Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Does Genesis 1:1 “fit” the scientific fact of a “beginning”? Evidence says yes.

So does every other ex nihilo creation myth. So I'm sure that you're being intellectually honest and giving them all the same weight when reviewing their other claims. And if something only has to describe once property of the universe, in this case that it has a beginning, correctly for it to start to be taken as a factual account, there's even more out there that you need to start re-evaluating with the same loose interpretations that you've allowed yourself here.


“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

More circular reasoning - the Bible is divinely inspired because the Bible says it's divinely inspired. So every book that claims to be true is true. Again, I'm sure you'll practice the same intellectual honesty and be even-handed when evaluating the claims of other myths when deciding if they're factually correct.


Scientific evidence show that the universe had a beginning (big bang) – does the Bible agree with this fact? Evidence says yes.

Or how about this way:

The Bible says that the “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1 – does the evidence show this to be so? That the universe had a beginning? Again the fact says yes INDEED!

Bootstrapping one argument to another without proof of the second. Science says the universe has a beginning, the big bang. The Bible says the universe has a beginning. Nowhere in science is there evidence that God created the universe, nowhere in the Bible is the big bang explicitly mentioned. Stop conflating two different arguments.


Interestingly, since you've mentioned it, why do proponents of evolution allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way how they view the evidence?

For example – the discovery of a single tooth or a bone fragment by anthropologists in support of evolution – what is the conclusion that they will likely present? Creation or Evolution?

A scientific theory based on misinterpretation of evidence will ultimately fail as new evidence comes to light. If your hypothetical "bone fragment" somehow refuted evolution, they would have to reevaluate their theory. This happens regularly in science. When was the last time religious dogma was questioned in a meaningful way by its proponents?


doesn’t CUT IT! It's a cop-out!

My argument stemming from my own incredulity is just as valid as your baseless arguments stemming from your own credulity.


But if you insist please show me a book that is as old or even older than the Bible that accurately “fits” scientific facts - to back up your claim.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, which the Bible was partly plagiarized from, does a better job of describing the view of the Earth from space than the Bible does.


Are you saying then that Moses' statement at Genesis 1:1 is accurate due to “anthropomorphizing”?

Yes, so I'm asserting that it's accuracy is coincidental.

[quote[If so is “anthropomorphizing” scientific? Is that what you're saying – I'm not interpreting your words but merely trying to understand them.
Yes, anthropomorphism is a well understood anthropological concept.


What about his mentioning “God” as the Creator of the “heavens and the earth”? Will you also consider this accurate as a result of his “anthropomorphizing”? Is it scientific?

The first and second chapters of Genesis do a pretty good job of anthropomorphizing God as well. God speaks, even though there is only God to hear him. God breathes. God has hands. Why would an omnipotent being need those things? One wouldn't. The authors of the Bible anthropomorphized God. This is just as scientific as any claim that you make in this series of posts.


Also what about the rest of his writings? Are they also the result of “anthropomorphizing”?

No, but then again I didn't claim that they were. I simply anthropomorphism as an explanation for Genesis 1:1.


How did he know that the earth is “hanging the earth upon nothing”? - Is this also the result of “anthropomorphizing”? If so how could such a primitive person (in comparison to ours) able to match our knowledge when it comes to space age information? How did he figure out that the
earth is “hanging the earth upon nothing”?

Again, are the heavens empty or do they contain something? There seems to be some conflict there.


Do the facts show this to be so? There's no doubt about it!

There's more than enough doubt to go around.




posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
That's right, they have. People have been saying that since Christ left. Because he said he would. I see no reason for him to lie. Even if he were capable. So naturally, people who believe are going to say this..
People have been believing and professing. Breath in, breath out. The thing is, they didn't have anything but the book to tell them and that was enough for them. You have the book and if you had any interest in it, you'd also
know the signs are happening. The predicted end is very close. You have many ways to see the truth. But you simply will not. Because of this you will be counted amoung those whom God will send, "Strong delusion that they shall believe a lie. Because they would not believe the truth".

