[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
Additionally, the obvious suffering that occurs in a world where God is supposed to periodically intervene to help those in need that ask of him, and his obvious silence.
He is either 3 things:
not capable of intervening and helping
Which would completely contradict the Bible as he has helped entire armies…
Doesn’t care
Which I am far more afraid of then their being no God
or
He doesn’t Exist
In consideration of all of the terrible things in this world I hope He doesnt exist…
No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.
Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.
Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]
I’m confused (not really ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.
No you don’t, so yes you are.
Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?
The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.
BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.
Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]
Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.
Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]
And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]
Exactly, and the reason why Christians should stop using it as one. We cannot say on historical grounds that Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, etc.
It’s Theology, not history.
[/quote]
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
[/quote]
Interesting, what do you think it stands for?
This actually has a a name and it’s called the ‘Problem of Evil’. But then again, do you want God to interfere in your life? I would reconcile this with freewill. If God is sticking his nose into our business all the time, we wouldn’t really have freewill.
[quote]
He is either 3 things:
not capable of intervening and helping
Which would completely contradict the Bible as he has helped entire armies…
Doesn’t care
Which I am far more afraid of then their being no God
or
He doesn’t Exist
In consideration of all of the terrible things in this world I hope He doesnt exist…[/quote]
I am the opposite, in consideration of all the terrible things in the world I want him to exist so he will eventually bring justice. However, I get your point and I do understand it. I some times “get mad at God” so to speak for allowing the depth of evil that occurs in the world. But in the bible it does prophesize that the world would be all fucked up and that one day he will put a stop to it.
It also prophesized that Israel would be restored and in 1947 it did indeed happen, so there you go. BUT no body knows when all this is supposed to happen and any nut job claiming to is full of shit and glory seeking for themselves.
Of course if every generation keeps prophesizing the world is coming to an end, eventually somebody will be right.
Now no law says you have to believe, and I am not going to try to make you believe, but if you have any questions I will be happy to answer.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.
Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.
[/quote]
So let’s see, 60ns with a 10ns error margin, that’s a net 50ns faster on a 454 mile track.
The speed of light is 186,282 miles/s.
The claimed increase is 0.0093291 miles/s over that distance.
Or
49 feet/sec over the speed of light.
Or
33 MPH faster than the speed of light which is 670,615,200 MPH.
Amazing that supercomputers and billion dollar particle accelerators and just now starting to make us question 50-100 year old scientific theories that were thought up in peoples heads and then confirmed with a pencil and paper.
However, It doesn’t help answer the age-old question:
If you’re driving at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, do they work? ;)[/quote]
hmmm, I’d say they’d work, but you wouldn’t see their light. Of course, if you want to be literal, since you’d have to be energy to travel that fast, you couldn’t really have head lights.
[/quote]
At the speed of light, your time frame would stop, so you can’t do anything while traveling that fast. Second, you couldn’t reach forward to turn the lights on, because then your hand would be faster than the speed of light.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.
Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.
[/quote]
So let’s see, 60ns with a 10ns error margin, that’s a net 50ns faster on a 454 mile track.
The speed of light is 186,282 miles/s.
The claimed increase is 0.0093291 miles/s over that distance.
Or
49 feet/sec over the speed of light.
Or
33 MPH faster than the speed of light which is 670,615,200 MPH.
Amazing that supercomputers and billion dollar particle accelerators and just now starting to make us question 50-100 year old scientific theories that were thought up in peoples heads and then confirmed with a pencil and paper.
However, It doesn’t help answer the age-old question:
If you’re driving at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, do they work? ;)[/quote]
hmmm, I’d say they’d work, but you wouldn’t see their light. Of course, if you want to be literal, since you’d have to be energy to travel that fast, you couldn’t really have head lights.
[/quote]
At the speed of light, your time frame would stop, so you can’t do anything while traveling that fast. Second, you couldn’t reach forward to turn the lights on, because then your hand would be faster than the speed of light.[/quote]
Actually, time around you should stop but you in the spaceship should move normally.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So I was wondering how significant a difference 60 nanoseconds was in regard to how much faster these particle were actually going than they should have been.
