It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Do We Know That THe Bible, Old Testiment, And The Torah Are True?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Skunky

I understand completely...

I used to feel exactly the same way.... My formal education created (LOL) that aspect of my character and I was stuck to that until the day I came to believe....

I am not faulting you, nor am I trying to disrupt the discussion, if that is what you perceive I will gladly "bow out" and you all can continue on...

I am being asked questions and responding to them as best I know how. I am not a Preacher and my advanced education is NOT in theology, so I am essentially a layman... Just telling you what I believe and why I believe it...


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:58 AM

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

The following set of methodological elements and organization of procedures tends to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of social sciences. In the social sciences mathematical and statistical methods of verification and hypotheses testing may be less stringent. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will resemble the cycle described below.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn had done extensive work on the "theory laden" character of observation. Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward". This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed".

Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry). The elements above are often taught in the educational system.

Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. It is also an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are reduced out from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — Newton's equations remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories, and observations that increase our confidence in them also increase our confidence in Newton's approximations to them.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[citation needed]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

While this schema outlines a typical hypothesis/testing method, it should also be noted that a number of philosophers, historians and sociologists of science (perhaps most notably Paul Feyerabend) claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways science is actually practiced.

The "operational" model combines the concepts of factory-style processing, operational definition, and utility:

The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating models.[citation needed]

* Operation - Some action done to the system being investigated
* Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system
* Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
* Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam's Razor.

The Keystones of Science project, sponsored by the journal Science, has selected a number of scientific articles from that journal and annotated them, illustrating how different parts of each article embody scientific method. Here is an annotated example of this scientific method example titled Microbial Genes in the Human Genome: Lateral Transfer or Gene Loss?.

is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.

One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of novel traits cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species. The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence. as a theory and fact

"Fact" vs "Theory"
A "fact" in science is an observation.
A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.

Scientists use many specialized terms, frequently attributing to common words meanings foreign to the layperson. In particular,

* A fact is an observation or a piece of data. Facts can include objective measurements which can be either pieces of verifiable evidence, or the results of an experiment which can be repeated over and over again by different people. For example, there are many observations of gravity and measurements of gravity. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity has been made. Gravity is measured every time something is weighed. So gravity can be described by scientists as a fact. This is because there is a collection of gravity observations that need to be explained. Objective observations are facts in scientific language.

* Theories in science are different from facts. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle's, Galileo's, Newton's, and now Einstein's. So gravity is also a theory. In science, current theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified, that is there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it (see Karl Popper). In no case did gravity disappear when a new theory was created; instead, the explanation for gravity was refined and improved.

G = Gravity... E = Evolution

G... Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other.
E... Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.

G... Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity.
E... Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.

Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact".

An explanation for the "facts" of gravity.
An explanation for the "facts" of evolution.

Aristotle and Galileo created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now discredited explanations.

Newton's explanation of gravity is approximately correct but required refinement.

Darwin's explanation of evolution is approximately correct, but required refinement.

Einstein's explanation is a refinement of Newton's explanation of gravity. Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity.

The Neo-Darwinist explanation is a refinement of Darwin's explanation of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution.

Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called The General theory of relativity.

The Neo-Darwinist explanation of the "fact" of evolution is the latest and most widely accepted Theory of Evolution.

Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."

This confusion between "fact" and "theory" in the study of evolution was explored in a well-known quote by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:

" Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
My "proof" lies in the changes in my life...

I know that you have all heard this before, but I was truly the ultimate believer in my own power, strength and independence...

You had/have every right too. Humanity should be proud of the accomplishments we and you have made. What kind of changes occurred in your life?

My past is one full of ME doing this and ME doing that. I have survived being shot, stabbed (More than once), numerous concussions, a skydiving accident, combat twice..... on and on and on...College graduate, logical thinker and doubter of all I could not see...

I truly thought I was on top of the world and indestructible.

Sounds like you where doing ok to me, a true surviver. What is wrong with you doing this and that? Sounds exciting, would you call your life exciting now, or is it all Church and Church bbq's and Church friend outings? Do you still hang out with sinners?

I then found the truth and my life changed...

The truth that I found worked through my life and changed me in so many ways I am not able to list them all here. Suffice it to say, I know what my life is all about now. I know why I am here, I know where I am going...
I know why everything works and I am excited and thrilled about what I know is next...

