| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2005 05:12:01 PM · #976 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
First of all, concerning Joshua's recent statements, I think maybe what he's trying to say (I haven't read the discussion he linked last yet) is that whatever the real truth is (and he and I believe its contained in the Bible, others believe its contained in science texts, others....), whether or not you believe it is truth does not change its character - it still remains the truth.
For example, I was watching Nova last night, and this week's episode was on Isaac Newton. Apparently, according to Nova (and they made at least one mistake, so maybe I'm on slippery ground), prior to Newton, it was believed that "white" light was pure, and that passing that light through a prism altered or changed the light, creating colored light. Newton proved that white light was actually the combination of the various colors of the spectrum. (I hope I haven't mangled the facts or the terms too much here.)
Now, before Newton's discovery, "white" light was composed of the full (?) spectrum of colors. Before the Romans, before the Greeks, before the Egyptians, before the Mesopotamians, the real truth was that white light contained the entire spectrum of color, no matter what people thought, beleived, or could prove or disprove at their particular point in history. Newton's discovery didn't change the truth, simply revealed it.
So, if the Bible is true, it does not matter whether you can prove or disprove its contents. For you to believe and accept it as true, that may be required, but it does alter that truth. Likewise, if there is no God, if the physical realm is all there is, then the Bible is completely false and useless, and all my faith is pointless. (In fact, even Paul wrote that if Christ did not rise from the dead - a core of the Christian faith and Bible doctrine - that we are to be most pitied.)
I do agree, as has been pointed out, that proving the Bible's truth using scriptures is not valid as proof of its authenticity. I've personally tried to only bring up specific scriptures in response to "where does it say...?" type questions or challenges, and I think that this is true in most cases in this thread for others as well. |
In regards to this piece of your post you are correct in your assessment of part of my point. The other part can be found in the link you mention that you have not had time to read, yet. BTW, I have spent the last 3 work hours researching the site and I find it very interesting on many levels and topics. I am very interested in apologetics, but honestly weak in my understanding of Biblical theory. This site helps provide reference to key readings in the Bible. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 17:14:53.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:13:29 PM · #977 |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:23:11 PM · #978 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Is a "pretent" in any way related to a "portent", or is it the condition you find yourself in before you have erected your overnight shelter?
R. |
Don't be so portentious.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:25:54 PM · #979 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Is a "pretent" in any way related to a "portent", or is it the condition you find yourself in before you have erected your overnight shelter?
R. |
Don't be so portentious. |
It was probably intentional!
:)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:30:02 PM · #980 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jsas:
Why do you capitalize God? |
It's a proper name. She probably doesn't believe in Zeus either. |
By capitalizing it you say God is the supreme being in person. Even webster says so, .... |
Funny that... I have a Webster New Collegiate in front of me at this very moment, and at page 493.. they refer to your supreme being as ... gasp........dare I say it... god.
What is the world coming to... don't they realize that this is the ultimate insult??? |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:30:46 PM · #981 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Actually, in regards to the belief in Islam, I read part of the Qur'an (sp?) one time.
It was interesting. From the section I read, Muslims don't believe it is the same God.
It is usually only Christians that propagate that one. Go figure.
|
For a long time, Islam was regarded as a sect within Christianity. I am not sure what it means to believe in the "same" god, but certainly Islam is Judeo Christian in origin, and the Old Testament/Torah forms the genesis of the Qu'ran, and the C7th Bible is an influencing factor. The religion is subject to a different historical and geographical setting from Christianity and Judaism, ultimately resulting in a variety of different interpretations (starting with the Sunni and Shi'ite split).
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:37:48 PM · #982 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You (or in this thread- can't check all that way) keep saying the Bible is fact! That it is factually correct. I have asked before and ask again,how do you know?
P |
Here is just one reason... to list them all would take a lot of time... I do have some more information, but not here at work with me.
Isaiah 43:1-14 |
This is proof.........I never cease to be amazed what some folks can bandy about as proof... Sorry but I fear I need a tad more proof than that... |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:39:59 PM · #983 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It appears that you are claiming that since other cultures have provable history and religion, that the Bible is no more accurate as a religious text than the Pharoh's of Egypt. |
Almost. I'm saying that the existence of other references ALSO written by man or evidence that some of the characters may be based in truth does not automatically mean that the entire text is infallible (or even non-fiction).
