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.

 

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

page: 37
25
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking – 100% accurate.


er, our planet is not thousands of years old, it's billions of years old.

But maybe you cherry pick, you know 'oh that isn't meant to be taken literally'.

Either the bible is meant to be taken literally or it's not.
People can't have it both ways.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm not giving up Einstein. My position has already won.

By the way I refuted that list before in the thread you posted it in a while back. Go back and read by rebuttal there if you feel it necessary.

Here's a nice passage from the Bible I read earlier, really puts the character of Yahweh into perspective, for all his mercy and love he doesn't seem to mind commanding the slaughter of innocents, animals, and the genocide of entire groups of people. You'd think a God of peace and love could heal the wounds that the Amalekites caused against Israel and form a peaceful bond between nations... nope, God thinks killing babies is the best bet:


Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "


1st Samuel 15



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking – 100% accurate.


er, our planet is not thousands of years old, it's billions of years old.

But maybe you cherry pick, you know 'oh that isn't meant to be taken literally'.

Either the bible is meant to be taken literally or it's not.
People can't have it both ways.


Lifecitizen,
I'll just quote a small portion of what I said a while back on another thread.

Here's what I said"

But before I begin, let me clarify somethings in the bible that led others to the wrong conclusion.
The word 'day' mentioned in Genesis 1 does NOT necessarily mean a 24 hr day as some believe nor a 1000 years each day. No it's longer than that – millenniums and millenniums. Also, the Genesis account was written from the perspective of a human being on earth. So the things that Moses wrote was from his perspective. I'll also show you that the things he wrote are scientific even though he didn't have the instruments like we have today (Q: did he just made up the events he wrote or someone provided it to him, someone with the knowledge of space and time?)

Now let me show you where you got it wrong when you said:

1) The Genesis creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.


Absolutely NOT, the Genesis creation account DOES NOT conflict with the order of events that are known to science. In fact they are in complete agreement. Lets start:


Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

Your explanation of Gen 1:1 is incorrect.

Gen 1:1 simply states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This simply means that the “heavens and the earth” were created by God. There's no mention of sequence of events, no before or after. This could also mean that the earth was created billions and billions of years ago – in fact according to the latest calculations it's about 4B.

Now v2 - “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters” → it says that the earth was 'formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep' – thus the earth at this stage (billions and billions of years ago) was an inhospitable and inhabitable place.

But the time came when Jehovah God put into action his plan for the ages. Make the earth into a habitable place – his crowning glory of all his creations. The perfect planet amongst the other planets in the universe. Situated just right amongst the billions of galaxy's – not too close nor too far from the sun with it's moon.
Note: the verses that you've quoted is the starting point of the six “creative 'day'”



Titen,
My bad, I though you were giving up - be back later with the reason why God said

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

1 Sam 15:3



[edit on 10-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It doesn't matter why God said it, he is advocating the slaughter of innocents. If an all-powerful God advocates or commands the slaughter of infants than he is evil, because being all-powerful means being able to put any plan into action, including an infinite number of plans that would have left the Amalekite children alive and well.

The Bible has already failed, stop making excuses for its nonsense.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You are not the first to give out those reasoning's....none of them can back the Bible as the word of God.

All of those reasons have been claimed by others, and then disputed by others.

I guess the ones that dont just accept it as is and dispute it are those that dont have ears to hear nor eyes to see.

This in itself, is a ego setup.

The idea that a man had to die....that many people had to die....that something went wrong and that is why we are here in the first place (due to mistake/error/someone elses wrong...is not the best guide for humanity.

Man can make many things happen, including the circulation of a book in many languages. Dont forget, they burned other books and killed those that didnt agree with them....to start that road though, for the Bible.

You can not prove to others it is the word of God. You cant, no one can. If you find truth in it...then it is truth for you....you cant prove it as a truth for all.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I didnt ignore what you said....I just said that I thought it was all part of a natural cycle. It will come and go.


Nooo... these signs are being ramped up exponentially in the last 100 years.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen
In response to the OP- definetly man made- a concept designed to control.

