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.

 

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 42
78
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Well, first of all the bible claims moral absolutes, but there's a fair few contradictions (see image below)



Source:- www.jesusneedsnewpr.net...

Secondaly, there's scientific claims that are incorrect:-


Insects do NOT have four feet

Lev 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth
upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the
earth;

Lev 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and
the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind.

Lev 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet,
shall be an abomination unto you.

They have six. In fact, NOTHING that can fly has four feet.


Rabbits do not chew their cud

Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

They only appear to, due to mistaken human perception. How could an all knowing God not know this?


Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt nor dust

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


The bat is not a bird

Lev 11:13 These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are
detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

Lev 11:19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Deu 14:11 You may eat any clean bird.

Deu 14:12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

Deu 14:18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

The bat is in fact a flying mammal.


Snails do not melt

Psalm 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like
the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.


The Earth is NOT flat!

Yet these verses indicate that the Earth must either be flat, square or rectangle!

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

How can the Earth have four corners if it's sphere-shaped? Four corners indicate either a flat, square or rectangular structure!

Likewise, notice the structural disposition of the Earth assumed by these verses.

Psalms 67:7 God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him.

Psalms 135:7 He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.

Isaiah 41:9 I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.

Isaiah 5:26 He lifts up a banner for the distant nations, he whistles for those at the ends of the earth. Here they come, swiftly and speedily!

Daniel 4:10-11 These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there
before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Zechariah 9:10 I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.

Mark 13:26-27 At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Romans 10:18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

How can a round sphere have "ends"? Also, in regard to Psalm 135:7, winds do not come from storehouses! So much for Biblical meteorology. And from Daniel 4:10-11, how can a tree be tall enough to touch the sky? Did the infallible Bible writers think that the sky had a roof? Also from Daniel:

Daniel 4:20 The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth...

No matter how tall that tree is, there's no way it could be seen to the “ends of the Earth” on a spherical body! Likewise,

Isaiah 18:3 All you people of the world, you who live on the earth, when a banner is raised on the mountains, you will see it, and when a trumpet sounds, you will hear it.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,
and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

Since astronomical bodies are spherical, you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace on it, therefore you could not technically see "all the kingdoms of the world" from one point!

Next,

Proverbs 8:29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Zechariah 12:1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth...

A foundation structurally implies building a basement to the ground first to lay the rest above it!

Similarly,

Psalms 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

I guess the foundation of the world has pillars holding it up too?

Of course, in defense Christians will try to claim that these verses are only metaphors or allegorical, and not to be taken literally. But why don’t they take all the verses of their cherished fundamental doctrines and do the same as well? How do they decide what is allegorical and what is literal? And why should we trust their judgment on that?


The Earth is not motionless

Psalms 104:5 The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved.

1 Chronicles 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

The Earth is moving constantly 24 hours a day in its path around the Sun!


The moon is not a light

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made thestars also.

The moon is not a light! You can only see it glow only because of the sun's reflection off of it. During some of its phases, you can't even see it at all!




posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i said my ideas were theories. i did not say my ideas were facts. i based my theories on the available data, in not only the bible, but the other writings of sumer, akkad, egypt, india and china. i just want you to think for a moment about the current position you hold as regards ancient history. the original reason for the modern teaching that ancient texts are fairy tales, is based on a misunderstanding, 300 years ago. please revisit the data. i do believe you will be able to state, without fear of being incorrect, that the ancient histories are historically valid.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i can provide objective claims (Based on the current standards of objectivity) for what the bible claims, but only what it claims, not traditions established by the vatican 1000 years ago.


Provide them.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


k, one thing at a time. i'm working on a post to you. which should be forthcoming in the next few minutes.

hang on brb.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


okay, now i want you to do a little experiment with me before we proceed into the first link you provided in your post i am responding to. the following text is the russian version of the verses you listed. now i'm going to retranslate then back into english using that wonderfully inaccurate translation device known as babelfish (up to 14:12)

11:21 но эти лева могут ye съесть каждой вещи проползать летания которая goeth на все 4, которое имеют ноги над их ногами, котор нужно перескочить withal на земля; 11:22 лева даже это из их ye могут съесть; саранчук после его вида, и облыселый саранчук после его вида, и жук после его вида, и кузнечик после его вида. 11:23 лева но все другие вещи проползать летания, которые имеют 4 фута, будет abomination к вам. Они имеют 6. В действительности, НИЧЕГО которое может лететь имеет 4 фута. Кролики не жуют их жвачку 11:6 лева и зайцы, потому что он cheweth жвачка, но divideth не копыто; он поган к вам. Они только появляются к, должно к ошибочному людскому воспринятию. Как не смогл все знать Бог знать это? Змейки, пока построенный низкий уровень, не едят грязь ни пыль 3:14 происхождения и ЛОРД Бог сказали к смею, потому что hast Вы сделанное этому, скотины Вы проклятые искусством выше всего, и над каждым зверем поля; на thy Вы shalt живота пойдите, и Вы shalt пыли ест все дни thy жизни: Летучая мышь нет птицы 11:13 лева эти птицы вы detest и не съесть потому что они detestable: орел, хищник, черный хищник, 11:19 лева аист, любой вид цапли, hoopoe и летучая мышь. 14:11 Deu вы можете съесть любую чистую птицу.

