| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2005 01:34:06 PM · #1176 |
Obviously we can all agree that the bible is anything but a science textbook. It does have a few points that are well ahead of their scientifically discovered times. And no offense RonB but some of the examples you brought up are easily dismissed.
Job wrote that "God is hanging the earth upon nothing." (job 26:7) In bible times, there was nothing but speculation about how the earth was held in space. Some beleived it was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Aristotle taught that everything was attached to giant spheres, with earth being at the center, with the moon on one sphere stars on a farther sphere etc etc. Job wrote his idea a millenium before Aristotle ever came around.
One of the most impressive scientific claims in the bible is the expanding universe. Within the last century or so it's been discovered that the universe is continually expanding. The bible repeatedly talks about this occuring, several millinium ago.
"This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out..." Isaiah 42:5
"I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" Isaiah 44:24
"Stretching out the heavens by himself And treading upon the high waves of the sea" Job 9:8
Lots of other examples - Ps 104:2; Isa 40:22; Isa 45:12; Isa 48:13; Isa 51:13; Jer 10:12; Jer 51:15; Zech 12:1;
:puts on flame retardant suit: Okay... ready.
Just wanted to add I'm not opposed to gay marriage, I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice. But do believe in defending the Bible.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 13:57:13. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 01:41:03 PM · #1177 |
My parents, who were not religious, and quite liberal, taught me to stand up for what I believe. Now that seems to be perfectly acceptable in our society UNLESS you embrace Judeo/christian values. I had a sociology professor who is gay, and in a union with his partner. Unfortunately he looked at christianity with a very closed mind, assuming he knew how all thought, and generally knocked them freely in class. He was molding young minds to be prejudice! He and I got into some tough debates via email. I confronted his bias, showing him that he was just as prejudice against the christian "lifestyle" as anyone is towards homosexuality. He continually pointed out how foolish he thought christianity is. We actually got along quite well, and were both challenged by each other.
I'd like to point out that the homosexual community has as much fervor as the christian community. They have an agenda that all are supposed to be tolerant of. Christianity has an agenda too, but show me one religion that doesn't! There is very little tolerance for Christianity though.
Remove all mention of Christ from Christmas, in fact eliminate Christmas in favor of the flavorless "holiday." That is all fine, I suppose, as long as people can openly flaunt their sexual preferences. Don't expose your kids to Christianity in schools, but by all means teach them that anything goes sexually, even when it contradicts most religions.
There is just as much intolerance towards Christians as there is towards homosexuals.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 13:49:06.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 02:20:07 PM · #1178 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
Evolution is a theory not a fact. Creation isn't allowed in text books, but evolution is. I don't think evolution should be banned, but neither should creation. |
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Creationism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a religious belief and assertion, therefore it shouldn't be taught in a science class. Evolution is a testable scientific theory supported by almost one hundred fifty years of experimentation, therefore it should be taught in a science class. You could push for teaching about creationism in a comparative religions class if it's important to you to have it in a public school curriculum. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 02:37:59 PM · #1179 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
Remove all mention of Christ from Christmas, in fact eliminate Christmas in favor of the flavorless "holiday."
|
It has been removed already. The only thing important about Christmas is that there are xx shopping days left, that there are huge sales, that there are shopping lists etc. Who still ties Christmas with religion? I know that some people do, but that's not the public message. Jingle bells already plays in stores, and I am much more offended by the melody than I will ever be by someone professing their religion in public.
Companies try hard to be politically correct and mention 'holidays' - there are no Christmas parties, there are 'holiday' parties, and 'season greetings'. Blah. I do not feel opressed by people celebrating religious holidays. I feel sick from the commercialized flavor of it.
Originally posted by Gracious:
There is just as much intolerance towards Christians as there is towards homosexuals. |
Where? You listed one example and that may be your personal experience, but it cannot be generalized as such. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 02:44:31 PM · #1180 |
Originally posted by jadlin:
One of the most impressive scientific claims in the bible is the expanding universe. Within the last century or so it's been discovered that the universe is continually expanding. The bible repeatedly talks about this occurring, several millennium ago.
"This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out..." Isaiah 42:5
"I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" Isaiah 44:24
"Stretching out the heavens by himself and treading upon the high waves of the sea" Job 9:8 |
If you look at two of the verses you didn’t post, you will see that “stretching” is used as part of a metaphor for the “heavens” being placed above the earth like a tent which is stretched when you pitch it in the ground. It is a stretch (pun intended) to compare a metaphor for the sky above the earth to the fact that universe is expanding. Being from the same culture, the metaphor easily carries over to the other verses as something already understood.
