 |
|
|
|
|
August 9th, 2014
06:01 PM ET
Why missionaries put their lives on the lineBy Daniel Burke and Ashley Fantz, CNN (CNN) - It wasn’t as if God's voice boomed through sun-parted clouds, telling Kent Brantly to move his family to Liberia. Still, the young doctor said, the call was clear. It echoed through the congregation where he was raised, Southeastern Church of Christ in Indianapolis. Standing before the church community in July 2013, months before he left for Africa, Brantly said he heard the call in the teachers who urged him to memorize Scripture and the neighbors who funded his first mission trip years ago. He saw it in the aunts and uncles who spent their vacations running Bible camps, organizing youth groups and serving missions themselves in Africa. “It may not seem like much,” Brantly said in an emotional address to the Southeastern congregation, “but when you connect the dots you see a grand design that God has used to draw my life in a certain direction.” For Brantly, that meant serving a two-year medical mission in Liberia with Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief organization. But in a grim twist that garnered international headlines, the 33-year-old contracted Ebola while treating patients and was airlifted back to the United States. Brantly and a fellow missionary, Nancy Writebol, who was serving with SIM, another Christian aid organization, are being treated for the disease at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. After Liberia's outbreak began in March 2013, Writebol volunteered at a hospital in Monrovia, where she disinfected doctors and nurses working with patients stricken by the disease. Despite their weakened health, their trust in God remains strong, family members said. “Mom is tired from her travel, but continues to fight the virus and strengthen her faith in her Redeemer, Jesus,” said Jeremy Writebol, Nancy’s son. On Friday, Brantly said that he felt a spiritual serenity even after learning his diagnosis. “I remember a deep sense of peace that was beyond all understanding,” he said. “God was reminding me of what he had taught me years ago, that he will give me everything I need to be faithful to him. Though Brantly's wife and children had been in Liberia with him, they had returned to the United States when he became ill. In addition to the American missionaries, a nun and a priest from Spain who worked in Liberia also contracted Ebola, two more victims in an outbreak that health officials describe as the largest and most complex in the history of the disease. As of Saturday, 961 people have died, nearly all in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, where more than 1,770 cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. Heroic or foolish? In the United States, much of the attention last week focused on the missionaries, who knowingly put themselves in harm’s way. Christians have long debated the effectiveness of missions, with some arguing that they can, at times, cause more harm than good – both to missionaries and the people they are trying to help. But rarely has the debate ranged as far afield of Christian circles or become as bitterly divided as it has since the American missionaries' return to the United States. Prominent Christians, such as R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Russell Moore, called Brantly and Writebol heroic. The missionaries knew the risks of contracting Ebola but worked with patients, doctors and nurses to try to contain the outbreak, the evangelicals said. On the other hand, real estate mogul Donald Trump tweeted that people who travel to foreign countries to help are "great" but “must suffer the consequences” of their actions. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter was even more unsympathetic, saying Brantley’s health status had been “downgraded to ‘idiotic.’” “Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa?” Coulter wrote. “The very first ‘risk factor’ listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola - an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate - is: ‘Travel to Africa.’” Nancy Writebol's husband, David, who remains in Liberia, answered the critics on Friday. Writebol said he knows that some think missionaries like his wife are "foolish, or worse," to "put everybody in danger by going" to places like Liberia. "But it’s that very calling," he said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "that demonstrates the characteristics, the great things that Christ has done for humanity. He left heaven and he came to a place of suffering and trouble and went about doing good.” The Great Commission Besides the personal pull described by missionaries like Brantly, for centuries Christians have followed a more general call to spread the Gospel through word and deed. Known as the Great Commission, it began when Jesus told the apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations.” Since then, millions of believers – from Baptists to Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses - have stuffed scriptures into suitcases and preached the Gospel in nearly every corner of the globe. For centuries, serving those missions meant spending decades abroad, learning a culture and its language, and trying, with varying degrees of success, to convert native peoples to Christianity. But short-term missions - often defined as less than two years - exploded in the 1970s and ‘80s with the advent of cheap and safe travel, scholars say. For evangelicals in particular, mission trips have become almost a rite of passage. In his 33 years, Kent Brantly had already served missions in Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Nicaragua. In doing so, Brantly is one of an estimated 1.6 million Americans adults who embark on short-term mission trips to foreign countries each year, according to Princeton University sociologist Robert Wuthnow. If domestic missions and Christians under 18 were included, that number would rise to about 2.4 million, said David Armstrong, executive director of Mission Data International. It’s an indication of how seriously Christians take Jesus’ call to reach “all nations,” a task to which they bring ever-increasing technical sophistication. The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, for instance, keeps tabs on the precise percentage of the world’s population who have been “evangelized.” As of mid-2014, about 71% of the world has heard the Gospel through personal preaching, radio, television books or other media, the center says. But not all missions are about evangelizing. There are basically three types of missionaries, said Albert W. Hickman, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity: those who preach, those who do good works, and those who do both. SIM, which Nancy Writebol joined in 2013, belongs in the last category. 'Do you mind if I pray with you?' Originally know as Sudan Interior Ministry, the Christian group has been active in Africa since 1893, when two young Canadians and an American set out to preach the Gospel in sub-Saharan Africa. Within months, the men contracted malaria. Two died, but one survived and went on to help lay the groundwork for the modern SIM, which now stands for the more general Serving in Mission. “Even early on, our people were willing to sacrifice or to die for their faith,” said George Salloum, SIM USA’s vice president of finance and operations. More than 1,600 SIM missionaries now work in 60 countries. The majority are recruited online, a process that starts with questions for applicants like: Do you share your faith with others? Is prayer a regular part of your life? Are you disciplined, accountable? Have your really thought about how hard being a missionary will be? The list of missions SIM offers is extensive – from a Bible school teacher in Mongolia to a water engineer in South Sudan. The group also sends medical professionals to mission hospitals and clinics throughout the world. Before they travel, missionaries go through cross-cultural training, learning, for example, how close should they stand while taking to someone and how different cultures greet strangers. Missionaries also are also trained in their most critical skill, Salloum said: How to provide practical help while simultaneously spreading the Gospel. For instance, when a person suffers from an illness or injury, the medical missionary will approach and ask if they can help. “The missionary just shares something ... and then sometimes they’ll say, ‘Do you mind if I pray with you?’” “People will say, ‘Why are you doing that?’ And we tell them that’s what Christ did,’” Salloum said. “It’s a natural transition – someone who has a physical need then to have a spiritual need.” That's precisely what Nancy Writebol did in Liberia, said the SIM executive. “She talked to children, she shared the Gospel. She was just available, there for the people. That was her world.” Writebol and her husband are originally from Charlotte, North Carolina, and have two adult sons, according to SIM. In Liberia, before the outbreak, Nancy served as a personnel coordinator, guiding new missionaries as they entered the West African country. She also volunteered on the staff of ELWA hospital, where David Writebol worked as a technical services manager of the 100-building complex. "We aren't going to stop our ministry – we believe we can serve wherever God sends us," David Writebol said on Friday. Samaritan’s Purse, the Christian relief organization Brantly worked for, declined to speak to CNN. David Armstrong, from Mission Data International, said the organization, which is headed by Franklin Graham, focuses chiefly on emergency aid, particularly the physical needs of native populations. But they also try to tend to spiritual needs, which means providing Bibles and setting up prayer meetings. “They are sharing the Gospel, but it’s more of a one-on-one, person-to-person thing,” Armstrong said. Good works (without preaching the Gospel) One of the world's largest faith-based organizations doesn't even like the "missionary" label, according to a spokesman, because of the word's association with proselytizing. Though Catholic Relief Services says it is motivated by the Gospel to embody Catholic social and moral teaching, it does not preach to the people it helps. In fact, you don't even have to be Catholic to work for Catholic Relief Services. Among its 4,500 workers are many Muslims, Hindus and members of other religions, said Bill O’Keefe, the organization’s vice president of advocacy. “We assist people of all backgrounds and religions and we do not attempt to engage in discussions of faith," O’Keefe said. “We’re proud of that. We like to say that we assist everybody because we’re Catholic, we don’t assist people to become Catholic.” Founded in 1943, CRS has 4,500 workers more than 60 countries, including 250 CRS workers in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria, the West African nations hit hardest by the latest Ebola outbreak. “The biggest obstacles they’re facing is misinformation,” said CRS spokesman Michael Stulman, who was recently in Sierra Leone. “The people believe that Ebola is a curse or that it’s a lie made up by authorities.” Meredith Dyson, CRS’s health program manager in Freetown, Sierra Leone, said her job is to get the public to stop believing those myths. Some Liberians, for instance, believe that a soft drink can cure the disease, or that Ebola is a nefarious plot concocted by nongovernmental organizations and the government. “People say don’t go to the hospital, you won’t come back because healthcare workers are injecting people and killing them,” she said. “Every myth is born of some kind of truth – it is partly what they’re seeing – people are going to hospital and not coming home.” Dyson, 31, studied public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore where she met people who worked for CRS. Though not Catholic herself, Dyson said the church's teachings on human dignity and social justice resonated deeply with her. Describing the recent Ebola outbreak, Dyson's voice breaks as she recalls two CRS colleagues - both Africans - who died will trying to help others. “The people who work in this setting are close knit,” she said. “They become your family. It can be really hard.” Unexpected places Back in the United States, sitting in an isolation room at Emory University hospital, Brantly said he didn’t move to Liberia to fight Ebola, but that it became necessary after the outbreak there. He said he held the hands of countless patients who died of the disease, and still remembers each of their faces and names. Brantly's mission may not have been what he imagined when he spoke to Southeastern Church of Christ those many months ago, but his focus remains the same: going wherever God leads. “One thing I have learned," Brantly said, "is that following God often leads us to unexpected places.”
Next entry »Dramatic rescue as Yazidis flee ISIS
« Previous entryWho are the Yazidis, and why does ISIS want to kill them?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
From out of the primordial ooze, pray tell me which came first...the heart or the brain. If the heart came first, from whence did it receive the order to pump. If the brain came first, how did it survive without blood from the heart. If they came together, evolution is no longer a viable alternative for even the most staunch atheist.
you sort of made a bit sense in the first couple of sentences, but when you used it to refute evolution, you reminded me of that mor-on that tried to argue bananas prove existence of god and refutes evolution.
your question does not refute evolution in the slightest.
That is a biology question.
Jelly fish have no brains
Insects have no heart.
How did the Earth exist, let alone have plants on it, before the creation of the Sun?
Therefore Creationism is bunk.
In Creationism, God is in control of it...with a God its possible, without God it is impossible...so you gonna pick and choose?
With God, anything is possible. Because He is maaaaaaagic **jazz hands**
magic is defined as illusions...this is not illusion
With creationism, you get to make up whatever you want. Why? Because you've also invented a god that can do anything. Creationism is inexcusable make-believe created by adults who don't want to be bothered with facts.
right, so all the universe came out of nothing for nothing eh? really makes sense. yep
Still looking for a scholarly article that successfully debunks evolution. . . And a single reference to an independent determination that successfully shows The Babble is trustworthy. . .
I am seeing, in general, a lot of misuse of the term "logic" around here. It seems like a lot of you folks are conflating "logic" with "truth." Logical arguments can be sound but not truthful or truthful, but not logically sound.
For example, here is a logically sound argument that is not truthful.
All apples are bears.
John is eating an apple.
Therefore John is eating a bear.
See, because of the lack of truth in the first premise, the rest of the argument is not true, even though the form of the argument is logically sound.
Here is an example of a truth that is logically unsound:
If you own a parrot, then you own a bird
I do not own a parrot,
Therefore I do not own a bird.
That argument is true. Every premise listed in there is truthful, but it is not logically sound (I could own a non-parrot bird and still own a bird).
See, a lot of you are throwing around logic as if it proves things are truthful. The thing is, in logic, every premise has to be confirmed as truthful prior to you using it in a logical argument to prove something is truthful.
If you have researched epistemology or any sort of philosophy that is trying to prove the foundation for knowledge, then you know that proving anything is "true" is extremely difficult or impossible.
Here is an example of something that seems extremely true and logically sound:
All apples are fruits.
Apples exist
Therefore fruits exist.
Now, while extremely probable that the above is true (all of our experience says it is true). There is no way to really verify the first two premises. There may in fact be an apple that is not a fruit, and it may in fact be the case that apples don't really exist, but rather, we all have been deluded into thinking that they exist through some sort of mass hallucination.
See, logic alone cannot prove anything is true. You need to begin with an irrefutable set of premises before you can do anything. As many of you know, finding an irrefutable premise is extremely difficult, and while, many have tried, they tend to not succeed.
So, when you are trying to say that things are proven, or not proven, or whatever, you really need to hold yourself back and ask, "did I support my argument enough to make this claim?"
Now, I know my argument begs the question, "Well then, why do you Christians tend to claim that you know God exists and that it is truth?" The answer is that, at least for me, you can't find God through logic. You have to find Him through faith. When I say I know God is real, it is because I have faith that He is real. And before anyone jumps in to say that faith and knowledge are two different concepts, just ask yourself, do you really "know" what you believe is true? Do you know that the sky is blue or that the earth is an oblong sphere? Or do you just have faith in those truths because of your experiences?
I would argue that we all know nothing, but choose to believe in the things we believe in through faith. Whether it be faith in God or faith in experiences, we are all faithful in the beliefs we express on this board.
I especially like the way that some say "terrible logic" when it is clear that they should be saying,
"I disagree, and here's why."
I've noticed that, too.
Without a doubt, you have "all have been deluded into thinking that" God "exists through some sort of mass hallucination."
are you serious about the mass hallucination thing? or just kidding?
Yes, it is a self hallucination based on an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") which is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
let me put it this way..can more than one person hallucinate the same thing at the same time...in masses can they?
That may be in reference to another thread, but I didn't see anyone make that argument. My understanding in God isn't based in a argumentum ad populum. I think most arguments I've heard and been moved by bases it in the opposite of that.
For me, it was not a hallucination as there was no audible or visual signs. I did however, have a noticeable change in perspective and a change in emotions that I cannot easily explain away. For instance, I was engaging in sinful, set socially acceptable behavior prior to conversion and had absolutely no qualms about it. However, after conversion, I had an extremely urgent, and uncharacteristic change in my feeling about my actions that was not brought on by external forces. It was very strange, but to me, evident that there was something acting on my life. That is just my experience though, so take it as you will.
Human emotions are extremely easy to manipulate. This how con artists take advantage of people. This is why religion and media pundits are so effective. Tell people what they want to believe, tell them that they are special and better than other people, and they eat it up with a spoon.
This is why I enjoy my emotions but use facts to make important decisions.
and that is how Christianity (according to Bible) is unlike other religions....we are no more special than the next person..we all are special, but not based on our deeds (thank God)
Hey Tallulah,
The emotions that I mentioned in my post were not positive or enjoyable ones. I was living sinfully and I began to feel a conviction about those sinful actions that I had not felt before. If that were the only thing I was getting out of Christianity (unpleasant emotions), I would definitely want to reconsider my decision. I agree with you that emotions are manipulable, but I would disagree that that is what was occurring in my situation. What Kermit says is correct. Christianity does not argue that Christians are any more special than non-Christians. We are all sinners and our most righteous acts are all as filthy rags to God. Christians have just accepted the gift of salvation from Jesus that is available to all.
It's like a cycle of abuse within a family...if it is all you know and you're not shown different than you tend to carry it forth to the future and the actions continue.
I was raised agnostic/atheistic. I studied philosophy at a college that tended not to speak favorably of religion. I am heavily integrated into corporate America, in a heavily diverse workforce. I am well aware that there are other beliefs out there. I chose Christianity in spite of my upbringing, not because of it.
There are those who fit the mold you described, but by no means is that the only way to find Christ.
Why lie and say you know god exists when there are far more accurate words such as you believe god exists...that is true, you do NOT know.
Claiming the bible is truth, is again a lie, when the accurate phrase would be I believe the bible is truth.
Claiming knowledge when all you have is belief is dishonest.
How do you know he doesn't know?
Don't you mean you just don't believe he knows? And when you call him a liar, isn't that being a bit dishonest yourself?
I don't know what you know. I can jump to the conclusion that you really don't know what my belief in God entails. And when you resort to insults and name calling to back your opinion on the matter, it really isn't that helpful.
He may believe but he doesn't know. It is not a subjective opinion. There's not even agreement on which god or which interpretation. Even if a god exists, he doesn't know that or which one(s).
Or you might be wrong.
You don't know everything there is to know.
Also, I think it is also pretty clear that when Igaftr calls him a liar, it is not because the other person is being dishonest. It is because he doesn't like what the person is saying.
dala
"How do you know he doesn't know?"
Asked and answered. Your memory should probably get checked out. I'm not following you down that rabbit hole again.
Suffice it to say there is no possible way to be certain
Right, you just believe he doesn't know.
But he could actually know.
It is possible a person can know God exists. And that you just don't know that yet.
"Suffice it to say there is no possible way to be certain"
Aren't you the one always hounding and criticizing me to consider the endless possibilities?
I myself am not certain. But it is possible there is a way to be certain.
"Dalahäst
Right, you just believe he doesn't know.
But he could actually know.
It is possible a person can know God exists. And that you just don't know that yet.
August 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
Dalahäst
"Suffice it to say there is no possible way to be certain"
Aren't you the one always hounding and criticizing me to consider the endless possibilities?
I myself am not certain. But it is possible there is a way to be certain.
August 14, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
Not again dala...not again. Hey, there goes dala's music again..."tee for two, and two for tee"as he begins what he thinks is a logical argument.
Ig
I think it is fair for me to question you.
You do so to me in the same manner.
Is this a case of you not liking the taste of your own medicine? You are quick to label me as someone who doesn't consider other possibilities. When I ask you to do the same, why do you close your mind?
dala
"Is this a case of you not liking the taste of your own medicine?"
No not at all. You clearly do not remember. Asked and answered.
I am tired of YOUR "medicine" . Go tap dance with someone else, I simply am not going to go chasing my tail with another of your ridiculous non-arguments and circular "logic".
