously unpleasant simpleton, "Inherit the Wind" presents Clarence Darrow as a humble, aw-shucks figure. The actual Darrow was a harsh-tongued elitist who was respected but widely disliked, in part because he never missed a chance to praise his own intellect. (For insistence, at the real Scopes trial, Darrow snapped to Bryan, "I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.") By making the Bryan character seem insufferable and the Darrow character homespun and genuine, "Inherit the Wind" flip-flopped the history of the event, in order to stack the deck against religious views.

Interpretations of characters are, of course, authors' prerogatives. That leaves the most substantive complaint against "Inherit the Wind," that it altered the bedrock facts of the trial, to present as "history" things that never happened. What was said at the trial is not a matter for generalized speculation; there is a transcript. The "Inherit the Wind" authors cited a few lines from the transcript, in order to lend their work the sheen of scrupulousness, and then went on to alter central facts of the case.

For example, the point in "Inherit the Wind" at which faith looks most stupid is when William Jennings Bryan obstinately insists the world must have been formed in precisely 4,004 B.C.E. But at the trial, Bryan specifically rejected this view.

Here is the actual exchange from the trial transcript, in which Darrow is the one who raises the subject. At this point, they have been discussing the 4,004 date, and Darrow stumbles by suggesting that a 4,004 creation would make the Earth "4,000" years old:

Darrow: Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?

Bryan: Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.

Darrow: How much?

Bryan: I couldn't say.

At the actual trial, Clarence Darrow made several attempts to get Bryan to endorse the 4,004 B.C.E. creation date, and each time Bryan refused. In the play, it is Bryan who brings up the subject and dives in, while Darrow gets to play fair-minded, suggesting that 4,004 dating is merely someone's "opinion."
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/The-Scopes-Trial-Vs-Inherit-The-Wind.aspx?p=4



William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was a leading American politician from the 1890s until his death. He was a dominant force in the populist wing of the Democratic Party, standing three times as the Party's candidate for President of the United States (1896, 1900 and 1908). He served two terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Nebraska and was the 41st United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson

, taking a pacifist position on the World War. Bryan was a devout Christian, a supporter of popular democracy, and an enemy of the gold standard as well as banks and railroads. He was a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, and an opponent of Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds. With his deep, commanding voice and wide travels, he was one of the best known orators and lecturers of the era. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was called "The Great Commoner."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan


Bryan opposed the theory of evolution for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man through evolution undermined the Bible. Second, he saw Darwinism applied to society as a great evil force in the world promoting hatred and conflicts, especially the World War.

Bryan warned that the theory of evolution could undermine the foundations of morality. However, he concluded, "While I do not accept the Darwinian theory I shall not quarrel with you about it."

, Bryan joined the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1924 and attended the annual meeting.[51] A featured session at the meeting was a debate on biological evolution between Bryan and Edward Loranus Rice, a developmental biologist from the Methodist-associated Ohio Wesleyan University.

According to historian Ronald L. Numbers, Bryan was not nearly as much of a fundamentalist as many modern-day creationists. Instead he is more accurately described as a "day-age creationist". Numbers says Bryan, "not only read the Mosaic "days" as geological "ages" but allowed for the possibility of organic evolution—so long as it did not impinge on the supernatural origin of Adam and Eve."[52]

WOW,... how could he guy be a flaming liberal,.. who believes a day is a geological age? and still be the same one OT says took a literal view of days in the trial he saw at the movies?

maybe the play and the movie had it wrong to promote an agenda?





Bryan campaigned tirelessly, championing the ideas of the farmers and workers, using his skills as a famed orator to ultimately reshape the Democratic Party into a more progressive one. These political cartoons attacked just about every facet of Bryan’s character and policy. They mocked his religious fervor, his campaign slogans, and even his ability to unify parties for a common cause. As Keen puts it, "The art of propaganda is to create a portrait that incarnates the idea of what we wish to destroy so we will react rather than think, and automatically focus our free-floating hostility, indistinct frustrations, and unnamed fears".[58] Bryan embodied these fears of the Republican Party of the time, which is clearly evident in the lengths they went to deface his character in these cartoons.

yep,.. not quite the man OT would make you believe he was..

some of those literal answers..
Darrow asked where Cain got his wife; Bryan answered that he would "leave the agnostics to hunt for her"