Consider for a moment that a book of stories is over two thousand years old. The stories are wonderful parables from multiple authors that teach moral lessons or truths about living. We know that the principle character / author likely existed (some people don't believe that, but other ancient references mention him by name). There is evidence that at least some of the stories may have occurred or were based upon actual events. The book is known worldwide and usually introduced to us as children. It includes talking serpents and other fantastic elements that defy mainstream science. The book has been translated into multiple languages (the most authoritative versions by monks), and the text from ancient copies is very similar. I am speaking, of course, of Aesop's Fables.
Originally posted by Flash:
...did you get to visit the archives from the 1st century? Did you do any translations? ... |
Those things aren't generally available to the public, and I doubt you'd find a single person in this group (on either side) who has. While I haven't personally translated any ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I HAVE witnessed Jupiter's moons in orbit... Father Lecazre declared of Galileo, "...his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation. It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the Earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it cannot be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam and Eve?" Note that these are the words of church scholars who were likely far more familiar with the Bible and the Vatican archives than you or I.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 17:42:43. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:40:52 PM · #984 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You (or in this thread- can't check all that way) keep saying the Bible is fact! That it is factually correct. I have asked before and ask again,how do you know?
P |
Here is just one reason... to list them all would take a lot of time... I do have some more information, but not here at work with me.
Isaiah 43:1-14 |
This is proof.........I never cease to be amazed what some folks can bandy about as proof... Sorry but I fear I need a tad more proof than that... |
Just a suggestion... if you come back and find that there are a slew of new post since the last time you read, read all of it before responding. This was already addressed, effectively I might add and we have moved on in the conversation. Of course you might have already known this and this post was simple to flame, I of course will leave it for you to clarify instead of assuming.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:43:15 PM · #985 |
Once more, with feeling...
Perhaps we need to appoint a steering committee to go out and study the characteristics of other dead horses at this juncture in time. ;) |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:43:44 PM · #986 |
Funny you should ask.
Massachusetts law ( Part IV, Title 1, Chapter 272, Section 34 ( ref: here ) currently reads:
"Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years."
A Bill ( Senate Bill 938 ( ref: here ) has been introduced proposing to reword the statute so that
a) there is no reference to mankind, and
b) to provide for REDUCED penalties for having sex with animals
to wit:
"Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Under the proposed change, instead of being sentenced to a term in the state prison, the judge can opt for a lesser sentence in a "house of correction" ( County Jail ) or just a fine, with no sentence at all. And the fine could be as little as $10.00, since the proposed law doesn't specify a minimum.
Today a stay in the state penitentiary.
Tomorrow, if this legislation passes, a small fine.
35 years from now? We'll see.
And some of you argued that I was not just wrong in my assumptions about the future, but outrageously wrong.
Still think so? |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:49:46 PM · #987 |
I understand that the bible is used as a useful historical text. The New Testament has the benefit of being date tested with a reasonable degree of accuracy, against which specific events can be identified.
I do not think that there is a serious objection to the Bible as a historical document, especially especially inasmuch as it recorded people's interpretation of then-recent events. What is called into question now is the interpretation placed upon those events, the cause of the events described, and aspects where subsequent editors have had an ulterior motive for adjusting or improving the text for their own ends.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:50:18 PM · #988 |
Regarding 15 million years vs 6 days, and Big Bang vs the Creation, I'm surprised there's been so little attention paid to the idea that one of God's days could very well be very different in length than one of ours. In fact, this would tend to be supported by the statement that God did some of his "day work" before he'd finished the Creation (he started with light, after all, and the earth came later) since the "day" as we know it has no meaning without the earth being in orbit around the sun.
Personally, I think that (leaving the time-frame issue aside, the Biblical account of creation is a pretty good capsule description of the creation of the universe out of chaos and the evolution of life on earth for a bunch of guys with NO scientific credentials whatsoever. I don't find it that difficult to reconcile Genesis/Creationism with the Big Bang if one's willing to cut a lot of slack on the meaing of "day"...
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:51:58 PM · #989 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Funny you should ask.