I don't remember what?
You've lost me. Sorry.
know: root knowledge
knowledge: noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Theoretically he could "know" but only in theory, not in practice. There are no indisputable "facts" as to God/gods existence thus any conjecture about the subject is purely theoretical.
I disagree. Once can know God, yet not have indisputable "facts" to prove God's existence to a skeptic with limited knowledge. I can understand why a skeptic would label any talk about God as just theoretical – but that doesn't mean it is only theoretical.
Dal, This probably won't persuade anyone who does not believe, but here it is. Look closely at the second definition. But the first one is relevant also.
know
nō/
verb
verb: know;
1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
synonyms: be aware, realize, be conscious, be informed; More
notice, perceive, see, sense, recognize; informalbe clued in, savvy
synonyms: have knowledge of, be informed of, be apprised of; More
formalbe cognizant of; be absolutely certain or sure about something.
2 .have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.
synonyms: be acquainted with, have met, be familiar with; be friends with, be friendly with, be on good terms with, be close to, be intimate with
I know!
Hi igaftr,
I could say the same thing about those who claim to "know" that they went to Europe last year, or that they "know" that black holes exist. In my post, I was trying to point out that we use the term "know" very loosely in our society.
Most, if not all of what we claim to "know" is actually just belief. You ever think about the fact that your brain is locked inside a completely dark skull, yet it is able to perceive light? We trust our senses because it is how we survive, however, we cannot be sure that our senses are telling us the truth. All we can do is have faith in our senses and trust in them to show us the truth so we don't wander into some dangerous situation.
Do you ever think about how evolution is not driven to make species more aware of the truth, but rather, driven to make species more fit to survive? If the driving force behind evolution is physical and se.xual fitness, then the fact that we trust our evolved senses to lead us to the truth is a rather unjustified claim. Imagine that there was a world that was completely outside of Earthly experiences. If that were the case, no organism on Earth would need to evolve to the point of perceiving that non-Earthly world. The non-earthly world would not impact survival and thus be irrelevant to a species' fitness.
We expect a lot out of our senses and we claim to gain knowledge about the world through our experiences. All we are really doing however is intaking data and forming beliefs based on that data, whether the data is accurate or not.
Like I said, it is my position that we really "know" nothing, we just believe things based on our choices of data intake.
guidedans,
Well done, your discussion on logic is spot on. Of course that by no means implies people should be illogical. Poor logic makes conclusions very likely false. You could say the logic is necessary but not sufficient. Even that is not true. An occasional illogical statement can result in a revelation that wouldn't come from pure logic. But mostly, being logical is better. I recognize logic is useless in appreciating some art, music, poetry, etc. there's more to life than logic. But if something is based on illogical process, it should be viewed very skeptically if you're looking for truth in it.
What we 'know' is philosophical. But there are qualitative and quanti.tative differences between 'sky is blue' and 'God exists'. We can measure the wavelength of the light coming from the sky direction and confirm it consistently is in the region of what we call blue (same for eye color, paint color, etc.), i.e. there is objective corroboration. There is even physical theory of scattering that explains why it is those 'blue' wavelengths. None of that exists for God. So while we can argue the philosophy of knowing, that doesn't put all things on an equal ground for knowing.
Not all that we know is philosophical. If there is truth and we know it – it doesn't matter if meets your personal standard for what qualifies as knowing.
Dalahast,
That was my poor choice of words, I didn't mean to imply that everything we know is philosophical. I meant an academic point that what we know is open to epistemological argument. Some people argue for solipsism.
Ok, later I started to think that wasn't what you probably meant about knowledge being strictly philosophical.
You are correct, Boston. There is loads of evidence for the scientific facts that everyone tends to agree on. Further, we have to commonly agree on a lot of stuff to even be able to communicate or make any sense at all (e.g., we have to agree that letters mean something when structured a certain way or else this post would be meaningless).
But the problem is that all of the evidence that we gained is predicated on things that we can not verify or be sure of. Things like, the universe exists, our senses provide us with accurate information, reality is not being altered or controlled in some way, the past actually occurred and memories were not falsely implanted within us, etc. All of these foundational items are not really verifiable, so we just take it on faith that they are true.
Now, you are correct that there is a lot more evidence for certain things in our world, but that evidence is wholly dependent on assumptions, that, if proven incorrect, would nullify all of that evidence and turn all of our knowledge on its head.
I am not advocating for abandoning the agreed upon "truths" that hold society together, but I am saying that, when dealing with things like God and eternity and realms outside of the Earthly realm, using logic and knowledge and truth as concepts is not very appropriate.
It would be like playing a video game and learning all there is to know about every aspect of the world within that video game, and then using only that experience to discuss the world outside of that video game and how it may or may not interact with the outside world.
I propose than pantheistic solipsism is the best explanation for life, the Universe and everything.
Every thought that any sentient being has had spawns its own reality.
Nobody can disprove the existence of Oz.
Doc
You need to be more specific as to your concept of Oz. Let me assume your concept is based upon what Dorothy saw. In this case Oz exists as form and substance observed is consistent with Dorothy's concept (it was a dream).
If you are suggesting Dorothy's dream is possible in reality that answer is no it cannot. Concept, form and substance are in conflict.
Since God is postulated to exist outside of time, space and reality as we know it, it stands to reason that there are alternate realities. Is the realm in which the Creator of our universe lives the only alternate reality?
What are the form and substance of the divine reality?
The rules of existence for Oz aren't necessarily the same as for reality as you perceive it.
And therein lies the problem with a supernatural hypothesis – it is completely undisprovable.
You cannot disprove the existence of parallel, alternate realities nor the physical laws which may or may not govern them.
Hey Doc,
The problem is not with the supernatural hypothesis, the problem is with the scientific method and its ability to prove things.
Just because we humans aren't able to understand something or to prove it as "truth" should not be a statement about the concept or thing we are trying to understand. It is a statement about our abilities as humans.
Yes, there are things we cannot measure and things we cannot prove, but it is irresponsible to discount things because humans cannot prove their existence. It is placing a very large amount of confidence on our minds (which, if you think about it, are the first minds, that we know about, that can even think about these concepts at all)
@guidedans
And so you cannot caste aspersion on the theory of pantheistic solipsism and Oz, therefore, exists.
Doc Vestibule, do you honestly believe Oz exists?
@Dala
The Wonderful Land of Oz fulfills the prophecies from The Wonderful Wizard therefore proving the books' veracity.
If the default position for supernatural hypotheses is that they are valid because they can't be disproven, then one must accept that Oz exists when the root hypothesis is pantheistic solipsism.
Why do they have to accept it? Because you say so?
You don't actually believe that about Oz – that fact is relevant in looking into your explanation. Right?
Not because I say so but because there is no way to disprove it.
The Oz hypothesis is supernatural and beyond the means of science to prove or disprove.
If you just have faith in The Wizard and open your heart to The Truth of pantheistic solipsism, he will reveal himself to you.
"Doc Vestibule, do you honestly believe Oz exists?"
Once again with moot questions.
Something being true or not is not affected by how many people believe in it.
Doc
"The rules of existence for Oz aren't necessarily the same as for reality as you perceive it."
=>In science we agree to certain constants even though we lack proof they are constant then observe dependent and independent variables in relationship in a manner free from outside contamination. Alternate realities are neutralized otherwise a conclusion could never be reached. Dorothy's concept of Oz matches the observed and observable reality of her dream. It was a dream.
=>I would hope we could agree that reality is what exists absent your perspective or my perspective. If you suggest that there exists an alternate reality then both realities are subsets of reality. At this point we could discuss relationship between realities. Before we can do that there must be the concept of alternate subsets of reality. If your concept of an alternate reality is Oz I would dismiss that reality as it lacks form and substance. Give me form and substance consistent with concept and we could discuss its possible existence.
A theoretical physicist at a minimum requires an effect or affect that is observable or exhibits proposed properties that are observable. Does this Oz even have potential mass or structure?
Doc Vestibule
But you don't actually have faith in it.
Right? You are just trying to prove a point.
Sorry. I'm skeptical. I put everyone through this kind of questioning when asking me to believe something I don't.
I usually start with – Do you honestly believe what you are preaching.
I'm sure you honestly believe belief in God is like someone making something up like you are right now. In some cases that may be true. But in my experience, it is not true for all. I've found that those who are honest do not make the claims about God like you are making about God.
Ig
–Something being true or not is not affected by how many people believe in it.–
That wasn't my point.
I was asking him if he actually believed in it. What is moot about that. It is relevant.
@Fred
What of the alternate reality in which God resides?
As the Creator of our Universe, He must exist outside of it.
In what way is science consistent with the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent enti/ty?
@Dala
I picked Oz at random.
Many people sincerely believed in Asgard and the Norse shamans claimed personal experiences with their gods.
There is no way to scientifically discern the existence or non-existence of Asgard.
The default religious position is one of credulity being given to the undisprovable. Open your heart and mind to INSERT DEITY and you shall know The Truth.
The default scientific position is one of skepticism – you get no credulity in the absence of evidence.
Metaphysics is to actual physics what astrology is to astronomy.
Doc
"Since God is postulated to exist outside of time, space and reality as we know it, it stands to reason that there are alternate realities. Is the realm in which the Creator of our universe lives the only alternate reality?"
=>Your error is that you have constructed a false concept as to God existing in an alternate reality. All evidence and normal concept of God is that reality includes God (God is omnipresence). This is not to be confused with the Kingdom of God or heaven which is about the state of our existence.
"What are the form and substance of the divine reality?"
=>Due to lack of a better word God is a burning holiness with physical properties like the wind or spirit with eternal omnipresence. That form and substance was witnessed in Jesus when the full radiance of the Glory of God was upon him That form and substance was witnessed by Moses in the burning bush and on his face. That presence was historically document when the enemies of Israel did not fear God but feared Israel because God was with them. That presence is in Gods people today as they lift their hands in worship before their King. That presence was in the founders when they declared certain rights that were put into man by the Creator and that presence was with us in prayer this morning as we gave thanks.
Doc Vestibule
What if there is a way to know God, but it isn't via the scientific method?
Would it be fair to suggest you've skipped the realm of science and entered the philosophical realm. Just like astrology isn't astronomy, what you are describing isn't science. I think you are describing scientism. Many people sincerely believe scientism is the best explanation – just like some believed in Asgard and the Norse shamans?
Doc
"As the Creator of our Universe, He must exist outside of it."
=>That is a concept related to pre big bang cosmology and other speculation based on known physics which cannot apply below Planck Length threshold.
"In what way is science consistent with the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent enti/ty?"
=>Science does not address the theological attributes of God.
=>Science can observe and acknowledge the claimed presence of God in effect and affect upon reality. Causation has structure as well as flow. Just as Science does not know how a Monarch butterfly returns to an exact location we see the effect and affect then attribute it to cause.
Hey Doc,
I would never try to argue with you that Oz does not exist. Even if you wanted to enact laws based on your belief in Oz, I would not contest your right to do that. Whether Oz exists or not however means nothing to me. I would be just as happy if Oz existed in some other reality than if it did not exist.
Oz's existence has no impact on me or my life. God's existence does. God's existence gives me hope for a future and it gives me a feeling of connectedness with Him that I did not have before.
I know that you could say that there is a god in Oz that will grant wishes if I believe in him or in Oz, but that really only adds complexity to my decision to believe not in the Ozzian god but in the God of the Bible.
See, you can present other gods or god-concepts to me or to other Christians, but they will, at the very best be equal to the Christian God's glory. In Christianity, God is the best of all possible things. The only way to compete would be to argue that your God is the best of all possible things too. Then it would just be a comparison between which God I thought was more reasonable, the one in the Bible, or the one that you made up in a post on the CNN board.
Your argument, while an interesting thought, is not relevant. God's existence and the existence of things have two very different impacts.
"There may in fact be an apple that is not a fruit, and it may in fact be the case that apples don't really exist, but rather, we all have been deluded into thinking that they exist through some sort of mass hallucination.
---------------------–
We define apples as fruit. So the statement that "All apples are fruit" is a factual premise, unless you are implying out of context but still literal meanings like the subst,tution of iPhone for apple which would then make the statement not factual.
Pedantically of course we would need the word to be spelled "Apple" to make that subst.tution.
All systems of logic, including mathematics, depend on axioms which are unprovable.
kermit4jc,
You said "I mean was he alive when he fell off the cliff? you have to show that Judas was alive when his body fell off the cliff....did he fall off, was he thrown off (his body?) the passage does not show it"
Please give us the EXACT QUOTE where the Bible talks about "THE CLIFF" to show that you aren't LYING and didn't JUST MAKE IT UP.
what is your problem? who cares? the matter has been settled..thereis NO contradiction......I gave you the explanation..aparnelty I guess youre in the mind to think that someone walking along a level place falls down to the ground and all his insides fell out...hmmmm...come on
kermit4jc,
Please give us the EXACT QUOTE where the Bible talks about "THE CLIFF" to show that you aren't LYING and didn't JUST MAKE IT UP.
Still waiting for this test of your HONESTY. Not doing well at all so far.
wow......exact quote? so now youre saying IM lying unless its an exact quote....so youre saying you are incapable of connecting the dots and using logic about where Judas fell from? ok, ok..so MAYBE he fell from a tree...but really..did I say that Judas ACTUALLY fell from a cliff anyways? When I reviewed my post, I saw in the context that you apparently missed that I was giving EXAMPLEs.....on how he died...could have been a cliff, or tree.....so really...you are either playing games, or really need serious help with your reading comprehension...pick which one
soreally my honesty is not in question as I did NOT say Judas did in fact fall from a cliff....yours is in question since you semed to dodge my question for some time before you finally answered it.
kermit4jc,
The fact that you had to REVIEW your comments shows that you didn't have an immediate answer that it was just an "example".
Where did you say it was "just an example" or "for instance"? Review again and find those words. Just more hollow ALIBIS. So much for your HONESTY.
So maybe it was disciples that cut open his body with a knife to desecrate him. Right?
of course cause YOU threw me off with your dodging and ad homs. Plus, I do NOT have to say the word "examples" the FAct is I gave a LIST of possible scenarios. Thus YOU (if you had good reading comprehension skills) could see those were examples and also used the CONTEXT to follow my argument, concerning the cliff. and the ISSUE at the time was the fall itself, not where it came from ..thus this is why your games mess you up, your ad homs and initial dodging of my questions. No wonder you people are so messed up and have poor time debating.
kermit4jc,
When I originally asked for a quote, you continued to argue in support of the cliff nonsense, rather than a quick response that it was just "an example". You even said "I gave you the explanation..aparnelty I guess youre in the mind to think that someone walking along a level place falls down to the ground and all his insides fell out.."
You have completed the honesty test. Thanks.
youa re the dishonest one here...I had been trying to debate, and when YO di dnot like my question, YOU dodged and YOU made ad homs, which threw me off. You are quite an arrogant smug little guy. YOU are the dishonest one here when You played the dodging game and ad homs. That is trickery and you know it. YOu are the one who failed the honesty test here. Not me
This is ridicules.
Mathew said he hung himself, ACTS said his guts spilled out.
It takes someone who is really out of touch with reality to claim that is not a contradiction.
why cannot both be true? are you telling me he cant be hung, then his body either fallen off the edge of cliff, or thrown over?
Your religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is nothing more than an accident of birth. American Christians have to admit that had you been born in pakistan to islamic parents you would believe in allah, had you been born in india to hindu parents you would believe in vishnu and shiva, had you been born in the Australian desert to aboriginal parents you would believe in the dreamtime ...
So please don't try and say that you somehow magically have the one true god out of the many thousands of gods that man has created since an evolving brain began to try and explain the world around it. And please don't tell me that your endlessly flawed, bronze age book of primitive stories and rules accurately reflects the will of what you say is a perfect being that created the universe. That book of mysoginy and slavery and murder and se.xual fixation and fancy would be an insult to any such being.
arethos e the only options? if born in Pakistan youd believe in Alah, and nothing else? there are no exceptions?
I see you omitting sections to twist what I said in your usual dishonest way.
Quote: "had you been born in pakistan to islamic parents you would believe in allah"
In almost all cases, that would be correct ... especially considering Islamic penalties for apostasy. In almost all cases with other religions that would be correct too ... especially how prone the young human mind is to indoctrination.
He was asking questions.
His premise is true. But his conclusion is a logical fallacy.
By his theory I would either be an anti-theist like him, or a Secular Humanist, today. It is not hard for me to doubt his opinion on the matter in regards to all religious belief.
pick and choose much dude? I would suggest reading the whole comment and understanding what the author is saying, rather than picking phrases to support what you WANT to read. Just an advice for future..
If human error is evident within the Bible, the question becomes to what extent that human error played a role in key theologies, and even the very concept of God himself?
---------------–
That's a GREAT question!
Let’s say that Aunt Sally has a dream where she receives a recipe for making the Elixir of Youth. When she gets up the next morning she is so excited by what she dreamt, that she immediately writes it down precisely as she dreamt it, and then proceeds to mix together the ingredients. When she drinks the conco.ction, she is instantly transformed from a wrinkled old woman into a young beauty queen.
So, she takes the carefully written, detailed instructions and shares them with her bridge club, who then each make copies of the original docu.ment, who then go home and make the elixir and experience the same change, so they take it to other friends of theirs to make copies, and so on.
Now, while all of this is going on, Aunt Sally’s dog grabs the recipe, and tears it to shreds. And in a strange twist of fate, all of Sally’s friend’s dogs also tear all of their recipes to shreds. Distraught over the loss of the recipe, Aunt Sally and her friends get together with all of the remaining pieces of their recipes and by using all of the fragments that remain, they attempt to reconstruct the original docu.ment.
Out of the 30 copies that now remain, 26 of them are exactly the same, 2 of them contain misspelled words, one of them has a rewording of the directions – “pour in one cup” instead of “add one cup,” and one recipe has an added ingredient. So, by now looking at the 26 copies that are all exactly the same, you can now make the correction to the recipe that has its wording changed, and also eliminate the added ingredient from the last recipe.
THAT is textual criticism...
