more religous blabber

Quote:

---

The teachings that the Bible offers that tell us how we should live our life and how we should treat others are much more important than some dead guys horses. Would the world not be a better place if people would "Love thy neighbour"??

---

The Bible teaches that people can walk on water. The Bible teaches that the sun stops in its orbital path periodically. The Bible teaches that there is this "God" character, about whom you know nothing and the consequences of denying whom are horrendous.

DNA, if God created fool-minded people like you, I reject him with all my might.

nishantp

Quote:

---

I think people should look beyond contradictions in the bible. I mean ya the horses and the flood are curious things but arent you ignoring the true meaning behind the bible?

---

You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.

See thats the thing. I dont feel that it needs to be the word of god to be right. If aknisely's comments about that stuff in the bible is true...then i dont beleive it either (i cant verify or refute them). If there is a god then when i am judged(if it happens) i would rather that he see that i always tried to do the right thing, that i tried to be the best person that i could be. I dont think he'll ask me if i beleive that people can walk on water.

BTW, i beleive that the Bible is not presented as the word of god either. I thought it was man's interpretation of it. I thought christians thought that God inspired the Bible (he didnt write it). And since everyone has there opinion, there are discrepancies. Someone might like to clear that up).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
nishantp


You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.

---

Since there are many authors of the bible it seems evident to me that it is not the word of god, but rather man's interpretation of it...is that not reasonable?

Quote:

---

Since there are many authors of the bible it seems evident to me that it is not the word of god, but rather man's interpretation of it...is that not reasonable?

---

Well, as you said earlier, there are differeing opinions on how literally one should take the bible.

I have met many Christians who insist that you can take everything you read there at face value and take it literally. If it says something in the bible, that should be treated as the word of God.

I think such a rigid interpretation is what gets them into trouble sometimes.

"Man's interpretation of the word of God"?

What kind of horse jack is that? How is one supposed to know what the word of God is, if he has any words for men at all, or in what fashion is a person supposed to interpret it?

Lemme give you an example of something that happens everyday. I go into a meeting (pretend I represent God here). I talk to my other developers. How are they supposed to interpret what I'm saying, other than precisely how I'm saying it?

does your mind speak directly to the mind of those developers?

no, you have to use spoken and written language, which are not as precise as thoughts.

which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions, but couldn't put them totally into perfect words. However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error

"does your mind speak directly to the mind of those developers"

Yes. Winsock actually does have hidden, practical uses.

"no, you have to use spoken and written language, which are not as precise as thoughts."

The Bible is precise? It gets the age of the earth wrong by several billion years. That's nowhere near precise

"which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions but couldn't put them totally into perfect words."

Good intentions?? I'm going to hell because I don't buy your biblical whoop-di-do was created by GOOD intentions? I think the people that wrote this bible were very spiteful and arrogant.

"However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error"

Oh yes, everything done in the name of god has meaning and purpose. What a lame excuse, give me a bloody break.

Quote:

---

which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions, but couldn't put them totally into perfect words. However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error.

---

If, and it is a big IF, a revelation was made to certain people in history, it was a revelation unto them alone and the moment they tell someone else it just becomes word of mouth.

If God had truly meant it as a revelation to all mankind, he would have comunicated directly to every person in existance. That would be the only way to garruntee no misinterpretation and ambiguity.

the Bible is correct, and your age of 16 billion is wrong

your arguement doens't even make sense, you've taken "good intentions" out of context, just as you do with Bible texts, and...well no i won't call you arrogent, even though i want to



I don't know you guys think, some think the Bible is all fact and some people think none of it can be taken literally. The truth is its in between, most of it is fact, but some of it is symbolism, like the book of Revalation where it talks about beasts. those beasts represent different powers that exist on earth. and also in Daniel, when he has the dream about the statue, the different parts of the statue represent different nations.

"the Bible is correct, and your age of 16 billion is wrong "

The Bible is fictional nonsense, and so is 16 billion years. The earth is somewhere between 4.5 and 5.0 billion years of age, to the best of our knowledge.

"your arguement doens't even make sense"

I wasn't making an argument. There is nothing in the Bible that could be sensibly debated. Of course, we could try to properly debate the Bible, if you wish. But whatever the resolution, you will sorrowfully, pittifully, and shamefully lose.

"The truth is its in between, most of it is fact, but some of it is symbolism"

Yeah, well, I'm talkin' about facts. Real facts. Symbolism is whatever you want it to be, leave that for the poets.

allright, let's properly debate the Bible

its wrong... I WIN I WIN!!!!

monkey nuts, that was so funny for once in my life i forgot to laugh

he who laughs last thinks the slowest

i don't understand :confused:

never mind

My 2 Bits..

