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.

 

Evidence for and against the Bible

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stellasag

Personally, I believe the Bible is real and very valid. How could such a motley bunch of individuals (Moses would have been highly educated whilst living in Egypt, Peter was a fisherman, Daniel became on par with a modern Prime Minister etc) contribute to a book that is overwhelmingly uniform in prose, thought and direction? To me, there seems to just have been one Author.

And that's my two cents!



Here! Here! And I couldn't agree with you more.......




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Amuk I do not have the time to get the numbers, but the last figure I saw said the odds of the code being but chance in just the Isaiah one I quoted above were well over 10^80th power, that to an engineer is close to what the Calculus refers to as INFINITY.

I can not put a physical object in your hands that you can hold to prove it to you.............it cant be done and that is ON PURPOSE. It is a faith thing but the signs are there.......



These codes can be found in moby dick so obviously the probability isnt 1/10^80th power. How does one figure these odds anyway, when people have only searched very few books for it.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.



Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!


THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence



THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.





this site makes a good rational case imho, but again it must be your own journey the time when you look up and ask why? Then naturally you will ask who?



A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD


well can i not through the question of where did god come from back at you. Nad saying god i all eternal is just as bad to me as me saying matter has just always been there is to you. so that cant be your answer.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by edsinger

Because God is not bound by the Physics that you and I are.......He is after all the Creator right?


If I understand the idea of the singularity it was not bound by physics either. Everything started with it. Before it there were neither time or space.

Why is that impossible but God is not.

Try explaining without saying because the Bible says so.




Ok an all powerful 'creator' creates the universe yet limits the power 'He' can yield within His creation?

God always was, is, and always will be....................

Humans are not meant to understand that, heck we barely understand creation let alone how it was done.......


There is no way to be sure of or to prove this, other than the bible says so, so even though you didnt say those words your whole argument goes right back to it.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Since I have never read the entire Bible, I have a question for whoever has. Anywhere in the Bible does it ever say the "God" in the Bible created the Universe or is that just assumed?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Haven't read the entire bible either, but God not creating the universe would be a pretty big thing to miss. The first sentence in Genesis is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Generally taken to mean "The Universe".

My evidence against the Bible is pretty simple. If God wrote it (or "inspired" it to be written), WHY is it SO complicated? It is so difficult to understand that Christians have to come up with a new theory every few years just to make it valid. If it was indeed attributed to God, it should be the clearest simplest and most enthralling book ever. God would be the greatest author (or co-author) ever, so the Bible should have been on the Best Seller lists since even before there was a best seller list.
It is no use saying that "you must be filled with the holy spirit to understand it" or "you have to study it many years before understanding it". If it were truly the God inspired story of Jesus, it should be obvious to even the most skeptical person. If the Bible was the word of God, there would be no need for Christians to go through all the trouble of converting people. They would just hand them a bible.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
@Jehosephat
You claim that archeology condirmed the existence of Nazareth at the time
JC was supposed to have liven;sorry,but, as to my knowledge,they just
bring proof of the opposite:
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Baloria



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I see a lot of post quoting the Bible. People forget that the Bible is not a 100% of the teachings that where around when Roman Christians put the bible together. There are books that they left out and some that they tried to destroy.

That’s because there was different sects and different views on Christ and God. The ones that where strongest where kept, those sects that where weaker, where destroyed. The Gnostics believed God was the evil physical God and Jesus was the good spiritual God. There is the book of Peter, Thomas. These where left out. Why, the Church did not like its message. Some ended up in the Koran. Even Bibles are different, from Mormons to the Catholic. They have some chapters that other Bibles do not have, so if you are going to mention the Bible, you have to say which one.

It is not just the New Testament that has differences to where you are in the world. In Africa they have different books in there Bibles; one is a different book of Geneses, where Eve is tricked 3 times by Satan.

There is vast misunderstanding on Jewish thought and philosophy from the Romans.

Religious dogma is defiantly flawed, just listen to the different sects and read all the different texts out there. They will contradict each other.

I believe in a Creator and that can not be proved, but the Bible and Koran and the Torah. They all think they are the chosen ones. Religious dogma is very flawed.


The Bible code cannot predict the Future. That’s right, it can’t. I know some will say that it predicted the assignation of Prime Minster of Israel. That is one prediction all the rest are after the fact. Also you never hear about all the predictions they predicted that never happened, like Al gore winning the election. The have had hundreds that they tried to predict that where wrong.
Does not sound like divine work to me.


[edit on 8-5-2005 by Snowman9]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by infinite
What more evidence do you want??


How about evidence the universe is 6000 years old?


Do you have proof to backup that according to the bible or according to christianity humanity is just 6000 years old?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
This site shows the conflict in the age of Earth between creationists and geologist estimate:
www.religioustolerance.org...

This adds to my earlier point that the earth is around 4.54 billion years old and around 6,00-10,000 years ago we were contacted by aliens maybe.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Haven't read the entire bible either, but God not creating the universe would be a pretty big thing to miss. The first sentence in Genesis is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Generally taken to mean "The Universe".

My evidence against the Bible is pretty simple. If God wrote it (or "inspired" it to be written), WHY is it SO complicated? It is so difficult to understand that Christians have to come up with a new theory every few years just to make it valid. If it was indeed attributed to God, it should be the clearest simplest and most enthralling book ever. God would be the greatest author (or co-author) ever, so the Bible should have been on the Best Seller lists since even before there was a best seller list.
It is no use saying that "you must be filled with the holy spirit to understand it" or "you have to study it many years before understanding it". If it were truly the God inspired story of Jesus, it should be obvious to even the most skeptical person. If the Bible was the word of God, there would be no need for Christians to go through all the trouble of converting people. They would just hand them a bible.