What is your life all about?
Can you explain it to me?
Why are you here?
What is this purpose you have discovered?
Do you find your self searching the bible or other theology books to answer questions?
Would you say you are content?
Do you still have a longing in your heart for something more?

All of this and more I owe to having Jesus as my personal savior and the Holy Spirit enter into my life.

I have been exactly like most of you that do not believe in God, and I am here for you if you have any questions....

Cool see above

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:01 AM
I am sure the next ploy will be to write all that off since it came from wikipedia. The fact remains that your average high school student (at least when I was in school) who has been half awake in science class can enunciate the scientific steps from hypothesis to fact.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
[Do you really think I have based my entire belief system or this discussion on the references from one source?

The point I'm making here is that the stuff you linked to is full of schoolboy errors. The guy doesn't have a clue about biology or evolution. If this is the level of evidential basis to your position, then all I can do is rofl.

You started by presenting Birddude's stuff as needing an open-mind, in fact, it needs an empty head and ignorance.

I couldn't care less whether you think that this guy has enough qualifications to alter the biological classification system, I will just show that this dude is talking BS.

And apparently we have no common ground..

Aye, I prefer evidence-based claims, rather than sophistry.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:11 AM
I have read quite a few creationist papers and not one of them, I repeat not one of them apply the scientific method to their assertion nor do any form of research that can be replicated in a formal peer review.

Every single one of them I have read either misinterpret existing data and/or take it out of context.

And now this is MY opinion. Science or evolution is not antithetical to faith unless you either do not understand it or want a conflict to begin with.

I have faith and it is not threatened by science; rather, it is enriched by the exploration and complexity of creation.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by LDragonFire

What kind of changes occurred in your life?

I began asking myself "Why am I here?" Is our life only to live and die? Is there more?
Perhaps the questioning of ones own existence, defines my actions...

Sounds like you where doing ok to me, a true surviver. What is wrong with you doing this and that? Sounds exciting, would you call your life exciting now, or is it all Church and Church bbq's and Church friend outings? Do you still hang out with sinners?

There was nothing wrong with what I "did"... It was what led me to where I am now...
My life is more fulfilling now.. I still get "into" some of the exciting stuff, but I am more about the "Investigation" side now and not the "First Responder" and of course there is nothing that compares to the experience in the Marines...

YES.. I still "hang out" with "Sinners"... Can't NOT do that.. WE ARE ALL SINNERS....

I am sure you meant with Non-Believers though so I will address that.. OF COURSE...
What if through my life and my actions, I can change ONE other life and help them come to believe.. HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE!!!!!!

1.What is your life all about?
2.Can you explain it to me?
3.Why are you here?
4.What is this purpose you have discovered?
5.Do you find your self searching the bible or other theology books to answer questions?
6.Would you say you are content?
7.Do you still have a longing in your heart for something more?

1. Eternity... Making sure that My Family and Myself are not lost and have the rest of eternity to look forward too
2. See above...
3. Because God still has plans for me... When I think of all the times I almost died, or just barely "slipped the noose" as it were, there must be more for me to accomplish here on earth.. Perhaps I am doing it now????
4. My purpose? That I still do not know, but I am excited to find out.. Again, maybe I am fulfilling my purpose..
5. I read the bible often, and yes I get answers there to questions about my life..
6. Content? ABSOLUTELY...
7. Longing? Not really.. I mean like anyone else, I want to be even more successful, better at my job, better at my marriage etc...


Grover as you already know what I am going to post, it is a waste of both our times for me to post it; is it not?


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:50 AM
A real debate would be nice especially considering you wanted "proof" and i went and found citations of what I had asserted and every one of those wiki links could and would take you to the originals, should you care to read them.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:03 AM
Do like I did and ask Jeshua(Jesus) if the bible is true, while you read through yours or someone else's bible(hopefully King James)
See what HE says.
Keep reading it.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:07 AM

I don't know how much further I can clarify that I will NOT debate attacks on my belief!!!

I have now said that 3 times...

I was asked questions by posters that wanted to know about my beliefs...

YOU entered the "Fray" with an attack on an article that I posted in reference to my beliefs, as usual...

Now you have even gone to the trouble to look up articles against what I believe...