Yep people have been say'in this. You have heard this. Do you see that you will have no excuse when he does?
I imagine after he comes back. You prolly won't hear it after that. Breath in breath out..

More sanctimony from believers. And then you wonder why the number of atheists is growing.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



Sorry for the long post but I had to.

you said:


I didn't actually ask you for scientific evidence, I was pointing out that being able to correlate a bible passage with current scientific dogma, said correlation isn't the same as evidence, its closer to coincidence as well as attempted to show that what you claim as scientific evidence just is not.



If it happens once, twice or even three times – I might say coincidence too, but the fact is there’s more than a hundred verses that when verified against scientific facts or as you say scientific dogma they correlate. Too many to dismiss as mere coincidence! But I guess if one is not really interested in evidence then everything is just coincidence.

But the fact that the evidence presented on this thread agrees with known scientific facts begs us to question their origin. For how could a person 3500 years ago be able to say that the ‘universe’ and the ‘earth’ had a beginning? How could a person say that the earth is “hanging upon nothing”, etc? I’ve looked at all possibilities and no satisfactory explanation will suffice except that the writers were divinely inspired.

Honestly – try coming up with one satisfactory explanation and see if it even can come close to divine inspiration.

Some poster's here said that Moses copied/learned it from Egypt but no evidence was provided to back it up. Another explanation provided was, it was form an alien (not sure what kind). Another was that the Bible was plagiarized from Babylonian mythology like the Epic of Gilgamesh. I can also add here that during my research some thought that it was borrowed from Greek mythology – the Theogony of Hesiod, etc.

But upon closer examination of these so called sources, these myths - they fall apart miserably. Many if not all of them are full of exaggeration and distortions of events and facts – thus a myths. Interestingly some contain a kernel of historical facts that can be used to verify the historicity of an event. For example the Epic of Gilgamesh talks about the Flood happening on earth. But taken as whole one thing can be ascertained from these ancient records – they originated from one location: Mesopotamia.

On this the Bible gives a complete record, an accurate truthful record of what happened in Mesopotamia - where the other ancient records failed miserably. Again, here also - the Bible when it touches ancient history or ancient historical facts – it's the gold standard. It's accuracy is impeccable!

But I’d like to see your pov.

next you said:

In fact, I would have given your posts a little more credence were it not for several glaring errors of fact on your part when discussing science.


Yes – I saw that one too, you’re referring the size of the star, I said Milky Way – should be:

“Note: Correction on Part I: the biggest KNOWN star in the universe so far according to some is “Eta Carinae” with a radius of 400 times the size of the Sun but others say VY Canis Majoris with the size past the orbit of Mars (not the Milky Way Galaxy) - but still being debated as the universe is so huge.”
(The thread was already locked when I saw it too so I posted the correction in Part II):

But if you can point the other errors – I’d like to know.

As for:

You, however, neglected to address those items and simply quoted my summation and then implied that I labeled you as someone who "who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh." -Astyanax" which never came from me.


My apologies if it appeared that I’m labeling you, I’m not – reason I included the comment from Astyanax is to show the attacks I get whenever I start quoting Bible verses.

Next you said:

Do I think I'm correct in my assumptions and you are inciorrect? yes, for the most part. I am not quite arrogant enough to say that I have all of the definitive answers one way or the other though. With that said, I won't be a hypocrite so I'm going to answer your questions-


Of course you’re entitled to your facts as everyone else is but the bottom line is which one is the truth. After all that’s what we’re after - deny ignorance – I hope. And as far as I know the Bible is a good if not the ultimate barometer of truth. I might make a mistake here and there but the truths contained in the Bible stands unmovable. On that I’m confident! It’s been proven time and again and most of all it stood the test of time. Kingdoms and empires come and go and yet it's still here growing ever stronger as prophetic events are fulfilled.

Case in point Gen 1:1 for one – confirmed 3500 years later!

As for having all the answers – I’m on the same boat as you are, I don’t know all the answers and will make a mistake here and there but like what I said the word of God remains intact. Anyone who goes against it has been proven to be not having the facts and will sure fail. That I can guaranty.

