The Bible - The Outdated Scientific Paper

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyushua

i liked what mrwupy said. ( sorry i dont know how to do quotes)
Any and everything you read or hear about God is just an opinion.

end quote


When I first signed up, I didn't know how to do "quotes" either. It bothered me, when it seemed so easy for everyone else. So, I finally just asked, and got plenty of helpful responses. Now, I guess it's my turn to try to help.

If you are quoting from another person's post in the same thread, it's easy. You just click on the "quote" button at the top right of everyones posts. It's blue. Anyway, it will take you to a regular posting place, just like when you go to post normally, except that it will begin with something like:

the whole post of the person you are quoting
(now, because I was showing you the format, when I post this, the words inbetween the two "quotes" will come out looking just like the quotes you see.

Anyway, you usually don't want to quote a whole post of somebody's, (the mods don't like it), so just delete everything that you don't want to include in your quote. Usually just put enough so that people will understand who it is that you are responding to, and if you are making a point about a certain sentence or two of their post, just delete everything but that part, leaving the final there at the end. Then just go down a line or two, and write whatever yhou want to write.

If you are quoting from an article or something that is somewhere else on the web, you can just copy and paste it into your post, you just have to add your own "

and [/quote" to it.

Hope that helps.




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I think the initial posting presents a very useful way of looking at the Bible, and I agree with it, in the sense that it is an early attempt at explaining the world and why it is the way it is. And that's what science is all about. I'm giving the poster one of my votes for the ATS Award.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by e 2 e k 1 a 7
The bible is nothing more then a theory, just like evolution is a theory, no one knew how we got here, so Darwin thought about it and came up with evolution just as people came up with God.


But you are not factoring in the people who read the Bible and come to God through Christ and then have a personal relationship with Him and we talk to God and He talks to us(literally).



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Thre is no getting around the scientific aspect og Genesis one through two.

Theory of the universe's existence: and the Lord said.

Theory o fman's existence: And teh Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.

Theory of our knowledge and length of life: trees.

Theory behind God's existence, all of above and well into Deuteronomy.

The rest is all political then historial.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Thre is no getting around the scientific aspect og Genesis one through two.

Theory of the universe's existence: and the Lord said.

Theory o fman's existence: And teh Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.

Theory of our knowledge and length of life: trees.

Theory behind God's existence, all of above and well into Deuteronomy.

The rest is all political then historial.



Perhaps if I had just one small tab of acid, I could understand what you just wrote.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Babloyi and Mahree.

Also agreeing with Nygdan for the most part (though I do think reason is quintessential to the Bible).

If it is 'old science', I'd like to add them to the Public School Cirrculum with the others. Things I learned in school that were old science:

- Phlogiston
- Geocentric Universe
- Crystalline Sphere Theory
- Panspermia

And of course the most logical theory of them all:

- Spontaneous Generation

(cut and paste from vilenski.org...)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years, people observed that living things seemed to suddenly appear from nonliving things. For example, when meat was left out, flies and worms seemed to appear on the meat. Frogs popped out of mud. There was even a recipe written that if you put grain in a corner and covered it with rags, it would make mice! As a result of these observations, the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was developed. The Theory states that living things come from nonliving things.

For many years, people believed in this theory, including many theologians and scientists starting in the Middle Ages. Believers included Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, William Harvey and even Sir Isaac Newton.

The first scientist who successfully attempted to disprove this theory is Francesco Redi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to those who say the Bible is not valid, but is an old science book, let's add it to science history as the above theories are at present. What do you say?



[edit on 14-3-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 14-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Thre is no getting around the scientific aspect og Genesis one through two.

Theory of the universe's existence: and the Lord said.

Theory o fman's existence: And teh Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.


You do have a point there and I have believed it all my life. The "Creation Theory" that cannot be taught as science facts in public education institutions.

A very small part of the Bible. Couple of chapters? To us who believe in the Bible, a couple of very important chapters. That hardly makes the other 1500 and some odd pages a scientific paper.

If it bothers you so much why don't you do as Saint4God suggested and file it with the other outdated science?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
indeed the bible is just a theory, and at that a theory that was derived from other beliefs since thousands of religions existed before christianity.

that's like me writing a book on the theory of relativity and putting my name in the title, 'the theory of relativity - by shaun'.

it's pretty much what the bible did. same stories, different names, same plot, different people, same myths and legends altered. after all you don't want to make it too much like you copied someone elses myth...or did they merely copy...