That was meant to be a reply... OK, time for more caffeine.
So Sally is given a magical dream about a magical potion from some supernatural force, but the supernatural force failed to forsee her dog eating the recipe...? lol
Silly theo
For that analagy to mean anything you have to have an original correct copy to start with.
There was never one correct bible to share, destroy, and piece back together.
For that analagy to mean anything you have to have an original correct copy to start with.
There was never one correct bible to share, destroy, and piece back together
---------------------
Alias, you proclaim that which you do not know, and you call ME silly?
Before there was written scripture, God chose to speak to His messengers in person (Exodus 33:11). This ensures that what Moses would write about creation, and those things to which there was no human witness, would be accurate, he heard them straight from the lips of God
Moses wrote (Deuteronomy 31:24)
Joshua wrote (Joshua 24:26)
Samuel wrote (1 Samuel 10:25)
Prophets contributed (Zechariah 7:12)
The Law was confirmed by King Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest, and Shaphan the scribe (2 Kings 22:8-13)
The Old Testament canon was affirmed by Jesus (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10, 5:17, 21:13, Mark 7:6, Luke 4:16-21, 24:25-27, 44-45)
The Old Testament was accepted by New Testament believers (Luke 24:32, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
The New Testament refers to the Old Testament (Matthew 11:10, John 2:17, Acts 1:20, 7:42, 13:33, Romans 1:17, 1 Peter 1:16)
Luke wrote to instruct us in certain matters (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-3)
Paul was inspired to write (Romans 15:15-16, 1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 13:10, Galatians 6:11, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Colossians 1:1-2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:1-2, T.itus 1:1-4, Philemon 1-3)
James, Jesus’ brother wrote (James 1:1)
Peter was inspired to write (1 Peter 5:12)
John was inspired to write (1 John 2:12-14, 2:26, 4:6, 5:13, Revelation 1:1-3, 19)
The writer of Hebrews contributed (Hebrews 13:22)
The Old Testament was pulled together into the Canon that we have now by the scribe Ezra in the 400’s BC. (Nehemiah 8, Luke 1:70, Romans 1:2, Acts 3:21) By the time John completed the book of the Revelation in 94-96AD, the New Testament books were completed and had already been widely circulated as scripture. The New Testament was not compiled by any church council or by any decree of a ruler, rather, the apostles themselves dictated what the Scripture was (Ephesians 3:3-5, 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 2:42). No book is in the Bible that the Apostles themselves didn’t approve, and all of the authors approved by them are in the Bible – no more, no less.
Of course, the bible is right because it says it is.
You win the big silly prize for today.
Is that your go-to response? It's quite tired and ridiculous.
To say something like that is only to pour contempt on the scholarly inquiry on scripture that has existed since 1400BC to now.
In essence, what you mean is "based on your lack of knowledge of the subject, your opinion is that the Bible only carries authority because it says so." It carries no authority in your own life basically because you're ignorant.
Did you quote the bible to prove the bible is true?
Did you quote the bible to prove the bible is true?
----------------–
Do you quote the dictionary to prove a word is spelled correctly? We quote doc.uments whose authority has been established for the purpose in which they were intended.
The Bible's authority has been well established – having been attested to by witnesses, signs, and miracles that functioned as litmus to its veracity.
You cannot just say that it holds no authority if you merely say that because you cannot believe in the miraculous, otherwise you risk casting doubt on any written docu.ment where you, yourself were not a witness to the events being described. In fact, eye witness accounts are the prime reason that we believe anything. Someone can say that thus and such can be proven with physics or whatever, but unless you have personally conducted the tests, you are taking his word for it based on his eye witness account.
In areas where no tests can be done to objectively prove the veracity of what has been said, such as in the field of cosmogony, or in theology, subjective rather than objective means are now the only tool through which truth can be determined.
And let us never forget that truths that can only be determined through subjective means are still truth.
What amazes me is that we spend hours on this site trying to beat each other into submission. It never became quite so clear as with this Pi thing. Who cares if the "sea" was one cubit off? Who cares if Solomon had people reporting different numbers of horses. Yes, there are minor errors in the Book. There are minor errors in any work that humans have a hand in writing. God didn't inscribe the whole Bible in stone Himself. The stories, poetry, prophecy and counsel are inspired but not written by God. Just saying, even if we want to criticize each other aren't there more important topics than Pi. Unless it is apple, or cherry, I don't much care.
mmmmmmmm, apple. dutch apple.
Ala mode
ragansteve1,
The Bible is full of nonsense like a woman turning into salt and the moon and sun suddenly stopping, but they cannot 100% be proved wrong. It is only when the Bible deals with the irrefutable laws of mathematics that claims in it can be proved or disproved.
A case like the pi example demonstrates that the Bible definitely contains ERRORS.
however..again you have to provide evidence they were attempting to be precise in recording the size of the pool...were they writing to architects and stone masons and whoever else was in the building of the pools?
kermit4jc,
A circle with a diameter of 10 inches has a circ-umference of 30 inches.
TRUE or FALSE? Let's see your level of HONESTY.
"There are minor errors in any work that humans have a hand in writing.
------------------------
Of course there are, and major ones too. But Biblical literalists insist that it must be inerrant, otherwise it begs the question: which parts are accurate and which parts are questionable?
And so, obviously, you can count me on the side of believing that there may be some errors in the Bible of a realtively insignificant nature that were introduced either in writing the story from oral tradition, translating it from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and other languages that may have been involved in original texts, and of course, copying errors.
As for the major events that would lead a person to salvation or lead them astray however, count me a believer in the Bible as written. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and as such provides us with all of the necessary information to lead us to follow God in truth and to live a better life here on earth. That we do not live better lives, or that we do not follow God, is our decision.
I have no issue with the idea that people can look to the Bible as inspirational so long as they are happy to admit that it needs interpretation – particularly to overcome all the fairly major inconsistencies. Nor can it be construed with any accuracy as an historical narrative.
The notion of inerrant literalism fails critical thinking.
The spiritual descendents of the people who wrote the old testament will tell you that it needs interpretation to be understood. They would be the best ones to know. The same is true of the new testament.
That's why we have theologians, Bible students, and me, reading the Bible to form my own interpretations. I would not expect anyone to take any written word from any source as the literal truth. There are four pillars of study I use, The Bible, tradition as expressed through those who have gone before me, experience (including science) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life. The Bible is foundational, but not exclusive.
ragan
"and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life"
You mean what you BELIEVE to be the "holy spirit".
The problem is, no one can show that to be anything more than imaginary, most likely, it is just you talking to yourself, a conscience, existing entirely in your head.
and WHO are YOU to tell him its his imagination..youre not even qualified to say such (youre not a psychiatrist or such)
"youre not a psychiatrist or such"
Nor is there any reason for anyone to believe you are! How would you know what another person does for a living?
I don't know what he does for living EXCEPT I DO know he is no psychiatrist...its obvious
How do you know that??? People have made the same claim about you because it is obvious and yet you keep making the claim that you're a psychologist...so how is this different? You have no way of knowing via a blog what a person does for a living, to claim otherwise is a blatant lie.
igaftr,
Of course I believe it. Otherwise I wouldn't rely on Him. I also believe in experience and the Bible and what others have learned before me.
I confess. I only remember that the book claims to be worthy, not true.
Tom, I think I know to what you are referring but I cannot find it in any of my Bibles. It said something like "contains all the information necessary for the salvation of man" or something like that. But I even went back to my KJV and couldn't find it quickly.
What I did findin my NIV Bible however may help this discussion. The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV, starts the closing paragraph of the Introduction with these words. "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, thi one undoubtedly falls short of its goals.. Yet we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us to realize these goals . . . ."
That does not mean they believe there are gross errors that would lead one astray. But it does admit, as I said above, that there may be minor errors of little consequence in the texts. It also means that some may not agree with all of the translational decisions that the committee made. But that would be a common occurrence in such matters.
Don't know if that helps, but it is what I remember and what I could find quickly.
The cubit is an ancient unit of length based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
In biblical exegesis, the Near Eastern or Biblical cubit is usually estimated as approximately 450 mm or 18 in.[8]
Estimated as approximately, and the debate is about applying a precise number.
It is odd that the Bible is so imprecise on simple things, but rather direct about the fate of nonbelievers. It dares us to disbelieve.
The Bible describes the natural world about as accurately as you would expect. Perhaps a bit less accurately than some texts of similar age. Why believe that it's uthoritative on the relationship between a supernatural God and its creation?
Because it express the love God has for us.
A nice card would do as well, Robert.
It is really more of a letter, a really long love letter.
RB: "is usually estimated as approximately 450 mm or 18 in.[8] ..... really more of a letter, a really long love letter."
Goodness – sounds like something beyond a Harlequin romance novel to me...
Jocularity
Robert
The ancient Hebrews and later Jews all had smaller units of measurement that could have been used here to detail the extra length, right?
ragansteve1
If human error is evident within the Bible, the question becomes to what extent that human error played a role in key theologies, and even the very concept of God himself? Maybe they were even wrong about there being a God? A Bible with admitted human error makes that a real possibility, right?
this is where textual criticism comes in....not all copies read the same error..plus..within context we can know the actual word or such.....would this change your mind if you got this in your mail today? "You %ave just won $1 million. Contact us for further details" WOuld you ignore that letter or would you actually look into it? and would you not know what it ACTUALLY says, even with an error in the text?
oh kermi; you uneducated moron...who ties your shoes for you every day? (try not claiming again that you have a degree...we know from your lack of intelligence that you only WISH you did and try not to tell us you tie your own shoes-you're too much of an angry immature child to do that on your own)
kermie: that is an easy one; if you get a letter saying you won 1 million dollars............ file in the stred-it bin.
why because it's a con-job just like your flawed bible. it can't even get how a guy died correct; if the sun ever stopped moving we would fly off into space, or have the moon crash into us due to the shift in gravitational forces.
kermit4jc
Winning a lottery that I never entered would require something like a miracle, and I'm not gullible enough for that.
Honestly, you've never heard of such scams?
trying to weasel your way out eh? where did I say in that story you won something you didn't enter in? sorry...youre trying to make excuses and avoid the conclusion that my analogy leads to
kermit4jc
You haven't answered any email requests from Nigerian princes or the "fbi" lately, have you?
Nice try. I already defined "minor errors" and events as different. But thanks for the effort.
ragansteve1
Here's a basic biblical contradiction for you; not just a minor detail, but one linked to the salvation theology you seem to think is key.
God punishes Adam and Eve for disobeying him, but how can they be held accountable for doing that if they decided to disobey him before gaining the ability to tell right from wrong that eating the fruit supposedly gave them?
I don't understand what brings this up all over this Blog post.
For what it's worth, I just read a few commentaries, and here is what I got, in my own words:
Many Christian apologists point out that when examining the OT accounts involving numbers, the writers always rounded those numbers to near "integers," they did not use "floating points," hence approximation, for starters.
They also point out that in 1 Kings 7:23, the "10 cubit brim to brim" refers to the "outer diameter" of the bowl's brim that extends outwards of the body, hence a side view looks like a T, while the "30 cubit circumference" refers to the "inner circumference" of the bowl's body, hence, there is a "thickness difference" between the "inner" and "outer" diameters of the bowl at the brim. That "thickness difference" is mentioned in 1 Kings 7:26 to be a "hand breadth." When you work out the "thickness difference" between the "inner" and "outer" diameters at the brim of the bowl, you get the right approximation of Pi commonly used, which is 3.14.
That means the "outer circumference" of the bowl's brim was 31.4 cubits with an "outer diameter" of 10 cubits, while the "inner diameter" of the bowl's body was 9.554 cubits with an "inner circumference" of 30 cubits. To me, that makes perfect sense.
I posted the following back in January of this year regarding who discovered Pi:
[
Simply put, Pi (Π) is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of any circle. The most common value approximation used is the two decimal point precision of 3.14 while the actual precision is an infinite series, that is an infinite number of decimal places (3.14159265359...) The point of contention here is who discovered it first.
Some claim ancient Egyptians but that's not proven. Meanwhile, the Bible clearly mentions that ratio in 1 Kings 7:23 & 2 Chronicles 4:2, that is a circumference of 30 cubits and brim to brim diameter of 10 cubits, hence the ratio 30/10 which equals 3. Now many argue that is a good ballpark for introducing the concept, while others go further along by using a more accurate approximation of the cubit to show a more accurate Pi. At any rate, the mention in the Bible is not intended for geometrical accuracy; meanwhile, it is without a doubt an OUTSTANDING record of Pi.
p.s. Using Hebrew Gematria, the Bible verses about Pi reflect an accurate 3.14 value!
]
p.s I love Apple Pie, the True American Pie.
There is Apple Pie, and there is all the others.
the northern Samarian Jews started a new day at sun up to sun up , and the southern Judean sects they started and ended the day at sundown to sundown.................or visa versa measurements like cubits .......these measurements were general and loosely spoken of.
but for example, the term three days and three nights..........given in the gospels, and the preparation day, the way it is spoken of has to be understood through the different systems of day break north vs south
Much of the language in the Bible is symbolic, especially when it comes to measuring time.
For example, look at how many things took "40 days" in the Bible – the flood rains, Moses' commune with God on the mountain, the years the Jews spent wandering the desert, Jesus fast in the wilderness and the length of time He was seen on Earth after the crucifixion.
To the ancient Jewish people, 40 days had a double meaning – in one sense, it represented a period of probation, trial, and chastisement – in gematria (Jewish numerology), it represents transition or change – the concept of renewal.
But in a more colloquial sense it simply meant "a really long time".
I find too much enjoymnet from the fact that you had to explain that to a hardened bible hugger.
I think they illustrate that the bible isn't free of error. I would think this wouldn't be a controversial statement, but it is.
That said, I agree in the sense of the point I made a couple days ago. The bible is seriously in error in enough other ways to care too much about the value it derives for pi. Adam and Eve were not the ancestors of all humans. This is a complete failure, and it occurs in the first chapter of the first book.
Mythological minutiae doesn't matter to most people on either side of the faith fence – but there is a peculiar brand of Christian that rests their faith on the proposition that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant, literal Word of God. For them, admitting to even a single flaw in the text is heresy of the highest order – a slippery spiritual slope of skepticism that sullies the seeds of salvation.
Maintaining this kind of mindset necessitates some rigorous doublethink since certain aspects of the Holy Book are contrary to reality as the rest of the world perceives it.
The greatest problem with taking faith to such an absurd degree is that finding a single, solitary piece that can unequivocably be proven false means that the whole base of their belief gets yanked out from under them.
What can be particularly frustrating is that some of them assume that everybody else should think the same way – hence they'll cling to errors, especially when it comes to science, and beat them into the ground as if a single false detail means the whole enterprise is invalid.
Dinosaur soft tissue found! Therefore evolutionary biology is all bunk!
Radiometric dating methods have a margin of error and require meticulous calibrations and therefore the results must be disregarded!
The scientific mindset actively seeks errors and welcomes to chance to correct them – even if it means scrapping a hypothesis. The dogmatically religious mindset must deny errors and rationalize them by any means necessary.
This fundamental (if you'll pardon the pun) difference in world view tends to mean that debates between the two types of people rapidly devolve into nit picky arguments over what are ultimately inconsequential details.
kermi: Since you're blathering about, I'm curious about how angry you are that so many states are legalizing same gender marriage? What is your take on why this is happening in what most Christians think is a Christian country?
I just got my invite for a wedding in Texas...wonderful couple...16 years together and still crazy in love-here's the kicker because of bigots like you in this world they can't legally have their marriage recognized in their own state-they had to go to New Mexico to get their license. I can almost promise you that their marriage will last longer than most hetero marriages. I'm curious though, how would you feel if someone told you that due to what their holy book stated your right to love and have it legalized would not be recognized? Have you ever put the shoe on the other foot?
We're working on Texas.
Oh, TP, no. A thousand times, no.
I can't bear this abject ignorance again...
(Not the topic, but his opinion on this topic.)
Sorry...
I know where he stands and it's disheartening.
I agree...and so very sad.
The trick is to ask: Should a man and a woman be allowed to marry? Why?
There is no reason that can be given that can't be picked apart. Example: It's not natural. Answer: If it happens in nature, it is by definition natural. Flying in airplanes is not natural. Would you ban that?
Based on my research and input (or lack thereof) from kermit4jc and new-man, most likely the story of Noah started off as someone who was inconvenienced by a hard rain and had to pour some sand on the road to help his elderly grandmother cross it. With time, across many generations, as with most ghost stories, the tale gets embellished. In a similar manner, the story of Jonah was most likely embellished quite a bit; in essence, one of the biggest "fish" (κῆτος) stories ever told.
Jesus quoted the flood story in Matthew 24 as historical narrative, not hyperbole.
The New Testament says that the Old Testament is historically accurate!
This is like saying that The Two Towers confirms the historicity of The Hobbit.
theo
Jesus ALLEGEDLY quoted...no one knows if Jesus actuall said anything that was atributed to him.
I'm sorry, Theo Phileo, but that is not very good evidence that stories were not likely embellished over thousands of years. You might consider the amount of time in which the stories may have existed not in written form against the amount of time that they have existed in written form. In addition, Theo Phileo, it is certainly not conclusive what things Jesus actually said. For instance, many aspects of the authorship of the Gospels are highly contested. Since the divinity of Christ and evidence for what he actually said has always been highly contested, his account of earlier Biblical events is poor evidence.
Doesn't it seem strange that something like a global flood would not be handed down with all the other stories?
Jesus had to remind everyone that it happened?
Nowhere in the NT was Jesus reminding them of the Flood....in all mentions of the flood, he refers to applying the lessons to today....like for example..he was recalling how people pretty much went about their business, ignoring the warning signs from God that the Flood would come...and how today the people would be doing same thing..ignoring warning signs and going about their own business
kermit4jc,
There's not one supporting date or piece of evidence that the Great Flood of the Bible occurred as indicated. It probably would be better for the Bible to eliminate that science fiction from it and then Christians wouldn't have to explain how God chose a loser like Noah to survive.
how is Noah a loser?
kermit4jc,
Read a Bible. He got naked and drunk and then when his son reported this, Noah took it out on his grandson. LOSER.
ahh so you are mr perfect who never did anything wrong...what a judgemental pirck you are...Noah did not take It out on his grandson either..maybe You should read it....the ensuing generations brought it all upon themselves...Ham was totally disrespectful towards his father..and look at reality..what happenes when fathers have children..many will do same as father..they learn by example! the ensuing generations had Ham to lok up to..one who disrepects his elders!
kermit4jc
".what a judgemental pirck you are..."
