Printable View
Hi Beacon - I was answering Parksie's model of determinism where a range of possible paths converge on the same outcome - hence the multi-bus model ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Not neccesarily kzin!
Because it's your turn to die and you were meant to get on that bus!
The one behind it wouldnt crash because that would have ppl on it that arent ready for death. Therefore you had but no choice to get on that bus anyway!
Kzin
I'm sorry, but this just sounds silly to me. Just because the laws of physics haven't explained consciousness (whatever you think it is) yet doesn't mean they can't or won't. I don't see a need to go clutching at straws, grabbing mystical phrases out of the air. If you want an explanation like that, there are plenty of religious ideas about it. Whether they're right or wrong I can't say, but at least they admit that they're based on a mystical belief.Quote:
I see what you're saying but as far as I'm concerned, the laws of physics haven't yet managed to explain consiousness. I don't think it's inconceivable to suggest that consiousness might have some sort of special property that enables it to move freely between streams of parallel possibilities.
HarryW
Fair enough, it was just a thought.Quote:
I'm sorry, but this just sounds silly to me.
I didn't say they wouldn't. I could equally say that just because the laws of physcs haven't yet encompassed that theory of consiousness doesn't mean they never will.Quote:
Just because the laws of physics haven't explained consciousness (whatever you think it is) yet doesn't mean they can't or won't.
OK, I was brainstorming and it is just an idea but what's wrong with that? When all current theories fail to explin a concept then it is right to look for new ideas.Quote:
I don't see a need to go clutching at straws, grabbing mystical phrases out of the air.
Yeah right! I've never heard a satisfactory religous explanation to how we might have free-will. Mystical explanations don't seek any basis in fact and simply paint whatever picture they wish to paint. I am exploring a concept that is not covered by established scientific theories so I don't believe I am going against them.Quote:
If you want an explanation like that, there are plenty of religious ideas about it.
You seem content to reject the theory of free-will and believe that either our futures are pre-determined or are randomly determined but either way we have no control over them.
If you truly believe that then why don't you just walk off the nearest cliff? If you fall and die then it was innevitable so you couldn't have done anything about it anyway.
Logic seems to suggest that we have no control over our lives but we generally fall short of actually believing it.
simonm
I don't support a deterministic universe any more than I support a probabilistic one. I don't know which one this is.Quote:
Well, you seem very pleased with this explanation but it does preclude the possibility of anyone having free-will besides God. And it still means that God is responsible for everything bad that has happened as well.
So you're saying that if our decisions are predictable, they aren't really our decisions? I disagree. I don't know how to explain this further, though. There is no fate. You do as you choose. But you choose based on what you see or know. All a deterministic universe would mean is that given the same exact conditions, you'd make the same exact decision again. It would still be your decision that you chose.
God's ability to see the future does not place responsibility back on him for everything we do. He didn't know that people would go bad because he didn't look. He didn't look because he decided to trust his creations. I don't see why it has to be God's fault.
What do you mean by "how we might have free-will"? If you're looking for a physical explanation of how it works, you're going to have to wait for the science community to come up with something.Quote:
Yeah right! I've never heard a satisfactory religous explanation to how we might have free-will. Mystical explanations don't seek any basis in fact and simply paint whatever picture they wish to paint. I am exploring a concept that is not covered by established scientific theories so I don't believe I am going against them.
How so? This statement makes no sense to me. What evidence is there that we don't make our own decisions?Quote:
Logic seems to suggest that we have no control over our lives but we generally fall short of actually believing it.
Tygur
Have you not read Harry's posts? He questions whether there is any concept of "ownership" of decisions made in either a deterministic or probabilistic universe. If we are bound to make the same decision every time we are presented with identical conditions, where's the freedom in that? If we don't have the choice or the ability to make a different decision, how can we be held responsible for it? If we can make a different decision with a given set of circumstances then the universe is not deterministic.Quote:
How so? This statement makes no sense to me. What evidence is there that we don't make our own decisions?