Next:

I don't dispute the science.


I’m glad to hear that and so do I – as long as it’s true science.

But then you said:

My dispute is that the bible corroborates the science.


again, the bible does NOT corroborate science.


Like what I’ve been saying for a while now – the Bible is NOT a science text book but when it touches / deals with known scientific facts IT’s in agreement (to a lesser degree or higher degree) which is the is point of the thread.

But since you don’t dispute the science – why are you then disputing the Bible agreeing with science?

Is it what you said below?:

...additionally, when translating from aramaic to greek to latin and then into modern languages over the past 1600 years or so is it possible that portions of these older texts were mistranslated or altered to suit the intended new audience?


Happily we have so much manuscript available – very old ones even – that we can confidently verify and confirm the accuracy of a text.

Sad part is, many of the new translations still carry the mistakes from older translations. Happily this can be easily resolved by referring to the earliest manuscripts (but that's another topic).

But f you’re main reason is that:


… an alteration of christian tradition would be Emperor Constantine moving the date of christmas to coincide with the festival of Sol Invictus. See, the Romans liked their parties, a lot. And they didn't want to give up holidays or feasts for anything so the easiest way to get them to go along with Constantine's new found faith was to simply change the names of Roman festivals to Christian ones. Sorry... totally diverging off topic here!


Then your dispute is with MEN – mans traditions in place of God’s word.

On this Jesus the founder of true Christianity (not Christendom) is in agreement with you (and so do I):

“He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’” (Mark 7:6-7)

As for Sol Invictus – we are on the same page. A simple research will confirm this to be so:

Notice:

Date of celebration
For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born.[17] In the early 18th century, scholars began proposing alternative explanations. Isaac Newton argued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice,[11] which the Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25.[18] In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church.[12] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after Annunciation, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.[19]
The December 25 date may have been selected by the church in Rome in the early 4th century. At this time, a church calendar was created and other holidays were also placed on solar dates: "It is cosmic symbolism...which inspired the Church leadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice, December 25, as the birthday of Christ, and the summer solstice as that of John the Baptist, supplemented by the equinoxes as their respective dates of conception. While they were aware that pagans called this day the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas," according to modern scholar S.E. Hijmans.[20]

However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on December 25 is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian denominations;[21][22][23] rather, celebrating the coming of God into the world in the form of man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary meaning of Christmas.[21][22][23]
-- en.wikipedia.org...

next you said:

Just because you don't know the answer, that doesn't mean it must be God the creator in all his glory.(doesn't mean i can't turn out to be wrong, but I've yet to see anything that indicates to ME that this is the case).


So are saying then that you don't know where Moses or Job or the other writers got their information from when they wrote it in the Bible?

Or are you saying that they wrote it but God was not source?

Help me out here please as I'm trying to figure out what your saying. I'd like to know your take.


I say that I grew up in a very Catholic family, was an altar boy and to this day(despite only seeing me in church for weddings or funerals) I can still recite the entire mass from memory. As a child my grandmother and I would spend hours upon hours pouring through the old family bible and learning passages so I am in no way ignorant to Christianity or biased towards religion in general or Catholicism in particular.


Thanks for sharing that – and I hope that you go back in studying the scriptures- especially NOW. For there will come a time in which it will be very difficult to find time to study it.


But unless Christians are really polytheists, I am uncomfortable with a book whos first half is about a vengeful God who orders infanticide, incest, rape and murder and beatings for your wife in order for certain Israelites to prove their devotion to "him" while the 2nd half of the book is Jesus preaching the word of a loving god who forgives all as long as you go to confession.


This part I’m not surprise at all for I’ve heard it so many times already – same story line, same explanation, same verses used to discredit the Bible. But if you carefully study the story lines – it falls apart. And the true motive of whomever made the story to discredit the Bible comes into full view. Sadly whoever subscribes to them becomes a slave to their pov, becomes trapped – unable to move forward.