Well I saw a program the other day, (not space on BB1). These clever bods managed to use a special telescope with and resoultion software to acuaratly pick up a binary star going super nova. Not once but many times, the first such incident happened accedently back in 1985, very lucky.

Anyway with around 45 markers (picutures of the super novas) they could calulated the speed of the unvisers, and the maths shows us that the univers is still expanding or exellating. From this data they were able to extrapolate that the whole universe is around 20 billion years old.

What I want to know is what was there 21 billion years ago??
God?

G

:D

Quote:

---

What I want to know is what was there 21 billion years ago??

---

Well, it's possible that the big bang was preceeded by a "big crunch" and that the universe is just in a perpetual and eternal cycle of expansion and contraction.

I think the universe must have always been here or else where else why would the universe exist attall?

Either something external to the universe created it (like God) or it could be the nature of reality that things can spontaneously pop into existance for no reason attall.

Both really boil down to the second option as if you believe that the universe was created by an external force, your definition of "universe" is incorrect. "Universe" means "everything that exists".

Religous minded people would have us believe that God was not created, he has simply always existed. If you can believe that, why can you not believe that the universe itself has always existed?

If you believe that God popped into existance, again if he can do it, why not the universe?

I think the concept of God is superflous when looking for an explanation to the creation of the universe. People need God, however, to give meaning to existance rather than an explanation.

Wow, I went to bed and woke up to find I missed a lot. Here's my contribution to this debate:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
There is much fossil evidence that mankind has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. There are cave paintings that can be dated back over this time that must have been done by humans (at least we know of no other species that has had this ability).

If you take the Bible literally, the earth has only been in existance for (roughly) 6000 odd years. Why is there so much evidence that the earth (and mankind) has been around much longer?

---

Can you show me this evidence? Instead of saying that it exists, tell me how I can see it for myself. Is there some scientific site someplace that explains how they figured out the age of these cave paintings?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
but, in my mind, a book who's author is anomymous is untrustworthy.

---

The people who wrote the bible are not anonymous. I think we know who the author is for every book of the bible. I'd have to check to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
You assume it must have been written by Moses since it doesn't actually say who wrote them in the bible.
But, I consider it highly unlikely that Moses did write these books as, not only does he talk about himself in the third person, he goes on to brag about his own modesty: "Moses was the meekest of all men"! If Moses wrote this sentance (taken from one of the first five books), he certainly wasn't the meekest of men was he? :p

---

There is no question that Moses wrote the first five books. Apparently, they used to be one large book, but were taken apart to make them easier to handle. These first five books were sometimes called "the book of the law of Moses". You can see this in Joshua 23:6 and Ezra 6:18.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
The Bible teaches that people can walk on water. The Bible teaches that the sun stops in its orbital path periodically. The Bible teaches that there is this "God" character, about whom you know nothing and the consequences of denying whom are horrendous.

---

The bible doesn't teach that people can just go ahead and walk on water. It was only with Gods help that Jesus and Peter walked on the water, not their own.

Also, the bible does not teach that the sun (don't you mean earth?) periodically stops in its orbital path. It does teach that God made the sun seem to stand still for a day. This doesn't mean that it happens sometimes. The earth didn't have to stop its rotation. Maybe God bent light around the earth as it rotated so it looked like the day lasted twice as long. THe bible doesn't say how God did it, only that the sun seemed to stand still.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.

---

Not really. If there's a discrepancy in numbers, all it means is that some numerical values can't be trusted, not the whole bible, and certainly not the whole message within it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
BTW, i beleive that the Bible is not presented as the word of god either. I thought it was man's interpretation of it. I thought christians thought that God inspired the Bible (he didnt write it). And since everyone has there opinion, there are discrepancies. Someone might like to clear that up).

---

Think of it like someone dictating a letter to someone else who's writing it for him. I think this is what's going on with the bible. God is telling the people what to write, and they're writing it in in their own words. Different books show the writing styles of different people, but they are all inspired by God. The original copy is probably very accurate, with none of the problems we're seeing now (differing numbers, etc). Unfortunately, there's no way to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
The Bible is precise? It gets the age of the earth wrong by several billion years. That's nowhere near precise

---

The bible doesn't even tell the age of the earth.

well, so it doesn't come out and say 6000 years but you can extrapolate that number

since earth was obviously created and people were obviously created at the same time, then you can use the ages of people and when they died to find out it was 2000 years from creation till the flood, another 2000 till Jesus was born, and if he was born around year 1AD, then its another 2000 till the present time, thats how we get 6000

DNA7433, I think this is where we differ. I believe the earth existed for many many years before the first humans were created.

Tygur

whats your take on earth being 6000 years old?
or humans for that matter

The bible doesn't tell how old the earth or the universe is. After a bit of work you can figure out that the first human couple was created about 6000 years ago (I just confirmed it). The animals and plants were created before then (most, if not all).