A deterministic universe would not only mean we chose the same decision each time, it would mean we had to make the same decision each time. Therefore, it is not "our" decision.Quote:
All a deterministic universe would mean is that given the same exact conditions, you'd make the same exact decision again. It would still be your decision that you chose.
Firstly, how do you know he didn't "look"?Quote:
God's ability to see the future does not place responsibility back on him for everything we do. He didn't know that people would go bad because he didn't look. He didn't look because he decided to trust his creations. I don't see why it has to be God's fault.
Even if he didn't know what was going to happen, how could he have thought it out so badly? The first two instances of his creation failed so miserably that they dammed the rest of mankind to "hell on earth".
It is God's fault because he either knew what would happen (therefore deliberately made it that way) or else he just messed up so badly that it failed almost immediately. And we're still suffering for the mistake of his first creations (Adam and Eve).
I think that either God planned everything that way it is or he's an incompetant idiot. Whichever one you choose, we're all still suffering for it. :mad:
Because I'm not a complete idiot, contrary to some opinions I'm sure. The system that is 'me' inherently and naturally leads to survival in a situation where there is a choice of life or death. If I were to commit suicide, it would be because the processes in my brain had lead me to that decision, not because I felt I was fated to do it.Quote:
If you truly believe that then why don't you just walk off the nearest cliff? If you fall and die then it was innevitable so you couldn't have done anything about it anyway.
What kind of control do you believe you have? You speak about it as if the controlling entity were not a part of your physical self. You have control over your life because you are that system, and it's you that's running the show, but not because of free will, just as a result of a great deal of stimulus-response interactions.Quote:
Logic seems to suggest that we have no control over our lives but we generally fall short of actually believing it.
You are already assuming that current theories are inadequate. There is no pressing need to throw out everything we think we know about this because we haven't worked it out completely yet, just to replace it with some idea you plucked out of thin air and have no real incentive to believe other than the possibility it might give you an excuse to believe you have free will.Quote:
OK, I was brainstorming and it is just an idea but what's wrong with that? When all current theories fail to explin a concept then it is right to look for new ideas.
I don't discount the possibility that all the scientific knowledge that has been gathered on the subject is wrong, and I don't discount the possibility that we have free will, but I just don't think it's possible assuming our knowledge is not vastly off-target and there's nothing 'spiritual' involved.
What theories are you talking about. There are no "established" theories that explain consiousness. If you have heard of any I'd be very interested to know of them.Quote:
You are already assuming that current theories are inadequate. There is no pressing need to throw out everything we think we know about this because we haven't worked it out completely yet, just to replace it with some idea you plucked out of thin air and have no real incentive to believe other than the possibility it might give you an excuse to believe you have free will.
I'm not trying to replace anything. Rather I'm attempting to explore the possibilities of a potential explanation for something that has no complete explanation yet.
So you are seriously saying to me that you couldn't (in your current frame of mind) kill yourself even if you tried? I think a reluctance to walk off the cliff would come more from a deep feeling within ourselves (perhaps misguided) that we do have the ability to decide.Quote:
Because I'm not a complete idiot, contrary to some opinions I'm sure. The system that is 'me' inherently and naturally leads to survival in a situation where there is a choice of life or death. If I were to commit suicide, it would be because the processes in my brain had lead me to that decision, not because I felt I was fated to do it.
I'm not saying that all the scientific knowledge on the subject is wrong. I'm saying that this "knowledge" hasn't yet been extended far enough to cover what it is that gives rise to consiousness and whether or not we have free-will.Quote:
I don't discount the possibility that all the scientific knowledge that has been gathered on the subject is wrong, and I don't discount the possibility that we have free will, but I just don't think it's possible assuming our knowledge is not vastly off-target and there's nothing 'spiritual' involved.
