A serious flaw in the bible..., page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:10 AM by Boogley

The Bible doesn't actually give a time frame. Time does not exist where God is so when it speaks on days, it's not truly known if it was actual days or groups of thousands of years. The author of Genesis is not really known, but most people attribute it to Moses.. and there are some people who believe it was a shortened copy of the Sumerian creation myths. Just some personal thoughts on the situation!

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:11 AM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
A serious flaw in...your argument...

What I was always taught is that God is beyond our comprehension and beyond our human understanding, a day to God could be a hundred million years to us, who knows...or maybe they used word day to describe a period of time, since significant things happened during these periods, so they called them days...

The truth is nobody knows...does the Earth's creation affect my faith or my opinion of the Bible? Nope...and it shouldn't be of great concern to anybody in my opinion...

Actually, if you read the passage in the Bible, you will find the day described as an evening and a morning. One rotation of the Earth, so to speak. No need to guess.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The problem with Man is that he does not believe in God. God can make the creation in one second. He made it in six days and rested on the seventh so you would take His example, working for six days and resting on the seventh. He doesn't need more time. He is not confined to time. He created Time.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Jim Scott]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:15 AM by Aoxoa

Ok unless you were here 6-10k years ago, why attempt to prove matters which you, I or anyone else could not. No I have little faith in Gods that have no name, (Heck why does every single god, apart from the Christian/etc god have a name? In order to be unable to invoke said god? A name is like a phone number, it directs you towards said target).

Anyway what my point is, is how can you be sure they are not space debris that colided together in the same way as a comet circles a sun or other huge body of gravity. There is almost no way to tell when mainstream media, or any site at all is stating the truth, or lying either out of misinformation, or on purpose. Maybe this God fellow did come, and help/guide people to write the Bible... But what if its all made up? To control the masses with religion.

All gods need a name in order to worship. Im sorry but its just like being told to worship "Human" or "Cat"... Which one exactly? Do I have the right one when I pray and submit myself for my soul to be taken by this mysterious and unnamed being?

Anyway alot of what I did say should of been an entirely different topic, but my point is that being told carbon dating by scientists who do not believe in a god happened, does not mean its true. Alot of psychiatrists actually find god believers "Those who worship an invisible god who they will never even see, hear, touch or etc to be quite dilusional."

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:21 AM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by ooomonkeys
Since it seems that there are many Christians here I would like to ask a few honest questions that I have had for quite some time now.

With all of the strange laws littered within the Old Testament. Why did God ever find those laws to be acceptable? Since Jesus died on the cross we no longer have to follow them anymore? Did an all-knowing & all-powerful God change his mind on how he wants his children to act? What of the sexist laws that can be found in the New Testament, are we not supposed to follow those? Why not?

The laws of the OT are not for Gentiles. There are only three laws for Gentiles: avoid eating blood, avoid eating meats given to idols, and do not commit adultery. The OT laws were for the ancient Hebrews. Most of them were symbolic, or given to preserve the Hebrews from disease and social disorder. They were the oracles of God, bringing forth His word and later His Son, and were chosen and protected while they were faithful as a nation. They, like us, had problems with obedience.

I suggest this chapter for your reading: kingjbible.com...

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:23 AM by Anubis3.14

There are many ideas on how we came to be. One is from the bible. Another from evolution. And many others that are religious or scientific in nature. But the only one that really comes so close to the mark, that you have to almost believe it completely , is we were created by another race. It really does add up if you take the time to learn, research and think. All you have to do is read This Book and you have all the information you need to start either finding out the truth to it all or do your best to say this book is false, which would be extremely hard to do.
It just makes sense. But when you do put it together and know the truth, I promise you, you will not like knowing it.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Anubis3.14]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:28 AM by nightmarehalo

Originally posted by ooomonkeys
Why did an all-powerful all-knowing God change his laws?

The laws were only intended to guide man so that they would love God with all their heart. When the laws were misinterpreted or broken they had to be revised. For all I care you can murder and rape anyone you want as long as you do it for God. Personally, I follow the rules of the Torah until such time that I find rules that are older.