According to Hindu literature, Krishna, the eighth incarnation of the god Vishnu, was born to the virgin Devaki in fulfilment of prophecy and was visited by wise men that had been guided to him by a star. Angels also announced the birth to herdsmen in the nearby countryside. When King Kansa heard about the miraculous birth of this child, he sent men to "kill all the infants in the neighbouring places," but a "heavenly voice" whispered to the foster father of Krishna (who, incidentally, was a carpenter) and warned him to take the child and flee across the Jumna River... In this Hindu legend, we can recognize many parallels to the infancy of Jesus other than the virgin birth element. Is this just coincidence, or is the bible’s story of the virgin birth, wise men guided by a star just a Hindu legend with Jesus’ name in place of Krishna.

But surely they wouldn't copy anything other myths and legends...or did they?...

The name ‘Buddha’ never really associates with Christianity, yet you would be surprised to find out that his life was identical to that of Jesus Christ. This ‘Buddha’ is not one person, it’s a compiled of legends, myths and other fairytales to create this ‘Buddha’, of which was created many centuries before Jesus. Below are examples of how similar the life of Buddha was to Jesus:

* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the Queen of Heaven.
* He was of royal descent.
* He crushed a serpent's head.
* He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a small basket of cakes, and walked on water.
* He abolished idolatry, was a sower of the word, and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness. He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
* He was transfigured on a mount.
* Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
* He ascended to heaven.
* Buddha was considered the Good Shepherd", the Carpenter, the Infinite and Everlasting.
* He was called the "Saver of the World" and the "Light of the World.

two legend/myths before Jesus, yet almost identical...mere copies or is the story of jesus still inspired by god, or perhaps god rips off other religions by stealing their scriptures?...it's laughable, it really is.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
You do have a point there and I have believed it all my life. The "Creation Theory" that cannot be taught as science facts in public education institutions.
The creation theory is not science, it is a blatant attempt to avoid science.


A very small part of the Bible. Couple of chapters? To us who believe in the Bible, a couple of very important chapters. That hardly makes the other 1500 and some odd pages a scientific paper.
the two most important chapters of the good book without which the rest would be absolutely meaningless in the great scheme known as religion.


If it bothers you so much why don't you do as Saint4God suggested and file it with the other outdated science?
I have no idea what this living person calling themself saint, suggested, nor do I care. And if what bothers me?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Mahree
You do have a point there and I have believed it all my life. The "Creation Theory" that cannot be taught as science facts in public education institutions.



by SomewhereinBetween: The creation theory is not science, it is a blatant attempt to avoid science.


You are right again. It is not "theory". I misspoke. God is the Creator and this is His story of Creation. All true, and in my faith, I believe.


by Mahree: A very small part of the Bible. Couple of chapters? To us who believe in the Bible, a couple of very important chapters. That hardly makes the other 1500 and some odd pages a scientific paper.



by SomewhereinBetween: the two most important chapters of the good book without which the rest would be absolutely meaningless in the great scheme known as religion.


Again you are correct. I am happy that you see that.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Your entire point is based on a joke. You state that it makes sense by merely setting religion aside to look at the issue--um, duh.

Murder makes sense when setting aside morals. Psychotic behavior makes sense when setting aside common sense. Your theory makes sense when setting aside religion.

In other words, bullcrap. The Bible is not scientific and can't be looked at scientifically. It is a matter of faith--if you don't have enough, then naturally the Bible won't reveal itself to you.


So according to your logic, murder actually makes sense when you have faith in killing? And psycho behavior is a beautiful thing when you simply believe in it?

If god created everything, please ask him to explain logic to me.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Good post, Shaun.