Just what Jesus would have said. Once again you've shown what huge HYPOCRITES Christians can be. Well done.
but youre not hypocritical are you? hmm?
kermit4jc,
I'm not a HYPOCRITICAL Christian LIKE YOU who engages in profane name-calling.
Well done, hypocrite. Jesus must be SO PROUD of you.
I didn't ask if you were like me...I asked if you were not a hypocrite...you called Noah a loser for getting drunk ....as if you are the one who is holier than thou...you seem worse than some Christians I know
Kermit,
Theo Phileo said,
"Jesus quoted the flood story in Matthew 24 as historical narrative, not hyperbole."
Then you said, "Nowhere in the NT was Jesus reminding them of the Flood....in all mentions of the flood, [...]
Now, which is it?
Or is it a cautionary tale?
why don't you try to read my post.....Jesus was NOT reading it to REMIND them..nor did theo say likewise! Jesus used it in a narrative for a LESSON application....
kermit4jc
"you called Noah a loser for getting drunk ....'
Please work on your reading skills and basic reading comprehension. I said Noah was a loser because he took It out on his grandson.
You love to PRETEND that some words exist in sentences that aren't there like "approximately" and then PRETEND I didn't say the rest of what I said.
Please try to learn to read CAREFULLY. You have profanity mastered, now work on basic reading.
uhh..my comprehension is just fine..I think maybe you should have reworded it..to me it sounded like you said Noah was a loser for being drunk AND taking it out on grandson....but in any case...my argument tilll stands..he didn't take it out on his grandson
kermit4jc,
Since you FAILED to read the quote from the Bible that I supplied, here's what Wikipedia says;
"Noah's son Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his brothers, which led to Ham's son Canaan being cursed by Noah."
READING COMPREHENSION. Work on it.
I KNOW what it says..and I EXPLAINED it to you..so YOU failed to READ MY post...I did not fail..YOU did....sheesh..talk about reading comprehension loss
Kermit,
Which I specifically asked you when I asked "was it a cautionary tale?"
Is that the lesson application? Yes or no?
are you referring to Jesus mentioning about Noah? if yes...then it is not a cautionary tale...it is Jesus using a real event and applying it to his day, and the days to come
Kermit,
In what way was He was he applying it to the days to come?
I thought you been reading my posts...Ill repeat, and its right there in the Bible.....as in days of Noah, people will be coming and going, ignoring the warning signs, doing their own thing.
Kermit,
What you describes IS Jesus using the Flood as a cautionary take, which is what I said in the first place.
ohhhh wait a minute..did you say TAKE~? cause in another post it was TALE..which makes a huge difference...(implying that Noah story was just a tale, and not real...sorry about that)
*describe
*tale
Now considering that nothing was written about jesus until 30-40 years after he apparently died, it Is safe to say that any story told about what he apparently said or did is unreliable. Do you comprehend how stories were transferred back then? Do you comprehend that not every home had a pen?
come on TP... they used FTP.
Sure their speed wasn't the greatest, but everything was passed around and it had parity checking, so ALL of those stories were exactly as the original....who am I kidding, it doesn't even work now....
Right right...I forgot. It almost falls in line with their favorite documentary series, "The Flintstones".
I watched the movie Noah (for giggles), now if Christians take that seriously and think it truly happened, then I have fully grasped why the USA falls behind in important stats regarding education...you're the breeding ground of crazy people. Gun toting Christians...oh I feel so bad for you.
I don't think YOU realized how stories were passed around at the time! first of all..the latest Gospel would have been written by 65 AD 35 years after Jesus..second....this was an ORAL society..and don't try to bring up the SEcrETS game..or the phone game..or whatever you may call it these days...it wont work cause in those games, the person passes along a message and says it only once...others are not allowed to reconfirm it, nor is anyone able to correct it.....these people were good at memorizing...Jews were notorious for this
kermi: When I read anything from you based on ignorant you truly are I am left wondering who ties your shoes for you each day? You're an immature, uneducated, bigoted dolt.
whatsa matter? cant address the issue, so you have to belittle me instead? address the issue of memorization...are you telling me that didn't happen? you telling me IM ignorant???
No kermi but speaking to you is akin to speaking to a 5 year old...grow the fuck up and attempt tp act like an intelligent adult!
im the one here who makes all attempts to debate and bring arguments...granted I do get angry and name call, HOWEVER, all YOU seem to do is belittle and name call and make VERY few and weak attempts to debate and argue. YOU are the one who needs to grow up.
BS kermi, you attempt to tell people how to act and how to live. I do add to the conversation, you're just too much of an arrogant ASS to notice. What you do isn't debating, it is preaching and ARROGANT...now please get back under your bridge before the TRUE FACTS squish you like the slug you are!! I'll never waste another second responding to you...dealing with retards isn't high on my list of priorities.
kermit,
You really think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being supposedly capable of creating a universe and all life in it couldn't have found a better way to impart this very important information?
WHy do you blame God....are you perfect? can you take any responsibility for your part? God made it perfectly good...the problem is not the Bible itself..but people who dont know how to study, people who are too dang lazy to look into it...and some who are willfully dishonest about it. There are some who forget to use context (like in my case for example-I used to read the Bible as though it were originally written in English by Americans in the 1800s-then I caught myself at it and started to read it for what it is...written by ancients in Middle Eastern area with Hebrew, Aranaic, and Greek languages)
How can I blame something for which there is no evidence? You're the one claiming that a god created the universe and all in it yet cannot communicate its intentions to the people of Earth. Does that really make sense?
excuse me? YOU are the one making the "accusation" make up your mind...don't play that game ok?
"excuse me? YOU are the one making the "accusation" make up your mind...don't play that game ok?"
I've got no idea what you're talking about now. You were making claims about the composition of the bible, ignoring that some gospels were omitted, ignoring the dubious source, and ignoring the history of amendment.
Do you really think that a being with the powers you ascribe could not present a unified message to all or Earth's inhabitants rather than tens of thousands of different interpretations.
those other sp called Gospels were omitted cause they were written too lolng after the fact, some showed ignorance of Jewish culture, thus they could not have been written by someone who knew what happened, and others wer enot written by authoritative sources (ie apostles). a number of the early church fathers had discussed these Gospels to some extant and dismissed them as those which would not be allowed or considered as Scripture. I know all about the history of the Bible and how it came about..IM in the midst of putting together a study to teach the adult class on this at church. I been studying it for 5 years now (how the Bible came about)
Do you really think that a being with the powers you ascribe could not present a unified message to all or Earth’s inhabitants rather than tens of thousands of different interpretations.<--...There is nothing wrong with the Bible itself.....it had nothing to do with Gods power...God does not program the human mind to make decisions, man has free will to make those decisions....God is not a puppet master nor are we robots who do things mindlessly. its all the humans fault..not God...place blame appropriately ok?
I don't blame a god as I see no evidence for one. I was pointing out that you claim that this god has the power to create a universe and all in it and yet does not have the power to clearly communicate to the inhabitants of Earth any pertinent facts about itself. How do you explain why there are so many different gods and religions and so many different interpretations within each?
you asked about the god, as if for arguments sake he exists, then when I answer you turn around and not use it for arguments sake, thus your changing your mind. you are flip flopping. Stay in line with the discussion. I gave an answer. lets for arguments sake say God exists (for your argument that you brought up) and you asked why doesn't this all powerful being make a better way to communicate (Im paraphrasing, bear with me here) and I responded that its not the issue with God, but with humans, God is not a puppet master, we are not robots. God does not make our decisions for us. he does not do our thoughts for us.
I understand the pretzel logic required to continue believing. My point is that a being with the powers you ascribe wouldn't need to be hidden, to not make clear what it expects, etc.
What purpose is served by a god behaving this way?
so here we playthe blame game again...seems you never hold yourself accountable for anything..its ALWAYS the other persons fault. You know, I work with a lot of children whos negative behaviors are rooted in blaming the other person "They made me hit them cause they made me mad" We teach the kids that they can control their own emotions, they don't have to give that power away to others.. Its very prevalent in my work and I see it happening here. People making excuses and yet not taking any part of responsibility at all
What on earth are you talking about?
kermi: No, it is you who lacks the comprehension! Could you please get yourself back to high school and then learn to stop lying about the education you only WISH you had? You are a bigoted, uneducated fool. Time to grow up, time to learn some respect and manners. As previously stated, if hell exists you belong there-you're a horrible, unethical, immoral, immature child. Who does ties your shoes for you each day? (you can tell us, you're not alone on The Paste Eating Crew...you have Theo; awanderingscot and Austin with you)
"I used to read the Bible as though it were originally written in English by Americans in the 1800s-then I caught myself at it and started to read it for what it is...written by ancients in Middle Eastern area with Hebrew, Aranaic, and Greek languages)"
That's well and good, and I do the same. The difference is I've also investigated the textual criticisms of the Bible and try to include that in my understandings as well, i.e. ALL the context.
I do that too...study textual criticisms and all...I do thorough studies of the Bible, after all, I teach it..I cannot teach what I don't know
Theo Phileo
You're assuming that Jesus was some omniscient being who can be a trusted source on this supposed flood, instead of just being a very human rabbi quoting his scripture with the same trust that any devout man would. As far as we can prove, he could have been just as mistaken as anyone else, right?
Speaking of the numbers in the Bible regarding Pi and other nonsense of the like...
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
Inspiration applies strictly to the original autographs of scripture. This indicates that the infallible control of God in the production of the original Scriptures has not been perpetuated through the ages in the copying and translation process.
Through the science of textual criticism, in more than 99% of the cases, the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations), we DO have, for practical purposes, the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.
Though we do not possess the originals, we have well-reconstructed translations and copies that, to the extent they correspond to the originals, may be said to be the Word of God. But because of the evident presence of copy errors and errors of translation, the distinction must be made between the original work of inspiration in the autographs and the human labor of translating and copying those autographs.
To simply say that the Bible has "errors," one must be very careful in being precise in what they mean. If we mean that the Bible shows evidence of scribal and copying errors, then that's fine. All of those areas are well-known, and textual criticism removes any questions brought up by them.
To then go and say that the Bible as a whole then must be wrong however, that is to show contempt for the very serious work that has been done in the field of textual criticism, and shows one's own ignorance.
Of course, the greatest error one can make when discussing the accuracy of the Bible is to assert that it is a literal, actual, factual, history book.
t is a literal, actual, factual, history book.
--------------–
It is. The fact that it may not agree with popular "scientific" opinions of the day means nothing. Tell that to the discoverers of the Tel Dan Inscription. And the discovery of the Edomites and the city of Petra, and on, and on...
Archeologists unearthed the ruins of the Kingdom of Uruk and it's mighty walls – exactly as described on the ancient stone tablets containing the Epic of Gilgamesh.
That Gilgamesh was a real Babylonian King is as firmly established as the historicity of Jesus.
Does that mean Gilgamesh was a demi-god who ruled for 125 years and took the occasional trip to the Underworld?
Do you believe there to be a vast conspiracy amongst geologists, archaologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, historians, et. al to present false "science" ?
If so, you might need to adjust your tin-foil hat.
Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness. For some reason, those people really hate aluminium.
If a story contains such elements as of unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), half man half goat beasts (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14), flaming snakes (Numbers 21:6), seven headed dragons (Revelation 12:3) serpents that can kill just by looking at you (Jeremiah 8:17), and vocalizing incendiary foliage, it is a fair bet that it isn't quite literal truth.
As I said in another article
I believe that when looking at any written document, you have to consider the source.
When reading from The Onion, you need to understand it is humor and satire. Do not take it as science or science.
When reading the bible, remember that it was compiled by people who had a job to do. An Emperor in Rome with a history of killing people would have been rather upset if they hadn’t produced a book that he could use to unite and control the people. Do not believe it was compiled for any other purpose.
An Emperor in Rome with a history of killing people would have been rather upset if they hadn’t produced a book that he could use to unite and control the people. Do not believe it was compiled for any other purpose.
----------------
And of course, that hypothesis gets proved false by actually reading the Bible. "An new commandment I give you... love one another, just as I have loved you..."
Oh I forgot,
the bible is true because it says it is.
How could I argue with that.
Theo
I'm not sure that anybody here is saying that the Bible gets everything wrong, and doesn't record a single ounce of truth. All most of us are probably saying is that it's no more likely to be accurate than any of the collections of myths, religious histories, or nation stories of it's time. Even the Roman historians still referred to their emperors by their godly ti.tles.
Are we to just accept every such claim, or acknowledge that this was just part of the fashion of the time to tie in the state gods to the people's history, and maybe even invent glorious details to your history, like the Romulus and Remus story? If we say that this is just something that everyone did, then much of the OT can be equally discounted as invented to create a grandeur for the Jewish people.
kermit4jc
@observer the measurements in the OT that yuo got this from are NOT meant to be accurate numbers..they are APPROXIMATE..the Bible did nOT mention it is trying to prove pi, nor does it concern with precise numbers....there is NO error when giving approximate numbers..its done all the time...the ONLY time it would be in error if the Bible claimed to be a science text book and claims to use exact precise numbers..THIS is where Youhave to prove that the Bible is in error
Does this also explain that number of stables thingy?
".the ONLY time it would be in error if the Bible claimed to be a science text book"
The Bible itself makes no such claim, but plenty of Christians do!
I said it before...the stables thing has to do with copyist errors.....and yet it does not chnge the story one bit..it does not change the plan for Salvation...it does not change that Solomon was extremely wealthy etc etc....
I've always wondered why the translation errors leo red getting repeated, in that case...any answer why?
*keep getting repeated...
not quite sure what youre asking for
Why are the copyist errors not fixed in subsequent reprintings?
you have to understand the tranlsators of the BIble are in a unique situation....they have to translate/copy according to truest word for word..in other words.....even though it is a copyist error..they must remain true to what is written..and then this reaises the question...are some of us too lazy to really study and use simple textual criticism to see the real words? if you don't care to do so..its obvious you don't care to hear what the Bible says....if one truly cares to know whats in the bIble..theyd spend time (frankly I getting sick of this "efficiency carp" that people throw at us..no one is willing to take time to actually lern things it seems..they want the faster way rather than quality....
Kermit,
I understand what you're saying, however, why would things that are obviously wrong allowed to remain in a Book revered as the "inerrant" Word of God, when it is obviously and error?
Why keep it as a testament if the copier's translation inefficiency?
it is in no way inefficient...and further..the originals are without error..and inerrnt does not mean without copyist erros..it still tells truth of salvation....the number of stalls that Solomon had has no bearing on the salvation plan which was the focus of the Bible....these errors are of no consequence to the whole of the Bible..they are minor and few.......yu ohave to see the point of the writers
LaBella, That last question is a very good question. I think I will ask our publishing house why. It does seem kind of weird. But as I demonstrated earlier, even the English translations of the Hebrew Bible, both Orthodox and not, have the same problem with Pi. I cannot explain it, but then it is not that important to me. I like Apple pi.
ragansteve1,
Christians insist that most of the nonsense commands of the Old Testament don't count, but none of the Bibles specifically say which ones they actually are. Why not ask the publisher's why they don't/won't color-coordinate or somehow indicate them?
in other words, you want others to do the thinking for you.....so you don't have to actually study and find out for yourself?
kermit4jc,
In other words, Christians can agree on which of the many heartless commands from God should still be in effect.
Kermit,
Inerrant means literally "incapable of being wrong."
And error, however insignificant to you, belies that definition.
Ragansteve:
I've just always wondered that; usually if something is wrong in translation, if caught, it's corrected.
I like Apple Pi also, lol.
But it does show that there are errors in the bible.
Was god on vacation that day and not inspiring the hand that wrote it wrong?
Well, He probably wasn't fundraising. What I can add is that I believe that God inspired the contents of the Bible. There is little question in my mind that minor errors in copying and translation are present.
errors in the original or the copies? and again textual criticism takes care of that.....God expects us to use critical thinking skills when coming to this..He did give us brains...does not expect that He should do all the work and thinking for us...let me quote from Theo Though we do not possess the originals, we have well-reconstructed translations and copies that, to the extent they correspond to the originals, may be said to be the Word of God. But because of the evident presence of copy errors and errors of translation, the distinction must be made between the original work of inspiration in the autographs and the human labor of translating and copying those autographs.
To simply say that the Bible has “errors,” one must be very careful in being precise in what they mean. If we mean that the Bible shows evidence of scribal and copying errors, then that’s fine. All of those areas are well-known, and textual criticism removes any questions brought up by them.
To then go and say that the Bible as a whole then must be wrong however, that is to show contempt for the very serious work that has been done in the field of textual criticism, and shows one’s own ignorance.
kermit,
The bible has significant errors regarding origin of the solar system, origin of species, global flood, man living in fish, woman turned to salt, men living to several hundred years of age, etc. Some places and a few more people existed but that's to be expected. Then there's the large number of contradictions. So far from a few transcription errors.
The bible has significant errors regarding origin of the solar system<-wow..what arrogant confidence! HOW can it be in error when scientists cant even agree on the orgins????? LOLOLOL.....what a hoot! as for those other things...yes..they WOULD contradict if there was no God..but remember..this is a book of God, history of the Jewish people...those stories are in THAT context..thus if there IS a God, SURELY then he can make all those things happen..why not?
kermit
"HOW can it be in error when scientists cant even agree on the orgins????? "
I don't know what you mean by that. Maybe you think I meant universe – even then scientists accept the Big Bang. Those other things are given as evidence for a god – it is what is known as circular reasoning.
uhh..I wold do some more reading if I were you..SOME scientists agree on the Big Bang..however...they do not agree on HOW the Big Bang happened, and there are those who dont even agree on the Big Bang..some have brought up multi universes, etc etc.....
