The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 34
25
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Wow!!! Who died and made this thread sane??? Excellent recent posts.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


That is pretty close to what I was going for. Most often times it is the hardcore believer in the word that feels it is a duty to convert or condemn those who do not follow them. This is the reason that most theistic views spread so quickly, we as a nation get falsly labeled as a "christian nation" despite our foundation on the "Freedom of Religion" AND "Freedom FROM Religion"

Most atheists keep their lack of belief in a God a secret because there is just too much stigma, aggression or pure hatred forced upon them. I know many people who don't beleive yet they put up the facade for the sake of peace within their respective religious families.

Considering I think that the bible is fake and in no way the word of God, I will concede to one point. I cannot deny as an atheist, a scientist, or a person of logic that in the right hands, a logical person with a level temperment can use its passages to guide their life in a positive manner as they search for meaning. I do not claim to know the truth, no on on this earth living can tell us the ulitmate truth, in either direction, spiritual or scientific. There is lots of evidence to support scientific claims, but we all are still human and we all seek to understand why we are here and what our purpose is.

Living for the here and now is the most important. If you take away Religion completely and you take away the need to prove or validate our existance, aren't we all just "being?" Our energy, our life force may be nothing but a series of atoms smashing against each other to move our muscles and make us think, but we are exanding, reaching out to one another so that we do not feel that we are taking this journey alone, when in fact we are here together following the same path through the jungle. Some of us stop to look at the flowers along the way, others are just concerned about finishing first, I personally like to slow the pace and enjoy the air because I know that no matter what I believe in, I will eventually come to the end of my jungle path and have to step back into the very place I started.

Where this is, I do not know, and I am actually glad I don't know because that makes my journey that much more special. My lack of faith allows me to take everything as special. I'm not saying that theists do not as well, but in the case of atheists like me, we do not look forward to continuing on, we enjoy what we are gifted with now and try and make it last as long as possible because we never know what's outside of the jungle.

King

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Kingalbrect79]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


God I hate to do this , jump into a thread that I have not yet read in it's entirety as I have done this to Mr ? Gunderson once before and it caused a bit of a miss understanding between the two of us


Eh, that happens. That was an odd thread if you did not read every page and I think we have all happened upon those.


But to answer your question as to what " kind " means , as per the bible , I offer this ...

מין . miyn . kind

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".


Source

Edit to fix link



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]


I appreciate you giving this answer. I honestly thought anyone pushing the word "kind" so strongly would have been able to dig it up. So now I have some new questions. If you feel you have those answers too, please feel free to make up for what NYT could not do.

-Where in the bible does it explain how Noah knew what animals shared a single genetic lineage? The definition offered clearly states it is based on genes.

-How does a pair of coyotes turn into the "species" wolf, fox, golden retriever, hyena, etc. if they are all "dog kind?"

-Where in the bible did you find this definition because the text begins before any bible verse is offered and the verses given to not actually define "kind" as such.

I appreciate you showing up with the info I was looking for. Sorry it just makes me ask more.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
Personally I find that theists are more aggressive than anyone else on the planet. Terms like "Oh my god" or "God Damn it!" do not come from birth, they come from current social language. I find myself saying the latter two sometimes even though I don't believe; it is simply because we have been programmed from birth to be theists. Lucky for me I grew up not having religion forced upon me, nor any of it's teachings required by my parents. I CHOSE to go to church for two years during the teenage years of my life when I was struggling for acceptance and understanding of the world, and I realized that the teachings were outdated, dogmatic and just plain harmful to the human psyche. I did this of my own accord, not by any one's suggestion.


LOL! That reminds me of my favorite line ever muttered on a cartoon by Bender on Futurama - "Oh your god!!!!"

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I knew early one something was not right. A priest said you can not take the lord's name in vein. I asked what that meant and he told me it meant I was not allowed to swear.'
"Oh my God, really? I cannot swear"
"That's right, swearing is a sin."
"Holy crap, I did not know that was the lord's name - so many swear words."
"Don't say crap."

My immediate family is a great example of what you speak of. They believe in God but not really anything in the bible but they are not really sure why they believe either. They were just brought up to believe so they do.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
As for the quoted bible reference

" Briefly:

"2. The Animal Passengers. In Gen. 6:19ff. Noah is instructed to bring mated pairs of every kind of bird, every kind of animal, and every kind of creature that moves along the ground. In Gen. 7:2ff. He is more specifically instructed to bring seven mated pairs (14) of clean animals and seven pairs of all birds. "
I personally speaking would not except that as an accurate translation of the earlier Hebrew ."