Massachusetts law ( Part IV, Title 1, Chapter 272, Section 34 ( ref: here ) currently reads:
"Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years."
A Bill ( Senate Bill 938 ( ref: here ) has been introduced proposing to reword the statute so that
a) there is no reference to mankind, and
b) to provide for REDUCED penalties for having sex with animals
to wit:
"Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Under the proposed change, instead of being sentenced to a term in the state prison, the judge can opt for a lesser sentence in a "house of correction" ( County Jail ) or just a fine, with no sentence at all. And the fine could be as little as $10.00, since the proposed law doesn't specify a minimum.
Today a stay in the state penitentiary.
Tomorrow, if this legislation passes, a small fine.
35 years from now? We'll see.
And some of you argued that I was not just wrong in my assumptions about the future, but outrageously wrong.
Still think so? |
Just out of curiosity, aside from your personal moral code, what's your objection to bestiality? It may be abhorrent to you (I'm sure it is, just as it is to me) but what's the harm in it?
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:52:09 PM · #990 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
[quote=bear_music]THIS is the beginning of your "proof"? That in the Book it says it, so it must be so?
I will refrain from using the Bible as proof of itself unless supported with additional evidence.
|
Don't wait up!!! |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 05:57:20 PM · #991 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...some of you argued that I was not just wrong in my assumptions about the future, but outrageously wrong.
Still think so? |
Yes. "Proponents of various bills across the U.S., notably a resolution from the Oakland, California school board on December 18, 1996, wanted Ebonics officially declared a language or dialect."
Not every proposed bill or passed law (ahem... Texas) is indicative of the direction of the future or of mainstream thinking. I can find hundreds, if not thousands of crazy proposals and laws. So what?
BTW, you still haven't answered my question about the proper moral behavior for a transsexual (I did ask twice). |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:03:42 PM · #992 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Personally, I think that (leaving the time-frame issue aside, the Biblical account of creation is a pretty good capsule description of the creation of the universe out of chaos and the evolution of life on earth... |
Just to pick one example... now matter how long you define a day to be, how do you reconcile the creation of grass and fruit trees before the sun? They DO kinda' need that little fireball to survive. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:04:18 PM · #993 |
| You want to go from a hot dog to a taco that is up to you, but don't expect people to accept it. Just like Christians shouldn't expect people to accept them. We have a choice to be offended or accept what is out there. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:10:26 PM · #994 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Just a suggestion... if you come back and find that there are a slew of new post since the last time you read, read all of it before responding. This was already addressed, effectively I might add and we have moved on in the conversation. Of course you might have already known this and this post was simple to flame, I of course will leave it for you to clarify instead of assuming. |
I have no need to flame you...the embers seem to be aglow. As for your suggestion... you do things your way, and I will do them mine. Nice to see that you have moved on... and still have failed to proffer one scintilla of proof... but hey.......that's just me. Best I move on I guess. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:11:53 PM · #995 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you, honestly ,Bear and ReSom50r for you link so I could read about this event.
Sorry I lost my rag with Flash but offering this as proof, and then just telling me I should have read about itin my local news, made me bite!
P |
I think that Flash was simply including that as a current-events example of an archeological find that lends itself to a larger body of evidence providing historical support for biblical accounts. He didn't say "They found a Goliath pottery shard - the Bible must be true!" And, it just may have been in your local paper at some point, though often these types of stories sometimes show up "late", or as space allows. I personally don't find this particular find that compelling either. But it was relevant to the post. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:18:25 PM · #996 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you, honestly ,Bear and ReSom50r for you link so I could read about this event.
Sorry I lost my rag with Flash but offering this as proof, and then just telling me I should have read about itin my local news, made me bite!
P |
I think that Flash was simply including that as a current-events example of an archeological find that lends itself to a larger body of evidence providing historical support for biblical accounts. He didn't say "They found a Goliath pottery shard - the Bible must be true!" And, it just may have been in your local paper at some point, though often these types of stories sometimes show up "late", or as space allows. I personally don't find this particular find that compelling either. But it was relevant to the post. |
I was not annoyed by the evidence or him offering it but for his cavalier attitude to my request for further information.
I do not know what local papers are like in the US but in the UK local newspapers do not report international news.
