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.

 

A serious flaw in the bible...

page: 15
19
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Just to add tha carbon dating is not the absolute truth that most people think, people just like to think it is so things get easier to digest. Under certain conditions the object/material being carbon dated can yield error margins that are unacceptable even for scientists.

Besides no one really knows what the earth has been put through it's existence and to what it was exposed to, so know one really understands all the variables and possibilities to say something for sure without being there to witness the fact.

In the end it's all just a bunch of theories and myths, trying to prove or disprove them is a waste of time. Just follow what you believe and forget about making Christians or members of any other religion to explain or justify their faith using science. That won't happen until both sides accept each other and get rid of their own pretensions of knowledge.

Divided both sides are nothing.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
It may have been said, or something similar has been said but.....

Not a single person here was alive back when the Earth was created. Be it made by a god, or made by evolution. Either way, we are here, everyone has their respective beliefs, now let them get on with their lives.

If people want to worship someone(thing) they have never seen, then let them. No one is forcing you to follow the faith of a book. Let them be the ones that are disappointed. The way I figure it, whether it's hell or heaven for me, I'll have a blast.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by czlong07
It may have been said, or something similar has been said but.....

Not a single person here was alive back when the Earth was created. Be it made by a god, or made by evolution. Either way, we are here, everyone has their respective beliefs, now let them get on with their lives.

If people want to worship someone(thing) they have never seen, then let them. No one is forcing you to follow the faith of a book. Let them be the ones that are disappointed. The way I figure it, whether it's hell or heaven for me, I'll have a blast.


I agree, as far as I know no one on ATS was alive when the earth was created.
Although I believe God and evolution go hand in hand. Whether God can or has ever been seen has got nothing to do with the "Serious Flaw in the bible".

By "them" I am assuming you are referring to Christians since Christianity and the"flaw in the Bible" are the focus points? Whether or not "they" will be dissapointed is irrelevant??

So are you saying that you do believe in heaven and hell, even so what has your personal beliefs got to do with the "flaw in the bible"?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing
 


It was a general statement to those here that try to argue that the book is truth. That the book is the word of God. I am not Christian, Muslim, Budhist, or any other religion, but I will not talk down on those that are. Everyone has their own beliefs.

As far as the Bible is concerned, figuring in errors, it is just like any other book. It has it's editors. I'm sure the man who wrote the first Bible had things in there that are now out, and things that weren't in there that are now in.

Come up with a small story. Tell one of your friends. Pass along that after 20, or more, people are told the story to pass it back to you. By way of the last person told. You will notice considerable changes. The Bible's errors are the same way. In my opinion, the Bible has flaws, be it the Christian Bible or Quran, and so do those who read them. The God that is unknown to all but the looney uses these books to control people.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by czlong07


If people want to worship someone(thing) they have never seen, then let them. No one is forcing you to follow the faith of a book. Let them be the ones that are disappointed. The way I figure it, whether it's hell or heaven for me, I'll have a blast.


No one has seen God. I assume you think God is the name of what??

You use the name God as if God was a man or a person. Most people do but why. Isn't that being a bit subjective compare to questioning facts.

It seams like you assume that God is a man. No wonder no one sees God.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I'm not sure where you get that I believe God is a man...

God is a made up figure of some person(s) mind. I don't believe in God, the Devil, or any other being. I will usually lean more towards the Earth being a big, inhabitable rock. Something that just showed up. Kind of like that annoying neighbor that always seems to be there at the most inoppotune time.

Anyhow, the Bible is flawed, and so is man. Now, MONKEYS are the way to go!



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by czlong07
reply to post by spy66
 


I'm not sure where you get that I believe God is a man...

God is a made up figure of some person(s) mind. I don't believe in God, the Devil, or any other being. I will usually lean more towards the Earth being a big, inhabitable rock. Something that just showed up. Kind of like that annoying neighbor that always seems to be there at the most inoppotune time.

Anyhow, the Bible is flawed, and so is man. Now, MONKEYS are the way to go!


Yes God is a man made figure among many other things that man has imagined. You imagine that God don't exist. It is your imagination because you cant prove that God does not exist.

So in this case to believe or not to believe in God will be based on our imagination or our ability to reason the argument into a true conclusion. But that will never happen.