11:21 but these it is left they can ye eat each thing to [propolzat] flying which goeth to all 4, which the feet above their feet have, it is which necessary to jump withal on the earth; 11:22 it is left even this of ye they can eat them; locust after its form, and bald locust after its form, and beetle after its form, and grasshopper after its form. 11:23 it is left but all other things to [propolzat] flying, which have 4 feet, there will be abomination to you. They have 6. in actuality, NOTHING which can fly it has 4 feet. Rabbits do not chew their chewing 11:6 it is left and hares, because it cheweth chewing, but divideth not hoof; it is unclean to you. They only appear [k], it is must to the erroneous human perception. How not [smogl] everything to know god to know this? Snakes, until the constructed low level, they eat mud not dust the 3:14 of origin and LORD [Bog] they say to the serpent, because hast you made to this, cattle you cursed a skill above all, and above each beast of field; you shalt of stomach go to thy, and you shalt of dust eats all days of thy of the life: Bat there is no bird 11:13 it is left these birds you detest and not to eat because they detestable: eagle, predator, black predator, 11:19 it is left stork, any form of heron, hoopoe and bat. The 14:11 Of deu you can eat any clean bird.

that's essentially what you're looking at.
a language that has been translated into another language by a standard, (in this case, english) which does severe disservice to the original language.

remember, one of the criteria i requested was: " in the original hebrew." you didn't give that though, you gave me babelfish


edit on 12-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Even with the original translations or whether they are read in the original arabic scripture, my point still stands regarding the religion being reprehensible in regards to ethical and moral teaching and incorrect when it comes to scientific accuracies.

Some languages change the meaning through translation more than others do because of a lack of language vocabulary. But just because it may have been mistranslated incorrectly doesn't make me believe it any more.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
first example in your post: insects do not have 4 feet. and then you list a verse in which the only indication it's a critter of any kind, is said to be a "Creeping thing." this is what "Creeping thing" derives from:

remes

1) creeping things, moving things, creeping organism

a) creeping things

b) gliding things (of sea animals)

c) moving things (of all animals)

which comes from ramas

1) to creep, move lightly, move about, walk on all fours

a) (Qal)

1) to creep, teem (of all creeping things)

2) to creep (of animals)

3) to move lightly, glide about (of water animals)

4) to move about (of all land animals generally)

where's the insects? IN BABELFISH apparently



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


BABELFISH translator used to fail me in french lessons, i soon learnt it's better just to learn language syntax rather than relying on machines.

Any more refutations?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
leviticus 11:6 example is wrong as well. the translators put the word "hare" in there. that wasn't the original word. the original word was 'arnebeth it's of unknown derivation and NEVER said hare.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
11:23
that one has me stumped. i have no idea what they could be referring to. i can't even think of a flying reptile that would fit it. even pterodactyls had 2 feet. (unless we count the digits on their wings. no clue. might be extinct.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
genesis reference to serpent eating dust. lol that's the silliest nit pick i have ever seen. it's clear the text is
interweaving metaphors to describe something important. here, let's start with the actual verse

And the LORD 3068 God 430 said 559 unto the serpent 5175, Because thou 859 hast done 6213 this, thou [art] cursed 779 above all cattle 929, and above every beast 2416 of the field 7704; upon thy belly 1512 shalt thou go 3212 , and dust 6083 shalt thou eat 398 all the days 3117 of thy life 2416:

remove words without numbers after them

lord god said serpent thou done cursed cattle beast field belly go dust eat days life.

the word serpent comes from "nachash". but it also comes from "seraph" which is a word to describe a race of angels, called the seraphim. so if we are to take that english translation literally, that means an angel is crawling around on his belly eating dust.

oddly enough, in preceeding verses, somebody is made of dust. perhaps it means the angel in question would eat the people made from dust? not enough data in that verse to say, one way or the other.



edit on 12-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
the bat is not a bird thing.

the word "bird" is not used to generally refer to the animals named. in fact, the word "Fowl" is used in english, which in hebrew is