Did he make a mistake?

God does not make mistakes.

So what laws are we supposed to follow now?

If you believe in Jesus then follow the NT. If you do not believe in Jesus follow the OT. But it's kind of hard to make a decision between two things that completely contradict each other. For this reason, whatever choice you make will be the right one. As I mentioned before, the laws are only guidelines so go out and kill.

Since these passages are found in the New Testament, why are they not followed in present day churches?

What a good question! The answer is that because people refuse to follow them. First they break the rules of the OT, then they make their own rules in the NT, and then they don't even follow those! Maybe it's because they feel bad for breaking OT rules so they break some of their own, but that's just pure Satanism.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:29 AM by Maslo

The polonium halos argument is questionable at best.

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:29 AM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Aoxoa
A lot of psychiatrists actually find god believers "Those who worship an invisible god who they will never even see, hear, touch or etc to be quite delusional."

Of course, then there are a lot of psychiatrists who believe in God.

You have made a false assumption. Some have seen God. You haven't.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:31 AM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Maslo
The polonium halos argument is questionable at best.

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

Actually, the polonium halos argument is put forth by the worlds greatest expert in the field. He knows more about it than any other scientist in the world, and his work is peer reviewed. Try again. The reference at www.talkorigins.org... for example, begins with "amateur scientist" if you care to note. The arguments given in each piece are clearly contrived and present a hollow hypothesis based merely on a predisposition against creation.

I find it ironic when science that supports creation is not considered reliable.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Jim Scott]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:33 AM by moniker

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by CHA0S

The bible says the Earth is around 6000 to 10,000 years old.

I request that the OP correct this erroneous statement.

Practicing jews (the kind who let their beards grow) tend to also say that the Earth is 6000 years old so I believe the numbers is in there somewhere, if you care to do the math.

Deny ignorance.

Quite so.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:38 AM by moniker

Originally posted by chiron613
In the beginning" is not specific. In the beginning of what?

I have came to understand that it should be read similar to "once upon a time".

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:39 AM by Jim Scott

reply to post by Aoxoa

You won't need a name. There is only one choice. One God. I suggest you use the name God, since it only applies to Him. There are no other Gods. Hope that ends the confusion.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:42 AM by moniker

Originally posted by Albastion

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by undo

that's not the age of the earth. that's the beginning of the human dispensation. there's a difference.

And we go back to square one..."In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." It wasn't just the start of mankind...HE CREATED EARTH, IN THE BEGINNING, AS WELL AS THE HEAVENS, WHICH HE ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE SKIES. He did it in 6 days, and from my previous post, you can see your argument about the word "day" is now seriously flawed...

[edit on 21/10/09 by CHA0S]

What makes you think a day for God is the same thing as a day for man? Do you really think that God and man would experience time in the same way?

A day on Earth is a revolution around Earth's axis. Given that the bible is specifically talking about the Earth and not about another planet, it's quite clear that a day is a day is a day. I may experience a day as far shorter than you do, but it is still the same length.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:47 AM by Missletow

Originally posted by Selahobed
You are under the assumption that the speed of light has always been constant, and if you do a quick google search you will see that there is evidence that the speed of light was faster in the past compared to the now.
Then you also have to factor in relativity, where space/time is proportional to to the amount of matter/energy in a specific place; the more matter/energy there is, the more "time" there is, and is the reason why the closer you get to the event horizon of a black hole the more time dialates.
So, time is not constant for all parts of the universe and is subjective to the observer. So with this in mind it is possible, factoring speed of light changes and relativity that the earth could still be a young earth.
As for carbon dating, puhhhlease! Most scientists with a modicum of integrity will tell you how incredibly inaccurate it is after 2000 years..

First of all, I am an atheist. But I just wanted to congratulate you on presenting me with the first scientifically based argument for a young earth that I've ever heard. Thank you for that. It is important to remember that in many ways we still think we're on a flat earth. The scientific model of the universe can never be complete. It is non-simultaneously apprehended. These leaves endless room for mystery.
The goal of any system of belief is to raise new questions to propel us forward. Organized religion hasn't done that for many generations now. The perfect religion would create a people that no longer needed it. We're reaching that end game, or so I hope.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:56 AM by StopComplaining

When I was in school the Earth was stated as being 3.6 million years old. The fact that text books and conventional wisdom is so ready to state infatically that the world is any particular age, even when that number keeps changing, show the willingness for Text Books etc. to lie.