When it comes to the Bible it is way above some peoples grasp of knowledge. But still they judge it like they do understand what it is trying to tell us. And they try to educate us their facts.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You are right, I can't. Can you prove to me that he does? The Bible most certainly can't. Unless it can talk, that is...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
So...what say you Christians?


You know, I am an atheist and I am REALLY FREAKIN tired of people doing this.

So...what say you Christians?

1. Like all the Christians now need to explain themselves to you.
2. This is an original line of thought.

Do you actually think this is new? Like you're the only one who had this thought and it's now your duty to confront the christians?

Pick up any Atheist book and you'll find hundreds if not thousands of misconceptions, deceptions, misquotes, misunderstandings, error, fabrications etc.. about all religions and all books like the Bible.
And you know what? People still believe. let them. It's thier life. If you want to point out facts athat are already known.. why not just link to a book? Why not discuss in in person with religious people you know instead of BAITING on a forum.




I think ATS should consider this type of post hostile.
Just see the OP's responses as proof to that.

This kind of thing should be allowed here, it isn't new, it's not informative and all it does is start a bashing session.


Someone asked the OP what his purpose for this thread was..
he said "To open up your eye's... "

I call BS.. this thread was to stick it in the eye of "the ignorant" as the OP believes.

It's OK to question religion, no problem, but it isn't ok to call up a WELL KNOWN and WELL DOCUMENTED subject and say

So...what say you Christians?

I can see the smirk on your face.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Okay, why you think you can debate the bible with people I don't know.

However, I took the bait and just want to point out a few things here.

First of all by saying everything in the bible is truth or is false is a dumb statement. There are many many differant writings that have been translated from differant languages and compiled into one book.

How many times does it say and the Gold is good there. God don't care about Gold, that is an all human concept. Therefore some of it may not be the Word of God.

The reason I say you can not discuss the bible with people is they misinterpret it regularly and you can not, even with an indisputable sentence, get them to accept anything in the bible could be incorrect.

It even mentions false Prophets but don't tell a christian Jesus was one of them they will kill you even though it is against his teachings.

Example, and also an answer to someone's post about days on earth:

He did use a duration of time that we could understand by telling us how long a day is. This so we could honor him on one of those days.

Here is the misconception that everyone gets wrong:

Not an exact quote though:

He created the light, then seperated the light from the dark and called the light day and the dark he called night.

And the evening and the morning was the first day.

Beacuse he says evening and morning everyone thinks the sabbath starts at dark. Even those who still keep the 7th day (which is Saturday) start the Sabbath at dark Friday night.

Why? Because Jesus did.

If the last thing he said was morning, that ended the freakin day and started the next day. Very simple concept. Created light, thats morning, evening came, thats night, morning came adn ended the first day. Simple!!

But wait this would negate Jesus as a true Prophet as he misinterpreted the bible. God forbid you tell a christian that.

How these idiots could claim to be so religous and look at a calendar and see the 7th day on it is Saturday and still go to church on Sunday gets me. The Catholic church admits they changed the sabbath to Sunday to get the Sun worshipers in their church.

God created Saturday for us to worship him and Sunday for FOOTBALL!

Okay now on to the age of the Earth. A long time ago I actually went through all those so and so begot so and so and then he begot so and so and he lived to be 900 years old etc. I counted to at least 6,000 years before I gave up. This story of cration si a lot older than people think it is and I believe We are older than anyone admits.

Here is how I see this, first of all how they lived so long.

When we were first put in the Garden of Eden we were told eat anyhing you want but from this tree (the tree of knowledge). Because if you do you shal surely die.

We were built to live forever. God didn't say make sure you eat from this tree of life to live forever, we already lived forever. However, whatever was growing from the tree that gave us knowledge of good an evil also caused our bodies to start to age. Shall surely die, meant eventually die, or he would have just said you will die.

I believe this because afterward he said....Least NOW you take also and eat from the tree of life to live forever. See we did not need the tree of life to live forever until eating the poison from the tree of knowledge.

Over the years the direct decendents still either had some of the tree of life properties in them or the aging process got worse over the years, beacuse these people live for a thousand years some of them.

Therefore, we are a lot older than anyone thinks.

