It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Bible Still Relevant in the 21st Century? What If Anything Needs to be Changed?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: kumiho
a reply to: Ghost147

And when did we start to write down empirical data on the Universe? Do we know how ? No, can we observe the Universe over a distance of billions of lightyears, sure.. Still lacks something doesnt it? If i observe a human when he is 30, take a photo, what can i tell? A bipedal, primate wearing wool from a sheep.. Thats the data isnt it?

Imagination is a real treat when it comes to reality isnt it


You're misunderstanding one concept. Subjective observation (as in, personally viewed events) are intrinsically susceptible to falsehoods. We each experience things differently to some degree, and those experiences can be influenced by external factors.

A good example would be with a person who has Monochromacy Colorblindness. According to subjective observation, color doesn't exist, for them. So how do they know color exists? Through Objective observation. They know color exists not just because we tell them it does, but because we actually know the mechanisms that allow organisms to see color. We know that dogs see less colors than we do because their eyes have less cones than we do. Us knowing this is also a form of Objective observation. We can't personally see through a dogs eyes, but we know what causes color identity in sight, and therefore we objectively know what a dog's eyes can see.

The same type of objective observation applies to all sciences. As you stated, we can we detect objects in space billions of light years away, and we know the speed of light, and we know the history of the speed of light, so the light we detect that's billions of light years away indicates to us that the universe is at least that old. However, it goes further than this, we also see other things, like the position and movement of galaxies, we can calculate the gravity that they give off and how it effects other galaxies, and that too leads back to the same conclusion that we had with light. Yet there are even more things that allow us to calculate the age of the universe, such as background radiation, and it's expansion, which also confirms our two previous conclusions.

So after all those confirmations through multiple sources, and multiple different methods, what out there suggests that the universe isn't as old as those multiply confirmed sources?




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Seeing how the Bible is the foundation of western law and civilization i would think it relevant



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

It still goes without saying if you have any respect for any collection of literature, you will not add to or take away from it.

The Bible is still relevant. It shows us where we've been (Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hithite, all considered mythical at one point), where we are (wars and rumours of wars) and where we are going. On top of that, it teaches us how to preserve a nation and walk in the ways of God. Only a fool would suggest removing the Bible from the public.

The fact that there are still millions of people who at least try to live by the Bible today proves that it is not irrelevant.


edit on 7-2-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: expanded point



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You wrote QUOTE "I would say if anyone had respect for the Bible, they would heed the above warning UNQUOTE excerpt from [Rev 22:17]

The warning placed at the end of the Apocalypse of Yohanon was meant only for that book ('to him shall be added the plagues mentioned in this book...") and not for any purported collection of scripture. Context is everything. Read it again.





Thank you!

Saved me some typing lol




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You Are mixing a spectrum, with observational data, "theories" are not part of empirical data.. Theories are human imagination trying to place something unknown in a paradigm.. Look the five visible planets, empirical data stretching 11kya. Now 10 billion years and the Big Bang "theory" and it ended with a theory



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

You wrote QUOTE Seeing how the Bible is the foundation of western law and civilization i would think it relevant ..UNQUOTE

Actually most Western Democracies use Graeco-Roman models not Hebrew ones; we modeled a great deal in the US on Greece and Rome via Britain, and far less on e.g. Mosaic Law which is hardly a foundation for western civilization...not that the stories in the Bible were not well known (especially in e.g. the Middle Ages)...

You won’t exactly find democracy in the Old Testament or even the NT. That was not the form of government the biblical states of Israel and Judah took. You will find a Theocracy. You will find clan-chiefs ('kings') you find a people who see their clan-god as their king, ruling through his priestly (and often corrupt) agents here on earth. The Founding Fathers of the US, with the more recent (and equally corrupt) example of the Papacy and the Church of England before them, wanted none of this theocratic influence.

Thomas Jefferson:

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” (Letter to o Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814)

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” (Letter to Jeremiah Moor, 1800)

James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”:

“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” (Letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774)

Not that any of this stopped Geo. Washington from taking the oath of office on a Masonic Bible !




edit on 7-2-2016 by Sigismundus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Saved us some reading too.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Haha... Good point

At least it would be accurate reading




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Well its mostly a historical document, believe its history or not, not a matter of should recorded history be changed or not.

Might get a few bitter atheists saying its should be or its irrelevant, though to suggest it be changed, how and why and to what

Oh and another atheist who doesnt know how to understand text, your comprehension skills are that of a comic book readers.


edit on 7-2-2016 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Yes, it is.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
If the Bible was relevant...perhaps Christians would act like this verse mattered...