Personally I disagree with that translation ...

Speaking for myself I would translate it as ...

Two shall enter into the ark of every species , birds , cattle , & land crawling animal i.e creeping things .

My reference , the concordance and the online blue letter bible .







[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]


Thanks for your take on the translation. I do believe translation errors have caused a great many of the issues that come up, unfortunately when it comes to the bible there are just so so so so many issues like Kings and Councils and the lack of evidence.

I just have to point out that neither explains what "kind" is in this context. Now that you have introduced translation differences, I am even more curious where this definition of "kind" that you supplied is shown to be related to the word "kind" as written here.

I am also still curious about the animals that breath air clause. I am curious if God made a mistake or sea-faring mammals breathed differently two thousand years go. Thanks



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Hey, if you could not answer any of my questions, that is ok. I originally just asked you where to get my own talking donkey so if you cannot answer any of this Noah stuff, that is cool. Just tell me where to find talking donkeys and bushes and snakes. Thanks!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


I am a " Christian " but I will star that post none the less , it was well written and well said .

To me its an issue of faith and my personal perception of the world . I try , the best I can , to find my own truths and personally I would never try to convince anyone to see or believe as I do , who the heck am I anyway to be that presumptuous ?

You have pointed out a very big issue that plagues many different communities where trust , belief , and faith are required and the message you offer should not draw criticism but rather each firm believer looking at them selves , there faith , and see just what they are doing with it .

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Max_TO]


Well put, really. I can respect that point of view just fine, not that my respect would matter much. It just seems to me that there is a kind of scale You have your Atheist, Agnostic, Faithful, Fanatic. On one end, you have people who may or may not be trying to just be good people until they die. On the other end you have people that may or may not be strapping on a bomb for their god. Not really a scale I care to climb.

People who have faith - great.
People who take the bible literally - well ok that's fine but all you.
People who insist I am not all there because I have questions about some stories in the bible - something ain't right there.

I appreciate your taking the time to try and answer my questions without just indignantly insisting I believe you. Obviously you understand just how poorly that works as well.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
If Christianity philosophy is non-fiction writing then there's a author for the literature

There's no author for the literature.

Therefore, Christianity philosophy is not non-fiction writing.

Crap on anyone who is believing Christianity without evidence of a writer!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


Great posts King. I totally agree.



My lack of faith allows me to take everything as special.


I feel the same way. Ever since I came to the honest conclusion that a higher power probably doesn't exist I look at the Universe as even more miraculous. The idea that by natural processes we are here is even more incredible than invoking an invisible being that must be believed by faith. Faith is almost always used to cover ignorance.

Great posts and welcome to the thread



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 



"Faith is almost always used to cover ignorance."

Why do you say almost always, when if you are correct, wouldn`t it just be "always"? Also, cover ignorance in what?

Is this a way of keeping the door open to the possiblity that you may be wrong? Just asking.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


Because there are different definitions of the word Faith. For instance I can have faith in another person's ability to complete a task and that kind of faith isn't necessarily ignorant (unless the other person has proven incompetent in the past).

Also religious faith can be used for psychological comfort/ placebo effect in which case it is not faith based on a desire to fill gaps in knowledge (ignorance) but is there to form a psychological crutch. This type of faith usually works in conjunction with the ignorant kind but I'm sure there are a few theists out there who cling to their beliefs because of the comfort it gives them in thinking something supernatural governs or effects their lives.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by FiatLux
 


Because there are different definitions of the word Faith. For instance I can have faith in another person's ability to complete a task and that kind of faith isn't necessarily ignorant (unless the other person has proven incompetent in the past).

Also religious faith can be used for psychological comfort/ placebo effect in which case it is not faith based on a desire to fill gaps in knowledge (ignorance) but is there to form a psychological crutch. This type of faith usually works in conjunction with the ignorant kind but I'm sure there are a few theists out there who cling to their beliefs because of the comfort it gives them in thinking something supernatural governs or effects their lives.


You can categorize anything, let`s take humans as an example. Are they all the same? No. There are tall humans, short humans, and the list goes on and on, but, that doesn`t change the fact that they still are all humans. The same goes with faith. In the end, it`s still faith in or for something or other.