Pirate to pirate.

The bible is formatted to be open to interpretation by the individual, in order to make them decide between good and evil, what behaviors are good and which are bad. Unfortunately this also has the oppisite effect too, people assume that the bible allows certain sins and others are condemned. It is a way to coax the person to put forth effort and find god, by living as jesus did. That's all really.

Don't beilieve in the bible really, it is just heresay to me, but it still is a path to spiritual enlightenment, and that I will not deny.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Pirate to pirate.

The bible is formatted to be open to interpretation by the individual, in order to make them decide between good and evil, what behaviors are good and which are bad. Unfortunately this also has the oppisite effect too, people assume that the bible allows certain sins and others are condemned. It is a way to coax the person to put forth effort and find god, by living as jesus did. That's all really.

Don't beilieve in the bible really, it is just heresay to me, but it still is a path to spiritual enlightenment, and that I will not deny.


Yaarrrr, me booty. Dang...just doesn't work. Guess that's why I am a wannabe pirate


That is a nice interpretation, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Unfortunately, the Church has created 1 interpretation of the Bible, which if you don't agree with, you are a heretic.
Live like Jesus did. Now that's good advice



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Many here it seems are misconstruing the concept of the BIBLE and God.

The Bible as stated begins with the Old Testament which is an "account" of the history of the Jewish people. Much could be factual, and, of course, much could be "dreamed up".

The New Testament is an account of Jesus, the son of man.

I read a lot of back and forth about God. However, I don't read a lot of back and forth about the BIBLE.

The BIBLE-the book that was put together by Emperor Constatine. The one that has in it what he wanted, and the one that does not have what he didn't want in it.

It has been rewritten several times-by several men. All with much different writings in it if you put 20 of them down next to each other, and read a book.

I'm a firm believer in GOD. To doubt the existence of such is doubting the existence of ones self. However, after that as everyone who is a thinker would know, it becomes a free for all.

Now we have BIBLE preachers kicking members out of their churches for not being a member of their "flock". If this is what the Bible teaches I have no need for it.

However, the teachings of Jesus for the most part are good. They are a true testament of how each should treat each other. Except in a few cases where man has changed his words to keep the FEAR factor in.

Perhaps that would be a good reality TV show. "THE BIBLE FEAR FACTOR".



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Exactly, you can refrence some other threads on this same matrial. The bible was not written by him, just artfully composed, using some texts that fit his conception of what this new and "uniting" religion should be. A way to unite the christians and the pagans.

There are other "supplemantal" texts, such as the apocrapha (sp. ?) Why is it that some of the deciples texts were used in the new testament, and others carelessly omitted?

Constantine wanted to portray jesus as a diety, not as simply a mortal man. This leaves the text completely open to interpretation. This is what he wanted, because if the text was too absolute, then the people would not accept is as a new religion.

****It is not a unique spiritual journey, if you believe exactly what the church tells you you may end up in trouble. SOME churches can become corrupt, and believe it or not, it is possible for a preist to misinterperit the text. In a sermon (which is preaching and not teaching, read some Nithaniel Hawthorne, to see the style I'm talking about) The preist usually uses shock value, and fear, to sway the congregation to beileve that ther is only one way to interperit the bible. But after all it is just the bible, and I would never, ever use it as a refrence text in an important paper.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I've noticed in these pages of discussion everyone talk about the historical record. My question is, what about current evidence? I'd like to propose the challenge of reading a book like Matthew for example, and applying the teachings it gives to handle everyday situations. Go under the supposition that the information given is correct and try it out. Some of it may not seem like the best thing at first, but in the end turns out that way. So, if it turns out to work, would that not speak towards its validity?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I want to ask you saint, beczuse you are apparently very well read when it comes to the bible. Does the bible give you exact guidelines for your life, or do you find yourself making an interperetation of the moral/lesson of each bible passage? Is it possible to misinterperit the text itself? Whose intereperitation is correct?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Great Topic !

I am a Christian myself and am very intersted in the facts of the bible from creationism to dinosaurs to archeological finds form the ark of the covenant to finding the streets where Jesus walked ect....

Check these sites out:

www.christiananswers.net...

www.khouse.org...

Happy Hunting !





posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
1. The new testment and the old testiment were wrote over a long period groups of years. Yet the new testement fulfilles the old testiment in all ways. No evidence has ever proven that the new testment does not contridict the old testiment.

2. In the bible, varies time Jesus was claimed to be perfect in various books, he also did what the old testement commanded. There is yet, no evidence shown once that he contridicted the old testement. He lived a perfect life, and it is backed by the old testament.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by naughtonbynature]

[edit on 13-2-2007 by naughtonbynature]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
i would like everyone to go read the bible of the demons being cast out of the people and then cast into swine who ten proceed to run down a hill into the sea

then look at a map of ancient palestine and realize the insane amount of distance they would have had to travel to reach a body of water of any substantial size



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by naughtonbynature
1. The new testment and the old testiment were wrote over a long period groups of years. Yet the new testement fulfilles the old testiment in all ways. No evidence has ever proven that the new testment does not contridict the old testiment.


there's a reason that the new testament wouldn't contradict the old testament
the people writing the new one could have had a copy of the old one for reference



2. In the bible, varies time Jesus was claimed to be perfect in various books, he also did what the old testement commanded.


and then some
he was born of a young girl like isaiah said he would
but he took it a step further and was born of a virgin



There is yet, no evidence shown once that he contridicted the old testement. He lived a perfect life, and it is backed by the old testament.


well, he wasn't named emmanuel...
so he does contradict one of the main tennants of the messiah

also, the story of his life varies and there is a credible argument that the man didn't exist



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join