Why are you fixated on my belief?

I don't care what you believe, can you not extend me the same courtesy?

It is YOUR eternity and not mine...

You ask for a debate, on what? What I believe? That is the definition of foolish...

Why would I feel the need to debate you on what "I" believe?

We have established that our "Ideals" are far too separate for us to come to any kind of "middle ground". I have accepted this and stopped posting arbitrarily against you on threads I was not invited too. Even then I attempt to avoid issues with you just to stop the maddening controversy...

Again, let me be clear....

These are MY beliefs
I do not require YOU to believe them
If a posters asks me about my beliefs, that DOES NOT mean I wish a debate.
I am posting answers to questions asked of me
If you do not agree with those answers, fine, but please do not expect me to "Debate" beliefs with you.


I did not WANT prrof, I simply advised you that YOUR opinions are not such..


[edit on 9/28/2007 by semperfortis]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

I don't give a rats ass about your belief Semper... that is between you and God, just as mine is.

I was not attacking anything. Get that through your head. You cited an article that had three verifiable flaws in its opening paragraph, I pointed them out and said quite clearly that it did not meet scientific standards.

You said that was my opinion so I went and found citations for my assertions.

So I have to ask permission to join in on a thread? I don't think so.

So according to your post above if I or anyone else makes a post that does not jive with your "beliefs' then it is only a matter of their opinion and not worth either debating or considering.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by grover]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:14 AM
Ok Grover,

You can have this one too...

Once the language goes so does the interest

Anyone that is seriously interested in what we are talking about, feel free to U2U me anytime...



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:22 AM
I have gone through the entire thread and my exchange with you semper and nowhere do I attack your beliefs, not once. If anything I criticized the lack of a scientific method.

If you take this as an attack, I apologize but the thin skin is on your side, not a belligerence on mine.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by Skunky

Yes thats true but like you stated, evidence does become questionable the farther back you go in time. Plus you have to look at the way evidence was recorded, take into account that what is common knowledge now wasn't then so things were looked a differently, and also hope the ones that collected the evidence did not tamper with it to better proof their own ideas or beliefs.

[edit on 09/4/2007 by wardk28]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
One thing that I think is very interesting to me about religion. Christians are constantly preaching thier religion, preaching thier faith trying to 'convert' other people's beliefs to christianity. No offense to anyone. But I find this interesting. Who are they preaching for? Their own souls? or are they actually trying to 'help' other people. I have found that it appears that most of the time many people are really only in it for themselves. They try to convert people, because it says they should in the bible. Because they believe they are doing good deeds and will thus go to heaven as a result.

Frankly, I respect the people that do not preach at all, I respect and listen to the people who seem to be genuinely compassionate and happy in life. Those are the people whos beliefs i would love to hear about. Live it, and people will see how happy you are, how compassionate you are and they will naturally want to know what you know. I find that sadly most people do not have this attitude.

And quite frankly. I do not want to hear about your beliefs. I want to see proof, I want to see science. I want facts, and I dont care how many times youve been shot, stabbed, burned, dumped, or spit on. I only care about one thing and one thing only. The truth. And I believe that the truth is self-evident. I believe that real truth will have facts, evidence AND experience and the whole shebang to back it up.

Belief is not all good. Those terrorists over there that we call evil. Yea, they BELIEVE that if they strap bombs and kill a bunch of us they will go to the highest heaven and have sex with 72 virgins. Awww, shouldnt we listen to them? Dont their beliefs hold merit? I bet they have all kinds of life experience and faith which makes them believe that is true. Does that make it so? NO. NO WAY.

Belief? Faith? It can go both ways, just like everything. Imagine a dog. That dog believes that humans are god. It has all kinds of life experience that says so. Humans magically get food and feed the dog. Humans tell the dog what the dog can and cant do. Does this make the humans god? All the evidence for the dog makes it seem so. And the dog would have WAY WAY more evidence for this being the truth then we have for our gods. Its all relative people.

Believe whatever you want to believe. But know, that just because you believe it. Doesnt make it true. Me? I have my beliefs. And they change as I gain knowledge. Im not going to tell you what I believe. What I believe is completely true and I live each and every day completely satisfied with everything. Lacking nothing and totally happy

Im not an athiest by the way. I just dont at all advocate blind faith, Or faith based on fear. This is samsara people. We will all suffer. It is the way of the world. God or no god. And by the way. There is countless thought experiments out there that call into question the existence of god. And equal thought experiments that there is a god.