Speed of light @ 730 km gives you an elapsed time for light of about 2433333 nanoseconds. 60 nano seconds faster would mean, a .00247% increase above the speed of light. Not much.
[/quote]
So let’s see, 60ns with a 10ns error margin, that’s a net 50ns faster on a 454 mile track.
The speed of light is 186,282 miles/s.
The claimed increase is 0.0093291 miles/s over that distance.
Or
49 feet/sec over the speed of light.
Or
33 MPH faster than the speed of light which is 670,615,200 MPH.
Amazing that supercomputers and billion dollar particle accelerators and just now starting to make us question 50-100 year old scientific theories that were thought up in peoples heads and then confirmed with a pencil and paper.
However, It doesn’t help answer the age-old question:
If you’re driving at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, do they work? ;)[/quote]
hmmm, I’d say they’d work, but you wouldn’t see their light. Of course, if you want to be literal, since you’d have to be energy to travel that fast, you couldn’t really have head lights.
[/quote]
At the speed of light, your time frame would stop, so you can’t do anything while traveling that fast. Second, you couldn’t reach forward to turn the lights on, because then your hand would be faster than the speed of light.[/quote]
Actually, time around you should stop but you in the spaceship should move normally. [/quote]
From a “stationary” perspective, your time frame slows…
wait, forgot, General relativity is wrong anyway, so none of this may be correct.
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them.
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.
…You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in. And there is no logical reason for that assumption. In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god.
[/quote]
For the detractors of this idea: Why couldn’t or didn’t a creator create the “appearance of (an) age(d)” universe?
It would certainly be consistent with the events described in Genesis 1 - 2. In those chapters it is explained that He created all biology in a fully developed, mature, i.e., “aged” state. Why would He not do the same with the non-biological matter in His universe?
Give me the “scientific” reasons if you will. In the absence of those, philosophical/religious ones will be accepted.
[/quote]
Please provide the scripture to support the above premise. Thanks.[/quote]
I did. You even quoted me where I mentioned it.[/quote]
I’ll look. I was really referring specifically to your claim that all biology was created in a full developed “aged” state. Is that an interpretation or a plain reading of the scripture? I don’t have my KJV bedside right now.
[/quote]
OK, here we go:
Genesis 1:11[i]
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning - the third day. [/i]
It doesn’t say God created seeds that later sprouted into plants; it says “seed-bearing plants and trees…with fruit with seeds in it…and it was so.” And then the third day ended.
A seed/fruit bearing plant IS fully developed, mature, “aged”. That is both a reasonable “interpretation” AND “a plain reading of the scripture”.
Sooooo that covers the plant kingdom. Now let’s move on to animalia.
[i]20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning - the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. [/i]
Animals that move along the ground, teem, swim and fly are NOT embryonic. They are mature. They had the “appearance of age” the instant (surely within the 24 hour period of the fifth day) they were made.
Now man:[i]
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.[/i]
Chapters 2 and 3 elaborate and let us know that Adam and Eve were developed human beings not embryos or sperm and eggs in the process of being united in Gaia’s terrestrial womb.
So now we have the two kingdoms of biological life covered (I know we didn’t cover viruses and the like. Sorry) so let’s move on to energy.
[i]6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day…
…14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day. [/i]
So a reasonable interpretation and a plain reading indicate energy/matter was created on Day One.
On Day Two the matter was preliminarily organized - the earth was formed by forming water and then separating it from land.
On Day Three vegetation was created. Fully developed
On Day Four celestial objects were formed from the matter and energy. It makes sense that the photon beams were created “in place” and thus with the “appearance of age”. It just does. Call it an interpretation if you like but it is reasonable to infer such especially in light of the context of the rest of what I have posted.
On Day Five animals were created. Fully developed.
On Day Six man was created. Fully developed.
So here is my premise. If all this mentioned “stuff” was created in a mature state why is it so far-fetched to extend the appearance of age theory to the physical aspects of the universe that aren’t mentioned?[/quote]
Thanks.