"Also religious faith can be used for psychological comfort/ placebo effect in which case it is not faith based on a desire to fill gaps in knowledge (ignorance) but is there to form a psychological crutch. This type of faith usually works in conjunction with the ignorant kind'

And it can also be said the same for your "ignorance" of a Creator. Right?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 




And it can also be said the same for your "ignorance" of a Creator.


It is intellectually dishonest to claim knowledge of a God's existence without objectively verifiable evidence - subjective experience can only count on a personal level. So yeah in a way we could all be considered ignorant as to the existence of a deity including the theists who claim knowledge but admitting that we just don't know for sure is more honest than what they do.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Just noticed your challenge

He hangs the Earth on nothing .Job 26:7

Things which are seen, are not made up of things that do appear. Heb 11:3 Molecular structure.

Ship builders of today agree, God gives perfect dimensions for ship building in Genesis. Gen 6:15.

Your body and clothes should be washed under running water when dealing with deseases. Lev 15:13

God commanded his people to separate themselves from their excrement. Duet:23 :12-13

Mountains on the ocean floor.Jonah 2 :5-6

A long time before science understood the function of blood the Bible declared, "The life
of all flesh is in the blood". Lev 17:11-14

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19).
Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis


The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!

Eternal productions
If you want more just ask.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




He hangs the Earth on nothing


How is this a scientific fact? The Earth isn't held up by nothing its held in its place by the sun's gravity and the gravity of the other planets. Has the verse mentioned something about gravity than yeah maybe it could be a scientific statement but as it is I don't think so.



Things which are seen, are not made up of things that do appear.


Again this isn't a scientific statement. You are interpreting it as saying that atoms and molecules are not visible to the naked eye but the verse doesn't say that.



Ship builders of today agree


References for this? Show me some ship builders who think that the ark was great. I'll give you this one, the plans to build a boat are scientific but they are not outside the ability of human minds to come up with WITHOUT a deity.



Your body and clothes should be washed under running water when dealing with deseases


I'll give you this one too, this is an idea that wasn't widely understood (at least in Europe) until a few centuries ago. But I have to point out that this piece of knowledge could have been inferred by comparing the health of those who are clean versus those who are dirty. So yeah its a smart idea for its time but why must there have been a deity involved for them to know this?



A long time before science understood the function of blood the Bible declared, "The life of all flesh is in the blood". Lev 17:11-14


No I'm pretty sure this idea was well known, of course it wasn't scientifically understood but people made the connection between blood and life centuries upon centuries ago. The only thing science did was explain WHY there was a connection by showing the blood carried oxygen.



Mountains on the ocean floor


Jonah also claims a man can live in the belly of a fish/whale for three days without dying. The verse you are using says that the ROOTS of mountains are under the water not that the mountains themselves are undersea. It might be that the author knew of mountains that are partially underwater.



Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.


Just when I thought you were going somewhere you backtrack with nonsense like this. Of course the human body is made up of Earth elements, WE EVOLVED ON THE EARTH (or were created here if you want to believe that). It was also very common in creation myths to say we were made from dirt, clay or mud. The fact is we are not made from dirt or inorganic material - the Bible is wrong.



Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.


It doesn't say the Earth revolves. It says people will be sleeping in a bed and one will be grinding grain. The translations are often very different for this verse as well but none that I've looked at mention the men in the field being there during the day. Also you may be looking at Jesus using figurative language here to talk about his return by saying that many will still be "laboring" while others will be "asleep". Its open to interpretation but it definitely isn't directly making any statement about the Earth.

Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

Once again you argue from ignorance, seeking to fill a gap in your understanding merely by saying "God did it" and pointing to some ancient myth.



The continents were created as one large land mass


The Verse in Genesis doesn't say that there was one large landmass it says that land and water were separated. If God inspired this book why did he not mention the other geological processes that went into the continents separating? Why not go into detail? Genesis is vague and you've interpreted it as you see fit.



The sun goes in a circuit


Once again you interpret this your own way, the verse doesn't say the sun is spinning in space it merely says that it completes a circuit. The ancients believed the sun was against a dome called the firmament and moved across the sky. The verse, however, says nothing is hidden from its heat but what about fish deep in the ocean, planets and stars outside our solar system and animals living deep underground.