It doesn't matter how the Big Bang happened (to make my point) – it did happen. Once it happened the solar system was created billions of years later – I don't know of any scientist who doubts that.
seems you have not t read much then? there are other scientists who don't accept Big Bang...see here for those who disagree https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=name+of+scientists+who+disagree+with+big+bang+theory
What evidence do you have for creationism?
Logic....if there is a beginning, then it was created....and a created thing has a Creator. I find it ridiculous to think that the universe appeared from nowhere, with no cause. It merely happened....its ridiculous. Many will then say, well it came from amino acids or other proteins or such...well..the question is, where did those come from? if they came from other sources, then where did those sources come from? The other issue is intelligence you cant have something suddenly appear without some input....like how did it know to do such, how did the first cells get all their info from? etc etc when one really thinks through these things, then the most likely answer is a Creator,
So you go from "I don't know" straight to "my god did it" Interesting how you attempt to pick holes is knowledge that disagrees with your millenia-old myths citing "evidence", yet cannot provide any evidence to support those millenia-old myths.
uh..no....I didn't go straight from that to that..remember...I had gotten to know god in first place, when I got to know God, then I could see He is the Creator. It wasn't blindly making the assumption...again the LOGIC played into this....I KNOW the universe could NOT have come out on its own from nothing without no cause..its simply illogical. the most logical conclusion then, seeing as I know God and He claims to be Creator, would be to accept that.
So present the evidence; "I can see no alternative to a god" is not a compelling case without evidence.
I already gave a compelling argument, the Big Bang didn't merely happen with no cause and from nothing. It came from an Intelligent source.
And the evidence is?
evidence..of what? Big Bang coming from intelligent source?
kermi: You hardly qualified to speak on things outside of your bible stories. When you finish high school and have learned to tie your own shoes, then you might qualify to speak on things you presently know nothing about. The bible is nothing but the word of man and for you to think it is anything more proves why you deserve the belittling you get. You are a proven arrogant liar.
God is magic and can do anything, therefore your argument is invalid.
The Earth could have existed before the Sun because God is magic.
Creating only one human gender at first and then making the complementary s/ex via rib sample cloning because the 1st specimen got lonely? No problem ebcuase God is magic,
Avoiding the loop of infinite regression when stating that all things require a creator except for the Creator Itself? Easy! You see... God is magic.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and, thankfully for us, anthropocentric.
The rest of the Universe is just a bunch of window dressing because as we all know, human beings are the predilect objects of creation and everything else was made just so that we can exist as God's favoured creatures.
This is true because God sends divine, psychic messages to a select few people.
So the next time you're plagued with doubt regarding the perfect, inerrant accuracy of the Word of God as expressed in The Bible – just remember:
With God, anything is possible. Because He is maaaaaaagic **jazz hands**
The correct approximation of 31.4 is 31, not 30.
Is kermi still throwing his tantrum over that? You have to wonder when he intends to put his imaginary friends on the shelf and grow up.
If he wasn't so parochial, he would use the Jewish apologist's methods, I can't refute them. The original Hebrew word for the circu.mfrence used in that verse of the bible was misspelled. They were extremely careful with their spelling and copied the misspelling through the years. The Hebrew letters are also numbers. The ratio of the misspelled version to the correctly spelled version gets you to Pi with a few 10 thousandths. The best approximation that would exist for centuries later. His story is weak in comparison.
His story is weak but you'll never convince him of that. For some odd reason kermi acts like he is always right and everyone who doesn't agree with him are wrong. He's too arrogant.
1 Kings 7:23 says that they measured the thing in cubits, right? So, it all boils down to how standardized they measured cubits, which are described as being the length of a forearm, and whether they had units to describe parts of a cubit. Perhaps it's really too much to expect those folks to get pi much closer working with those units of measure?
Here . . . let me add to the confusion, OK?
1 Kings 7:23 Co mplete Jewish Bible (CJB)
23 He made the cast metal “Sea” circular, seventeen-and-a-half feet from rim to rim, eight-and-three quarter feet high and fifty-two-and-a-half feet in circu mference.
Yes, using Pi as 3.1414 it should be 54.9745 feet in circu mference. And no one has noticed it for maybe what, 3,000 years until yesterday? Very interesting.
You have the wrong value for Pi
I used to be a math team cheerleader:
Pi, Pi...that's our sign
three point one four one five nine.
Well, I'm close enough for secular work! :-))
"correct" approximation???? LMAO oxymoron
kermit,
Yes, the correct approximation is 31 when you know how to represent that number. You could also approximate it as 100, that would be wrong also. Your insistence on this defense shows obstinance. It's simply a poor defense. As I posted above, research the Jewish defense, it's much better.
youre really out of touch with reality..people don't really give a carp abuot precise numbers unless it benefits them...for example..if the Book was written to architects or whatnot..otherwise people don't give a darn....they don't care.it does not affect their lives.....all they want are the basics..the generalities..my argument is not poor..its part of REALITY.....people don't give a care...why should you? are you an architect? are you more interested in the size of the pool than what God has to say about your life?
kermi: Who taught you manners? The way you treat people is pathetic and your temper tantrums when shown where you are wrong are immature.
kermit,
Why would you think an approximation means there is no correct answer? If the diameter is 10 cubits, then the circu.mfrence is a transcendental number. The 3 digit decimal approximation of that number is 31.4. That is the only correct 3 digit decimal approximation. The 2 digit integer approximation is 31. Other 2 digit approximations are not correct.
again.WHO cares? how does knowing the precise size of the pool BENEFIT me? HOW did it benefit those in ancient times reading the Bible? It doesn't....so being precise is NOT the issue and the writers were being general...why can you not accept that..let me ask you..HOW does having a precise or even a "correct" approximation benefit YOU and YOUR life?
kermit4jc,
It's pretty pathetic that the book that is the "inspired words of God" couldn't even get basic math correct. Maybe math isn't God's strong suit.
kermit,
It doesn't matter at all. I never said it did.
then why are yuo so bent on it being off and "imprecise?"
And once again to put kermit al on the right path to the real Jesus:
There was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
(the 200 plus references used for the above summary have been previously presented)
and they are embellished...by what evidence you have of this?
Oh my kermi, you can't be that stupid, can you??? The resurrection story is complete bs...nowhere else in recorded history, outside of belief systems, has this happened...why do you THINK the jesus story is anything special? Stop playing the Holier Than Thou crap, your interpretation of the bible and Christianity is no more valid than mine or Theo's or new-mans or any other person. Your arrogance is very unchristian.
OMG that's stupid and flawed logic! youre the deluded one here...just cause it didn't happen to someone else does not mean Jesus coldnt do it......plus.....there is NO reason for ANY other person to be resurrected as such! you are sorely ignorant of whats in the BIble..there is a purpose Jesus had to be resurrected....its the salvation plan.NO ONE else can die and be resurrected for our sakes,..duuh
Wow, that was beyond the level of a 5 year old tantrum!! Gezz, if you're going to act like a child how do you ever expect to be taken seriously?
You're a blemish on humanity and I truly pit you. There is zero evidence outside of your religion for the resurrection and until there is evidence, there is no justification for accepting it...I know hearing that hurts you but pull up your big boy panties and learn some respect in this world...as I've previously stated, if hell exists-based on how poorly you treat people, you'll be given a special spot. A class on ethics and morals might help you. Enjoy your delusion!
sothe Bible does not count as evidence...may I suggest you look up what evidence means? whether you accept this evidence as true or not..does not negate this is evidence to be considered
BTW IM no thaving tantrum..didhnt have one....and IM not hurt the lest bit by your silly game of kid calling......if anything..youre the little kid on the playground
kermit4jc
What "evidence" do we have that the Roman emperors weren't actually gods, like their contemporary historians claim? All we can do as modern interpreters of historical accounts is assume that such accounts were embellishments and, if we do it in those cases, then why assume that the similar claims about Jesus are any more accurate?
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
Math may not be his strong subject.
23 ¶And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
1 Kings 7:23 KJV
If you noticed the KJV doesn't describe a perfect circle just round all about, so how does that have anything to do with geometry? Also what makes you think that I believe that the Bible is inerrant? The different English translations shows that. How does that discrepancy automatically mean that what my own beliefs are with 100% certainty wrong?
Round all about as opposed to completely round.
kevinite
"Round all about as opposed to completely round."
So "round all about" doesn't make a circle? lol.
No one said the Bible depends on this. It just shows that the Bible has ERRORS.
kevinite,
The NEW KJV says COMPLETELY ROUND. As many Christians have pointed out, the original KJV can't be completely trusted because of so many "translation errors".
I believe that scriptures are divinely-inspired writings, which means that they are written down by men and whose translations are not necessarily even divinely inspired. With all the different translations and revisions it does seem important to continually have that inspiration from God in order to figure out for yourself just what is actually true.
The problem is observer that you didn't provide proof showing that the New KJV is more accurate, nor did you prove that the this particular verse shows the New KJV is accurate and the old one isn't.
I'm not refuting that the Bible has errors. The thing is though you haven't actually proven that the scriptures are in no way whatsoever divinely inspired. It's all a matter of belief just like it's a matter a belief that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place, since that cannot be proven.
Kev, this has been explained over and over and over again....... YOU are making a claim, YOU must provide the evidence to support that claim, you can't prove a negative .... why is that so hard to understand???
evidencenotty,
The only thing I claimed was that I believe, so if you want me to back up my claim that I believe then here it is, I believe. As to the whole thing about you can't prove a negative, well of course you can't prove a negative. So, if you can't prove a negative, like proving that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place, then why do you believe in that negative? If you only claim to merely believe that there is no such God then fine, since I can't prove that particular belief to be false, however that belief you have is just that a belief.
@kev "...like proving that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place,"
right there you have made a claim about god... you are claiming that god does not want to be known...
and what is this belief that I supposedly have? that I believe that I don't believe?
evidencenotty,
I claimed that I believe in a God who does not want to be made known in the first place. I never claimed that it was a fact.
evidencenotty,
From what I have perceived, the belief coming from appears to be atheistic:
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546
(Merriam-Webster)
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism
(Dictionary.com)
English definition of “atheism”
atheism
noun [U] /ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/
› the belief that God does not exist
(Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary)
kevin
Theism = belief
Atheism = lack of belief
A lack of belief is not itself a "belief".
If I am on a jury I can pick "not guilty"...not guilty does not mean I think the defendant is necessarily innocent...it can mean I do not think the burdan of proof has been met. I find god "not guilty" of existance.
Actually cheesy,
If you cannot solidly establish as a fact that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place, then what you have there is a belief.
no kevin,
That is a lie you tell yourself to rationalize your belief.
And maybe you can explain the process you went through to determine the god you believe in is real, you know he is real, and you know he does not want to be known.
You sound like a snake oil salesman
the teaching refers to the SALVATION..read the whole passage! Its not about teaching math..my goodness...
Morning Kermit – teaching eh?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml
Also has links for this kermit.
How did life originate?
Anyhoo,
It looks like I need to get ready for work soon, so toodles.
Now all you have to do is prove the existence of your or any god. Good luck with that.
Why do I have to prove it? This is a belief blog.
If your so stuck on the need to prove then why aren't you providing proof that there is no such deity who does not want to be made known in the first place?
kevin: ok let's keep this simple;
-looks around at world-
any flying elephants? nope
any dragons? nope
any vampires? nope
any werewolves? nope
ok so seeing as all these above things aren't real; mind you the bible believes in witches and orders you to burn them; i see no logical reason to assume that any gods are playing "hide and seek"
your turn to dance; prove zues, odin and ra aren't real. (oh and using religious text to refute religious text = a 0)
Well wasp,
For the exception of "dragons" (in which Biblical translations can mean anything from a whale, a large serpent or serpent-like animal, or a sea monster of some sort) the other critters you mentioned I don't recall being mentioned in the Bible, and just because witches are mentioned that doesn't automatically equate with the other critters you mentioned.
As to the whole proving validity or invalidity regarding other deities from other systems of belief, I cannot provide any such proof one way or the other, but then again I never said that I can prove or sate that it was a fact that those other deities from other religions are false anyway.
My whole point was that it is all a matter of belief, just like I can't prove one's belief that there is no such God who does not want to be made known in the first place. The thing is however is that particular belief is just that a belief just like one's belief in Zeus, or Osiris, or Tlaloc, or Odin, or even like my own belief in Jesus. It's all a matter of belief.
Those who make outlandish claims have the responsibility to prove those claims. This is logic.
One would think that the fate of our "eternal soul" is the most important question that we as individuals face. So why are we supposed to decide what to believe based on self-contradicting "evidence" that wouldn't even be admissible in a court of law? Humans have worshiped thousands of gods and there is equal evidence for all of them. So how in the world are we to decide?
I do not confuse naivety with virtue. I don't believe in things that cannot be proven to exist.
And yet tallulah, you will take the leap and decide to believe that there is no such God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith in said deity even though there is no such evidence that would be considered admissible in a court of law. And if you are making the claim that there is no such deity and not merely claiming that it is just your belief then guess who has the burden of proof?
To make a decision of such great significance to just automatically dismiss the invite to take a leap of faith and find out for yourself on a personal level can also be considered to be a rash decision. There are certain things that can only be made known through first-hand experience and there are times in which one has to rely on having faith in someone whether or not that may be a deity.
We are supposed to believe anything someone writes in a so called holy book without evidence that the most basic claim is true?
Where did you get that idea? You can believe whatever you want. It may or may not be necessarily be the right thing to believe in, but you can still believe whatever you want. That is up to you to decide.
The thing is that there are certain truths out there that cannot be known without first-hand experience like knowing what salt tastes like. To know whether there is a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith instead in that deity, I believe you have to do the same thing. Know it by experiencing it ,studying it, even praying about it.
I cannot assure you will get to the same conclusion as I and in fact some have claimed to have done so to no effect, but whether that is actually the case or not that is up to you to decide, but if you really want to know one way or the other, you do need to at least find out through first-hand experience.
When first hand experiences vary widely – I think it is reasonable to assume the event is occurring in those persons' heads, and not in our externally shared reality.
The problem is G-T, that you can't actually prove that it is all in the mind. However, there is that invitation given to try it out for yourself, so you can find out for yourself, albeit only on a personal whether it is true or not, so what do you have to loose? The invitation is given at the risk of those in the Bible who presented it and therefore claiming that it is at the risk of God in providing that invitation to take that leap of faith and try it out for yourself, so what do you have to loose?
"so what do you have to loose?"
First, it is lose, and depending on what actual is true, potentially everything.
Perhaps there is a god, but not the one you think, who silently waits and watches, and dislikes anyone who believes in the wrong god, but has no pronblem with skeptics. In that scenario, the actual god, might hold your belief against you.
The problem is, that no one can say what the truth is ( although I hear christians lie all the time proclaiming they have the truth...especially the clergy)
Since no one knows the actual truth, the potential for damage is also an unknown.
If your religion gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, fine, but there is an infinite number of possibilities.
"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all " (The Point)
Actually igaftr,
The compass is directing at all points already whether you take the challenge or not, so what do you have to loose?
"The problem is G-T, that you can't actually prove that it is all in the mind. "
Firstly, I never said you could – I said the inconsistencies in people's personal experiences leads me to conclude that this is most likely the case.
Secondly – I used to be a Christian – indeed I'd be surprised if most of the non-believers on this blog didn't used to be Christians as well.
@ igaftr
"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all " (The Point)
Thank you for the The Point reference! I spent much of seventh grade listening to that album with my best friend!
Tallulah
The Point was one of my favorites. Narrated by Alan Thicke, and the Me and My Arrow song by Harry Nilsson, a great short animation about Obleo and his dog Arrow, a story about discrimination...I wonder why we don't see it pop up anymore.
"The compass is directing at all points already whether you take the challenge or not, so what do you have to loose?"
Again, the word is lose, not loose, and what "challenge". The challenge of forgetting all I know about logic and reason so that I can believe in baseless nonsense, invented by men?
That certainly would be a challenge.
Otherwise, I already explained what there is to lose.
igaftr,
Who said anything about throwing out logic and reason? However, a problem with logic is that if you don't have all of contingencies to consider, that logic can go way off the mark. Also, considering that the Biblical, historical, and anthropological are certainly not universal in their conclusions on certain topics, that even in those circles the compas is still pointing in all directions, so once again what do have to lose or or how I mispell it "loose"?
"problem with logic is that if you don't have all of contingencies to consider, that logic can go way off the mark."
kevin, we agree!
right..and this is reason why many of the athgeists in this blog don't have their "logic straight" they have not considered all the things that come into play with the Bible (context of culture, language, etc etc)
"Who said anything about throwing out logic and reason?"
You did when you decided to believe in things there is no evidence for anywhere.
That kind of "faith" replaces logic and reason.
igaftr,
It is also illogical to conclude a negative since you can't prove a negative like proving that there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place. There simply are some things that cannot be made known except through first hand experience such as knowing what salt tastes like, and I believe that the same thing applies to knowing whether or not there is such a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith in that God.
bostonola,
Is that a first that we both agree upon?
kevin,
I bet we agree on a lot of important topics, freedom, how important education, and family is, etc. We disagree on religion/God.
"It is also illogical to conclude a negative"
I have concluded nothing since there is no evidence to base a conclusion on.
The default position is no evidence, likley does not exist.
Add in the propensity of man to create gods, thousands of them, and it becomes more likely that all gods are man made and imaginary.
You keep saying a god that does not want to be known...more nonsense belief, rationalizing a baseless belief.
If it did not wnat to be known, why all the theatrics , the stories, the need for blind faith, your premise makes less sense than belief in what you imagine.
If you believe in your god with no evidence at all, and any experience you attribute to any god, has so many other possibilities that concluding there is a god, is just as illogial as concluding there is not. Not enough evidence either way to make a conclusion, so going forward, one goes with the highest likelyhood, and that would be that all gods are man made and imaginary ( at least any that man has so far defined.)
The biggest problem with believing in any gods, is that the belief does not answer any questions, and actually creates many, many more questions.