Psalm 104:2 (NIV)
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 14:46:27. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 02:59:11 PM · #1181 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Psalm 104:2 (NIV)
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent
Isaiah 40:22 (NIV)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. |
A metaphor is used to make something easier to envision. That's all I see in your examples. I'd even go as far to say that your interpretation that these verses are about the sky above the earth and nothing else as much more far fetched than my original interpretation.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 15:00:35. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:01:46 PM · #1182 |
Originally posted by jadin:
I'd even go as far to say that your interpretation that these verses for about the sky above the earth as much more far fetched than my original interpretation. |
Not for a Bronze Age culture when it was written.
Also,
Originally posted by jadin:
Job wrote his idea a millenium before Aristotle ever came around. |
The Book of Job was unlikely written by anyone named Job and is more likely a folktale or parable about why bad things happen to good people.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 15:02:07. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:05:17 PM · #1183 |
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them bringing swift destruction upon themselves
And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned.
Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:11:58 PM · #1184 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by Gracious:
Remove all mention of Christ from Christmas, in fact eliminate Christmas in favor of the flavorless "holiday."
|
It has been removed already. The only thing important about Christmas is that there are xx shopping days left, that there are huge sales, that there are shopping lists etc. |
Tom Lehrer expounded on this trend in his 1959 song A Christmas Carol |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:12:37 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jadin:
I'd even go as far to say that your interpretation that these verses for about the sky above the earth as much more far fetched than my original interpretation. |
Not for a Bronze Age culture when it was written. |
Debatable.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Also,
Originally posted by jadin:
Job wrote his idea a millenium before Aristotle ever came around. |
The Book of Job was unlikely written by anyone named Job and is more likely a folktale or parable about why bad things happen to good people. |
This source places the earliest known transcript of the book (the dead sea scrolls) at 100 B.C. No matter who wrote it was still well ahead of their time in their statement. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:19:48 PM · #1186 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not for a Bronze Age culture when it was written. |
Debatable. |
Is it your contention that the author(s) of the Book of Job intended it for people 2,000 to 3,000 years after writing it? It is my contention that the author(s) of the Book of Job intended it for the people of their own time period. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:25:39 PM · #1187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If your contention is that the bible is completely accurate and without error, that the stories of the Old Testament were passed down faithfully for generations, that the monks and clerics were so meticulous in their translations and transcriptions of the New Testament through 1500+ years that the contents are beyond question, then what difference would it make WHICH bible you were reading from? They would all be equally infallible direct copies. If the King James version (first published in 1611) is the "correct" version to quote from, then what was the accurate version that preceded it? The mere fact that there ARE versions demonstrates that there were significant changes and discrepancies through time. |
The simplist answer is that not all versions are approved by God. We were given freedom of choice. Which is why Adam was even able to choose to reject God. With the freedom of choice comes the ability translate and interpret the Bible in any way people chose to, whether they are correct or not.
Then there's the notion that God stopped meddling in human affairs after the nation of Isreal was rejected as God's chosen peoples. Meaning no more prophets, no more miracles, no more influence over how the Bible is translated and interpreted.
That is why there are so many versions. IMHO. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:30:58 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is it your contention that the author(s) of the Book of Job intended it for people 2,000 to 3,000 years after writing it? It is my contention that the author(s) of the Book of Job intended it for the people of their own time period. |
If it is the word of God then it could definately be intended for all generations. Although, in my eyes I see it more as God being the editor rather than the author. I.e. choosing what will be included and excluded, rather than dictating word for word. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:39:11 PM · #1189 |
Originally posted by Gracious:
Don't you think that voting is fair? Just curious, should we ignore the majority? |
This has been covered before. Democracy is NOT about majority rules. It's about equal representation and fairness for all. If majority opinion was all that mattered, blacks might still be slaves and Yom Kippur wouldn't be on the calendar. Discrimminatory laws like this one in Texas will inevitably be overturned.