I f I offered information to back up a claim I try to make sure I have got it correct at least in its basic detail by looking it up first!
Let Flash defend himself!
P
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:20:24 PM · #997 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I understand that the bible is used as a useful historical text. The New Testament has the benefit of being date tested with a reasonable degree of accuracy, against which specific events can be identified.
I do not think that there is a serious objection to the Bible as a historical document, especially especially inasmuch as it recorded people's interpretation of then-recent events. What is called into question now is the interpretation placed upon those events, the cause of the events described, and aspects where subsequent editors have had an ulterior motive for adjusting or improving the text for their own ends. |
Such as...? |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:23:56 PM · #998 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Thank you, honestly ,Bear and ReSom50r for you link so I could read about this event.
Sorry I lost my rag with Flash but offering this as proof, and then just telling me I should have read about itin my local news, made me bite!
P |
I think that Flash was simply including that as a current-events example of an archeological find that lends itself to a larger body of evidence providing historical support for biblical accounts. He didn't say "They found a Goliath pottery shard - the Bible must be true!" And, it just may have been in your local paper at some point, though often these types of stories sometimes show up "late", or as space allows. I personally don't find this particular find that compelling either. But it was relevant to the post. |
I was not annoyed by the evidence or him offering it but for his cavalier attitude to my request for further information.
I do not know what local papers are like in the US but in the UK local newspapers do not report international news.
I f I offered information to back up a claim I try to make sure I have got it correct at least in its basic detail by looking it up first!
Let Flash defend himself!
P |
Whoops, those toes are a bit tender. Sorry. :o |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:36:40 PM · #999 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
I was not annoyed by the evidence or him offering it but for his cavalier attitude to my request for further information.
I do not know what local papers are like in the US but in the UK local newspapers do not report international news.
I f I offered information to back up a claim I try to make sure I have got it correct at least in its basic detail by looking it up first!
Let Flash defend himself!
P |
Whoops, those toes are a bit tender. Sorry. :o [/quote]
Yes! Had a bad day. Everyone beware!
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:39:28 PM · #1000 |
Someone in this thread argues that no matter how long a "day" is, since the Genesis account records that plants were created BEFORE the sun, that that implies that the Bible is not to be believed.
Two points:
1) As some have already postulated: in line with the special theory of relativity, a "day" is a relativistic period of time, hence it would follow that if a plant can live a "day" without sunlight as we measure it today, then why would it not follow that a plant could live a [relativistic] "day" without light as it was measured then?
2) Some plants, as measured by today's standards actually live for not just a day, but for MONTHS without light ( ref: here ) - that being said, why couldn't plants have lived without light in the Genesis timeframe for however "long" a "day" was?
The excerpt ( sorry it's so long ):
One topic we have investigated at Cape Evans is the mechanisms that enable seaweeds like Phyllophora to survive at such high latitudes. Antarctic seaweeds are well adapted to photosynthesise and grow at low water temperatures, but they cannot survive if there is not enough light for photosynthesis. McMurdo Sound (latitude 77–78°S) is in complete darkness for four months of the year, and at Cape Evans ice-cover may persist all year or may break up for just a few months in summer.
Underwater light (at 15 m depth) at Cape Evans between December 2001 and November 2002.
So just how much light is there? From December 2001 to November 2002 we used loggers to make regular measurements of the light underwater at depths where the seaweeds live. We also measured how much light was needed for photosynthesis and growth. An example of the data is shown in the graph . In December 2001 when divers put the loggers in position, Cape Evans was covered by ice. There was so little light at that time that growth was not possible. In fact, we suspect that at this time plants were still using stored reserves to meet their metabolic needs.
On the last day of January, when ice-breakout occurred at the site, underwater irradiance increased 100 times – the start of the short window of time when there is enough light for growth. However the next year’s ice began to form again in late March. Underwater light levels quickly dropped, and by late April winter darkness had again taken over. No light was recorded again at this depth until late August.
The very short window of opportunity for growth means that, in order to persist, seaweeds at Cape Evans must have an extraordinary ability to utilise low light, to maximise production during the time when there is relatively high light, and to survive winter darkness. The results of our photosynthesis and growth experiments show that despite having these key survival attributes, the plants still require decades to grow to just a few tens of centimetres long. |
|