The whole point is that I can't 'try' to do something that is the opposite of my decision - my brain's decision is my decision. It's not like I'm struggling to throw myself off a cliff and being forced back by my own resistant pair of arms, I don't want to thrown myself off the cliff in the first place because it's a bloody stupid idea. It's the system's decision. It's my decision. I am the system. It is my very being.Quote:
So you are seriously saying to me that you couldn't (in your current frame of mind) kill yourself even if you tried? I think a reluctance to walk off the cliff would come more from a deep feeling within ourselves (perhaps misguided) that we do have the ability to decide.Quote:
Because I'm not a complete idiot, contrary to some opinions I'm sure. The system that is 'me' inherently and naturally leads to survival in a situation where there is a choice of life or death. If I were to commit suicide, it would be because the processes in my brain had lead me to that decision, not because I felt I was fated to do it.
That system - which is me - is controlled by the laws of physics (IMO), not by me - I'm the system. That would be a circular reference.
simonm
I forgot to to reply to your message. I'm very late, but here's my reply anyway:
The bible says he had regrets. This implies that he didn't know what would happen. The only way he wouldn't know what would happen is if he didn't look.Quote:
Firstly, how do you know he didn't "look"?
The first two instances of his creation were not adam and eve. He was churning up the universe and the solar system and our planet for <insert really big number here> years! Then people came around. The angels and the animals came before the first two humans. The dinosaurs came and went before them, too.Quote:
Even if he didn't know what was going to happen, how could he have thought it out so badly? The first two instances of his creation failed so miserably that they dammed the rest of mankind to "hell on earth".
He didn't mess up. He fully intended on people being able to make their own decisions. Apparently, this worked a little too well.Quote:
It is God's fault because he either knew what would happen (therefore deliberately made it that way) or else he just messed up so badly that it failed almost immediately.
Yes, we are suffering for Adam and Eve's mistakes, but not God's.Quote:
And we're still suffering for the mistake of his first creations (Adam and Eve).
You guys have some weird conversations in this chitchat area.
I don't think we're going anywhere with this but, hey, I love argument so much I'll just carry on for the fun of it!
Well the 10 thousand odd prophecies that he put in the bible says that he did look.Quote:
The bible says he had regrets. This implies that he didn't know what would happen. The only way he wouldn't know what would happen is if he didn't look.
Ok, ok. I'm talking about the first instances of his creation that had free will, intelligence and that could be held to account for their actions.Quote:
The first two instances of his creation were not adam and eve.
Yeah, like it says about dinosaurs in the bible as well? I think not.Quote:
The dinosaurs came and went before them, too.
What's the point of giving them the ability to make their own decisions if at the same time, you are giving them emotional drives and tendancies that lead them into actions against God? Why should any action be against God? Why should we (the rest of the human race) be paying for Adam and Eve's mistake? God made the system. He made adam and eve with the knowlege that they would have "inner drives" that lead them to do things that were wrong. And yet, somehow, God is the innocent party in all this?Quote:
He didn't mess up. He fully intended on people being able to make their own decisions. Apparently, this worked a little too well.
Adam and Eve are God's mistakes. Therefore it all (as usual) comes back to him.Quote:
Yes, we are suffering for Adam and Eve's mistakes, but not God's.
If you ask me, so called "free will" is just something God made up to absolve himself of the responsibility for all the bad things that have happened in the world.
Well, sorry if I'm being rude God, but I'd have liked free-will much better if it truly was free. Firstly, it shouldn't have been clouded by emotional drives that lead us astray and secondly, there shouldn't have been an "astray". His rules seem to be more restrictive than necessary. They go beyond respecting your fellow man. All Eve did was bite into a bloody apple!
simonm
Yes, he did look, but only after the first human couple screwed up. Even then, he didn't look at everything.Quote:
Well the 10 thousand odd prophecies that he put in the bible says that he did look.