So isn’t it axiomatic that given your seemingly literal reading of Genesis, that you deny evolution? If you do not, how do you personally reconcile the two?
[/quote]
I believe that speciation and adaptation - scientifically observable and testable processes - DO occur. I believe macroevolution, which has never been observed and therefore is untestable, does not.
The word “kinds” in Genesis 1 supports exactly what we are capable of scientifically observing and testing. Though taxonomic terminology is inexact there does indeed seem to be an invisible “wall” somewhere around the genus level.
It’s the first mention of the Trinity in the Bible. See John 1:1 - 14 for a cross reference.
It wasn’t put there “just for humanity and earth.” It was put there for God’s glory.
I agree with you about the vastness and complexity and do think we barely know anything about it, relatively speaking. I have no doubt God wants us to explore and “know” as much as possible about it.
[/quote]
Not you too. The PWI shuffle? Why can’t anyone in this fackin place simply reply to a post in a sequential way without the butcher chop cut job?
So, as for the “our image”, you’re using a NT gospel, to define an OT scripture? Is there any reference at all to the conceptual trinity in the OT?
And how do you suppose God wants us to explore the universe given the apparent speed limit which makes inter-galactic travel very unlikely and, that the good book as it were predicts an end of the world? Or is the latter not one of them things we should take “literally”?
I respect your view, but I see a disconnect between your last sentiment and the Bible.
No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.
Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.
Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]
I’m confused (not really ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.
No you don’t, so yes you are.
Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?
The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.
BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.
Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]
Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.
Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]
And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]
And I think that you understand the various arguments against it are not based solely in a historical, archaeological or “CV joint” frame. And you can’t have it both ways; when the good Catholic Church was busy proclaiming the earth was the center of the universe b/c the good book said so, you have to accept a certain amount of “literalness” to the bible or you have to acknowledge the goal posts keep moving. Because every time they think they found Noah’s ark, they are too happy to trot that out as evidence of the bible’s veracity.
However, we both know that’s not the real issue here, even though you’d be happy to continue to disingenuously nibble around the edges for pages upon pages. We both know the bible reports many traditions and events accurately. It’s the stuff in between, like claims of divinity and such that are disputed.
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
K, who was more influential? His existence even changed the way time was kept. It is the year 2011 AD. This is not the Jewish calender, Egyptian, Greek, etc, it’s Christian and the whole world uses it. Do you take Sundays off? Even communists did. What’s the largest faith in the world? The entire world was affected in the end.
I guarantee Lady Gaga could never do that…
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Not many people would have been able to see those things. It would have spread later word of mouth, which it did. He wouldn’t have been of note until long after death, where he is mentioned a couple of times.
But, who do you consider to of had more impact on the world? Where is he on your list?
No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.
Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.
Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]
I’m confused (not really ).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.
No you don’t, so yes you are.
Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?
The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.
BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.
Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]
Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.
Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]
And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]
And I think that you understand the various arguments against it are not based solely in a historical, archaeological or “CV joint” frame. And you can’t have it both ways; when the good Catholic Church was busy proclaiming the earth was the center of the universe b/c the good book said so, you have to accept a certain amount of “literalness” to the bible or you have to acknowledge the goal posts keep moving. Because every time they think they found Noah’s ark, they are too happy to trot that out as evidence of the bible’s veracity.
However, we both know that’s not the real issue here, even though you’d be happy to continue to disingenuously nibble around the edges for pages upon pages. We both know the bible reports many traditions and events accurately. It’s the stuff in between, like claims of divinity and such that are disputed.[/quote]
And I cannot prove divinity, you cannot disprove it, so what’s your point? To take a page from your book, it’s ‘rich’ for you to call me disingenuous. There’s no requirement for you to believe or read it. But it is disingenuous to be so critical of a book you never read. Based on what you say about it, it’s clear you never have.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
You mean that’s what happens when you are want to rigorously applying logic in one discipline, but would like to abandon it for the other. And it’s not a nit picking “bible has to be 100% accurate” argument, along with that ridiculous “cv joint” analogy. It’s a “either Jesus is/was divine, or he was not” argument. The people that were there didn’t seem to be too impressed with those claims (except for his reported followers) - wouldn’t you agree?