Do you know how Einstein invented the Theory of Relativity? He had a dream, and he did thought experiments. Later it was prooven to be true in experiment. Do not underestimate the mind. But do not ovverestimate it either. (interesting to note that Einstein believed in god) but he sought to proove god through theory, and he couldnt do it. Thus his famous frustrated quote "I cannot believe that god plays dice with the universe!" But he didnt give up, he kept on working on his theory until the day that he died.


posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by gravytrain

Christians aren't the only ones who try to convert. I believe it was OBL that just a couple of weeks ago trying to convert America. Christians who try to convert to get into Heaven aren't true Christians because they should know that all you have to do is believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Everytime they preach at me, I get the feeling they are looking down their noses at me. I am a Christian so I don't need anyone to tell me how to be a Christian. Now if someone asked about God, I will tell them what and how I believe but other than that I leave it alone.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:56 PM
i can see that the arguments in this thread are just going back and forth with basicly no change. this is not what i wanted

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:52 PM
What I have a hard time understanding is the notion that science and the scientific method is somehow antithetical to faith.

The vast majority of the great scientists over the centuries have indeed been men of (often profound) faith. Blaise Pascal (1623/1662) comes to mind as does Sir Issac Newton and in more recent times figures like Teilhard De Chardin the Jesuit priest/paleontologist have spoke and written profound works of both science and faith.

All of them in their own ways saw science as a way to explore and explain the wonder of God's creation.

We can never know if the Bible, old and new, the Quran, the Upanisads or any of the religious, spiritual and mystical writings are true. There are always aspects of true history mingled in with myth and metaphor just as there are always aspects of myth and metaphor mingled in with true history. This is true of every one of the great religious texts from the Dialects to the Gospel and beyond.

And, in the long run it doesn't matter one iota. Matters spiritual are beyond the ken of the scientific method. Equally the scientific method can never embrace or explain matters of faith.

I don't worry about it.

I am a person of faith but my faith is wide and deep enough to embrace science as just one of the many branches of knowledge of which faith is another.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:17 PM
Well, in answer to the OP question: we won't ever know for certain if the accounts in religious scriptures are accurate or even true at all.

But ask yourself this: do you really believe Mary was a virgin who became impregnated with a child by divine intervention? Do you really believe it is possible to change water into wine or walk on water? Do you really accept that the whole universe was created by a supreme supernatural being? Do you think that the world was created in seven days? Do you believe that originally there was a beautiful garden in which a man and a woman were tempted into eating an apple by snake? Do you accept the story of Noah building a vast (and it would have to be vast) boat to contain all the forms of life we now know and save them from global flooding? Is the Earth really only 6,000 years old? Do you believe the supreme creator of the entire universe is indifferent to the effects of his creations such as severe weather, drought, disease, famine and other forces of nature which can indiscriminately kill thousands of people, young and old? Yet answer the prayers of a small handful of people concerned about a single sick relation, a cat stuck up a tree, a job interview, a lone walk down a darkened street etc? If God made man in his own image, does that mean the Earth is the focal point of all creation and that all other life forms are just scenery? Do you think it is acceptable to look at all of life as we know it on this planet, from viruses to great whales and believe that only humans have a direct spiritual link to the supreme creator of everything because we have a brain capable of looking up at the sky and asking "Why?" Do you think it is a sufficient response to questions such as these when you answer "I know it to be true because I have faith and that is a virtue" and "We are not to understand the will of God" and "Science and spiritual matters do not mix"?

Why should I automatically 'respect' the religious views of others, not question them and expect no satisfying defense of them in response purely because they are 'faith'?

And, above all, there is no compelling proof that any religious scripture you care to name is accurate at all, and no compelling evidence of any nature that God exists. Faith is not proof.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by Skunky

i totaly agree with you. my parents and grandparents are religious( my parents aren't that religious but are christian) and yet me and my sister don't believe in god, my brother thinks that there is a higher being but doesn't really follow a religion. my sister and i have almost the same mind it's weird. i don't really know where i'm going with this but...

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in