If I understand correctly, Jesus was God's first creation. Then the angels followed. They all had free will, too..Quote:
Ok, ok. I'm talking about the first instances of his creation that had free will, intelligence and that could be held to account for their actions.
The bible is not a scientific textbook. There was no need to say anything about the dinosaurs.Quote:
Yeah, like it says about dinosaurs in the bible as well? I think not.
What "inner drive" made them eat from that tree? It was no "inner drive" that thrust us into all these problems. These "inner drives" were not always a problem.Quote:
What's the point of giving them the ability to make their own decisions if at the same time, you are giving them emotional drives and tendancies that lead them into actions against God? Why should any action be against God? Why should we (the rest of the human race) be paying for Adam and Eve's mistake? God made the system. He made adam and eve with the knowlege that they would have "inner drives" that lead them to do things that were wrong. And yet, somehow, God is the innocent party in all this?
No, they aren't. They functioned perfectly. They just made a bad decision.Quote:
Adam and Eve are God's mistakes. Therefore it all (as usual) comes back to him.
If God wanted to "absolve himself of the responsibility", all he had to do was wipe the slate clean and start fresh again with a new universe.Quote:
If you ask me, so called "free will" is just something God made up to absolve himself of the responsibility for all the bad things that have happened in the world.
There wasn't always an "astray". God originally told the first couple to "be fruitful and become many". It would appear to me that the "emotional drives" would've had no problem with that.Quote:
Firstly, it shouldn't have been clouded by emotional drives that lead us astray and secondly, there shouldn't have been an "astray".
There were lots of trees and only one tree that was restricted. Adam and Eve had no problem with that rule. The rule was not restrictive at all. The tree was symbolic of God's right to rule over us. That's it. It was supposed to just stand there as a symbol.Quote:
All Eve did was bite into a bloody apple!
Tygur
I'm talking about temptation, desires and wants. Eve must have been pursuing one of her temptations to eat from the tree. The apples must have looked so tempting (to a person created with such drives) that it was almost irresistable.Quote:
What "inner drive" made them eat from that tree? It was no "inner drive" that thrust us into all these problems. These "inner drives" were not always a problem.
Yeah, look what happenned to Lucifer! He was another of God's "resounding successes".Quote:
If I understand correctly, Jesus was God's first creation. Then the angels followed. They all had free will, too..
I'm not saying it should but the way you mentioned it, it gave the impression that it did.Quote:
The bible is not a scientific textbook. There was no need to say anything about the dinosaurs.
And you don't think the above statement is a contradiction? Why was it a bad decision? Because God didn't want them to do it. Why did it matter to God? What is a measly tree to him? He set up the system so it was almost bound to fail.Quote:
No, they aren't. They functioned perfectly. They just made a bad decision.
If was able to create a lifelike robot that craved chocolate and I put in a world where it was surruonded by small piles of chocolate and there was one huge pile of chocolate in the middle with a warning attached saying "You can eat all the other piles of chocolate but don't touch this one.", would I have the right to expect it to obey that rule? What sort of freedom does a chocolate loving robot have in a world surrounded by chocolate when the biggest and most beautiful pile of chocolate is off limits to it? It is a system that is almost designed to fail and that's what you've got with God and the human race.
What do you mean there wasn't an "astray"? There obviously was or else the rest of the human race wouldn't now be dammed.Quote:
There wasn't always an "astray". God originally told the first couple to "be fruitful and become many". It would appear to me that the "emotional drives" would've had no problem with that.
I don't know how you can pick and choose what God knew about in advance and what he didn't. To a being that is described in the bible as being omnipotent, omnipresent, benevelant (which is a contradiction in itself) and omnisicent, how can you say that God didn't know something or that he "regretted" doing something.Quote:
Yes, he did look, but only after the first human couple screwed up. Even then, he didn't look at everything.