NO ONE can say that they know precisely how old the earth is with certainty, through science or scripturally. If they tell you any concrete date then they are lying to you.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:59 AM by Maslo

reply to post by Jim Scott

Yes, I know that polonium halos are put forward by an actual scientist and have some logic behind them, thats why I called them questionable (which they are) and not false.

But there are even more experts who disagree with Gentry.

en.wikipedia.org... - references

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Maslo]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:10 AM by Angus123

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by Angus123

Angus, are you a Christian?
second line

No... and I understand where you're headed. Jesus was both God and man. So I stand corrected. I have seen a more crystal clear example of two opposing ideas held at the same time.

Actually, that thought never entered my head. I was going to show you an illustration of how Jesus showed you and I that the creation was made in six days. However, as a non-Christian, it is unlikely that you would find it relevant.

Actually I'm sure I'd find it relevant. I doubt I'd find it plausible though.

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:11 AM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jim Scott

Yes, I know that polonium halos are put forward by an actual scientist and have some logic behind them, thats why I called them questionable (which they are) and not false.

But there are even more experts who disagree with Gentry.

en.wikipedia.org... - references

Of course, you must have read what these scientists reported in their scientific criticism of Gentry:
"Numerous attempts have been made to counteract Gentry's claim and to show that Po halos are formed by less dramatic processes. None of these has been fully satisfactory."http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

and the other, Brawley, is a self-proclaimed amateur scientist. However, he states: "Upon obtaining Dr. Gentry's book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery," I found that there indeed seemed to be a legitimate claim being made: the requirement for long cooling periods (many, many years) in granites, combined with an extremely short half-life for Polonium, made it seem quite impossible for particles of Polonium-218 (half-life around three minutes) to have become entrapped in crystals of biotite which grew slowly to include them."

then he grips one single aspect to try to rule out all other possibilities:

"Hence, depending on multiple factors such as the configuration of cracks, buildup of Lead particles in them, new cracks or distortions formed under geologic shifting, and other changing conditions, Radon-222 halos might be seen in all conceivable stages of development. Radon halos would be the only types capable of continuing 'migratory' formation, since "Polonium," Uranium, and Thorium halos can only form around particles locked into places in the biotite crystal lattice or transported by subsequent hydrothermal activity."

Simply faulty reasoning. Basically, he is saying that if a flag flies south in a north wind, another flag cannot fly east in a west wind.

They took on the world expert, made flawed and baseless arguments, and their cause celebre was adopted by anti-creationists without examination of their texts and facts. That's called bias. Sorry....not buying it.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Jim Scott]

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:14 AM by Jim Scott

reply to post by Angus123

Well, consider this:

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the Old Testament?

What was the first miracle Jesus did in the New Testament?

reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 04:15 AM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by CHA0S

There are A LOT of flaws in the Bible, the few you've pointed out are really just the very very very very tip of a gargantuan cosmic sized ice berg of logical, historical, translation, etc, errors in the Bible. I find it amazing how desperately so many cling to this book simply because it is claimed to be the Word of God. Think about that, its just a claim, there's no proof its the "Word of God" and as far as I know no non-human source (such as God) has even endorsed the Bible as absolute truth (outside of Christian documents). Its like if you or I wrote a book and wrote at the beginning "This is the absolute true Word of God" and then people believed us

and in the book we warn people "if you don't follow what's in this book you go to Hell" and they believed that too, simply because it said so and the Church/Parents that gave them the book said so.

So you can see how it gets out of hand, soon enough billions of people are believing in a book based on blind faith. Don't get me wrong, there's some great philosophy, proverbs, and adventure stories in the Bible but taking it as absolute literal truth shouldn't even be an option.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Titen-Sxull]