1 Corinthians 13:4-

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kumiho
a reply to: Ghost147

You Are mixing a spectrum, with observational data, "theories" are not part of empirical data.. Theories are human imagination trying to place something unknown in a paradigm.. Look the five visible planets, empirical data stretching 11kya. Now 10 billion years and the Big Bang "theory" and it ended with a theory


You're mixing the conventional use of the word 'theory' with the scientific use of the word 'theory'. The conventional one is absolutely speculative, the scientific one is backed by evidence and has gone through an enormous about of tests and confirmations by ten's, hundred's, sometimes thousands of different researchers.

Of course, I just posted my opinion on the matter (in my original post), if you want to discuss scientific matters, I'd be glad to meet you in a topic where it applies to the OP



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

That's strange. I consider religion as philosophy and nothing more. Usually we don't rewrite the same philosophy book again and again, but we just write another, we produce something new. If what all the philosophers in history had done was to rewrite what Aristotle wrote, we wouldn't have progressed an inch.

So let's write another book with 21th century knowledge. This is so much more sane.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: Sigismundus

That's strange. I consider religion as philosophy and nothing more. Usually we don't rewrite the same philosophy book again and again, but we just write another, we produce something new. If what all the philosophers in history had done was to rewrite what Aristotle wrote, we wouldn't have progressed an inch.

So let's write another book with 21th century knowledge. This is so much more sane.


Well spoken. I can agree to this.

It would be an interesting read



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

1 Corinthians 13:4-

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.


It's a wonderful definition of love. Which part doesn't matter?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus All scripture is inspired by God and is beneficial for teaching, for reproving and for setting things straight.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Sigismundus

The fact that there are still millions of people who at least try to live by the Bible today proves that it is not irrelevant.



That is no argument AT ALL. Here is why www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: chr0naut

You wrote "Also, those sections that you quoted included additions that are not in or supported by the original texts (things like YHWH being a clan-god). They were also removed from the context they were in. I'm sure I could do that with a newspaper story or "The Origin of the Species" to make them imply things they don't actually say" UNQUOTE

יהוה אלהיכם (your own god YHWH) really means 'YHWH your clan-god' (KJV The LORD your God) in that it is the clan-god of Yisro'el - just as other nations had their own gods that gave them their own lands...

see Judges 11:24

הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יוֹרִישְׁךָ, כְּמוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶיךָ--אוֹתוֹ
תִירָשׁ; וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, מִפָּנֵינוּ
אוֹתוֹ נִירָשׁ

Will you not possess that which Chemosh thy clan-god gives you to possess? So whomsoever YHWH our clan-god (YHWH Elohenu) hath dispossessed from before us, them will we possess...

You can see at a glance that 'elohim' in contexts such as 'your god' or 'our god' is clan-based language as the above quote suggests.

clear as mud?



The segment of Hebrew text of Deutoronomy 25: 19 says simply "YHWH Elohim" (with no conjunctive or explanatory text), which translates to "Yahweh God", not the "Lord THY God". It is a fault of the King James Bible that they based it largely on the Septuagint Greek translation and the Vulgate Latin translation where distinctions of the names and titles of God were confused by limitations in the other languages. To miss that and imply that the "THY" mistranslation means a 'clan-god' where no such epithet exists, is compounding the error.

YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, is the given name of God, revealed by God to Moses. The Hebrew interpretation of the four letters is 'I am who I am' but the Paleo-Hebrew meanings of the letters is 'behold' (the) 'nail or hook', 'behold' (the) 'hand & wrist'.

"Elohim" is a word that means 'God' or 'Gods'. The plurality of the word has been taken to be honorific i.e: 'God of all Gods' and similar to the word "Adonai" which means 'Lords' but when applied singularly denotes 'Lord of all Lords'. It is used throughout the Old Testament interchangeably as a title and as a name of God. When they are testing to see whether Baal is God, the specific wording is to find out if "Baal is Elohim". In this instance, we see the word "Elohim" is obviously a title and cannot be construed to mean "your God" or "our God".

The use of the word "Elohim" in Judges 11:24, again does not imply "your God" or "our God", for the reasons as before, and so cannot be manipulated to be understood as "clan-God".


edit on 7/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: olaru12

1 Corinthians 13:4-

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.


It's a wonderful definition of love. Which part doesn't matter?


It dosen't seem to matter to the Christians I encounter here on ATS. Most of them seem to be arrogant, holier than thou,
mean spirited, right wing hypocrites.

It never even crosses their mind to ask.... "what would Jesus do"
edit on 7-2-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: THAnomalous1
a reply to: Sigismundus All scripture is inspired by God and is beneficial for teaching, for reproving and for setting things straight.




Yet another quote... Misused In this thread

Paul was not talking about the NT




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join