I think the gradual change in God's "attitudude" over the years reflects mankinds changing attitudes towards what they expect from a divine being. Early on, God was just a champoin of the Jews. A God that had favourites amoung his creations, was vengeful and harsh. Later on he became tolerant, loving and all-embracing. I don't think it is God that has changed, indeed, to even suggest such a thing is a sacriligous. It is mankind that has changed, along with it's expectation about what it wants from a God.
simonm
Why the :(?
Eve ate the fruit because she was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14) into thinking nothing bad would happen. Otherwise the tree probably would've been left alone. It wasn't "almost irresistible" at all. There were lots or other trees.Quote:
I'm talking about temptation, desires and wants. Eve must have been pursuing one of her temptations to eat from the tree. The apples must have looked so tempting (to a person created with such drives) that it was almost irresistable.
He also made a bad decision and will suffer for it. Note that he was originally good for a very long time before he decided to oppose God.Quote:
Yeah, look what happenned to Lucifer! He was another of God's "resounding successes".
Oh, ok. I understand. Yeah, I was just pointing out that much happened before Adam and Eve came around.Quote:
I'm not saying it should but the way you mentioned it, it gave the impression that it did.
What is one tree out of whole large group of trees of so many different varieties? The other trees were just as good as the forbidden one. There was nothing special about it.Quote:
And you don't think the above statement is a contradiction? Why was it a bad decision? Because God didn't want them to do it. Why did it matter to God? What is a measly tree to him? He set up the system so it was almost bound to fail.
Like I said before, the tree did mean something. It was symbolic of God's right to rule over people. It stood there as a constant reminder. That was its purpose.
A more accurate illustration would make the forbidden pile the same size as the rest of the piles. It doesn't necessarily even have to be in the middle. With so many other piles to choose from (and if they are all the same), there shouldn't be any problem at all until the chocolate runs out.Quote:
If was able to create a lifelike robot that craved chocolate and I put in a world where it was surruonded by small piles of chocolate and there was one huge pile of chocolate in the middle with a warning attached saying "You can eat all the other piles of chocolate but don't touch this one.", would I have the right to expect it to obey that rule? What sort of freedom does a chocolate loving robot have in a world surrounded by chocolate when the biggest and most beautiful pile of chocolate is off limits to it? It is a system that is almost designed to fail and that's what you've got with God and the human race.
It was just another tree. It might've been in a clearing or something so it'd be obvious that it's different from the others, but I don't think it looked any better than the others.
Oh, ok. By "astray", you were referring to a course of action that's against God. In other words, you were saying "It shouldn't have been possible to go against God." Nevermind what I said. I was thinking wrong. Sorry about that..Quote:
What do you mean there wasn't an "astray"? There obviously was or else the rest of the human race wouldn't now be dammed.
The bible says that he regretted putting people on the earth (Genesis 6:7). It also says that he regretted appointing Saul as the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 15:11). If he regretted those actions he must not've known the results ahead of time. If he's omniscient, he must've been able to see them. So it seems logical to assume that he just didn't look.Quote:
I don't know how you can pick and choose what God knew about in advance and what he didn't. To a being that is described in the bible as being omnipotent, omnipresent, benevelant (which is a contradiction in itself) and omnisicent, how can you say that God didn't know something or that he "regretted" doing something.
WHEN YOU DIE:
-You are asleep(not really) in the grave until the "Day of Moral"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day of Moral:
It is a day(Friday) when everybody will die at once and then God will send him/her to Heaven of Hell based on his/her characteristics in this world. If you were good to all the other people, you followed to the rules of God, and you prayed for God, you will go heaven, else you will go to Hell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-If you were a good person in the world, then God will make your grave wider. You will be very comfortable in there till end.
If you were not a good person in the world then God will make your grave more narrow. God will put snakes and other bugs in your grave, and they will bite you hurtfully. And you will never be comfortable till end
- At the end(the day of moral), you will be woken up again. You wont be able to recognize you relatives or your family. You will only be responsible for your own life. And then you will go to Heaven if you were a good person OR you will go to hell if you were a bad person.