The ones I know is like forming a conclusion in the middle of a movie - the person was judged evil for what happened not knowing the before and after of the story line.

But if you want to continue believing in that narrative it’s your right – but I hope you give the Bible a chance – you’ll be surprise on what you will find. Nothing like what you think (let me know if want to know - not here though).

So what can I say – there’s so much to gain believing in Creation – otherwise the alternative is believing on NOTHING (but yourself or your fellowman or whatever comes up).

Ty,
Edmc2



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 
I have yet to find one of your putative verifications of scientific fact posited in the Bible. I see a bunch of ambiguous wording devoid of apparent meaning that can be stretched to fit any statement, but not much scientific fact.

Here's a scientific fact:

The Acarophenax is a parasitic mite where incestuous fertilization occurs within the womb of the mother. The haploid son impregnates the daughters, again inside the womb of the mother, and then the brother is eaten by the daughters who proceed to eat their mother from the inside and out. Each mother gives birth to one or few sons and many daughters? Why? Sperm is cheap, the threat of parasites and diseases is minimal because fertilization occurs within the womb and mites have short life cycles, so recessive genes are a non-factor. One haploid son can mate with hundreds and hundreds of daughters, while gene replication in females is tethered to child-bearing, not just releasing eggs. Therefore it pays to have unbalanced sex-allocation ratios in favor of females.

How the above can be reconciled with a God who created everything 10,000 years ago in its current form is beyond me (did Noah really procure the Acarophenax as a denizen of his Ark?). I eagerly await an explanation on the matter.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
What about all the other claims in the bible that can't possibly be true? You can't just ignore them. You are simply trying to stretch the evidence to fit your own fairytale.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   


I have yet to find one of your putative verifications of scientific fact posited in the Bible. I see a bunch of ambiguous wording devoid of apparent meaning that can be stretched to fit any statement, but not much scientific fact.


"putative verifications of scientific fact", hmmm - ok - if it's putative indeed then please consider just this one.

I'll stay within the confines of this thread and use Fact #3:

My Bible says:

Fact 3) “He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing.”—Job 26:7.

Scientific Findings proved:

That Job 26:7 although written in the 15th century B.C.E., is scientifically correct and factually accurate.

Proof:

Again through the use of powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science, confirmed its correctness, accuracy and authenticity. That the earth is being held by an invisible force, ergo: Gravitational forces and laws of motion!

What? You don't agree?

OK - here's a simple illustration for you:




Challenge to you:

Please dispute / disprove / dismantle / debunk this "putative verifications of scientific fact" that I posited. Am I correct or am I not? Does Job Job 26:7 agree with scientific facts? Or are they as you say "putative verifications of scientific fact"?


I'll await your scientific explanation.

As for:


Here's a scientific fact:

The Acarophenax is a parasitic mite where incestuous fertilization occurs within the womb of the mother. The haploid son impregnates the daughters, again inside the womb of the mother, and then the brother is eaten by the daughters who proceed to eat their mother from the inside and out. Each mother gives birth to one or few sons and many daughters? Why? Sperm is cheap, the threat of parasites and diseases is minimal because fertilization occurs within the womb and mites have short life cycles, so recessive genes are a non-factor. One haploid son can mate with hundreds and hundreds of daughters, while gene replication in females is tethered to child-bearing, not just releasing eggs. Therefore it pays to have unbalanced sex-allocation ratios in favor of females.


Interesting how these mites propagate. It makes sense that they propagate this way considering their very short life cycle. Thanks for the information - I'll add it to my library.

As for:


How the above can be reconciled with a God who created everything 10,000 years ago in its current form is beyond me (did Noah really procure the Acarophenax as a denizen of his Ark?). I eagerly await an explanation on the matter.


May I suggest reading the OP first before posting - that way i don't need to keep repeating myself.

Anyway here's what I said in the OP:


#Note: The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation. Based on known scientific...[archeological] facts the earth is around 4byo and the universe around 13byo (for now – might change). Gen. 1:1 does not disagree with the established facts. But the 6000 to 10000 year old earth does not fit these [currently] well known facts.


biologically speaking I don't know precisely when these (bugs) Acariformes or Parasitiformes were created - but they are here. Why they exist?