Examination of W.J. Bryan by Clarence Darrow, of counsel for the defense:
Q--You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?
A--Yes, sir, I have tried to.
Q--Then you have made a general study of it?
A--Yes, I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy.
Q--You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.
Q--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
A--I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
Q--You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
A--You may guess; you evolutionists guess.....
Q--You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
Q--But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow Jonah?
A--Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another
Q--Just as hard?
A--It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.
Q--Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?
A--If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do....
Q--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?
A--I do.
Q--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
A--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
Q--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?
A--I don't know what they thought.
Q--You don't know?
A--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
Q--Have you an opinion as to whether or not the men who wrote that thought
Gen. Stewart--I want to object, your honor; it has gone beyond the pale of any issue that could possibly be injected into this lawsuit, expect by imagination. I do not think the defendant has a right to conduct the examination any further and I ask your honor to exclude it.
The Witness--It seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the defense to the facts; if they are not allowed to get away from the facts, what have they to deal with?
The Court--Mr. Bryan is willing to be examined. Go ahead.
Mr. Darrow--I read that years ago. Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
A--Well, I should say so.
Q-- Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
A-- No.
Q--Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?
A--You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.
Q--Don't you believe it?
A--I would want to hear expert testimony on that.
Q--You have never investigated that subject?
A--I don't think I have ever had the question asked.
Q--Or ever thought of it?
A--I have been too busy on thinks that I thought were of more importance than that.
Q--You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--When was that Flood?
A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.
Q--About 4004 B.C.?
A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate.
Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible?
A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given.
Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
A--I never made a calculation.
Q--A calculation from what?
A--I could not say.
Q--From the generations of man?
A--I would not want to say that.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think about things I don't think about.
Q--Do you think about things you do think about?
A--Well, sometimes.
(Laughter in the courtyard.)
Policeman--Let us have order....
Stewart--Your honor, he is perfectly able to take care of this, but we are attaining no evidence. This is not competent evidence.
Witness--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
The Court--All right.
(Applause from the court yard.)
Darrow--Great applause from the bleachers.
Witness--From those whom you call "Yokels."
Darrow--I have never called them yokels.
Witness--That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry.
Darrow--You mean who are applauding you? (Applause.)
Witness--Those are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
The Court--I will not stand for that.
Darrow--For what he is doing?
The Court--I am talking to both of you....
Q--Wait until you get to me. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
A--No.
Q--Have you ever tried to find out?
A--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter.)
Q--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
A--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Q--Where have you lived all your life?
A--Not near you. (Laughter and applause.)
Q--Nor near anybody of learning?
A--Oh, don't assume you know it all.
Q--Do you know there are thousands of books in our libraries on all those subjects I have been asking you about?
A--I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it....
Q--Have you any idea how old the earth is?
A--No.
Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.
Q--Let's see whether it does; is this the one?
A--That is the one, I think.
Q--It says B.C. 4004?
A--That is Bishop Usher's calculation.
Q--That is printed in the Bible you introduced?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
A--Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.
Q--How much?
A--I couldn't say.
Q--Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
A--I don't think it is older or not.
Q--Do you think the earth was made in six days?
A--Not six days of twenty-four hours.
Q--Doesn't it say so?
A--No, sir....
The Court--Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?
Darrow--I want to ask a few more questions about the creation.
The Court--I know. We are going to adjourn when Mr. Bryan comes off the stand for the day. Be very brief, Mr. Darrow. Of course, I believe I will make myself clearer. Of course, it is incompetent testimony before the
jury. The only reason I am allowing this to go in at all is that they may have it in the appellate court as showing what the affidavit would be.
Bryan--The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.
Darrow--I want to take an exception to this conduct of this witness. He may be very popular down here in the hills....
Bryan--Your honor, they have not asked a question legally and the only reason they have asked any question is for the purpose, as the question about Jonah was asked, for a chance to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the world of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world.
Malone--Your honor on this very subject, I would like to say that I would have asked Mr. Bryan--and I consider myself as good a Christian as he is--every question that Mr. Darrow has asked him for the purpose of bring out whether or not there is to be taken in this court a literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether, obviously, as these questions indicate, if a general and literal construction cannot be put upon the parts of the Bible which have been covered by Mr. Darrow's questions. I hope for the last time no further attempt will be made by counsel on the other side of the case, or Mr. Bryan, to say the defense is concerned at all with Mr. Darrow's particular religious views or lack of religious views. We are here as lawyers with the same right to our views. I have the same right to mine as a Christian as Mr. Bryan has to his, and we do not intend to have this case charged by Mr. Darrow's agnosticism or Mr. Bryan's brand of Christianity. (A great applause.)
Mr. Darrow:
Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?
A--Yes.
Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?
A--I do.
Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
Q--You have never found out?
A--I have never tried to find
Q--You have never tried to find?
A--No.
Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?
A--I cannot say.
Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?
A--Never bothered me.
Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.
A--That is what the Bible says.
Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day," and "The morning and the evening were the second day," mean anything to you?
A-- I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.
Q--You do not?
A--No.
Q--What do you consider it to be?
A--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
Q--Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
A--I do not think it necessarily does.
Q--Do you think it does or does not?
A--I know a great many think so.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think it does.
Q--You think those were not literal days?
A--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
Q--What do you think about it?
A--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
Q--You do not think that ?
A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.
Q--Do you think those were literal days?
A--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.
Q--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
A--I believe that.
Q--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
A--No, sir.
Q--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
A--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).
Q--Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?
A--Read it.
Q--All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you.
Bryan--Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennesseee--
Darrow--I object to that.
Bryan--(Continuing) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it.
Darrow--I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.
The Court--Court is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

