question about Mars and the Bible...

[mtnman]

The Bible has been translated so many times that its true form is far from what we read today.  And its very vague.  That's why so many people can get so many different viewpoints from it. 

I don't take the Bible seriously.  Its a historical book and that's about it.  Its attachment to "God" has long since been lost because of the "editing" of man.  Also, keep in mind there's many different versions of the Bible - some have more books than other, and so on...

Hey Snook, how's it going ?

Have to disagree with you there as there's too much evidence to the contrary. Take for example the dead sea scrolls. A complete copy of the book of Isaiah was found and actually confirms that the text is accurate. Original texts are not only available but have proven accurate.

Many of the scrolls, which date from about 250 B.C. to 68 A.D., are biblical manuscripts -- the oldest record of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The previous oldest Bible manuscripts were the Masoretic texts, carefully preserved by a group of Jewish scholars called Masoretes, which date to about 900 A.D.

"Overnight, we have texts that are 1,000 years earlier," said Jack Levison, a New Testament professor at Seattle Pacific University.

The entire book of Isaiah and text from all but one other book, Esther, in the Hebrew Bible were found in the scrolls, which largely -- if not precisely -- confirmed the accuracy of later translations of the Bible.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/285572_deadseatabmain.html

[krazybuc]

And the other side of that coin is; WHY can't earth be the only civilized planet and everything else be made of lava, ice, rocks, or just plain dirt with no sign of life, what the hell is wrong with that being just the way things are?? 

why cant you discuss ANYTHING without acting as if you know everything and that everyone else is stupid.... if you're smarter than all of us,then be on your merry way.

[bouconagain]

It's all in Out of the Silent Planet.

[ufojoe]

Have to disagree with you there as there's too much evidence to the contrary. Take for example the dead sea scrolls. A complete copy of the book of Isaiah was found and actually confirms that the text is accurate. Original texts are not only available but have proven accurate.

Yeah, the scrolls are such good news for the church that they kept that certain religious folk kept certain
contents secret for close to four decades. Why do you think that happened? There are books in the scrolls
that contradict the Bible and teachings of the church. But, of course, THOSE books are discredited by the
church.

The scrolls were first found in 1947...

from Wiki...

...a large part of the finds from Cave 4 were not made public for many years. Access to the scrolls was governed by a "secrecy rule" that allowed only the original International Team or their designates to view the original materials. After de Vaux's death in 1971, his successors repeatedly refused to even allow the publication of photographs of these materials, preventing other scholars from making their own judgments. This rule was eventually broken: first by the publication in the fall of 1991 of 17 documents reconstructed from a concordance that had been made in 1988 and had come into the hands of scholars outside of the International Team; next, that same month, by the discovery and publication of a complete set of photographs of the Cave 4 materials at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, that were not covered by the "secrecy rule". After some delays these photographs were published by Robert Eisenman and James Robinson (A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, two volumes, Washington, D.C., 1991). As a result, the "secrecy rule" was lifted, and publication of the Cave 4 documents soon commenced, with five volumes in print by 1995.

[ryanbuc1]

Show me where in that Wikipedia excerpt where the scrolls pointed to something that contradicted the Bible.  Yes, it is odd that they would hide some of it from public view, but nothing in your excerpt tells me what the hidden scrolls said.  Aside from that, there will always be so-called Christians who believe they are doing what is best for the spread of Christianity, when in the end, it all comes down to this:  God gave us all a free will, the right to choose what to believe.  You can no more prove to me and make me believe we came from monkeys than I can change your mind about the existence of God.  Just as implausible sounding God creating the Earth in 6 days sounds to you, the Big Bang theory sounds like stupidity to me.  In death, we will all find out who is right. 

[ufojoe]

Sorry but Wiki is not the only place with info. on the scrolls.