One thing I do know:

After man's fall into imperfection (sin) and the resulting loss of direction from God, the unbalance brought about by man’s dealing with the earth and animal life has caused certain animals, particularly insects, to become “pests.” Also, man’s filthiness and pollution and his upsetting of the ecology by destruction of some life-forms have resulted in the vast increase of certain kinds of insects (and mites/bugs). Observation will reveal that it is primarily the waste, or the diseased or rotten portions of a plant or animal that insects or 'bugs" attack. To a great extent they are useful scavengers - that pesky dust mite. Sadly these unbalancing of nature by man brings about (manifests itself) in such swarms of insects that they overflow into man’s personal domain. Insects then invade and destroy man’s food supplies and foul up his property.

For example - big cities, where garbage and sewage may attract huge swarms of flies, as well as rats and other rodents. Nothing against motels - but have you ever think of what goes there under those beds - blankets -yeww.

From these filththy, unsanitary living conditions, used powerful drugs to destroy them - it brought us more virulent viruses and almost indestructible bugs, mites - that bring new diseases. Instead of bringing benefits - they bring us ever stronger diseases/strains and deaths.

But happily all of these will end in the near future as God will bring back the earth and ALL it's inhabitants to perfect balance. Will you be there - it's up to you but I hope so.

“For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.” (Romans 8:19-22)


ty,
edmc2
]
edit on 12-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: astronomical - archeological/filththy/??



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by strato
What about all the other claims in the bible that can't possibly be true? You can't just ignore them. You are simply trying to stretch the evidence to fit your own fairytale.


Can you name one or two? - I'd like to look into it.

But you say that I'm "simply trying to stretch the evidence to fit your own fairytale" -- OK, then please prove that:

Fact 3) “He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing.”—Job 26:7. - is a "fairytale".

I'll await your brilliant reply.

ty,
edmc2



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Well it isn't my brilliant reply you await but here mine even if it ain't all too bright.

I have also stated that I think you are stretching things to fit. This suspended on nothing is an example. If god had wanted to explain that earth was held in place by gravity he should have used the term "invisible force" instead of "nothing". Gravity isn't nothing. It is something.

Now if he knew that the word would survive for centuries after man had come to understand gravity as something which can't be seen but whos effects can be measured and therefore something then why did he use a term that isn't really correct.

During the time when I started loosing faith I looked back and realized that I had also been guilty of forcing things to fit the words in the bible. I was in my early teens so they were simple stretchings but stretching none the less.

Many have said that man could not have but together the bible. I think miswordings like these are proof that it wasn't an all knowing being that did it but actually a group of men who had no idea what discoveries man would make in the future.

edit on 12-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I can name a whole host! Hell, I posted this whole list in another thread, mainly because someone decided to provide a list of all the supposed scientific information in the Bible....even though there isn't any. It's all post-hoc attempts to fit a square peg into a round whole. Without further delay:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now let's test the other passages where the Bible gets all sorts of things wrong:

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
...actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)


That's 26. And that's just scientific stuff in the Old Testament, it doesn't bother with the New Testament or historical problems.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 
Its hard to imagine the lengths with which one's delusions can take their modes of thought.

"Hanging the earth upon nothing" means absolutely nothing. My nephew a few days ago said "I think wizards must live on the moon because it doesn't fall on us." Had I been made privy to your way of thinking I would think he was the Messiah.

Why didn't the passage just come out and say "the earth is rotating around the sun as its being harnessed in by the curvature of space-time resulting from the sun's density." Certainly a more apt and worthy explanation than "Hanging the earth upon nothing"

Job 38:6 - Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, Or who laid its cornerstone?

Does that sound like a sphere to you?

Having taken a semester of Greek Mythology, the "earth hanging upon nothing" was a reoccurring theme in ancient Greek philosophy, and is in no way factually accurate, because the phrase itself is barren, and can be used to imply different things in varying contexts.