Originally posted by Gracious:
Evolution is a theory not a fact. |
That's a common misconception. In the context of science, a theory IS a fact. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:40:39 PM · #1190 |
Originally posted by jadin:
If it is the word of God then it could definately be intended for all generations. Although, in my eyes I see it more as God being the editor rather than the author. I.e. choosing what will be included and excluded, rather than dictating word for word. |
Then He certainly could have edited in something more specific about an expanding universe rather than using the metaphor of the sky being stretched out like a tent above the earth. You're adding an after-the-fact interpretation to the Bible after the discovery that the universe is expanding.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:45:53 PM · #1191 |
Originally posted by jsas:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies... |
What better way to protect your turf than to make it taboo to question it? If I were the author, I'd certainly write that in, too. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:46:47 PM · #1192 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jadin:
If it is the word of God then it could definately be intended for all generations. Although, in my eyes I see it more as God being the editor rather than the author. I.e. choosing what will be included and excluded, rather than dictating word for word. |
Then He certainly could have edited in something more specific about an expanding universe rather than using the metaphor of the sky being stretched out like a tent above the earth. You're adding an after-the-fact interpretation to the Bible after the discovery that the universe is expanding. |
For the first part I go back to the idea that God did not dictate word for word. Forcing the writer to be more specific about an expanding universe would go against that.
I'll concur to the after-the-fact interpretation. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 03:48:22 PM · #1193 |
| Is there any transfigured fossils found? What evidence is there? I mean I know some people who give it a strong case, just by the way they act but come on, this is like defending a cupcake in a fat camp its pointless. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 04:20:03 PM · #1194 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If your contention is that the bible is completely accurate and without error, that the stories of the Old Testament were passed down faithfully for generations, that the monks and clerics were so meticulous in their translations and transcriptions of the New Testament through 1500+ years that the contents are beyond question, then what difference would it make WHICH bible you were reading from? They would all be equally infallible direct copies. |
The simplist answer is that not all versions are approved by God. |
Show me a version that doesn't include the story of Noah's Ark. Common sense makes the story impossible. Don't think so? Consider...
1) No matter which mountain you speak of, enough water has to be suspended in the air above you before it rained to cover it. Even if that's only 4,000 feet falling on every point on earth, you'd still have the weight of enough water over your head to condense into 4,000 feet. The crush depth of a nuclear submarine is about 2,000 feet, so what do you think would happen to you under TWICE that pressure?
2) All animals on earth are supposed to be represented on an ark about the size of an aircraft carrier, and supporters of that claim will trot out estimates of volume or square footage to show that it's possible. Well, I might be able to fit 15 circus clowns in my car, but they certainly wouldn't be comfortable for very long, and I probably couldn't fit enough food and water in there to sustain even ONE of them for a year. P.S., you've only got 8 people on board to serve the food and clean the resulting mess, too.
3) It's already been pointed out that there was no meat on board the Ark to feed the carnivores, to which the supporters proposed that lions and dinosaurs (ROFL) WEREN'T carnivores at the time. We know from fossil remains and cave paintings pre-dating ANY ship building civilization that lions and bears hunted, and carnivores can't digest vegetable matter. I suspect that someone will just say that the evidence and knowledge of ships was lost in the Flood, so I'll just go ahead and squash that notion, too. After the Flood, 100% of the world's population would have known about wooden ships, tools and pitch. If mankind really had to start over, then even the earliest civilizations would have started with THAT knowledge, not stone tools and no language.
We won't even get into the problem of transporting Reindeer, Kangaroos and Galapagos Tortoises to the Middle East and back (I suppose the reindeer could fly there).
I have a simpler explanation that solves ALL the problems... IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 16:32:55. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 04:54:36 PM · #1195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I have a simpler explanation that solves ALL the problems... IT NEVER HAPPENED. |
It is likely (as you pointed out above) that it did not happen as it is commonly taught, or as Hollywood has portrayed in motion pictures, or evan as it has been taught in some "Sunday School" classes. That however, does not mean that an event involving a flood, a large wooden vessel (perhaps a barge), and many animals did not occurr, near the time recorded in Scripture. There are many events that seem impossible (like the mana from the sky, the water from the rock, the parting of the Red (or Reed) Sea, the slaying of a Giant, the crumbling of the walls of Jericho, the feeding of the multitudes, the changing of water to wine, the raising of Lazurus, the healing of lepers, and even the Resurection of Christ). However, archeology continues to find artifacts that suggest some of these events happened, near the locations recorded and around the time frame described. Therefore, I agree that the way in which many Biblical passages are presented (as stories) and as presented are quite possibly in error, that does not mean (in my opinion) that these events never took place. Quite the contrary.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:04:52 PM · #1196 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Show me a version that doesn't include the story of Noah's Ark. Common sense makes the story impossible. Don't think so? Consider...