If you have any question then Please Reply!
Tygur
I think a more logical conslusion is that the bible (yet again) contradicts itself. Since you have already ruled that out as an impossibility, the only conclusion that you could then draw is the one you have done. As I don't see a problem with the Bible contradicting itself then it is an obvious conculsion.Quote:
The bible says that he regretted putting people on the earth (Genesis 6:7). It also says that he regretted appointing Saul as the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 15:11). If he regretted those actions he must not've known the results ahead of time. If he's omniscient, he must've been able to see them. So it seems logical to assume that he just didn't look.
I am sad because, despite my love of argument, I tire of this one. We really are going round in circles and I am therefore losing interest. I admire you persistance but not the rationale you employ in you arguments.Quote:
Why the :( ?
Everyone else has long since given up! :)
There is no son or father of God. God is aloneQuote:
not even His son Jesus),
And All the holy book -including Quran, Bible - are written by God (Allah). Jesus was just a prophet of God who was sent in the world to turn people on the right way in the world.
DNA7433
OK, here's one for starters (I've posted it before but here it is again):Quote:
Finally, the Bible does not contradict itself, people keep saying that so i would like someone to name one contradiction, and i'll tell you you're wrong.
The almost completely different genology accounts given by two of the gospels. I can't remember which ones but as there are only four, I'm sure you can work it out.
The usual immediate response for this is to say that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph. I say to this that you have no basis for this. Both accounts are for Joseph and there is no reason to assume one must be for Mary. It doesn't mention Mary.
You may choose to interpret it as being for Mary but that is your decision but it doesn't change the fact that you have to interpret it to get it not to contradict itself.
simonm
I haven't ruled out the bible contradicting itself as a total impossibility. If there is no other explanation, then the bible does contradict itself, but so long as there is a plausible explanation for what it says, it is still possible that it doesn't contradict itself. You seem to admit that my conclusion does make some sense. It is a possible explanation. My conclusion doesn't clash with anything else in the bible.Quote:
I think a more logical conslusion is that the bible (yet again) contradicts itself. Since you have already ruled that out as an impossibility, the only conclusion that you could then draw is the one you have done. As I don't see a problem with the Bible contradicting itself then it is an obvious conculsion.
I'll let DNA answer this one, but if he can't, I do have an explanation.Quote:
The almost completely different genology accounts given by two of the gospels.
What do you think interpret means? When you read anything you have to interpret it to get any meaning out of it. When you interpret something, you are getting the meaning out of something. If the meaning behind something in the bible isn't immediately obvious, that doesn't mean it must be a contradiction or a falsehood. Where do you get that idea? The bible wasn't written in english, or else we wouldn't have these problems. The languages back then were different. They had different words for things. One of their words can have several different meanings and be translated to several different english words. This is why so many things are hard to understand.Quote:
You may choose to interpret it as being for Mary but that is your decision but it doesn't change the fact that you have to interpret it to get it not to contradict itself.
abdul
Then how do you explain these scriptures (or do you just not believe in the bible?):Quote:
There is no son or father of God. God is alone
Matthew 3:16,17
Luke 1:34,35
go ahead and post your explanation simonm
I tend to stay away from other religions, and my faith says theres no contradictions in the Bible so I've never heard of what you're talking about, so simonm post your explanation, and then I'll go look at what all this is about (maybe i'll have a different explanation, maybe not).
Don't you mean "post your explanation Tygur"? I don't think simonm was holding back an explanation.Quote:
Originally posted by DNA7433
go ahead and post your explanation simonm
The hebrew and greek words for son were also used to mean son-in-law, just like the word for day was also used to mean a period of time.