Nothing says God created everything at the same time. Our little heaven and Earth could have been created billions of years after he created that supernova or whatever that we only see 176,000 years later or whatever.

See it says the Earth was void and without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Too be continued......



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 
Pardon me please, if I can't remember chapter and verse, but one of the seemingly ubiquitous ommisions from Bible-thumping proponents of the 6,000 year age of the Universe is a passage from St.Peter that reads something like "............but you must remember that a day with The Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day......". And there's a passage somewhere in the Old Testament, by David, I believe, that orients a time-frame encompassing imagery that makes St.Peters description of time, seem short by comparison.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Continued....

See the earth was just a big ball of water when he created it. Then he seperated the waters from the waters and made continents.

The only time frames we are given is after he created the light. Darkness was upon the face of the deep, for how long who knows. The dark ball of water could have been there for millions of years before he finished the job in a week.

There are holes in the bible, yes, but there are also holes in most of so called scientific study. humans just can't seem to take their perception out of science. It is always skewed by the human perception of things.

I can tell you scientifically something intelligent created us. What and why, the only clues we have are in the bible and you have to do the best you can to figure it out.

Here are just a couple of points why we were definately created.

Animals adapt to their environment, we know that. This is evoloution. Evoloution is not creation.

To explain why evoloution is not still happening we get this perfect primoridal soup line. Oh come on, the process just stoped and all the soup dried up?

If we all supposedly split from single cell to complex organisms it would still be happening for one. The second is there would not be millions of missing links between animals that supposedly mutated into the next species. They would still be evolving into the next level of lifeform and we would have some evidence of this, not just how closely species resemble each other.

If I hear how "Scientist have to re-evaluate human evoloution after finding a new fossil" line again I will puke.

Next, male and female to me negate evoloution as creation. Are we really to believe that every species that evolved from one another split into a male and female version that need each other to make offspring?

There would be a hell of a lot more a-sexual creatures that can fertilize their own eggs without a mate if we all evolved from nothing.

It is survival at its most primitive to not need a mate to procreate. This companion style existance is not natural. Anyone who says it is could not be thinking scientifically. How a scientist could devote their life to the study of evoloution is a complete mystery to me. These are supposed to be the smart people.

Last I give you the fact that life was imbedded into this planet at the molecular level. No matter how deep we dig we find microscopic life living at tempetures and pressures they should not be at. How did they get miles deep in solid rock?

When this planet was created life was mixed in at the smallest level.

Why if God created Earth could he not have created millions of Earths?

Why do they think disclosure would effect religion at all? There can be Aliens God created just like us, or say Silicone based life forms rather than carbon based.

They have their faith no matter what you tell them, I don't think you could kill religion if you tried. They kill people over it and that is aginst the teachings. What gives them the right to kill one of Gods creations, that is giving yourself a lot of power and decision making.

Keep the 7th day holy, they worship on Sunday, if they don't they worship the night and start it at dark.

Have no Gods before me. Where did Jesus is Lord come from, there are no Gods before me. Pray to me to get to my father? Uh HAVE NO GODS BEFORE ME! Hellooo...anyone see pattern here?

Well you opened this can of worms so I gave you my thoughts.

Peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Your problem is that you fail to understand that everything in the Bible is either Law, History, Prophesy, or Poetry. Which is the book of Genesis?

The Old Testament is written so that those of the period, beginning about 1000 years ago would understand. There are books not included that were well known when the King James version was assembled. The Catholic Bible has additional chapters not in the common Bible.

Today missionary groups sometimes change wording for primitive groups so that they will understand the missionary's point of view.

Bottom line is that it is taken on faith not proof.


Today science has invented dark matter and dark energy to make our model of the Universe work. So how is that different from the so called problems of the Bible?

The Catholic Church still has ceremonies to rid one of demons. Demons! In today's world when we believe in psychiatry and psychology to rid one of false or psychotic beliefs?

Debating these issues is entertaining but other wise a waste of time.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by L K Tucker
Today missionary groups sometimes change wording for primitive groups so that they will understand the missionary's point of view.

Debating these issues is entertaining but other wise a waste of time.