Actually we studied this very phrase, amongst many others, and quickly learned ideas and characters in the Bible were rehashed from various ancient texts.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
Love the one word references lol, I guess any further explanation was unnecessary.

Dragons



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



Well it isn't my brilliant reply you await but here mine even if it ain't all too bright.

I have also stated that I think you are stretching things to fit. This suspended on nothing is an example. If god had wanted to explain that earth was held in place by gravity he should have used the term "invisible force" instead of "nothing". Gravity isn't nothing. It is something.


See this is the thing that puzzles me about opponents of the Bible. Things like this.
Most opponents of the Bible fail to put into account timelines – as if they don’t exist. Case in point – the statement at Job 26:7 was uttered / written more than 3000 years ago. Yet the wordings are questioned because it didn’t use scientific terminologies, as if the people who wrote it were somehow equal to our knowledge in terms of time and space. It’s like telling Shakespeare to write his playwrites in scientific terminologies or just plain English like today’s – that is silly imho. Of course the Bible writers wrote down what they saw, what they experienced, what they went through by way of their own understanding. They were given the freedom to do this. Write things in their own level of understanding and style.

Imagine Macbeth saying these in plain English:


Great Glamis! worthy Cawdor!
Greater than both, by the all-hail hereafter!
Thy letters have transported me beyond
This ignorant present, and I feel now
The future in the instant.
…We will proceed no further in this business:
He hath honour'd me of late; and I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,
Not cast aside so soon.


But any idea what would the reaction be from the participants of the play if Shakespeare wrote it in plain English?

Yet the Bible was written in PLAIN COMMON language that people can easily understand.

Tell me this please daskakik – how would you explain the inner working of a computer to a “goat herder” let’s say in Papua New Guinea or how about Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 to an aborigine in Australia 100ya? Or how about explaining that the earth was being held by an “invisible force called gravity” three thousand years ago to a people dwelling in wilderness? Will you explain it in scientific terms or in simple terms that they can understand? It’s the same way with the writers of the Bible. They recorded things in writing according to their level of understanding.


Now if he had taken into account that the word would survive for centuries after man had come to understand gravity as something which can't be seen but whos effects can be measured and therefore something then why did he use a term that isn't really correct.


But let’s just assume that the words “hanging upon nothing” was translated into “held by invisible force, gravity”, what would the reaction from opponents of the Bible be? Why, you’re “stretching it to lean towards your belief” they will say. But the thing is, you’re forgetting the point of the verse – even though the Bible IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC book – it agrees with scientific evidence: that the earth is “hanging upon nothing”. However you word it or explain it the fact still remains – that the earth is “hanging upon nothing”.


During the time when I started loosing faith I looked back and realized that I had also been guilty of forcing things to fit the words in the bible. I was in my early teens so they were simple stretchings but stretching none the less.


Problem is many just believe things they were told to believe without closer examination – without solid foundation – thus it becomes blind faith – can easily be swayed in one way or another.


Many have said that man could not have but together the bible. I think miswordings like these are proof that it wasn't an all knowing being that did it but actually a group of men who had no idea what discoveries man would make in the future.


Of course they will say that because they already have a preconceive notion of what it is and besides if the goal is to discredit it then why show its authenticity or its divinity? That would be silly.
Bottom line – just because the Bible writer said that the earth is “hanging …upon nothing”, doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. To say it is imho is a stretch of imagination.
What say you?
Ty,
Edmc2
… and the cavalry has arrive…



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


welcome madness -

I noticed the list you've posted - do you guys use the same website? I've seen this list a couple of times already and btw - I think you forgot the pi.

Anyway - I'll try to answer all if time permits - but before I do that, I have just one more question to you (et al).

Are the evidence presented in OP scientifically accurate?

Ty,
edmc2



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Are the evidence presented in OP scientifically accurate?

Not even close

...



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

My point was that an all knowing god would have guided the writer to use a term that would remain accurate throughout the ages. The timeline would be irrelevant to an all powerful, all knowing being. The fact that the timeline is relevant is what makes me think it was just men ignorant of the things to come that wrote down those words.