The geneology in Matthew is for Joseph, and the geneology in Luke is for Mary. So in Luke 3:23, where it says "Joseph, the son of Heli", Luke actually meant son-in-law.
oh, sorry Tygur, i was looking at the person YOU were replying to
I do that sometimes, i gotta be more careful at whos talking in the forums.
sorry to say this so bluntly, but the Quran is wrong then.
No, Quran is not rong. That is the latest book revealed by God on Muslims
God has also said that dont follow the previous versions of God's holly books :)
all good words, but care to prove it?Quote:
Originally posted by DNA7433
sorry to say this so bluntly, but the Quran is wrong then.
Yes, first prove that Quran is wrong!
I am going to find an English version of the words that describe that "God is alone, and God has no son or daughter"
no, im sorry, you are wrong again, God did not "reveal" and "new" books, and he certainly did not say that the Bible is no longer relevant.
No i cannot prove it off the top of my head, becuase this is not my area, i came here for the "What happens when you die?" part, although i certainly could bring in people who would know.
by the way, it's holy, not holly :)
proof:
allright, first off doesn't the Quran teach that there is no son of God? (that would be why you are saying there isn't)
well since the Bible says that Jesus is God's son, then the Quran must be wrong, and that also means that God did not say the Bible should be thrown out.
you said Qur'an is wrongQuote:
Originally posted by DNA7433
well since the Bible says that Jesus is God's son, then the Quran must be wrong, and that also means that God did not say the people should be thrown out.
show me some contridictions, or proofs,
ya dont use the bible to prove that quran is wrong, thats just has no grounds
i have said bible is modified a lot of times
i have contridictions to back up my sayings
there is a sweet thread just for you
waiting for those contridictions to be explained
(oh ya, when you get through with those, i got a lot more)
Follow this link and read what is written in English. That is the my proof :D
http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islam...e/nobae112.htm
My official language is not english so it does not matter. It just matters that you can talk ,and people understand, using whatever kind of language. ;)Quote:
by the way, it's holy, not holly
bah
Tygur
With human language, flawed as it is, it will always be possible, if it is one's intent, to twist it's meaning or interpret it in such a way that suits one's own ends. There will always be a way out if you want one badly enough, you just have to get more flexible with your interpretations.Quote:
I haven't ruled out the bible contradicting itself as a total impossibility. If there is no other explanation, then the bible does contradict itself, but so long as there is a plausible explanation for what it says, it is still possible that it doesn't contradict itself.
The meaning behind the contrasting accounts of Jesus' genology is obvious enough if you're prepared to receive the answer. You have rejected the "immediately obvious" in favour of a more complex interpretation.Quote:
. If the meaning behind something in the bible isn't immediately obvious, that doesn't mean it must be a contradiction or a falsehood. Where do you get that idea?
OK, you admit that there are problems with our understanding of the bible due to it having to be translated from ancient greek and hebrew. Meaning can always be lost in translations. That is why some people do not believe that the word of God would exist in any human language. Being Jewish, whilst not being fluent in hebrew, I know enough to know the language is pretty much the same today as it was back then.Quote:
The bible wasn't written in english, or else we wouldn't have these problems. The languages back then were different. They had different words for things. One of their words can have several different meanings and be translated to several different english words. This is why so many things are hard to understand.
I still think you are choosing, as and when, to apply your "alternate" interpretation to make it fit what you want to believe.Quote:
The hebrew and greek words for son were also used to mean son-in-law, just like the word for day was also used to mean a period of time.
The geneology in Matthew is for Joseph, and the geneology in Luke is for Mary. So in Luke 3:23, where it says "Joseph, the son of Heli", Luke actually meant son-in-law.
Anyway, for another contradiction, what about the two, completely different accounts of the death of Judas? One says he died by hanging himself, the other by buying a field (with his bribe money) and then dying when walking onto it and falling on a sharp stone (or something like that).