And yes, some of it seems to contradict the Bible in a big way.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193627.html

The scrolls also shed light on the time when Jesus and John the Baptist lived and early Christians began to organize. Specifically, they offer evidence that early Christian beliefs and practices had precedents in the Jewish sects of the time. Sectarian scrolls tell of people who, like the early Christians, did not believe in the Temple worship of the Pharisees, people who had their own literature, their own rituals—including baptism—and their own beliefs, most significantly beliefs in a messiah, a divine judgment, and an apocalypse. Three different scrolls depict a sacred meal of bread and wine. These similarities as well as parallels between the literary style of certain scrolls and that of the New Testament have led some scholars to claim that Jesus and John the Baptist were either part of or strongly influenced by a sect at the Dead Sea. But no direct link has been established, and it is likely that similarities can be attributed to each being derived from a like strain of Judaism. Still, this debate has furthered speculation about the historical Jesus, such as the claim that he was a Zealot rather than a pacifist, a theory that does not fit with New Testament tradition but does fit with the history of this period. And one of the most important discoveries in the scrolls has been the use of the name Son of God to refer to someone other than Jesus, implying a cultural use of the term that was not itself synonymous with God.

[acacius]

Because the world isn't flat(as was once believed), the Sun doesn't revolve around the earth (as was once believed). All of the things here on earth came from our Sun, including you and me as well as every element on earth. All stars are suns and follow the same life cycle. What would make anyone think that the trillions of stars would be different. I certainly have no answer basically because I am an inferior human who doesn't have the intelligence to understand everything, hence I have no answers. I have an opinion as do you. I will keep my opinion and respect yours.Man has identified only 4% of the matter in the universe. The rest is 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy". And man doesn't even fully understand that 4%. I think we have a looooong way to go before we state imperically what is and what isn't. In the end, none of us know squat, just like you're dog can't explain the internet.

Let me start off by stating emphatically that my beliefs on this matter pretty much mirror yours.

The problem, however, with your arguments as a support for the idea of extraterrerstrial life is that they're fundamentally religious in nature.  It is really, REALLY easy to come up with perfectly reasonable values for the components of the Drake Equation that would suggest that we're quite alone in this galaxy.  (And if you take special relativity and causality as givens, extragalactic life is irrelavent.  It's existance or lack thereof is and will remain unfalsifiable.) That's part of why I would be so excited if we found life unrelated to terrestrial life somewhere in this solar system.  An extra data point would simply make me personally feel far better about assuming a high value for f(l).

As of now, we simply lack the data to state that the idea of us being alone is ludicrous or sensible.  People tend to believe what they want to believe on this subject.  Again, I want to believe that life is fairly ubiquitous.  But it's for much the same reason I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, etc. etc.  The belief comforts me, and I'm not going to try to pretend that I really have significantly more than that to go on.

[acacius]

Couldnt have said it better myself.

i think finding some proof of life on mars now or past would be HUGE as far as religion is concerned. Just seems like something like that would be very damaging to the credibility of the bible and god.

Ok, fine.  I'll bite.

Why?

[mtnman]

Have to disagree with you there as there's too much evidence to the contrary. Take for example the dead sea scrolls. A complete copy of the book of Isaiah was found and actually confirms that the text is accurate. Original texts are not only available but have proven accurate.

Yeah, the scrolls are such good news for the church that they kept that certain religious folk kept certain
contents secret for close to four decades. Why do you think that happened? There are books in the scrolls
that contradict the Bible and teachings of the church. But, of course, THOSE books are discredited by the
church.

The scrolls were first found in 1947...

from Wiki...

...a large part of the finds from Cave 4 were not made public for many years. Access to the scrolls was governed by a "secrecy rule" that allowed only the original International Team or their designates to view the original materials. After de Vaux's death in 1971, his successors repeatedly refused to even allow the publication of photographs of these materials, preventing other scholars from making their own judgments. This rule was eventually broken: first by the publication in the fall of 1991 of 17 documents reconstructed from a concordance that had been made in 1988 and had come into the hands of scholars outside of the International Team; next, that same month, by the discovery and publication of a complete set of photographs of the Cave 4 materials at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, that were not covered by the "secrecy rule". After some delays these photographs were published by Robert Eisenman and James Robinson (A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, two volumes, Washington, D.C., 1991). As a result, the "secrecy rule" was lifted, and publication of the Cave 4 documents soon commenced, with five volumes in print by 1995.