This is so true and this has been done for ages (and I mean ages) ... so you end up with a primitive group that is indoctrinated with the missionary's point of view - no telling what that might be - and so you get even more skewed interpretations of already skewed information. In South Africa, I see this is exactly what happened with the indigenous folks when Europeans arrived to sell them their religion ... the weird interpretations and resulting sects abound and are actually quite astounding. You end up with some fanciful concepts, rituals and beliefs when you marry Christianity with primitive belief systems.

Yes it is entertaining but I think not a total waste of time. Lively discussion and debate can lead to paradigm shifts and at the very least kinda compels one to rethink your own belief systems from time to time ... and if you're honest with yourself and are truly a seeker of truth, it is a necessary and healthy exercise



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Psyagra
 


marry which parts of christianity ? you mean like the tower of babel stuff or what? that's historical not specifically christian. you realize there really was a tower of babel? i mean, it's not a fiction. like gilgamesh from the epic of gilgamesh, his city was found. these are not fictions. what part is fanciful ? clarify please.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Hi CHA0S,

I can't believe in all the replies that nobody has explained in simple, precise terms the answer to your dilemma.
Guess it goes to show you the 'False Religions' of this planet.

I will endeavor to enlighten you on this subject.

Firstly you are correct in saying that God created the heavens and the Earth together.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

The next verse:

Now the earth [was] became formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:2

Has a very large flaw in it's translation. The word translated 'was' in the above verse should be translated 'became' (As it is, in other parts of the Bible). This change, leads to the dramatic conclusion that the Earth became covered with water because of some cause, and is therefore 'causal', as Noah's flood was a result of the sin of the then, present day World.

So God created the Heavens and the Earth first. Then he created the angels.
Lucifer was put on the Earth with a third of the angels to better his (and their) characters. He turned against God and even attacked heaven and was cast down to the Earth. Then, man was created, to fulfill the place that the angels failed to fulfill.

The time span between Genesis 1 and 2 could be in the order of millions of years. There is no mention of 'days' until the creation of man.

The fact that there is a Fossil record is correct, in that there was a previous creation, over which the angels presided. This creation was destroyed by their 'Sin' and that is what we find with the fossil record.

This sin is shown by:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 1:5-7

And by:

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. Revelation 12: 3-4


So, as you see, when the truth is shown and the chaff is seperated from the wheat, the true story is crystal clear and leaves nothing in the dark.

The truth is crystal clear.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Hi starwarp

Actually what paleo-Hebrew text are you reading for Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:3? Are you using the vowelled-pointed Masoretic version of AD 960 from St Petersburg-Leningrad? Or maybe the paleo unpointed Samaritan Pentateuchal version from around 420BC? Or the unpointed paleoHebrew Vorlag which text(s) lay under the LXX Greek Septuaginta OT versons of Aquila, Theodotion or Symmachus? Or perhaps some random Dead Sea Scroll unpointed paleo-copy? You DID know (didn't you) that none of these versions actually match letter for letter?

Either way you should be aware that Heb. 'bara' is an 'imperfect' (active voice) tense of the verb to 'create from zero' in other words, the opening lines (Brsht Elhm bra t-hshmy'm vt-h'rtz) should read literally :

'[at the time] when ELOHIM (the masc. plural of fem. Eloah governing a sg subject 'he') was creating the Skies and the Land, the Land was formless and empty and darkness lay upon the face(s) of the Tehom, and the Wind of Elohim brooded (i.e. like a dove) over the Face(s) of the Waters [of Creation].'

The repetitive vav's ('and') make these liturgically repetitive chorus like verses one of the longest run on sentences in the Hebrew bible, but quite common in 'magickal' literature of the 7th century BCE...

Do you have any paleoHebrew or Greek under your belt? Just wondering since you seem to be quoting some modern translation of some version of the texts but you don't specify which text you are taking your English versions from...

Can you be a little more explicit?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


The premise of your post is incorrect and false. The Bible DOES NOT say that the earth is only 6000-10000 years old. There are no ancient texts of any book in the Bible that claims the age of the earth nor the universe.

The first English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts available were created by a group of men at the request of King James. In their zealous attempt to figure out a time-line of events, they came up with dating system and placed these dates at the top of the pages. Not only that, but they also altered the order of many of the books in relation to older manuscripts AND created chapters and verse numbers for them.