The earth was not created in under a week. It took a long time, but the bible doesn't tell how long.

The use of the word, "day", in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day.

where do you gather the 6000 years though?

"the bible does not teach that the sun (don't you mean earth?) periodically stops in its orbital path"

The sun has its own orbital path around the galaxy. I'm sure you have your own impression about what a galaxy is and how moses went to all that trouble of parting the nebulas and that Jesus could walk on supernova juice, and what not.

"It does teach that God made the sun seem to stand still for a day."

Which is foolish, because we now know that during the course of the day, the earth makes one revolution, not the sun makes one orbit around the earth. To extend a day (and extend the night in another hemisphere), you'd best be stopping the spin of the earth on its axis.

"This doesn't mean that it happens sometimes"

No, it means that this sort of action is possible by this god fellow. It's not.

"Maybe God bent light around the earth as it rotated so it looked like the day lasted twice as long."

Why didn't he state this then? It would make his filthy lies much more believable.

"If there's a discrepancy in numbers, all it means is that some numerical values can't be trusted, not the whole bible, and certainly not the whole message within it."

It isn't just NUMBERS, it's the whole damned (holy?) book!!

"The bible doesn't even tell the age of the earth."

No, but there have been computations of all that begatting in the first book. The figure results in abou 4004 BC, or 6000 years ago.

"he use of the word, 'day,' in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day."

You make a very interesting point. However, this was only discovered during the Scopes Monkey Trial, when it seemed convenient to conceed to the argument that each day during creation was substatially longer than what we now know to be a day.

"And God said, 'Let there be this really half-assed literative work, forever fooling about half the asses before me, and we'll fill in the gaps along -- be as creative as is to thy liking. Anyone who doesn't, can just go to hell.' And the book there appeared, in all its elegancy. And God said, 'And let this book ruin the lives of thousands of people for thousands of years.'"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely

You make a very interesting point. However, this was only discovered during the Scopes Monkey Trial , when it seemed convenient to conceed to the argument that each day during creation was substatially longer than what we now know to be a day.

---

See "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracey.....it makes some very interesting points, indeed!

Does an atheist have to explain the discrepancy in the apparent age of the universe and the age claimed by the bible?

When god (atheists use a little g) created a tree in the Garden of Eden that looked 200 years old, what would you expect if Adam cut it down and checked the rings? You would expect him to count 200 or so rings and conclude that the tree was 200 years old even though it had been created a few days earlier.

Same thing with all the geological data, fossils, radioactive decay dating, et cetera. When he (little h) put stars billions of light years away, he also created the light that seemed to have been travelling for billions of years. How else would they be seen by man and marveled at without waiting billions of years for the light to reach earth?

He (capital H at beginning of sentence) is sitting some where laughing at the scientists who have been fooled by his creation.

God is inexistent according to physical laws, why are you qwestioning your own laws?

God is existent according to bible, why are you qwestioning it's compability with physics?

Quote:

---

When god (atheists use a little g) created a tree in the Garden of Eden that looked 200 years old

---

maybe it was a ringless tree

Quote:

---

The use of the word, 'day,' in the book of Genesis (the creation account, you know what I'm talking about) did not necessarily refer to a literal 24-hour day."

---

I believe it does mean a literal 24-hour period, thats where the seventh-day sabbath comes from

Quote:

---

No, it means that this sort of action is possible by this god fellow. It's not.

---

If he was able to create a universe, don't you think he would be able to slow down one little planet?

and also who says he can't make light just start out in places, making the stars appear billions of years before their light would hit us? (thats far fetched in your eyes i know)

"If he was able to create a universe, don't you think he would be able to slow down one little planet?"

But he didn't create the universe. He didn't slow down the rotation of the earth.

"and also who says he can't make light just start out in places, making the stars appear billions of years before their light would hit us? (thats far fetched in your eyes i know)"

EVERY GOD DAMNED SCIENTIFIC FACT WE HAVE! GOD DOESN'T EXIST. The sooner you figure this out, the better off you'll be.

the worse off i'll be...

look at you, you have an attitude problem, you have no patience, i wonder why that would be?

Such hostilities...

You, or perhaps someone else, but probably you, had requested a proper debate. You have thus far failed to provide any sort of question or affirmation we are to debate. Your "who's says physics is correct" is not an argument, even though it's the only remotely substantial thing you've said. Come up with something thoughtful, or your position will be dismissed as readily as I'd expected.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by filburt1
Such hostilities...

---

Seriously...you people should remember that no one will be swayed by anything thats said here. Its just a discussion. Theres no way of having a debate on a forum cause people can just pick and choose what they respond to.:rolleyes:

i did say physics was not correct, i believe everything we know about physics is correct, but if God created the universe, then he also created physics, therefor he should be able to bend the rules.

i was just gonna say that

no one is gonna change their mind just because we argue over this