His divinity was I guess disputed then, and remains so now. Why is that “nonsense”? Because it doesn’t comport with your personal view?
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
He was a lowly carpenter turned rabbi who got crucified. I wouldn’t expect there to be many secular references.
He certainly did change a lot one way or the other though.[/quote]
No sir! The claim has been made that He was “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. I would expect such references. He is alleged to have performed miracles, fulfill prophecy and rose from the dead.
[/quote]
Like I said, it’s real easy to disprove what I said, produce somebody who was more influential than Jesus… Shouldn’t be hard, right?
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
[/quote]
whoa. I’m not even sure how to respond to this without being accused of making it personal. Did you really just utter the above?
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
You mean that’s what happens when you are want to rigorously applying logic in one discipline, but would like to abandon it for the other. And it’s not a nit picking “bible has to be 100% accurate” argument, along with that ridiculous “cv joint” analogy. It’s a “either Jesus is/was divine, or he was not” argument. The people that were there didn’t seem to be too impressed with those claims (except for his reported followers) - wouldn’t you agree?
His divinity was I guess disputed then, and remains so now. Why is that “nonsense”? Because it doesn’t comport with your personal view?[/quote]
First off, why are we arguing Jesus’ divinity here?
I’d say whatever he did he made one hell of an impact because his legacy still lives. Much of the world 1000s of years later, still know about what he did.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
You mean that’s what happens when you are want to rigorously applying logic in one discipline, but would like to abandon it for the other. And it’s not a nit picking “bible has to be 100% accurate” argument, along with that ridiculous “cv joint” analogy. It’s a “either Jesus is/was divine, or he was not” argument. The people that were there didn’t seem to be too impressed with those claims (except for his reported followers) - wouldn’t you agree?
His divinity was I guess disputed then, and remains so now. Why is that “nonsense”? Because it doesn’t comport with your personal view?[/quote]
First off, why are we arguing Jesus’ divinity here?
I’d say whatever he did he made one hell of an impact because his legacy still lives. Much of the world 1000s of years later, still know about what he did. [/quote]
We could be talking about butter milk and he’d find a way to link it to how false Christianity is. Check any thread. We were discussing east vs. West philosophy and he made it to be Christianity against Eastern philosophy. Forget the fact that there were no shortage of atheist philosophers.
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
It’s interesting that you raise a disputed historical reference in support of the following statement; “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. Notwithstanding the disputed historical reference, there is scant reference to Jesus anywhere extra-biblically. I’m not denying Jesus the historical figure, but I do dispute he was the “most important most world changing figure to have ever lived”. If he did walk the earth, the Jews weren’t particularly impressed and he did not fulfill scripture according to them. [/quote]
K, who was more influential? His existence even changed the way time was kept. It is the year 2011 AD. This is not the Jewish calender, Egyptian, Greek, etc, it’s Christian and the whole world uses it. Do you take Sundays off? Even communists did. What’s the largest faith in the world? The entire world was affected in the end.
I guarantee Lady Gaga could never do that… [/quote]
Is that an Appeal to Numbers fallacy you just dropped there? If we are going to do that, well then in fairness we need to consider the crux of the argument in it’s proper context - the divinity of Jesus. We therefore have Christianity on one side, and well…all the other major religions on the other which outnumber Christians soundly.
Pope Gregory XIII (1502 - 1585) instituted the current calendar some 1500 years after Jesus is alleged to have walked? So, in fairness, let’s give credit where credit is due - the Catholic Church, the same people that told you, among other things, the earth was the center of the universe. While we’re on the subject of the Good Pope Gregory XIII, I’d like for you to take a gander at his medal. That’s some curious symbology for a Pope…wouldn’t ya say? Now, here’s somewhere finally where BC may be of some use.
).