1) No matter which mountain you speak of, enough water has to be suspended in the air above you before it rained to cover it. Even if that's only 4,000 feet falling on every point on earth, you'd still have the weight of enough water over your head to condense into 4,000 feet. The crush depth of a nuclear submarine is about 2,000 feet, so what do you think would happen to you under TWICE that pressure? |
Not sure where this is coming from based on my response, but I'll bite. I'm sure you're well aware that almost every tribe / civilization has some story of a flood. It's reasonable to assume that some form of flood occured. There is also evidence in geology of a flood happening at some point in history. Rather than requiring 4,000 feet of water, a far more reasonable amount would be enough water to cover the known population at the time. More presicely enough water to cover everything Noah could see in every direction.
It should be obvious that water vapor in the air is significantly less dense than the water on the ground. We don't have the pressure of clouds above us bearing down on us, simply air pressure. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, it's been a while since high school science)
Originally posted by scalvert:
2) All animals on earth are supposed to be represented on an ark about the size of an aircraft carrier, and supporters of that claim will trot out estimates of volume or square footage to show that it's possible. Well, I might be able to fit 15 circus clowns in my car, but they certainly wouldn't be comfortable for very long, and I probably couldn't fit enough food and water in there to sustain even ONE of them for a year. P.S., you've only got 8 people on board to serve the food and clean the resulting mess, too. |
This one is harder to reconcile. Consider if all the animals were present in a DNA or frozen embryo form. This would surely allow all species to fit. I realize this is an insanely long shot and highly unlikely. (Read as: I don't believe this at all) I use it to make the point that there are probably a lot of possibilities that would explain the situation as we read it today, but may not have been written down for whatever reason.
To use milo's point of being written for a specific time period, if only DNA was on the ark, people of that time period would not understand. Changing the story from DNA to actual animals would be more understood at that time. Again I repeat I do not beleive that this is what occured.
A far more likely conclusion would be that a miracle made the small space 'somehow' fit all the animals. There are countless miracles in the Bible that take a small amount and make it last impossible amounts. Jesus feeding thousands. Elisha feeding a widow and her son. This is a much more likely scenario. (Your clown car analogy is actually not a bad example :))
Originally posted by scalvert:
3) It's already been pointed out that there was no meat on board the Ark to feed the carnivores, to which the supporters proposed that lions and dinosaurs (ROFL) WEREN'T carnivores at the time. We know from fossil remains and cave paintings pre-dating ANY ship building civilization that lions and bears hunted, and carnivores can't digest vegetable matter. I suspect that someone will just say that the evidence and knowledge of ships was lost in the Flood, so I'll just go ahead and squash that notion, too. After the Flood, 100% of the world's population would have known about wooden ships, tools and pitch. If mankind really had to start over, then even the earliest civilizations would have started with THAT knowledge, not stone tools and no language.
We won't even get into the problem of transporting Reindeer, Kangaroos and Galapagos Tortoises to the Middle East and back (I suppose the reindeer could fly there). |
I also laugh at the notion of dinosaurs being aboard the ark, that is absurd.
As far as carnivores are concerned, it only stands to reason that food would be provided for them as well. Whether that be alternative foods or even meat itself. (I'm not sure where it's concluded that no meat was onboard). There's also the possibility that they didn't need to eat anything during the entire time. Many carnivores eat a lot and then rest for long periods of times.
Then there are the possibility of divine intervention. Hibernating animals do not eat. There's the possibility of food being miracously provided. A miracle could easily make a canivore able to digest alternative foods. There are other Biblical examples of miracules that are relavent such as the feeding of thousands on a few loaves of bread and fish. This could have easily occured on the ark. Speaking of fish, they would be on top of an endless supply of meat...
Noah had 40 years to build the ark. This entire time could have been spent collecting and gathering animals from around the globe. Animals in the artic would not need to be collected since they would presumably survive any such flooding as long as the ice they lived on continued to float on top.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 17:16:27. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:19:07 PM · #1197 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Is there any transfigured fossils found? What evidence is there? I mean I know some people who give it a strong case, just by the way they act but come on, this is like defending a cupcake in a fat camp its pointless. |
Few things - There are gaps in the fossil records due to various reason. One reason is that the conditions for fossilization simply weren't there. I believe sediment and other various conditions need to be met for fossils to form. Others include shifting plates and such, which is one of the reason fossils are still beign discovered today, and new organisms are being unearther all the time. They have found fossils of extinct creatures that seem to be in an evolutionary transition from say, fish that 'walk' on the floor of the ocean to amphibians.