seems to me that you have it wrong... really wrong...

in fact it looks like Bryan made a monkey out of Darrow instead..

darn facts..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Yep. OT is wrong about Darrow (the defense) making a monkey out of Bryan (the prosecution).

Scopes was found guilty............
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Yep. OT is wrong about Darrow (the defense) making a monkey out of Bryan (the prosecution).

Scopes was found guilty............

Darrow lost the trial- but won the war on the issue... Bryan was humiliated when Darrow called him as a self proclaimed expert witness about the Bible- and put him on the witness stand... Bryan stated he believed everything in the Bible was to be taken literally- but then couldn't answer such questions as where did Cains wife come from... He couldn't answer many of the questions where the Bible and Fundamentalist Church teachings differ from science...

Since the trial was broadcast across the country- and reported in every newspaper many heard about Darrow's tear down of Bryan (and subsequent death)- and it caused millions to relook at the science behind evolution and move closer to accepting it...



Edward J. Larson, a historian who won the Pulitzer Prize for History for his book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, notes: "Like so many archetypal American events, the trial itself began as a publicity stunt." The press coverage of the "Monkey Trial" was overwhelming. The front pages of newspapers like The New York Times were dominated by the case for days. More than 200 newspaper reporters from all parts of the country and two from London were in Dayton. Twenty-two telegraphers sent out 165,000 words per day on the trial over thousands of miles of telegraph wires hung for the purpose; more words were transmitted to Britain about the Scopes trial than for any previous American event. Trained chimpanzees performed on the courthouse lawn. Chicago's WGN radio station broadcast the trial with announcer Quin Ryan via clear-channel broadcasts for the first on-the-scene coverage of a criminal trial. Two movie cameramen had their film flown out daily in a small plane from a specially prepared airstrip. H.L. Mencken's trial reports were heavily slanted against the prosecution and the jury, which was "unanimously hot for Genesis." He mocked the town's inhabitants as "yokels" and "morons." He called Bryan a "buffoon" and his speeches "theologic bilge." In contrast, he called the defense "eloquent" and "magnificent." Even today some American creationists, fighting in courts and state legislatures to demand that creationism be taught on an equal footing with evolution in the schools, have claimed that it was Mencken's trial reports in 1925 that turned public opinion against creationism. The media's portrayal of Darrow's cross-examination of Bryan, and the play and movie Inherit the Wind, caused millions of Americans to ridicule religious-based opposition to the theory of evolution..
 

Steve

Well-known member
. Bryan stated he believed everything in the Bible was to be taken literally- but then couldn't answer such questions as where did Cains wife come from... He couldn't answer many of the questions where the Bible and Fundamentalist Church teachings differ from science...

that is not true at all.. total bunk..

can't you read?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Bryan stated he believed everything in the Bible was to be taken literally

Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day," and "The morning and the evening were the second day," mean anything to you?
A-- I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.
Q--You do not?
A--No.
Q--What do you consider it to be?
A--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
Q--Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
A--I do not think it necessarily does.
Q--Do you think it does or does not?
A--I know a great many think so.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think it does.
Q--You think those were not literal days?
A--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
Q--What do you think about it?
A--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
Q--You do not think that ?
A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.
Q--Do you think those were literal days?
A--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.

what is literal about that..

seems to me he has the SAME view as you do on the issue.. :shock:
 
Top