There's more examples of "borrowing" than you mentioned, but mentioning those as well won't matter. That would make too much sense...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat

Originally posted by theyushua

i liked what mrwupy said. ( sorry i dont know how to do quotes)
Any and everything you read or hear about God is just an opinion.

end quote


When I first signed up, I didn't know how to do "quotes" either. It bothered me, when it seemed so easy for everyone else. So, I finally just asked, and got plenty of helpful responses. Now, I guess it's my turn to try to help.
:


thanks for the help.

anyway,

don't they (being the scientific community) have proof of evolution? i thought they did.

and doesn't dinosaurs totally contradict (i think i spelled that wrong) the bible?

genesis is more of a story than a theory. most things in the bible are contradicted (again, i think its wrong) by modern science.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by theyushua]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyushua
anyway,

don't they (being the scientific community) have proof of evolution? i thought they did.


Nope, but if you'd like to read up on the links discussed about it before, here they are:

Creationists...What will it take?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evolution...where is the evidence? I see none:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(patience please, need to grab the links)


Originally posted by theyushua
and doesn't dinosaurs totally contradict (i think i spelled that wrong) the bible?


Debateable. I see no conflict between dinosaurs and the Bible.


Originally posted by theyushua
genesis is more of a story than a theory. most things in the bible are contradicted (again, i think its wrong) by modern science.


For example?


[edit on 14-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
they do don't they? wouldn't all of the periods ( jerassic, mezzoic) interfere with the 5 days in which god created the earth?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theyushua
they do don't they? wouldn't all of the periods ( jerassic, mezzoic) interfere with the 5 days in which god created the earth?


I've had a little bug in my mind about this. I've heard that in the Bible it says that a mans life is but a blink in the eye of God. So how many times a day does a human blink? (on average) We are after all made in Gods image.

Since the Bible also says the average man lives three score and some odd years...(or was that Abe Lincoln?)

I'm wondering if anyone has ever done the math on this.

Maybe by reading the Bible the very book itself can prove evolution is real, For if the math in the Bible added up to the time scientist say that we've been around...it would actually validate the message...

OK, forget it. Like I said, it was just a bug in my mind.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the Queen of Heaven.
* He was of royal descent.
* He crushed a serpent's head.
* He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a small basket of cakes, and walked on water.
* He abolished idolatry, was a sower of the word, and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness. He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
* He was transfigured on a mount.
* Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
* He ascended to heaven.
* Buddha was considered the Good Shepherd", the Carpenter, the Infinite and Everlasting.
* He was called the "Saver of the World" and the "Light of the World.

Not that I know anything about Buddhism, but I was wondering... I thought the story of Buddha goes that he was the son of the KING and QUEEN. I don't see how he could have come from a virgin. Also, I did not realise that there was any concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism. Also, this is the first I had heard of Buddha being crucified. Sin-atonement? I thought the concept of the original sin (the 1st sin passing down through all humanity, making them inherently sinful) was unique to Christianity.
Not that I am disrespecting Buddha in anyway. I always wanted to learn a bit more about his teachings. However, from what I have read, it seemed to me that Buddhism was more an ideology and way of living, to obtain a fulfilled life, than an actual religion.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
he was born of a king and queen, hence the royal blood line. king suddodhana and queen maya of kapilavatthu. legend has it that queen maya was walking in lumpini park and started to have the baby. Whether or not this was a virgin birth is a myth, the same as the mary virgin birth.

i thought i'd throw some more virgin births that happened before jesus...

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

Been male. Lived in pre-Christian times. Had a god for a father. Human virgin for a mother. Had their birth announced by a heavenly display. Had their birth announced by celestial music. Been born about DEC-25. Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant Met with a violent death. Rose again from the dead. Almost all were believed to have: Been visited by "wise men" during infancy. Fasted for 40 days as an adult."

from these it hard to believe that the prophecies of the virgin birth in the old testament weren't merely copied from other religions, as the concept of virgin birth somehow showed devinity.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Heheh...you misunderstand me. I was not questioning the fact that the virgin birth may not be exclusive to Christianity. I was questioning about Buddha specifically. I have heard the story of his birth (the queen walking in a park, dreaming that an elephant "pierced" her, and then giving birth), but I never got the impression that the child was not the king's.

BTW, didn't Hercules/Osiris come out of the top of their respective father's heads? I wouldn't exactly call that a virgin birth.

Once again, not trying to disprove you, just trying to clear things up



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
have I mentioned lately that it's nice having you around? Well, in case I haven't, It's nice having you around.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join