There are many religious books that have been written and preserved but that doesn't mean they are of Divine origin. That is why John wrote - "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1 ASV  There is a very strict criteria to determine canonicity; whether a writing was inspired by God or not. 2 Peter 1:21 says "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from GOD, being moved by Holy Spirit". ASV

Again Joe, there are spirits out there that are misleading the masses with false teachings in various ways like we talked about in that other thread. (Gallup: belief in bible decreases with education). Higher criticism is just one way Satan continues to try and lead people away from having a relationship with God. Like Jesus clearly pointed out to the religious teachers in his day - "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." ASV   See also Gen 3:4,5.

[ufojoe]

There are many religious books that have been written and preserved but that doesn't mean they are of Divine origin. That is why John wrote - "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

You make my point for me. The scrolls that fit into the Bible? They are the word of God! But the
scrolls that some have interpreted as seeming contradict some teachings of the Bible? Oh, they
must be the work of Satan or a false prophet!

honestly finding even a microbe of life, a single living cell will have a great impact.
i don't know if it'll have a big impact on religion simply because people will still have their faith.
to me it would just show that a "god" must've have made life other than on Earth.

[ufojoe]

Or "somebody" made. And that somebody could be evolution. Or not.

Once we find another planet with intelligent life, we can really use the Drake Equation.
But until we get that, it's meaningless.

Here's a new controversial find/claim from a few days ago...

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12026-mars-rover-finds-puddles-on-the-planets-surface.html

Short Excerpt...

Mars Rover Finds "Puddles"

A new analysis of pictures taken by the exploration rover Opportunity reveals what appear to be small ponds of liquid water on the surface of Mars.

The report identifies specific spots that appear to have contained liquid water two years ago, when Opportunity was exploring a crater called Endurance. It is a highly controversial claim, as many scientists believe that liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars today because of the planet’s thin atmosphere.

If confirmed, the existence of such ponds would significantly boost the odds that living organisms could survive on or near the surface of Mars, says physicist Ron Levin, the report's lead author, who works in advanced image processing at the aerospace company Lockheed Martin in Arizona.

Along with fellow Lockheed engineer Daniel Lyddy, Levin used images from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's website. The resulting stereoscopic reconstructions, made from paired images from the Opportunity rover's twin cameras, show bluish features that look perfectly flat. The surfaces are so smooth that the computer could not find any surface details within those areas to match up between the two images.

The imaging shows that the areas occupy the lowest parts of the terrain. They also appear transparent: some features, which Levin says may be submerged rocks or pebbles, can be seen below the plane of the smooth surface.

Levin’s father Gilbert was principal investigator of an experiment on the Viking Mars lander, which found evidence for life on the planet, although negative results from a separate test for organic materials led most scientists to doubt the evidence for biology.

[Rusty]

Looks kinda like H2O to me.

[ufojoe]

It does to me too but you can't tell without sampling the dirt. Or, sending somebody there to
see for themselves. I think that there might be artificial ruins on Mars. But until we go there,
we'll never know. Unless a satellite photo is clear as day. And so far, that's not the case.

[spartan]

Unless they are underground Joe, IMO I think the number of photos taken of Mars, particularly by satellites, rovers, explorers etc would have come up with at least some inclination of ruins. There are vast expanses of rocky terrain so I don't think we can explain it by simply saying they would be buried under sand or similar.

Back to the original question though, we haven't even found a dead bacteria yet (not including the fossils a few years back which may or may not be), so we are light years away from actually reaching this dilemna unless some of your buddies drop by and introduce themselves. If evidence of INTELLIGENT life was found I am sure it would force some to question their faith and not effect others. My personal beliefs aside, people have a innate ability to justify or explain almost anything to substantiate or support a particular belief or action. This board is a classic example when we discuss issues of this nature. I am sure it would make some feel pretty smug and superior, but if a persons faith is true to their heart they really won't care. That after all is the essence of faith.