I cannot imagine a "god" that would punish me for being skeptical, yet many believers make that claim daily.
What if there is a god, but favors the people who don't believe because there is no evidence...maybe it is looking for the people who actually use logic and reason, and do not leap to unjustified conclusions, and belief in imaginary tings. Perhaps this god would look at christians and throw away the whole lot for being too gullible...just as possible as the whole Jesus thing, and just as much evidence.
kermit4jc
"right..and this is reason why many of the athgeists in this blog don't have their "logic straight" they have not considered all the things that come into play with the Bible (context of culture, language, etc etc)"
Do you mean that things like the "healing" Jesus did could have been FAKE like so many fake healers did?
show how it was faked,.you made an assumption..gather evidence to back it up that he faked it...how does one fake healing a blind man..one who could NOT see, and then does not see....how do you fake VISIBLE things like instantaneous healing of skin diseases and such?
igaftr,
It's interesting that for you with pushing the importance about you can only rely on objective evidence that you actually have a default position of concluding a negative when there is simply no conclusive proof either way such as regarding whether not there is a God who does not want to be made known in the first place. You would figure that if you had a logical default position it would be that based on the available evidence that one would neither accept or deny the existence of such a being. To have any default position other than that is actually ones personal belief.
Perhaps so bostonola, perhaps so.
kermit4jc,
If you want to look at it LOGICALLY, it wasn't unusual for FAKE healers to bring in people who FAKED illnesses, etc.
Does the Bible say that the BLIND person healed was someone who EVERYONE knew? Does it say he was a local person or could he have been brought in by the disciples to FAKE his blindness?
Le's see how LOGICAL you are.
wow...see? Here is where you leave out stuff...firat of all..you don't take the story itself into consideration..you lump it all together with all others, second...the story of the blind man at the gate has it where he was very well known! they knew who his parents were and everything..I suggest yu open up a Bible and read it..Ill give you the location to find the story...John chapter 9.
kevinite
It is more a matter of practicality and yes, belief to some extent.
If I accept one baseless hypothesis, logic would dictate to accept them all, and there is not enough time in the day to do all religious practices that would then be required.
I believe that none of the gods man has defined makes any logical sense, and much of the religious nonsense goes against my basic moral principles ( like allowing another to pay for my transgressions, the basis for christianity).
Until there is some evidence of any "gods" and then some way of actually communicating with such an ent!ty, it would be pointless to pursue the belief.
Following the works of men does not make any sense either as there are far too many flaws with religious texts such as the bible, and it is obvious it was made by superst!tious ignorant men. I would rather continue to try to find actual truth, rather than make up a truth , as is the case with all religions.
igaftr,
I find it interesting that you find it more of a practicality to simply believe to deny as opposed to taking the logical step of neither believing or denying. That you are going on beliefs that in reality cannot be proven any more than one who is religious, since we are referring to a deity who does not want to be made known in the first place any any such "evidence" doesn't actually lead to anything one way or the other.
As to the futility of the search, I believe that just like in science that it still worth the never ending search for truth that it is also worth the never ending search to find God , and that I believe there are some things to consider. One, that you really don't know how long for certain which religious path is the right one, and that even if you sincerely tried to find it in your life time and fail that I believe God will open it to you after this life.
The Timothy epistles were not written by Paul and therefore have no "divine" guidance.
and youknow this..how?
From the studies of many contemporary NT scholars who have thoroughly analyzed "Paul's epistles. Google will take to quite a few of these studies but then again you will have to read something other than the bible.
16: "All scriptures were written by men and there is no evidence of any "god" anywhere."
igaftr
Just like there is no evidence that there is no such God either.
For me, the default state is disbelief until proven otherwise. If not, I'd have to concede to the possible existence of gnomes, elves and dwarves as well.
Doesn't it bother you that everything you "know" about god comes from other people?
Well G-T,
If you want your default belief to be that then fine, but the point is that your default belief is just that a belief.
No... it means that I choose not to believe in things unless they've been proven to my satisfaction. I would argue you do the same thing. Perhaps my tolerance for ambiguity is a bit higher than yours?
Well cheesy,
When I believe that I received a personal sense of reassurance from God that certain beliefs that I was taught to and studied over that came from other individuals is of God it does at least help to reaffirm my faith.
kevin,
Lots of people believe they have personal reassurance concerning what they have been taught about god. And lots of those people's beliefs contradict yours. Why are yours right and theirs are wrong?
kevin
Having no evidence against the existance of gods has to be the dumbest reason ever to believe. There is no evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, or the tooth fairy, or leprechauns, or any of the other thousands of gods, or the million things I just imagined in my head...so because there is no evidence against their existance, you are going to believe they exist?
Seriously?
There is no evidence of Vulcan, so are you going to throw a girl into a volcano to appease him, just because no evidence either way means he exists?
Well cheesy,
I cannot prove that their beliefs are wrong and mine are right even though they may have similar experiences. All I know is what I have experienced, I cannot determine one way or the other that what they experienced is the same type of experience as mine. Such conclusions can only be made on a personal level and I believe that the invitation is given by God at God's own risk, so what do you have to loose in taking up the challenge?
Well igafter,
Whether you determine whether Nessy, Squatch, Tooth Fairy, and anything else not proven one way or the other are real or not, it is all a matter of belief. It may all seem ridiculous to you but that still doesn't take away from the fact that the proof one way or the other is simply not there, so whatever conclusion you make it is a decision based on belief.
kevin,
I took up the challenge. All the evidence I have researched points to any current concept of god as being man made. I was a believer.
So, if you then believe that you have taken the challenge of experiencing with applying the teachings in your life , studying and even prayer sincerely asking God whether or not either he or the gospel is true and real then fine. At least you have an answer. The point is that for any of us to really find out for ourselves that it can only be done on a personal level involving personal effort with on openness to accept whatever answer that may come.
kermit4jc
Surely you don't believe that every story with the caption "Inspired by true events" is completely, or even mostly, accurate?
kermit4jc,
(I Kings 7:23) “And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circ-umference.”
Where does this say that these numbers ARE NOT MEANT to be accurate?
Get real and HONEST.
and I can ask YOU WHERE does it say it IS a precise number? if it doe sno tequal pi..then it is obvious that it is an apprximaiton....they buikt it did nty not? does anything in the text point to their CONCErN that the accounts are to be accurate?
The bible is imprecise, hence imperfect.Therefore it cannot be the inerrant word of God.
and you are ignorant of inerrant and such..apprixmations are nOT wrong...UNLSS they are said to be precise numbers and shown not to be.....you logic does not follow.....and if you wanna do that..then I guess much of history is not reliable at all (not just ancient, but even those of this century etc)
Much of history is not reliable. People don't tie their (imagined) immortal souls to what it says. When you realize that your religion is unreliable perhaps you'll feel about it as you do history when you learn that history has been manipulated in order to manipulate you.
AS if YOU know why I am a believer..eh? what a fool you are...you assume to much.....why are you people afraid to ask about others? you seem more comfortable to make assumptions about pthers without getting to know them..then make terrible judgments on them....is that really what you want?
and so by your logic George Washington di dnot exist, ALexander the Great did not exist..etc etc...comeon...youre bing double mined here
I did assume that you think your religion is reliable.
there is a HUGE difference between "my relgion" and the BIble....the BIBLE itself is trustworthy...yet that is NOT why I know there is a God! I have trust in what the BIble says IN that It contains Gods PrOmises..of which I have faith and trust in..His PROmises....so you assumed wrongly
Why would you believe promises in a book that is va gue and imprecise?
Have you seen the Lord of the Rings movies, kermit4jc?
As an exercise, I have made some substi.tutions to part of your post above:
".the RING'S MESSAGE itself is trustworthy...yet that is NOT why I know there is a Sauron! I have trust in what the RING says IN that It contains MY PRECIOUS..of which I have faith and trust in..MY PRECIOUS....so you assumed wrongly.."
As you can see, kermit4jc, this is just as reasonable – it is just another form of mythology.
terrible logic..the Lord of the Rings was obvisouly written as a fictional story..we know of the author and all.....the BIble was NOT written as such..thus your anaology is terrible at the least
kermit4jc – ".the BIble was NOT written as such."
I'm sorry, kermit4jc, but what is your evidence that the intention of the earliest oral story that serves as a basis for the Bible was that it be a real historical accounting? (What from that time when the story started do you have as evidence?) If you have no evidence for this intent, then what does it matter that there was possibly some other intent at the time the stories were being put into written form many, many generations later?
first of all...stories like the four Gospels were written within same generaiton..not many generaitons later
halero,
Oracles = Logion (Greek) = Communication
At the time you ought to be teacher, you have need that one teach you again the first principles of the ORACLES of God.
What are these oracles that are so important that they are like the foundation of the foundation?
Stephen before the Sanhedrin said: Our fathers received the LIVING ORACLES to give unto us.
What are these living oracles?
God did in fact commit His communication, His revelation of Himself to Israel and the 12 tribes. Moses and the prophets were sent to the 12 tribes of Israel to be preached to the entire world.
The written Logion/Oracles/The Holy Scriptures were committed to Israel's keeping & still to this day, amidst all the different versions, there's only one Hebrew text and that text is still in the order it was in 3500 years ago when Moses penned every word.
The signature of Yahweh appears throughout the whole 5 Books written by Moses. This cannot be done by man and the text still retain its meaning.
Torah means the instructions from God.
I'm sorry, new-man, but there is a lack of evidential data for much of the assertions in your reply.
new-man – "God did in fact commit His communication, His revelation of Himself to Israel and the 12 tribes."
What is the evidence of this as a real event – outside of what has passed orally through many generations (and wound up in some form in the Bible)?
new-man – "[.. ] and that text is still in the order it was in 3500 years ago when Moses penned every word."
What is the evidence of Moses' existence – outside of what has passed orally through many generations (and wound up in some form in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)? Perhaps there is some archaeological evidence for Moses' existence?
Thank you, new-man, but your reply does not answer this question: what is your evidence that the intention of the earliest oral story that serves as a basis for the Bible was that it be a real historical accounting? (What from that time when the story started do you have as evidence [to support the initial story going forward to the next generation that would hear it]?)
halero,
there isn't a lack of evidence, however there is a lack of knowledge and understanding on your part.
try reading while keeping your unfounded objections at bay.
if you were/are interested in the truth you would seek to find and verify instead of making baseless assertions.
I'm sorry, new-man, but I have no objections. I am only interested in the truth on this subject. Since you wrote that "there isn't a lack of evidence", then perhaps you can provide evidential data that would satisfy the specific questions I presented in my last reply.
Someone mention the Torah?
The "New Torah for Modern Minds":
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482
"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument."
"The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."
"..the Lord of the Rings was obvisouly written as a fictional story"
Oh my, that's funny...the bible is also a work of fiction written by con-men to fool the gullible and instill fear.
I had no fear...and you said you dont know who the authorsw are..so whats your proof they are con men? LMAO LMAO
kermit
"... so whats your proof they are con men? "
Do you believe Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith? Why not? How is your bible any better other than its origin is a bit more murky because of age and it has become established over a wide area by Roman and then European conquest.
very weak arguments..firat o fall..again the context of my quesiotn comes from not even knowing the authors (as many iof you claim) plus...Joe and Hubbard have been shown without a doubt they are con men...with their own history as well....
And my point is their claims are a variation on the claims you do believe but because they are recent, you acknowledge their mendacity. The bible has similar origins only obscured by the mists of time.
kermit4jc,
You are right that the Bible is not 100% accurate even though it supposedly is the "inerrant word of God".
my God you are desne..inerrnt does nOT rule out approximations of numbers....numbers are nOT the poiunt!! the size of the pools are NOT the point of the story!! The Bible IS innerant in its point..that God is supreme...that Jesus is God...he came to earth, died and rose again, and that He came from the line of the Jews as foretold, etc etc....
kermit4jc,
"the measurements in the OT that yuo got this from are NOT meant to be accurate numbers"
So not EVERYTHING in the Bible is ACCURATE.
We agree.
and not being "accurate does not mean it is in error...again as approximation of numbers are not error....the measurements of the pool are besides the point...its given us a general description, a general size of the pool
kermit4jc,
When you give numerical information to people do you give out numbers that you know are INACCURATE and approximations as if they were accurate or do you tell the TRUTH and say "approximately"? Let's see your level of interest in ACCURACY.
OMG if I were talking to ARCHITECTS I would give exact numbers..if I were having a house biult..if I were talking to regular people..Im NOT ocnernd about exct numbers..i think you need to get out in the real world dude
oh..and the general populace would NOT care if it is precise number....its a GENERAL description..and I ouwlnd t have to say its an exact number UNLESS THEY ASK for it! (why they woulod ask? seems pretty silly)
"my God you are desne"
Wow, judge not lest ye be judged seem to fall short on kermi's 2 celled brain...what a pathetic rep for Christians and the love they claim to have for others. If hell exists kermi, there is a special spot reserved just for you.
wow....seems you dont know how to read..Jesus wasnt saying ANY kind of judgment is bad.....try again
Geez kermi, you are one messed up arrogant individual!! So many damn interpretations of your holy book and somehow you THINK you have the correct one! If hell exist, you belong there...you're a very ill individual who picks and chooses from the book and doesn't care about anyone else or who gets hurt in the process. You need your license to practice revoked and you need to seek help...it is obvious your mind is not healthy.
I'm done with you...you're crazy and crazy people scare me for the safety of those of us who are not crazy!
I THINK you are the messed up one...if IM so messed up as you say...it would be quiet evident at work...yet of the hundreds of people I work with.NONE of them make such outlandish accusations as you are doing to me......yure the deluded one
kermit4jc
"oh..and the general populace would NOT care if it is precise number"
Logic would call for the "inspired word of God" to be perfect, but it's not surprising that so many believers aren't that interested in ACCURACY.
yes..it is inspired by God to give an accurate number so it can mena something to someone.....hogwash! Numbers mean NOTHING..the size of the pool has NOTHING to do with the salvation plan......youre acting Pharisaical..and in doing so you miss the real meaning of the Bible itself.....the size of the pool does NOTHING for me..it means nOTHING to me in terms of my salvation...you arr too busy looking at the speck that you miss the bigger picture
btw your "logic" is flawed...for it assumes something that's not in the BIble....God is not concnerned about size of the pool as he is about your soul...LOGIC says that God is more concnerned about you...not the precise size of the pool
TP,
He's not a psychologist, so he needs no license to practice.
LaBella: I don't think he is either. If anything he might have gone to the schools website, looked at the program and applied but they don't tend to let people in to university who never made it out of high school. He leaves one wondering who feeds him daily.
ok stop your childish games and address the issues I bring up...if you cant do it..then Ill move on to others.....youre acting like a little kid on the playground and you accuse me of throwing tantrums? have you even a LIFE other than to come here and belittle people only, and nothing more??
"ok stop your childish games and address the issues I bring up...if you cant do it..then Ill move on to others.....youre acting like a little kid on the playground and you accuse me of throwing tantrums? have you even a LIFE other than to come here and belittle people only, and nothing more??"
Oh my pot meet kettle. Stop dictating what others should do.
As for having a life...maybe you should look at your own actions before judging others...you're here a lot yourself so STFU about other peoples actions. You also add nothing other than the same old boring ARROGANT, rhetoric where you THINK you're better than everyone and yet your temper tantrum prove different. You don't pay my way in life, so mind your own business.
And how about you answer the post above directed at you instead of being a bigot and evading it??
WICH posts are you accusing me of evading? If you weren't such a little brat and name calling youd see I been making EVERY attempt to address all questions/issues. so again stop this stupid little egame and grow up. and tell me which one I seem to avoid..I WILL address them if I had not ok? If YOu are going to carry on otherwise as you been doing, I will not address you again
Are you a complete loon?? I addressed you independently above and your IGNORANTLY ignored it...I know 2 year old with higher IQ's than you!
I don't a rats ass if you address me...you call others out for the same things you do...you're an ARROGANT HYPOCRITE...you don't care about debating, you care about having your delusions verified and they simply can't be-they are not factual and are based on fairy tales.
You need a time out and to be registered for this falls Grade 3 courses? Why do you lie about being a psychologist when NOBODY believes you are??
listen..thats not how my blogging works here ok? it doesn't work well with my computer here and all...and since you are still playing your childish game and refusing to let me know which I have ignored, youre the child here and need to grow up...have a good day....(you started preschool yet-schools are starting here in California this week)
Look kermi, I'm going to voice my opinion one last time to you...
You come to this blog as most do to argue their side. However, you always throw an arrogance that is disgusting and when someone disagrees with you, you instantly attack and then when it is done to you, you cry foul.
Maybe if you accepted the fact that others believe differently than you and that not one can prove the other wrong, the conversation might be different but when all you do is attack and defend things with the bible and the claim of knowledge the conversation falls to you coming across as being a condescending, arrogant ass.
Believe as you wish but don't use your belief to tell others how to live or who to marry...that whole "Do unto others as you'd have done on to you" falls short on you...care to explain why? Have you ever stopped to think about how you would feel if it was you on the opposing end?
(you have imaginary friends...so tell me again who the child is?)
you know what, I really don't have a problem in that youre "hurting my feelings" the point is, you are just spouting your childish stuff belittling others and really nothing more...you said you bring things, I did not deny that..you just do more belittling than you bring things to discuss.
Oh my you have proven my point. I DID NOT once say I wasn't guilty of the same things I have accused you of.
So telling you that your bible is fallacious (which it has been proven time and time again to be) is childish but yet you spewing your arrogance and thinking you more than anyone else isn't??
Skip the hypocrisy...you're not any better than me, in fact I have one up on you and will until you change your mind on the matter-I believe EVERYONE regardless of who they love or how many babies they decide to have or what god they do or do not worship, deserves the same rights.
So telling you that your bible is fallacious (which it has been proven time and time again to be) is childish but yet you spewing your arrogance and thinking you more than anyone else isn’t??<-not at all..thats not what I said...you didn't say that..you were making personal attacks..not against the BIble....are you losing your memory and forgetting what you say about others, including me? Again you could have gotten that from when I mentioned that all you do is belittle and hardly bring anything to the table...