In conclusion: You did offer a few good ones but others you had to interpret in a certain way to fit the facts. The Bible is often vague that way and open to interpretation making it hard to understand what the authors really intended. None of these, however, are Earth shattering or outside of the understanding the authors might have had without a God. The Bible also gets lot's of things outright wrong when it comes to science and as I said a handful of correct ideas doesn't make up for the nonsense.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





conclusion: You did offer a few good ones but others you had to interpret in a certain way to fit the facts. The Bible is often vague that way and open to interpretation making it hard to understand what the authors really intended. None of these, however, are Earth shattering or outside of the understanding the authors might have had without a God. The Bible also gets lot's of things outright wrong when it comes to science and as I said a handful of correct ideas doesn't make up for the nonsense.


I hope you won't be upset if I didn't expect to shatter your world Titen.

And get that finger out of my face.
So by conclusion do you mean you don't want to see more?

Here's one
Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, God’s life, created all life.


And this...
The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing – electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send “lightnings” which indeed speak when they arrive.


You'll like this one
Strong and weak nuclear force explained (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). Physicists do not understand what binds the atom’s nucleus together. Yet, the Bible states that “all things consist” – or are held together by the Creator – Jesus Christ.

I like this one
The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Is that five yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is any truth in you. You must admit there is plenty of rhyme to reason.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines).


Fail. Guess how much evolution has to say about the origins of life - NOTHING.

Abiogenesis

Evolution is about inherited traits and bio-diversity not about how the first life on Earth formed from organic matter present on the Earth.

The verse in Job says nothing about electromagnetism, wavelengths, spectrum, or light (it does mention LIGHTNING though) etc. You are interpreting a case of personification (lightning being able to speak) to an unrelated scientific fact. Maybe if the verse said something about how the sound waves are slower than the light waves from the lightning it would be something.

The other two verses, once again, say nothing about what you claim they do. And once again you argue from ignorance by talking about how science hasn't quite explained them. Just because scientists don't have all the answers doesn't mean we start making stuff up (like God) to fill in our ignorance.



Therefore life, God’s life, created all life.


Well that's a bit of a leap isn't it? So because we haven't figured out exactly how life formed on early Earth we need to invent a supernatural invisible man in the sky to fill the gaps of our knowledge? Argument from ignorance again





[edit on 7-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





Well that's a bit of a leap isn't it? So because we haven't figured out exactly how life formed on early Earth we need to invent a supernatural invisible man in the sky to fill the gaps of our knowledge? Argument from ignorance again

See that's the kind of thing right there, I would figure was way beneath you. There's no one inventing anything here. Nothing new under the sun.
Why do you want me to question why we are even having this conversation? Come=on Titen. If you want me to go away just say that I will ablige .

Not sure if you've seenthis.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
There's no one inventing anything here. Nothing new under the sun.


Really? Because this seems pretty invented right here...


Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today.


Which would also make this...


What's 'HILARIOUS' is you read an ESTIMATE of the number of LAND ANIMALS alive during the time of the FLOOD and somehow when it entered your brain you comprehended "total number of all animal species including sea creatures TODAY..."


a lie which is also an invention.

All of that leads to the reason you must have stopped responding to me because in light of

And, although there are a million named species of insects,
you have yet to invent how many of those million species of bug are counted in that 18,000 number. How many insects are sea-faring?

So you invented two things right there and I would love a third.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




There's no one inventing anything here.


Yes there is. It doesn't matter if you directly invented him or not someone did and you are using this fictional God character to fill a gap in your knowledge. There is no evidence that a god exists so there is no reason to invoke on in order to "explain" something.



If you want me to go away just say that I will ablige


You can stay or go as you please Randy. Especially if the only argument you can offer for the Bible/God is the equivalent of: Science doesn't know stuff, must be cause God dun it.

Wait, did you just indirectly post a link to answers in genesis?


So the Bombardier beetle's defense mechanism somehow defeats evolution? This isn't the Creationism forum anyway but I would suggest you do a little reading on observed instances of speciation, those alone prove evolution beyond doubt - all without the fossil record, genetics, behavioral studies and the myriad of other biological fields/topics.

I'd honestly prefer if we got back on the original topic of the Bible and I think you, as a believer, would do well in doing that, because delving into the realm of evolution versus creation is just going to get you pwned harder.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join