You say the bible is not a scientific book and that is what those opposed to the OP are in agreement with. It isn't scientific and science is what is known with certainty therefore it can't be factual.


just because the Bible writer said that the earth is “hanging …upon nothing”, doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. To say it is imho is a stretch of imagination.


This makes no sense. What the bible writer wrote is inaccurate so how is saying this a stretch of the imagination?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2
Are the evidence presented in OP scientifically accurate?

Not even close

...


Ok- I guess you don't agree:

That the universe and the earth had  beginning.


That the earth is hanging upon nothing.

Or the images captured by imaging instruments don't look like a "fine gauze." - indicating fine construction.


And that they are scientifically accurate. 

Even in simple terms? 

Wow, I'm blown away - yet I get accused of "stretching". 

Do you want to revise your answer uva321?

... Oops need to go...later..

Ty,
emc2



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


...um...no. No they aren't. But I just addressed how the Bible is clearly scientifically inaccurate in many ways in many places. And I didn't leave out Pi...the reason that the lists seem so similar is that we're pointing out the problems in the same text. I've gotten quite familiar with the text, but I did make sure to search for key terms in online...and then I tried to organize it by book order. It actually took me a while to compile that list, care to address it?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So the funny thing about this list is that you are using a literal interpretation of the Bible to argue against someone else's literal interpretation of the bible. Understand also that I am not a Christian arguing for the “rightness” of the Bible. I have no investment in proving the Bible accurate but I call them like I see them



...um...no. No they aren't. But I just addressed how the Bible is clearly scientifically inaccurate in many ways in many places.


Um...no you didn't. You just overlayed your biases on top of his biases. I'll address your list


Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)
The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)


See my images earlier in the thread regarding a sacred geometry interpretation of Genesis. When understood as a metaphorical description of that process it makes a lot more sense. Please go through those images where I specifically address the seed and fruit issue. Likewise heavens and earth are meant to represent the divisions, not necessarily literal earth. All of the above verses are understood through sacred geometry and not to be taken in a literal sense.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)


Actually what was said was a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. It doesn't matter that the moon is reflective, it is still a lesser light. And Isaiah says “The sun will be darkened ...and the moon will not cause it's light to shine,” which would of course happen if the sun were darkened. Show me a child alive today, who prior to learning that the Moon is a reflector does not believe that the moon produces it's own light.

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)


Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time.
Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition.


It is generally accepted that the Gilgamesh story was the prototype for the Biblical flood story. While this site states that the Bible was the origin for these flood stories, which I don't agree with, it is obvious that cultures around the world had a similar experience.

From the web page Flood legends around the world
www.nwcreation.net...


Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11) Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)


This thread has an interesting take on things. It is not the first time that I have heard about this in relation to telepathy and ET intervention.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)
Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)
Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)


No arguments and no desire to contend this information.


God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)


Sounds a little loopy but no different than some alchemical practices, which have been found to be sound.


Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)


Not just snakes but “fiery serpents.” Here is where I slip into my own suppositions but I have long contended that some of this kind of thing, along with the Nefilim, Elohim, and Son's of God marrying the daughters of men stuff was really about a time when ET's walked openly on the earth and were venerated as Gods. Perhaps the fiery serpents were among these and the brass serpent on a pole was advanced tech, much like the Pyramids are thought to be (as opposed to burial chambers.)


Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)
Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)
Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)


There have been skeletons of giants found at archaeological digs (though in this age of photoshop...) There have been artistic representations of giants found. See my comments above about Ets

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...
www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...


The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)
Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)


This was also preceded by hailstones. Perhaps the attacks were timed at this point rather than being made to happen for the attack. Like the flood stories, many cultures around the world have stories of the sun standing still, which is precisely what would happen during a pole shift. There are also cultural legends of a point in antiquity when the sun rose in the west and set in the east. Which would be the same phenomenon. Graham Hancock talks about this in several of his books as well


Sahagun -
The Spanish savant who came to America a generation Columbus and gathered the traditions of the natives, wrote that at the time of one cosmic catastrophe the sun rose only a little way over the horizon and remained there without moving: the moon also stood still. (22).