You hypocrite!! GEEZ!! You personally attack all the time!
Not losing my mind...that happens when you believe a god is real without any evidence to back you-it's a viral infection of sorts and the only sure is an EDUCATION at a real school, not one run by your church!!
Perhaps k is a child psychologist, or perhaps a child of God, or maybe just a child.
I have never seen blogging used as an excuse to write poorly.
I learned something new.
"schools are starting here in California this week"
This is the most disturbing thing i've read today, kermie apparently lies in my State and from earlier conversations may actually practice some form of counseling here. Very scary, I feel for my fellow Californians.
you can rest easy, for if I was that bad, I wouldn't been working in the field for over 15 years. I have gotten very few complaints, mostly due to personality conflicts. I been recognized numerous times for my work.
and he lives here too...
I apologize here. I just find kermi to be a huge hypocrite.
pot calling kettle
I wasn't speaking to you kermi. I was apologizing to the other posters here who obviously have no more use for you than I do.
kermit4jc
Still, if the actual measurement was not another full cubit, but still a little bit more, why didn't they say that the measurement was "about" this size? Why use the language of exact measurement if this was not the intended meaning?
I do not see anything in the text even IMPLYING they are attempting to use exact and precise measurement..the context of the entire Bible does not even show to even care of precise measurement of the pool since the pool has nothing to do with our salvation
kermit4jc
They're using the language of exact measurement. You can argue that there aren't words for fractions of cubits, but that doesn't take away from the precise use of language here. There's nothing implying that they weren't trying to be precise.
What makes you think that anything in the OT has to do with the gerrymandered theology of Christian Salvation?
first off..SHOW me the words that show precise lmeasurment,, second...seems you have not read the Bible..it started ALL the way back in Gensis 3 when God spoke of the one to come to save man from sins...specifically in verses 14thru 19 and there is no "Christian salvation" its not salvation for Christians..in fact.....one is not saved BECAUSE he is called a Christian..he is called a Christian because he is saved and follows Christ. Salvation and prophecy of the coming Messiah runs throughout the OT
53 Has anyone believed us
or seen the mighty power
of the Lord in action?
2 Like a young plant or a root
that sprouts in dry ground,
the servant grew up
obeying the Lord.
He wasn’t some handsome king.
Nothing about the way he looked
made him attractive to us.
3 He was hated and rejected;
his life was filled with sorrow
and terrible suffering.
No one wanted to look at him.
We despised him and said,
“He is a nobody!”
4 He suffered and endured
great pain for us,
but we thought his suffering
was punishment from God.
5 He was wounded and crushed
because of our sins;
by taking our punishment,
he made us completely well.
6 All of us were like sheep
that had wandered off.
We had each gone our own way,
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deserved.
7 He was painfully abused,
but he did not complain.
He was silent like a lamb
being led to the butcher,
as quiet as a sheep
having its wool cut off.
8 He was condemned to death
without a fair trial.
Who could have imagined
what would happen to him?
His life was taken away
because of the sinful things
my people[a] had done.
9 He wasn’t dishonest or violent,
but he was buried in a tomb
of cruel and rich people.[b]
10 The Lord decided his servant
would suffer as a sacrifice
to take away the sin
and guilt of others.
Now the servant will live
to see his own descendants.[c]
He did everything
the Lord had planned.
11 By suffering, the servant
will learn the true meaning
of obeying the Lord.
Although he is innocent,
he will take the punishment
for the sins of others,
so that many of them
will no longer be guilty.
12 The Lord will reward him
with honor and power
for sacrificing his life.
Others thought he was a sinner,
but he suffered for our sins
and asked God to forgive us.
kermit4jc
Like I said before, the Jews had smaller units of measurement than the cubit back then, so the author could have easily given a more accurate account of the sea's dimensions.
The OT describes the mashiach as a man and not some divine being. All mashiachs in the OT were just mortal men assigned by God to do his bidding. The expected mashiach saviour is one who will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing them back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem. (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He'll also establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, for both Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He'll also rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He'll restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
Did Jesus do any of that?
No, what early Jesus followers had was someone they decided was the mashiach who then got himself crucified, which was a problem, because of the whole thing about being cursed if hung from a tree. Their workaround was this whole theology that reimagines Jesus' death as some kind of intended sacrifice to God in redemption for people's sins, which later became ridiculous when people started saying that Jesus was God. Somehow, sacrificing yourself to yourself just doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice, and why would it be needed anyway?
Jesus says He owld come a second time..thats when the Teple would be rebuilt..The oT makes Jesus divine..apparently you haven't read all of OT Daniel 7 has the messiah as DIVINE person....Isaiah talks of GOD being Savior (Jesus is savior) DIVINE....you don't seem to do well in connecting the dots nor understand the Jewish thoughts (and I don't mean Jews of TODAY, much of whom are RABBINICAL Jews, unlike the Jews of Jesus time)
"WHERE does it say it IS a precise number"
That sounds slightly contradictory. If your god is perfect and the bible is the word of your god, do you not think your perfect god would use a precise number in what is apparently his own book?
approximate numbers are not errors, and again God cares MORE for your soul than the precise size of a pool..thats the point...people are so concerned about the precise of the pool that they miss whats MORE important. Thng is too is that it doesn't happen here, but everywhere nowdays. People get so focused on unimportant things, they miss out on whats more important. How do I know? I see it, and the evidence is here too....people more concerned about the size of a pool than they are about important matters
Wow here you go again, claiming to have knowledge that you don't have.
Yes, you do get focused on unimportant things...that's why you're a Christian-it's not important.
I'm afraid you are correct, observer. An object with the measurements noted in Kings cannot be "completely round". Either the claim that it is completely round is false, or there is an error in the measurements noted.
Another numeric error in the Bible occurs in either 1 Kings 4:26 or 2 Chronicles 9:25, where the difference in the count of stalls that Solomon had for horses is 36,000 – a very large discrepancy.
again WHERE does the Bible STATE they are concerned with PRECISe measurments in the accounting of the items? Second.....the number of horsesvs stalls are a copyist error that does NOT change the story whatsoever, if one understood Hebrew writing and how some of their "letter" can be similar and mistaken..the none will see this is an INSIGINIFICANT thing, compared to REST of the BIble and the POINT of the BIble..the number of stalls vs horses does NOT change the Salvation plan...and again historians are not ones who throw baby out with bathwater
kermit4jc,
It's good that you admit that the Bible isn't 100% accurate. That's a start.
don't twist my words now.....I see your pitiful game and its not going to work
Yes, kermit4jc, the case of the count of horses is most likely a copying error. For more information on various copying errors and their resulting implications, I recommend some of the Bart Ehrman videos that are available on YouTube. One cannot expect a collection of stories such as the Bible to be free from errors. In a similar manner, one cannot expect such a collection of stories, that, in their current written form, often represent oral mythological stories passed through many generations, to accurately represent the earliest versions of such stories from an oral tradition.
SO then..if you got a letter that says "YOu just won #1 million dollars" would you not go get it? what if you received a letter thet next day saying "You just won $1 *illion dollars" and then the next got a letter saying "You just won $1 million dollars" your enot going to go seek it out and get the money? come on..and as for Bart..if youre referring to varints..those are very few in terms of actual miscopies...the majority of the varints are not errors....for example "Jesus said.." was copied and presented as "He said..." that is not an error in anyway..I am very familiar with works of BE and his attempts to discredit the Bible in a deceitful way...(maybe his way wasn't deceitful in actuality, but those who read his works and try to debunk the Bible are misusing his words to do so) as I said..I studied the Bible for over 25 years..ok? not reading the Bible alone..but other sources, both Christian and non Christian...secular and non secular...IM not an idiot and ignorant of whats out there
It is very convenient for you that you attribute this to copyist error since there is now way to confirm this assumption. The same goes for how old Ahaziah was when he began to reign (II Kings says 22, II Chronicles says 42). Whether outright contradiction or copyist error, the result is the same: the bible is not 100% consistent or accurate. There is no getting around this.
Incidentally, I found a very earnest article claiming that copyist errors in the bible are impossible. This is because "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy) and "it was impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews). "Therefore there cannot be any errors in the Holy Bible, and it is perfect historically, geographically, scientifically, grammatically and numerically, and 'every word of God is pure'".
your argum,ent is BACKWARDS.....yes..GOD doesnt lie and the Bible is inspired by God....which LOGICALLY would say that the ORIGINALS were perfect..we have mINOR errors in the Bible...and they are few and far in nbteween..you make these people sound like idiots who dont know how to frigging write....evidence shows they know what they are talking about..otherwise the WHOLE thing would be incoherent...sorry..you are desperate
You're getting over emotional. I am saying an error is an error. The bible is not error free.
The originals would be error free..the copies have errors-pretty much due to copyist errors, and they are minor and have no actual impact or consequence on theology or the surrounding facts (for example, how many stalls did Solomon actually have-? the error there has no impact in the fact that Solomon has already been shown to have been the wealthiest person at that time. It did not change that fact)
It appears you missed my point, kermit4jc. How does mythology passed through the oral tradition relate to a prize notification received in the mail?
MY point is this..errors do NOT negate neccearily the truth of the matter..errors in copyists and such...read my post again
The Babble and e-mail prize notifications appeal to the same non-critical thinkers.
All that said, when I first made the statement that the Bible is seriously in error, I was not talking about petty inconsistencies. I gave the example of Adam and Eve being the ancestors of all humans and not having ancestors themselves. This is factually and demonstrably wrong. I'm not too concerned about how old Ahaziah was when he began to reign when the bible blunders so significantly before even getting out of Genesis 1.
it has nOT been shown to be wrong..sorry..wishful thinking on your part...the very first creatures..according to your evolutionary ideas had NO ancestors.....
You are fantastically deluded. You would be less wrong to say the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. The bible is a staggering failure on this point if human origins.
again...Bible states there is an origin of the universe..Big Bang says it...but how did it come about..no one knows yet.....so how can it be error according to the Bible when you dont even have a standard to measure it by (ie, knowledge of how the universe started in the Big Bang, etc etc)
"Bible is inspired by God"
You have no way of knowing that. Stop being so dishonest. How hard is it to admit that you merely 'believe' it is the word of god?? To say otherwise means you now are responsible for providing the proof and given that no-one has yet done so, it is safe to say you're dishonest and thus nothing you EVER spew can be trusted.
We know that man wrote the bible; we know it is contradictory; we know that it is full of malicious hate and crime; we know that there is zero evidence to show a god had any hand in those words.
Is honesty so hard for you or have you simply allowed yourself to become so deluded with the belief that you can't see the truth for what it is??
just cause you are UNWILLING to accept proof does NOT mean I did not offer proof...youre playing the blame game and making excuses..I have proof to have knowledge of Gods existence.....just cause You don't..doesn't mean I cant...youre NOT the standard (thank God)..to admit that O only have a belief is to be dishonest to myself..and I will not do that..and its sad that you ask me to be untrue to myself simply because YOU don't accept the proof...NO man proved God to me..so how do you arrogantly think you can convince me otherwise?
I am honest...I see turht in the BIble...YOu see what you assume to be contradictions and all....what You see is something without the full text...Ill bet you can even admit the Bible actually says "There is no God" and you will hold to that.....yes...Bible is full of hate...by sinful man..crimes..by sinful man.....David was sinful..he had Bathsheba s husband killed so he can have her....that's not approved of by God....the only hate I see from God is hate of sin itself....you on the other hand are ruled by your feelings (which sometimes are deceitful) and thus is not always trustworthy...yet you seem so trusting blindly in your own feelings to tell you the truth
kermi: Spin it how you wish. Using the bible to defend your god or the bible itself is not proof, it is lazy and very circular. There simply is no justification for believing the bible is the word of god because the bible and its believers claim it to be. It is DISHONEST to make the claim if you can't back it and when you have NO WAY OF KNOWING with certainty but to expect honesty from you on any level would be like asking a snake to talk-oh right, you already think that happens.
Such a foolish stance.
you need to read more....I did not say the BIBLKE convinced me Go9d is real..and you go circular too.trying to prove the Bible is false by the Bible..I can back it up..again just cause YOU cant accept it doesnt mean I cant back it up
kermie: "in terms of actual miscopies"
1)yet these 30,000 plus variations of the same religious text are "inspired by god"........why would you need so many?
2) how did judah die? two stories in the same book about one death? hmmmmmmm
maybe you should look into WHAT those 30,000 variants are..and whether there is any actual change or not..as for Judah...so we are on same page, which are you referring to?
kermit4jc,
The errors show that when there can be irrefutable testing of the ACCURACY of the Bible because of using mathematics, the Bible often FAILS.
again ONLY if the Bible claims it is a precise number! which more often than not it does NOT claim or even imply it...again one who does this misses the whole point...of the Bible.....and they become like the Pharisees and Saduccees that Jesus condemned of their practices
kermit4jc,
When you can find where the Bible said it's version of pi is APPROXIMATE, you will BEGIN to have credibility. Until then, zippo.
dodging the issue eh? I have asked for specifics....for words showing they are claiming precise numbers.....you cant bring it can you? ok...Ill accept your concession
kermie: ok so we're on the same page; sure.
judas died twice in the bible two different ways.
Acts 1:18New International Version (NIV)
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
Matthew 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
--------
ok so how did judas die? did he by land then split open; or did he throw the coin into the temple and hang himself?
-------–
the bible isn't flawless, it's not inspired by any perfect god because the thing is full of flaws, namely that a being that would have no logical use for emotions has them; angels were never created, yet they show up in the bible by magic.
Hold it right there...where in Acts does it say Judas died as result of fall? I mean was he alive when he fell off the cliff? you have to show that Judas was alive when his body fell off the cliff....did he fall off, was he thrown off (his body?) the passage does not show it...a good investigator would put the two stories together, the most logical and reasonable explanation is that Judas hung himself, and sometime later the body fell, whether thrown off, or falling from where he hanged himself....to make these two passages contradictory, you have to first establish that Judas was alive when he fell off the cliff and died as a result of it....if you cant, then there is no contradiction
kermit4jc,
Your pitifully DESPERATE efforts to make EXCUSES for the Bible are sadly laughable.
So your latest NONSENSE is that the Bible FORGET to say he was thrown off a CLIFF in the middle of a FIELD?
Wow! How sad!
LOL..it doesn't have to add it..again people kNOW what happenes....you are the pitiful one who is too dang lazy to connect the dots....you want other people to do your problem solving for you it seems...come on....as I said its called PUTTING it together.and you have failed since you STILL have not established that Judas was alive when he fell, thus died as result of the fall
and it seems YOU are the desperate one..you avoided the issue by not even attempting to establish that Judas was alive...IM not the one making exucses...I have yet to see ANY evidence Judas was alive when he fell and thus died as result of the fall....
kermit4jc,
Let's hear the quote from the Bible that talks about Judas going over a CLIFF.
Where is the word "cliff"?
Let's see how HONEST you are.
your dodging the issue.....establish that Judas was alive when he fell, and thus died as result of the fall...IM waiting...
kermit4jc,
Speaking of DODGING, you brought up the issue of the cliff. Let's hear the quote from the Bible that talks about Judas going over a CLIFF.
Where is the word "cliff"?
Let's see how HONEST you are. You FLUNKED the first time.
I will address that AFTER you address the issue I brought up first ok? I will give you one more chance..if you don't do it in the next post I will dismiss YOu as the dishonest one here who plays games and makes up carp about others..ok? its your choice. do I need to remind you of what the question is?
kermit4jc,
The answer is NO, the Bible does not say that Judas was alive when he fell over a cliff that it didn't mention.
Now answer my question.
ok...so then...we have not established a contradiction..good..thank you....as for your question....it is obvious that Judas fell from a high place, there are hills in the area of Jerusalem. His body fell and hot the rocks with enough force to cause his innards to gush out.
Architects and learned people from the Middle East knew that the circ.umfrence and diameter are proportional. They used various simple fractions like 22/7, 25/8, etc. the value is represented in numerous writings from Egypt to Babylonia. Educated people would have known that if the vessel was 10 cubits across, it would be a bit more than 31 cubits around, not 30 cubits. This is not lack of precision, it is not being educated. It would be just as easy to write 31 cubits as 30.
They could have said that was 32 cubits so that people could weasel out by saying the circle was imperfect. Anyway wasn't pi an integer before the Fall? Perhaps 3 as in the Trinity.
Yeah, people knew Pi is not an integer for over 4,000 years. Interestingly, it's only been a little over 200 years ago that humans proved Pi isn't a fraction.
This was about 4,000 years ago that these fractions were written about.
the Bible is NOT an architectural book..nor is it a book on lessons of rchitecture and math...it is giving general descriptions cause the numbers are NOT the focus in the story! The Book was NOT written for architects..it was written for common man who was not interested in precise size of things..just a general description.......do YOu use precise words and numbers with everyone you talk to? do you tell the person about your car and say "It is red and precisely 21.238 feet long"? do you?
You are correct. It is a book of fiction with no factual basis.
don't put words in my mouth....that's dishonest debate.....continue to do so and I wont respond anymore to your posts..got it?
I'd like to know precisely why anyone should believe in the god of your bible. Perhaps it should have that.
Do you really think I care if you reply? If yes, you are more arrogant than the average Babble Humper.
I know you dont care...just letting you know
kermit,
I didn't say the bible was any kind of book. I said educated people of that time knew approximations for Pi that would make the value in the bible 31, not 30. Educated humans would write 31, if it was the word of God, shortened to avoid complex fractions, it would be 31. The Jews knew how to represent the number 31. Given that, it's just an error, or the bible was written by uneducated people. Take your pick.
again its an aprocximation..the writer did not get a tape measure out..and again the description is nOT the point! dont you get it? it does NOT matter! it is a general descritption of the Temple and surronding fixtures..it does NOT matter! again this is nOT a textbook on math or science..they are MORE concnered with what God had them build and how to APPLY the fixtures in the worship!! you miss the whole point of it all
kermi: If you don't like the opinions of others than perhaps it is you who truly has the issue and shouldn't be posting or meriting responses. Hotairace told the facts and you got all child like and threw another tantrum. Grow up and start treating people the way you'd wish to be treated. Prove him wrong if you have an issue but stop name-calling and stop playing the Holier Than Thou Card...it merely makes you look hate-filled!...you're no better than anyone else, so stop trying to make it look like you are!
kermit,
I'm afraid it's you that isn't getting the point. They wouldn't have needed to get the tape measure out for the circu.mfrence. Once they measured the diameter, they could have CALCuLATED the circu.mfrence! That is, if they were educated, or, IF it were revealed truth!