Another thing is time. Evolution does not happen in a few years, not even over a few hundred or thousand years. It happens over millions, if not billions of years. This amount of time is a concept we cannot comprehend. If we took the age of earth and made it into a 24 hour clock, humans have existed for one half of one second (I think. I may be off by a quarter of a second or so.)
As has been stated, evolution can be researched and tested under the scientific method. ID can not. Until it can, it shouldn't be taught in a SCIENCE classroom. This has been debated in this thread before, but it's so lnog I don't even know where it is.
Anyways, there is insurmountable evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and I think comparing it to defending a cupcake in a fat camp is naive and ill-informed.
Anyways, what's wrong with a cupcake in a fat camp if it's a non-fat, naturally sweetened cupcake? |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 05:49:23 PM · #1198 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by jsas:
Is there any transfigured fossils found? What evidence is there? I mean I know some people who give it a strong case, just by the way they act but come on, this is like defending a cupcake in a fat camp its pointless. |
Few things - There are gaps in the fossil records due to various reason. One reason is that the conditions for fossilization simply weren't there. I believe sediment and other various conditions need to be met for fossils to form. Others include shifting plates and such, which is one of the reason fossils are still beign discovered today, and new organisms are being unearther all the time. They have found fossils of extinct creatures that seem to be in an evolutionary transition from say, fish that 'walk' on the floor of the ocean to amphibians.
Another thing is time. Evolution does not happen in a few years, not even over a few hundred or thousand years. It happens over millions, if not billions of years. This amount of time is a concept we cannot comprehend. If we took the age of earth and made it into a 24 hour clock, humans have existed for one half of one second (I think. I may be off by a quarter of a second or so.)
As has been stated, evolution can be researched and tested under the scientific method. ID can not. Until it can, it shouldn't be taught in a SCIENCE classroom. This has been debated in this thread before, but it's so lnog I don't even know where it is.
Anyways, there is insurmountable evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and I think comparing it to defending a cupcake in a fat camp is naive and ill-informed.
Anyways, what's wrong with a cupcake in a fat camp if it's a non-fat, naturally sweetened cupcake? |
You theory is way off I am sorry but..........a non-fat cupcake!? thats even more pointless LOL |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 06:34:42 PM · #1199 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Not sure where this is coming from based on my response, but I'll bite... |
Wow, you really went all-out there! OK..
The no-meat reference came from an earlier direct biblical quote (causing several people here to insist that there were no carnivores), but other versions just say "food" so that problem has been edited out. As for not eating and miracle air-drops of food, God specifically tells Noah to pack enough food for the trip- this is strictly bag lunch. Let's also not forget that our intrepid passengers would be disembarking to a lifeless moonscape. Yes, a miracle could make a lion able to digest meat, and it could also make Happy Meals spring forth from a Federation replicator on the poop deck. I really can't argue with magic.
They would indeed be on top of an ocean of freshwater fish and REALLY deep-diving sea turtles (see earlier discussion), but anteaters and woodpeckers aren't particularly fond of trout OR salad. Reindeer and penguins might get of scott-free by floating on icebergs, but then there's that darn "wipe out all life on earth" thing. The more explanations are needed to support an argument, the harder it becomes for the foundation.
Message edited by author 2005-11-19 18:36:38. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 06:57:18 PM · #1200 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jadin:
Not sure where this is coming from based on my response, but I'll bite... |
Wow, you really went all-out there! OK..
The no-meat reference came from an earlier direct biblical quote (causing several people here to insist that there were no carnivores), but other versions just say "food" so that problem has been edited out. As for not eating and miracle air-drops of food, God specifically tells Noah to pack enough food for the trip- this is strictly bag lunch. Let's also not forget that our intrepid passengers would be disembarking to a lifeless moonscape. Yes, a miracle could make a lion able to digest meat, and it could also make Happy Meals spring forth from a Federation replicator on the poop deck. I really can't argue with magic.
|
All those miracles sound like a bad joke on Noah. Reminds me of the Bill Cosby skit! Boy would I be miffed if I went to all that work to save those animals, only to find out that God could have just as easily zapped a luxury zoo-cruiseliner replete with all of the amenities.
Another bad joke by God would be to make such a contradictory, regionally specific book and then insist that his followers interpret it literally, and convince the rest of the world to do the same. I admire the faith of those who do, but it doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