Your second error is to heap all those claiming to be Christian into one theological heap. Some Christians do believe what you claim. But not all, and probably not most. I would admit that I have not looked at the breakdown of how many people are in each sect of Christianity lately, however, I do know the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholics do not teach the age of the earth and universe.

The Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians that often post all over the internet and seem to have the need to engage atheists and others in silly debates, usually belong to Non-Denominational protestant sects.

Just as quantum physics has shown us the likelihood of parallel universes and the idea that our present reality is barely understandable, the Bible also can be read and described on multiple levels of understanding. The error almost all Christians make is the lack of being able to rightly divide the Bible into what is literal and what is spiritual. Christians have a big problem with this, and atheists even more so.

All this, and I have not even begun to get into the translation errors and translation choices from Ancient Hebrew and Greek into modern languages.
As an example of "translation choices", it would not be incorrect to translate Genesis 1.2 as "And the earth BECAME void and without form". When one looks at the ancient Hebrew languages and what scholars know for sure the words that can be translated correctly, the word "create" in 'English from the Hebrew actually is two different words. One means to create from nothing, another means to mold or reshape just as a sculptor would create a statue from marble or some other stone...but the sculptor did not create the stone from nothing.

If people would take a look at the Jewish Publication Society's english translation of the Old Testament, they would find that there are many words and phrases in ancient Jewish texts that scholars do not know the meanings of. The breadth and depth of the language was lost during the Babylonian captivity.

Anyone that claims the entire Bible is literal obviously has not studied the Bible. It is written in the New Testament that Jesus made use of parables to explain a moral or spiritual lesson in the same vein as an Aesop Fable. If the whole Bible is to be understood literally, the parables cannot exist.

Most Christians are unaware of Bullinger's scholarly work on the Figures of Speech utilized throughout the Bible. They are unaware of the acrostics. They are unaware of the meanings of people's names, the meanings of the cities, towns and other locations. These things all lend to a deeper understanding and sometimes a different understanding. Most Christians do not even know that the word "Jesus" is a Latin translation of the Hebrew name that is elsewhere translated as "Joshua" in English, "Ioseus" in Greek.

Then there are the translation problems I mentioned earlier in this post. In addition, anyone that is truly multilingual knows that it is can be difficult to accurately translate from one language to another. Transliteration often leads to mistranslation and the idea being brought forth can be lost. Throw into this ancient euphuisms, figures of speech, and slang



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


The GAP Theory.......

The Bible ALSO states in Genesis 1:2 (NIV): "NOW the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The implication is that there is a GAP in TIME between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... Thus, the "Gap Theory"...

Certainly, I think we ALL share an OBVIOUS Awareness and Consensus that ALL OF EXISTENCE is MORE THAN 6000 yrs old... It is a distortion of context to imply that the Bible states that the whole of creation is only 6000 years old, though. It's just not so.

In fact, there are other Biblical references which imply a "former" creation, but that's a whole LONG conversation. Methinks that what was communicated at that time was done so in such a manner as to break matters down to their simplest components, because the LISTENERS of the time were of 'simple understanding' and would Not be able to CONVEY the ideas they heard with CONSISTENCY, otherwise... The potential for distortion over time would be FAR greater...

Hopefully this sheds a "tiny bit" of light on the subject of 'timeframes,' without getting into a theological 'argument.'

Peace



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Hi Dirk Potters

Actually, you have a spelling typo (whoops ! common enough in these threads when people type so fast) i.e. in reading the English equivalents of the Greek for Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (BCE 12 to CE 36) :

The name of course should be trans-literated as 'IESOUS', just as the name JOSHUA is transliterated from the paleoHeb Vorlage underlay to the LXX into the Greek as 'Iesous.

The name was later Latinised into Iesus, and when the J was invented in English, Jesus. Not that he would have recognised Iesus or 'Iesous anyway...he probably would have responded to the Aramaic shortened form, Yeshu but would have avoided 'gentile' nomenclatures to judge what he thought of those 'outside of the tribe' ! [e.g. "The Son of Man was SENT ONLY to the Elect of the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE of YISRO'EL..."in Matt chapter 12] &tc.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join