So IF they were educated the bible would have been written with 31 cubits. IF it was revealed truth it would have been written with 31 cubits. It WAS written with 30 cubits. Therefore the writers were not educated, nor was it revealed truth. Most likely it was tribal leaders creating a parable for their followers to learn a social lesson from.
again only general descritption..those reading would NOT be interested in precise measurements..it means nothing..I do know the point..Im afraid you are too focused on preciseness in everything
Kermit is still searching for the real Jesus. His pathway has been disclosed but he fails to follow IT as he is consumed with the brainwash of early childhood? Or is it a more recent condition?
where the heck you get this silly notion IM still searching for real Jesus?
Because you continue to make inane conclusions about a book written by authors who other than Paul we know very little about. And even with Paul's writings, many were not written by him but by pseudo Pauls. And then there are the questionable motives of Paul.
I was on my way to a club to meet with friends when a guy approached me and asked for my shoes. He said he wanted to go inside the club but was not allowed because he was wearing flipflops. He offered me a 100 bucks for my shoes, showed me the money but i declined. I bought my shoes for 80 bucks 3 years ago. Was i wrong not helping the poor guy? Is there a shoe sheme i dont know of?
Not really.. he would have flop flopped on the deal anyway! or maybe it was the devil looking for soles?
Now, what would Mittens want with Peace's shoes?
I heard the news today, robin williams rip. May he find happiness where ever he may be.
Well according to most Christians, he'd be in hell due to how his life ended but for the rational person, he will be buried or cremated and his memory will live on and that is all there is evidence to support. We can hope that lessons are learned from his battles.
Just read an article – WOW will be creating an NPC in honor of Williams who was an avid player it appears. So he will live on it appears – at least in some form anyways.
GT: that is pretty sad. a guy dies and WOW turns it into a PR stunt for their game. -smdh-
I think you need to look again. Williams was a HUGE WOW fan (even built his own over-clocked PCs). A peti,tion was started by fans asking that they include him in some way. It was based on the overwhelming support of this pet,ition that they decided to perform this tribute to him.
Long and short – I'd wait to see what form it actually takes before I'd go the cynic's route.
"Life is not a miracle. It is a natural phenomenon, and can be expected to appear whenever there is a planet whose conditions duplicate those of the earth."
– Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner
And so, why have we not been able to create life that sustains itself? I am not being combative. I am simply asking for your perspective. I have heard that we can create, for a short period, something that approximates life. But we have not been able to create life that is sustainable and can re-produce making itself, for lack of a better word, "procreative." If it can happen "naturally" without any intelligent guidance, why can we not create it with intelligent guidance?
Yea, I'm pretty sure Urey didn't win his Nobel Prize for that comment.
I would agree. I would have to guess that Boston was trying to provide a wider picture of Dr. Urey than one might get based on the quote from awanderingscot. But Dr. Urey's quote is too restrictive I think. If there is life somewhere else, I would think it would not likely duplicate that which we find here. Maybe in certain ways. I've never been a big fan of that fine tuning argument.
scot took that Urey original quote a bit out of context, too. If you look at what question was being asked of him.
ragansteve1 and Dalahäst -
Harold Urey was a pioneer in working with isotopes and discovered deuterium. He was a significant contributor to the development of the atom bomb.
Thanks for a BIG LAUGH listening to two BLOGGERS putting down the Nobel Prize WINNER about his knowledge of chemical compositions involved in life.
Well done.
observer
DALA... not only knows god, he knows everything, but uses the disclaimer that he is not perfect. Then proceeds to be beyond reproach, I guess massive egos need a bit of false deprecation now and then.
false self-deprecation...corrected
Steve,
For the same reason we haven't created a practical fusion reactor, it's hard. Having a fully validated theory doesn't make operating it easy.
Right on.
It took several millions years from the birth of the earth until the first signs of life. We've been at it for maybe a couple of decades?
Do you have a few millions of years to observe at a place with similar history, composition, circu-mstances, climate changes, etc as it occurred on earth? If so, I am sure you can recreate life.
boston
Do you think the apologists have already devised an answer for when life is discovered elsewhere and why their braggadocious god didn't mention it since he took credit for everything else?
I bet they are working on it.
If you think that missionaries are putting their lives on the line, then you don't understand the missionary position.
in all fairness, depending on your partner there could be some risk.
And depends who's on top. I do admire missionaries who gives much more than they take.
This thread is cracking me up.
Watch out for the priest behind you. . .
@observer the measurements in the OT that yuo got this from are NOT meant to be accurate numbers..they are APPROXIMATE..the Bible did nOT mention it is trying to prove pi, nor does it concern with precise numbers....there is NO error when giving approximate numbers..its done all the time...the ONLY time it would be in error if the Bible claimed to be a science text book and claims to use exact precise numbers..THIS is where Youhave to prove that the Bible is in error
I personally don't get worked up over the value of pi "error". The bible is seriously in error in enough other ways.
I agree. However, Christians claim the bible is perfect in all aspects, and then when faced with something that is clearly wrong in the bible all of a sudden the "bible doesn't claim to be a science book.
uhhhhh...perfection does not mean it is a science book..again the Bible does NOT claim or even IMPLY to be anything about SCIEnCE!! It is about the HISTORY of a people..and even in history books numbers are often times approximated (seriously, are were there approximately x number of men fighting in WW2?) come on..get real and stop making excuses
No worries, the bible got plenty of other stuff wrong as well.
Bring it on...mention another one (dont mention more thanone..lets take it one at a time (I know all about the so called "errors") Ive read almost every website devoted to "finding errors" in the Bible..IM not ignorant of them...so bring it on..lets discuss one
One example: Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans and had no ancestors themselves.
A complete failure, and we haven't even gotten out of Genesis 1.
I will defer to Sungrazer on this one as I have no desire to bang my head into a brick wall repeatedly at the moment. (That is what a conversation with you about the bible would feel like to me)
The order of the Edomite kings as recounted by Moses, who lived after he (supposedly) died are in the wrong order. Moses is talking to the Israelites from the wrong side of the Jordan. No man can recount his own death an burial, or know/say that "a more humble man every arose in Israel" is he wasn't there to see it, or was so proud to call himaself "humble". We know from anaysis of the dialects that the time frame of the langauge is impossible as claimed. No camels were domesticated in the Levant until after 1000 BCE (proven by archaeology thus many of the 'comings and goings' were impossible), and Yahweh had a wife who was worshed by the Hebrews along with him in Shiloh, Dan, Beth-El, and Jerusalem, (proven by archeology). Shall I go on ?
ahh yes...so if I wrote a book and every word in it must be mine? have you been reading books? ever notice how there are others who will add an opening to the book...or perhaps some info on the author? you are in error for assuming that every single word in Moses' book can ONLY be written by him..that someone else cannot add to it about his death? wow...get out of the basement, go to a bookstore or library and find some actual books to read...
Doesn't one of the gospels claim that Earth stood still when Jesus died?
Nope..thats one of the OT....I believe in Joshua
Not sure. But god did stop the sun and the moon for a "whole day". I'm sure there are apologetic explanations. But even better is the WHY: god did it so Joshua could finish killing all the Amorites while it was still daylight.
I want to hear about the earthquake and resurrection of dead saints. Surely such events would have been recorded outside The Babble. . .
ahh yes..The Naitonal ENquirer existed way back then too....not every single event is recorded...you think every single earthquake has been recorded in history...you think that the "opposition" is going to record something that would embarrass them? not every single event in history was written by multiple authors...Im sure glad historians don't use your logic in determining historical events
"so if I wrote a book and every word in it must be mine? have you been reading books? ever notice how there ou are in error for assuming that every single word in Moses' book can ONLY be written by him..that someone else cannot add to it about his death? wow...get out of the basement, go to a bookstore or library and find some actual books to read..."
I've read many more than you have. So already you're equivocating. If he didn't write it, then who did ? Of course we KNOW who assembled the various texts, and it was not a man named Moses. Whoever wrote it got many things WRONG. So much for "inspired word of the gods".
what did he get wrong? and do we need to know who wrote it to know for fact Moses died?
and how do you know you read more books than I have?
But historians do seek multiple sources to verify stories. There are reasons The Smithsonian does not consider The Babble to be a historical doc.ument. . .
yesh, istorians DO for the mOST part depend on outside sources..but if thee are none they have other ways
And have historians used these others ways to confirm the alleged earthquake and the alleged resurrection of the saints during the alleged crucifixion of the alleged desert dweller known as jesus?
And have historians successfully used these others ways, or any ways, to confirm the alleged earthquake and the alleged resurrection of the saints during the alleged crucifixion of the alleged desert dweller known as jesus?
actually. there are outside sources that even admits to the least that Jesus was crucified (though some reject he was resurrected) so thus that takes that from your list.....not all historians agree, true, about the earthquake and other events....but really no one has disproved them either. If rest of the Bible been shown to be reliable, then certainly the accounts of the earthquake and all would be trustworthy as well...historians don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as many of the skeptics I see in here do.
So an earthquake that was big enough to open graves and the resurrection of multiple saints simply "slipped through the cracks" on a busy news day for the journalists at time, or they didn't record it due to some conspiracy? Sounds more like you are throwing up BS and don't have a serious argument to defend the claims of your Babble.
again..its not merely the event of the earthquake alone....but many bodies coming up..come on....you think the people were all for this Jesus guy7? You think they are going to record incriminating stuff? If so you seem to dismiss reality of human nature, those who build themselves up, especially tyrants and whatnot
So, your final argument is that we should believe The Babble about the alleged events surrounding the alleged crucifixion because they are recorded in the Babble and need no further supporting evidence. Circular logic seems like a pretty weak argument for someone claiming to have read a lot and be something of an expert on Bablical Error. Of course, if your whole argument (belief) is that there are no errors, you don't have to actually know much, or do much more than speculate that the lack of evidence is just a big conspiracy.
wow..youre not reading what I said..the Bible HAS BEEN SHOWN to be trustworthy in what it records..thus the events of earthquake and such should also be condisered..why not? that's not circular reason....that's good logic and reasoning..think about it....
kermit4jc,
You've already said that the bible isn't trustworthy when it comes to science.
Oooops.
I did not say that.......read my posts..I was referring to NUMBERS..thats nOT science! approximations are noT less trustworthy..the numbers mean nOTHING ot gods SALVATION plan..th enumbers were NOT the point! if YOU want to go that route..then hardly ANY of history, ancient or near present are trustworthy...what historical accounts always gives precise numbers (like precisely how many people were sent from USA to Europe to fight in WW2?) see what I mean...seems like you are doubleminded
Please cite references, preferably neutral bodies outside the religious cult industry, that state The Babble is trustworthy. When it comes to being considered trustworthy for historical purposes, the current score is: 0 For – 1 Against (The Smithsonian).
By believing that you can/should consider everything in The Babble as trustworthy because some things appear to be true, you have fallen into a con man's classic trap. Or perhaps you are a con man practicing your craft. . .
But again, I expected a much better argument from a self-described well read Bablical Error expert.
kermit4jc,
" if YOU want to go that route..then hardly ANY of history, ancient or near present are trustworthy"
What other ancient sources in history claim to be inerrant?
let me sk YOU this...in what way is the Bible said to be inerrant? and where is it that approximations are in error?
kermit4jc,
I don't care about a few missed decimals. You made the comparison to other ancient sources. I'm just stated that because of the claims of inerrancey such comparison is invalid.
HUH? I think there is some miscommunication here.....exactly what did I say..in the comparisons? and decimals and all???
kermit4jc,
missing decimals = approximation
comparison: "what historical accounts always gives precise numbers..."
okright.. then...should we throw it it all out when they give approximate numbers? shoud we throw out all of rest of history because of approximate numbers as some do to the Bible?
Kermit,
"let me sk YOU this...in what way is the Bible said to be inerrant?"
Are claiming that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God?
that does not answer the question..try again
kermit4jc,
As i said, I don't really care about whether pi is approximated in the Bible or not, but the comparison with other sources is invalid because the other sources don't claim to be inerrant. In other words we can "throw out" the Bible and keep the other history sources, because the other don't claim to be inerrant.
NOT at alol..cause then you are using double stnadard..whether other sources claimi nerreancy or not
@kermi... "....but really no one has disproved them either."
Really? ....... shall I post a list of things which have not been disproved?....... wow.. the ignorance!
not ignorance at all..I know what you guys say
I'm shocked that Kermi can't provide a single reference to support his claim that The Babble is trustworthy!
you got poor memory and are also not paying attention to my posts..I mentioned them a number of time
"again..its not merely the event of the earthquake alone....but many bodies coming up..come on....you think the people were all for this Jesus guy7? You think they are going to record incriminating stuff?"
You are assuming that all witnesses to these events even knew who Jesus was or the events around his death. There would have to be hundreds (if not thousands) of people who witnessed these events who no reason to deny they happened. But – other than the biblical account – we have not one record of these events actually happening. Same with the stopping of the sun in the sky or the global flood. I have trouble believing that people with no investment in your theology (either way) would not leave some kind of independent record.
kermit4jc,
It's good to hear a Christian claim that the Bible is not meant to be completely accurate. Honesty is the best policy.
The Bible is full of nonsense that, unfortunately, cannot be proven 100% like the science fiction of the Noah's ark fantasy. There are some points in the Bible that can be PROVED, however. The irrefutable value of PI is one.
This fact ALONE shows that the Bible is not entirely TRUSTWORTHY.
omg you are so twisting what I said..typical....since you tsit Bible as well...you can twist what I say....when I refer to accuracy..IM referring to things like numbers etc....sheesh...use the context of my oist wi you? The Bible IS trustworthy! Just because they use approximate numbers does nOT make the Bible any less trustworthy! Numbers are nOTHING...they are not the point! If youre going to continue to twist what I say, then I see no need to continue responding to your posts ok?
kermit4jc,
"NOT meant to be accurate numbers" - kermit4jc
You said that the Bible is not ACCURATE about science. Try reading what you wrote.
We both agree that the Bible is not 100% ACCURATE. We just disagree on how INACCURATE it is.
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did”. – Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner
– see, who said evolutionists have no faith?
The best you can do is the son of a preacher born before 1900?
He won the Nobel Prize in 1934. Hardly a modern scientist.
At the risk of starting a war, I would then suggest that Darwin was not a "modern scientist."
Darwin was a modern scientist for his time. College science class attendees today know more than Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. knew in their day. To use the words of a 19th century scientist to comment on 21st century science is, to be polite, grasping at straws, unless it can be shown, using the scientific method, that the modern day scientists have got it wrong. So, where is that scholarly article that debunks evolution and proves creationism?
Exactly so.
While impressive in how accurate he was, he is not a modern scientist and did get some things wrong, e.g. genetics. Scientific support usually entails more recent citations.
Don't take my comment wrong. I actually like Darwin. He was both a scientist and a man of faith. That I can respect. I was only suggesting that if one says a scientist in 1934 is not modern, then one in the 1800s is likewise–not.
A man of faith? Early in his life, yes. Not later. From his autobiography:
"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."
And in a letter to someone:
"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”
P.S. Not that it matters. It's just inaccurate.
" I was only suggesting that if one says a scientist in 1934 is not modern, then one in the 1800s is likewise–not"
That's exactly right. Evolution today in no way, any longer, rests on Darwin's work. There are mountains of evidence for it, for much more recent discoveries. If you dismiss Evolution, you must propose an alternate. The gods are not an alternate theory. Just an argumant from ignorance.
realbb, "The gods are not an alternate theory. Just an argumant from ignorance."
Why do you say it must be an "alternate" theory? As noted by LaBella below, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
" "The gods are not an alternate theory"
No...not enough evidence to qualify as a theory...it is the god hypothesis, as in hypothetically god exists.
Many people of faith also believe in evolution. They're not mutually exclusive.
Exactly so.
Scot believes that you can't believe in evolution and be a Christians. I feel that he has posted in the past that the most anyone who believes in evolution can be is a deist. Of course that is absurd, but that is what Scot believes.
Awanderingscot misrepresents people a lot.
This is his preferred style of debate.
Unfortunately, he doesn't represent himself well either.
From the article in which the quote appeared:
"Pressed to explain what he meant by having "faith" in an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith was not in the event itself so much as in the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood."
You're like a little child...one track mind. Do you not have anything else to whine about?
Awanderingscot,
1) that's an opinion.
2) it's addressed on Talk Origin's Quote Mine Project.
Dr. Urey was a great and important scientist. To misrepresent him in this way proves that scot is a person of weak character.
It's one thing to believe in the literal bible and find evolution must be wrong. That is your right. You cross the line when you misrepresent, i. e. lie about someone with a quote that doesn't represent their actual ideas. Dr. Urey was a Deist at best. He didn't believe in an afterlife. He respected the Modern Judeo-Christian morality, and thought it was essential for the conduct of good science. He fully accepted evolution as a fact. The quote by scot regards the origin of life on earth, not evolution of species. He fully regarded the universe and earth as billions of years old. His own chemistry research helped show that, and helped show that the precursors of life can be naturally formed (see the famous Miller-Urey experiments, Miller was his grad student).
This kind of behavior by scot is reprehensible. This scot character is below pond scu.m. I don't care that the scot character says inane things about the science, it has less credibility than Paris Hilton. It makes scot a trashy person to misrepresent people, and for what purpose. Only to support their position on a blog. Yuk.
wanderingscot.. I think you actually find some aspects of evolution makes sense to you and, perhaps, shakes your unfounded faith . You seem unable to forward your case for creation so look to ridicule evolution instead..