Christians look past bible god killing innocent children- in regards to the flood they believe that they were only going to grow up to be heathens anyway, so that's cool.

Bible god is petty, unfair, jealous and cruel (amongst other things)

It's easy to see how Christians believe we were made in his image.





"petty, unfair, jealous, and cruel"?? I don't get that, I read how Holy, Just, Patient, Merciful, and Righteous God is. He is perfectly just, he wouldn't be God if He were not. God avenges innocent blood that's shed, it's God's job for revenge it says.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Can you show me how the 'ramped up' part of these things has not been a part of a natural process...occurrences with reasons?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking – 100% accurate.


er, our planet is not thousands of years old, it's billions of years old.

But maybe you cherry pick, you know 'oh that isn't meant to be taken literally'.

Either the bible is meant to be taken literally or it's not.
People can't have it both ways.
Yes, it's true. i have been in government Education, and also read the Creationist's evidence the origins points to a young Earth.

You have been deceived.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Can you show me how the 'ramped up' part of these things has not been a part of a natural process...occurrences with reasons?


A line graph would do that...I've said this stuff in 2 posts now. Line graphs gradually rise over the years, but never have until the last 100 years or so have they exploded upwards into Exponential Curves.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Gods best way to solve something, is to kill it, out of revenge.

Sounds like a human solution....not a divine one.

But God was understanding....

Jesus said...forgive them for what they do not know.

Its a paradox, the book is full of paradoxes.

It says to not do something, but then God does it and has his people do it.

The reasons given sound like they are more as excuses for the man to get away with what they wanted or found themselves of need in.

The whole book is about a family quarrel full of pride and greed. That family....is called humanity, on the bigger scale
Even with Jesus, the other tribes could not accept a king, of the tribe of Judah.

The view that it gives on God...the nature that it reflects onto God....is very primal and humanistic. Its far from Divine in most of the Bible.

Find the nature of the Holy Spirit....then you find the nature of God.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Edmc

So, you've decided a day wasn't really meant as a day.

I take it you dont take the whole bible literally then- which to me means people read into it what they want to read into it.

So you obviously believe everyone on the planet today came from one family a few thousand years ago?

I think you'll find science disputes that too.



[edit on 10-7-2010 by lifecitizen]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Can you show me how the 'ramped up' part of these things has not been a part of a natural process...occurrences with reasons?


A line graph would do that...I've said this stuff in 2 posts now. Line graphs gradually rise over the years, but never have until the last 100 years or so have they exploded upwards into Exponential Curves.


Good Lord Typical...do you not think I know what a exponential curve is...do you not think I looked at the links you gave?

There are perfectly good reasons why the things are happening as they are....there were good reasons why we had a Ice Age 12,000 years ago (give or take) there are good reasons for all things that have happened and will happen. It doesnt have to be supernatural and you have not proved them to be signs of anything.

One of the examples in your chart was population growth.

If you start out with 2 dogs...and a litter comes, then you have 8 puppies lets say. Lets say those 8 dogs, meet other dogs, and they all have litters....we have another 8 litters of dogs. Each litter has 8 puppies....now already we are up to 64 puppies. If these 64 puppies all meet another dog to mate with....and we have 64 more litters..... with 8 puppiers each, suddenly there is 512 puppies!

It just math...it makes perfect sense how the population has grown like it has.

The idea of medicine and military knowledge has 'peaked' over the last 100 years as you say.....is not reasonable to you? The more people, the more technologies, the more ideas we have had, the more time we have had to think about new ideas....brings us to...a booming in figuring medicines and weaponry. Why does this not make sense to you? You only see it as a sign because a sing is what you seek for.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by lifecitizen
In response to the OP- definetly man made- a concept designed to control.

Christians look past bible god killing innocent children- in regards to the flood they believe that they were only going to grow up to be heathens anyway, so that's cool.

Bible god is petty, unfair, jealous and cruel (amongst other things)

It's easy to see how Christians believe we were made in his image.