I'm sure it is, but can you really confuse the meaning of the words in a whole collection of books and still get them all to agree with each other?Quote:
With human language, flawed as it is, it will always be possible, if it is one's intent, to twist it's meaning or interpret it in such a way that suits one's own ends. There will always be a way out if you want one badly enough, you just have to get more flexible with your interpretations.
I can give you a list of scriptures to take to your nearest catholic priest get answers for. I wonder what he'd say. Most interesting is when Jesus says not to call anyone on earth "Father".
I think if you find someone who can get the whole bible to agree, and who lives by what's in it, you found someone who truly follows it.
Yes, I did. The truth is not always immediately obvious. Sometimes you have to go looking. When Jesus was on earth, he taught in illustrations and only explained the meaning behind them (most of them, anyway) to the people who came asking.Quote:
The meaning behind the contrasting accounts of Jesus' genology is obvious enough if you're prepared to receive the answer. You have rejected the "immediately obvious" in favour of a more complex interpretation.
The two scriptures in question are Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18.Quote:
Anyway, for another contradiction, what about the two, completely different accounts of the death of Judas? One says he died by hanging himself, the other by buying a field (with his bribe money) and then dying when walking onto it and falling on a sharp stone (or something like that).
In the book of Matthew, starting with verse 3, Judas felt bad after betraying Jesus and tried to give the money back. The priests refused the money because it was the price of blood and couldn't be used for the temple. So Judas dropped the coins and ran away and hung himself.
Acts seems to say that Judas bought a field and fell and burst open. It doesn't seem to make much sense at all.
What actually happened was Judas tried to hang himself and the rope or the branch of the tree broke and he fell onto some rocks and died that way. Matthew says he actually did hang himself, and he did, but when he did, he fell and died on the rocks, which is what Acts is referring to when it says he fell and burst open.
Judas did not buy the field, himself. According to Matthew, the money he dropped was used to buy a field. This is the field Acts says he bought. Remember, the priests did not accept the money, so it was not theirs. It still belonged to Judas. So they went and bought a field with Judas's money. That's how Judas bought it.
I dismissed neither. The one in Acts was used to enhance the one in Matthew, because it didn't make much sense by itself. There doesn't seem to be much in the bible about Judas's death. I take this to mean that nobody really cared about what happened to him. So if nobody cared, then why go into detail about it? I think the lack of detail is why they seem to contradict. Think about it. The one in acts is just a pair of offhand comments made really quick in parentheses.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Your explanation of the differeing accounts of Judas' death is incredibly lame. You dissmiss one out of hand for not making sense and then say that the other was incomplete.
I didn't say that it's particularly important, except for the fact that it reveals the fact that there "literal" contradictions in the bible. OK, in the grand scheme of things, how Judas dies is of no matter to the overall message of the bible. What it does mean, however, is that the gospel writers weren't perfect and that at least some mistakes were made by them. How many more mistakes were there that aren't revealed because one of the other gospel writers doesn't happen to contradict them? We may never know but it must make you think.Quote:
I take this to mean that nobody really cared about what happened to him. So if nobody cared, then why go into detail about it?
By the way, with respect your interpretation of the translation of the word "day". Since Hebrew hasn't changed for thousands of years, the word for "day" in hebrew today has not changed. The Jews believe that the world is literally six thousand odd years old because to them, one "day" is exactly one twenty-four hour period. Unless you think that you (or watchtower) knows hebrew better than the Jews do?
Then tell me how long the day in Genesis 2:4 is. The one day mentioned there covers all the previous 6 days.
I just thought about it and if you're right and the word for Day does always refer to a 24-hour day, the bible could still be using it for variable-length periods of time. The use of the word would just be symbolic. And if it is just symbolic, that means I must've misread my source.
Bible was changed several times in the past! So there is no way to believe on most of the thing in Bible (eg: Jesus is son God(wrong))
so why do you think that's wrong (Jesus being the son of God)?
the Bible has not been changed, they found the original manuscripts and compared them to the present day Bible, and it has stayed the same for the past 4000 years