The Andeans record a myth-story that the sun stayed away for twenty hours. This event is said to have occurred under the reign of Yupanqui Pachacuti II, the fifteenth ruler of the old time.

In the Mexican 'Annals of Cuauhtitlan' or 'Codex Chimpalpopoca' - the history of the empire in Culhuacan and Mexico, written in Nahua-Indian in the sixteenth century - it is related that during a cosmic catastrophe that occurred in the remote past, the night did not end for an extended period of time. (22).

And from Asia - The canons of the Chinese emperor. (2,400 BC ?) - 'In the lifetime of Yao, the sun did not set for ten full days and the entire land was flooded (by an immense wave), that reached the sky'. 

It is important to recognise that all these stories were recorded from different locations on earth. On one side of the Earth people record that the Sun stayed in the sky, while on the other side, the stores are that the Sun stayed away.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...


The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)


Again, like the sacred geometry think in terms of esoteric metaphor


People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)



Heart–Brain Interactions:
The heart and brain maintain a continuous two-way dialogue, each influencing the other's functioning. The signals the heart sends to the brain can influence perception, emotional processing and higher cognitive functions. This system and circuitry is viewed by neurocardiology researchers as a "heart brain."


www.heartmath.com...

Heartmath's research, published in many peer reviewed journals with studies going on at ASU and Mayo Clinic has found that we do “think with our heart” It could also be a metaphorical for being guided by our emotions.

Here's another quote on it:


With his revolutionary research the University of Montreal’s pioneer neurocardiologist Dr. J. Andrew Armour first introduced the concept of a functional heart brain in the 1990’s. This brain in the heart – just as the brain in the digestive tract – may also act independently of the brain in the head. The size of this brain, according to Boulder Creek, California’s Institute of HeartMath, is as great as a number of the principle areas of the brain in the head. Studies discussed in Brain and Values,  have shown that the consistency of the rhythm found in the heart brain is capable of changing – sometimes in spectacular fashion - how effectively the thinking brain functions. In theory that means that what occurs on a feeling level, has the capacity to deeply influence what occurs on a thinking level.



The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

This is a reference to the Law of 4: North, South, East, West; Air, Water, Earth, Fire, etc.


Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)


It says the snail melts away as it goes. In reality, the snail and slug leave a trail of slime in its wake, which could be taken to mean the snail is “melting away as it goes”


The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

Firstly he is describing a vision. Secondly, it does not say the earth is flat, it says there is a tree that grew that could be seen by all. This also could be understood metaphorically or esoterically

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

Perhaps meteorites?


The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

This is just a description of the sun going from one side of the horizon to the other, which it appears to do to one standing on the ground.

edit on 12-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: cleaning
edit on 12-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: more cleaning



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 

What makes you believe that a hotchpotch of superstitious nonsense culled from unconnected mystical traditions round the world and elaborated according to one’s personal taste has any greater truth or value than a hotchpotch of superstitious nonsense based on a single ancient cultural and historical tradition?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





What makes you believe that a hotchpotch of superstitious nonsense culled from unconnected mystical traditions round the world and elaborated according to one’s personal taste has any greater truth or value than a hotchpotch of superstitious nonsense based on a single ancient cultural and historical tradition?


To call it superstitious nonsense is simply you expressing your personal taste, it does not make it so. Especially in the case of the Heartmath stuff which is being scientifically studied. I obviously can't prove the ET connection so those are just my suppositions which I stated. All mystical traditions are connected at a certain level, especially when it comes to sacred geometry because these are the principles that underlie our reality (garnered from many years of esoteric study in a variety of forms.) As for the rest, it is precisely because of the similarities in the variety of cultures across the world that gives it more credence. If they were from one or two sources fine, but from numerous sources some across unconnected cultures it goes beyond coincidence, or as you put it, superstitious nonsense.
edit on 12-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: spelling





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join