"petty, unfair, jealous, and cruel"?? I don't get that, I read how Holy, Just, Patient, Merciful, and Righteous God is. He is perfectly just, he wouldn't be God if He were not. God avenges innocent blood that's shed, it's God's job for revenge it says.


yes I would expect revenge from bible god, he's good at that kinda stuff.

He doesn't come across as just to me, he comes across as a total control freak- I mean look out if you're not doing the right thing! NO HEAVEN FOR YOU!


all loving- I don't think so...even loving is really pushing it.
For someone so powerful maybe he could have designed us better so he didn't have to kill us for being us.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


Lifecitizen....is that a pic of you as a child in your Avatar? Just curious...looks alot like me when I was young.




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Yes, it's true. i have been in government Education, and also read the Creationist's evidence the origins points to a young Earth. You have been deceived.


How can you put 'creationist' and evidence' in the same sentence..seriously.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by lifecitizen
 


Lifecitizen....is that a pic of you as a child in your Avatar? Just curious...looks alot like me when I was young.



hello LV

yes LOL



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Edmc

So, you've decided a day wasn't really meant as a day.


Take your pick and which 'day' do you think the genesis "day" applies to.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

day (d)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.
adj.
1. Of or relating to the day.
2. Working during the day: the day nurse.
3. Occurring before nightfall: a day hike.
Idioms:
day after day
For many days; continuously.
day in, day out
Every day without fail; continuously.



I take it you dont take the whole bible literally then- which to me means people read into it what they want to read into it.


It's all in the context, meaning of the word, subject matter, etc. Thus the Bible contains literal, symbolical meanings, figurative meanings, etc. Serious and true Bible students know the meaning.



So you obviously believe everyone on the planet today came from one family a few thousand years ago?

I think you'll find science disputes that too.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by lifecitizen]


It's not only the Bible that's saying it.

these bunch of UNESCO scientist think so too.

“All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock. . . . Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. . . . Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differences between races or populations.”—An international body of scientists convened by UNESCO, quoted in Statement on Race (New York, 1972, third ed.), Ashley Montagu, pp. 149, 150

These guys too.

“A race is simply one of the partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth. . . . Man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase of history and we can measure and study the results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. . . . When race formation took place on the continents, with the bottlenecking of thousands of populations in isolated gene pools all over the world, the gene-frequency differences we now see were established. . . . The paradox which faces us is that each group of humans appears to be externally different yet underneath these differences there is fundamental similarity.” (Heredity and Human Life, New York, 1963, H. L. Carson, pp. 151, 154, 162, 163)

Anthropologist Ashley Montagu:
“All competent students who have considered the subject believe that by far the greatest number of genes are held by mankind in common, and that there are probably not more than 10 per cent of the total that are held apart. Since scientists believe that mankind drew its genes originally from the same gene pool, this great likeness is not surprising.
“As soon as we get beneath the skin, the likeness on a physical basis would suggest that the number of gene differences existing between even the most ‘extreme’ ‘races’ of man is much less than 10 per cent.”

I got more source to quote but since you've already made up your mind like the OP it's useless to add them.

As for the age of man I'll let you figure that one out since I already know it.

ty,
edmc2

[edit on 11-7-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





but since you've already made up your mind like the OP it's useless to add them.


Now you see how the OP feels at least. Mabey we have meeting grounds?

Just as though your mind is made up....eventually others will find it useless to converse on the topic.

All my best though, to all



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It doesn't matter why God said it, he is advocating the slaughter of innocents. If an all-powerful God advocates or commands the slaughter of infants than he is evil, because being all-powerful means being able to put any plan into action, including an infinite number of plans that would have left the Amalekite children alive and well.

The Bible has already failed, stop making excuses for its nonsense.


And God said:

“Should there be any contending of a faultfinder with the Almighty?
Let the reprover of God himself answer it.”

Really, will you invalidate my justice?
Will you pronounce me wicked in order that you may be in the right?

Job 40:2, 8



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join