`owph

1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds

a) fowl, birds

b) winged insects

birds are included in their definition of owph, probably because they fly.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
the snail thing.
since it's in the same verse with what sounds like a woman's afterbirth (and likened to it), i'm guessing what it means is, that it deflates when the water is released/removed/dried out. i think this particular point is not really all that important.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
four corners of the earth.
this is an interesting verse. i did a study on the subject of the "four corners of the earth" concept

first off, the word "corners" comes from

kanaph

1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt

a) wing

b) extremity

1) skirt, corner (of garment)

if we are to take that as a strictly literal interpretation, we must also consider it means from the four shirts of the earth. lol

it's not referring to the sphere of the earth but the LAND vs. the WATER. it's the boundaries of land (earth) in all four directions.
edit on 12-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
"ends of the earth" is poetic language. it's grandiose. any verses in which those words are contained, is at least partially, painting you a big picture. sounds like another way of saying "horizons", or another way might be "as far as the eye can see"

same thing with storehouses. it's poetic. grandiose.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Daniel 4:10-11 These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there
before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

it's a vision. daniel's visions are ALWAYS always always, (did i mention always?), metaphors for something else, which he then receives an interpretation for, aftewards. he has a vision filled with symbols, then reveals their interpretation. the TREE is a symbol of something else which he reveals a few verses later as referring to king nebuchadnezzar.

Daneil 4: 22 It [is] thou 607, 0 king 4430, that art grown 7236 and become strong 8631 : for thy greatness 7238 is grown 7236 , and reacheth 4291 unto heaven 8065, and thy dominion 7985 to the end 5491 of the earth 772.

sigh. i can't believe these are considered legitimate criticisms of the text. : /



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
the rest of those are more grandiose concepts or just general observations.

light is light. reflected or not, it's still light.

is it possible the person who wrote those examples wasn't honestly intent on disproving the text, but in fact the opposite? because those examples are easily refutable.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


as regards objective claims:

the land of shinar is sumer. historically valid. they originally didn't think it was a valid place because sumer was buried under 8 ft of flood silt, from the black sea flood. it wasn't discovered till about 100 years ago.

flood of noah is the black sea flood. historically valid. not a global flood. in fact, the bible doesn't say it was global. all words that suggest it was global, were added by translators. and the amount of animals listed is much less than the mainstream belief that it was ALL animals, since words that suggest it was all animals were added by translators and the actual numbers which were indeed listed, oddly enough, seem to be ignored by those who hold the mainstream view (which was started by the vatican) and those who like to quote it as evidence that it's a fairy tale. it wasn't all the animals. more like the barnyard. it was necessary to take the animals because the flood was going to wipe flocks and wild life out for a 1000 miles in all directions. it was a big flood, just not a global flood.

pretty much every king and emperor listed in the bible, both old and new testament, have been verified to have actually existed. as are most of the towns, empires, and prominent people, religions, weapons, clothing styles, and monetary types.

so they are a few claims for starters



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I feel you would never admit to scripture being contradictory or incorrect. You will find away to change the language or to make it into a metaphor or some other detraction.


Lev 11:13 These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are
detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

Lev 11:19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Deu 14:11 You may eat any clean bird.

Deu 14:12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

Deu 14:18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

The bat is in fact a flying mamma


It seems their clasifacation system wasn't too great, seems like Darwin had a better idea on things than God himself did.

Some of these creatures might have been "unclean" at the time, because it's clear they didn't have the biological expertise we do today.

If God is so clever, so all-knowing - why didn't he write about sanitation, DNA or bacteria in the bible? Let me guess - It's been lost in translation?

1 thing we know for sure, we can't verify most of the metaphysical and supernatural claims of the bible, but we can at least ackowledge some points;

-There's no detailed account of technology that can be passed on to help humanity.
-The agricultural instructions are very basic, (maybe effective at the time)
-There are many moral and ethical contradictions that mere mistranslation cannot account for.
-There seems to be some historical inaccuracies (as well as accuracy)


Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988).


Because so much of the bible appears contradictory, and prays on our hopes and fears without evidence - i will not trust it, whether it came from intellectual alien race, or whether God himself floated down from wherever he resides. Much of the preaching is evil, it's authoritive, it's totalitarian. I don't hold faith in such disgusting works.
edit on 13/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i never would do that, at least, not intentionally. so here is why i said, it doesn't say bird:

Lev 11:13 ¶ And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination 8262 among 4480 the fowls 5775; they shall not be eaten 398 , they [are] an abomination 8263: the eagle 5404, and the ossifrage 6538, and the ospray 5822,

the VERSION of the bible you have listed, says bird. but older, king james says, FOWLS. the word fowls in that verse is from

`owph
1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds

a) fowl, birds

b) winged insects

it's from the even older

`uwph

1) to fly, fly about, fly away

a) (Qal)

1) to fly, hover

2) to fly away

b) (Hiphil) to cause to fly, light upon

c) (Polel)

1) to fly about or to and fro

2) to cause to fly to and fro, brandish

d) (Hithpolel) to fly away

2) (Qal) to cover, be dark



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join