FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: eSineM on July 29, 2009, 06:43:06 pm
-
Okay it looks like there is some 'religious experts' in here...I was hoping maybe to get a better explanation about this whole 'Noah's Ark' story...To me it is one of the many inconsistencies in all the many different translations of Bible(s)... The whole concept seems impossible to me...you would think there would be some more detailed info about this...since it was such an important part of this Existence today...I mean do I even have to explain...? just think about it, GOD supposedly chose two of each animal...as an example, so what kinda super breed of dogs did he choose...? lol I'm trying figure out so many different breeds/species of animals just came about into existence....and so on and so forth etc....
I also can't comprehend how out of all these different religions/sects/cults ...each one of say they have the "Truth" and the answers etc... lool.. who's to know which one is the right source... don't get me wrong, I do believe in a GOD(creator, higher force or whatever) and that IT made us to enjoy this life...I believe he guides me everyday... I just don't think he has anything to do with any man made belief... and I believe it is wrong to even try and comprehend our Creator.... To me the best Faith is ignorance... i mean how can anyone say they understand who our Creator is...
Peace
-
All you have to do is read your bible and you will get all the answers you need.
-
SInce youre so familiar with it why don't you point out a Verse/chapter for me.
-
somebody had to write a story about how the earth came to be.
cuz evolution and natural selection isnt real
-
you^ didnt read everything i said... i dont believe in evolution either
-
My pastor says that if it isn't in the Bible, then we don't need to know.
I, of course, don't agree with this statement. It's only natural for the human mind to wonder about how we came into existence. The Bible is extremely difficult to comprehend. I don't have any clue how Noah fit all of those animals into the ark -- or which animals he chose, etc. I wasn't there, so I can't even say it happened like that. I am not the type of person who believes everything just "because the Bible tells me so."
I have as many questions as the next person and no answers at all.
-
The story of Noah's Ark is just that. A story. There are still kinds of animals being discovered today. During a time of no motorized transportation, it would not have been possible to collect animals from every continent. Especially ones that hadn't even been discovered yet. Also, they would have to keep the carnivores from eating each other.
-
My thoughts exactly.... i think most "christians" beleiev it is all possible because God makes it all magically happen
-
So your question is basically: Can someone give me a relatively simple, logical, realistic explanation for the story of Noah's Ark?
Probably not.
Flood "epics" appear in quite a few ancient texts. The idea of such a story was nothing new around the time the Bible is dated. The story of Noah is quite similar to that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh and the character, Noah, shares a good deal of similarities with the Sumerian fictional character, Tagtug. A very brief explanation of Sumerian tale of Gilgamesh (more can be found, but I'll leave that to you):
The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.
The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.
There is a good deal evidence that supports large scale floods (NOT global) throughout history. The Black Sea flood hypothesis matches up somewhat closely to many ancient stories of large scale floods. It's still quite a controversial proposal though.
The point is there is currently no geological, paleontological or archaeological support for any serious flood at the period indicated, and any contemporaneous record is likely to be referring to a previous event or is based on a previous epic/tale/myth of another culture.
Moving on to something else you said:
Why is ignorance a respectable attribute? What in the world could ignorance possibly yield us? I find it depressing such a great number of people hold the thought that ignorance is somehow "good." Look around. Even after centuries of people chasing every bit of knowledge possible and it creating just about every single thing you use daily, ignorance is still a good thing? How does the acceptance of ignorance help us at all?
-
Noah Ark is about am man who build a ship to save the animal and peple so they could survive the storm
-
If you search into it enough just about all the older civiliations had stories about a big flood and how one family built a raft, boat, canoe, ark, etc to save his family and other creatures. The thing about food, water, and eating each other was solved by the animals going into hibernation like most northern animals still do today. I have also heard that they have found the vessil on a mountain in the middle east somewhere, so im sure if you look you can find pictures or something.
-
The closest I could tell you is to watch Evan Almighty!! Its a funny movie!! ENJOY
-
idk
-
somebody had to write a story about how the earth came to be.
cuz evolution and natural selection isnt real
LOL so you are attempting to say that there is no such thing what so ever as evolution. And that nothing evolves. You are seriously diluted. You only need to look at the walking catfish to know that your statement is false.
-
I believe that people take the Bible to literally. I think they were stories gathered together to be a "moral compass". I mean if you ask any person today if they believe that a shrub will talk to them, and if it is possible, a majority will tell you no.
I think that if you want to believe in God, He will be satisified if you believe in your way. You don't have to believe the way man tells you to. Just my opinion, not disagreeing with anyone here...
I do believe in evolution, BTW, but who is to say that God didn't do that too? ;)
-
Liljp617 knows his stuff. Everything he said is completely logical and rational. If you believe that one man built a humongous ship and put EVERY pair of animal on this earth to escape a flood of epic proportions, you got some issues. Almost every culture has stories like these (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth)
ESineM, I can conclude that you're either a or on your way to being a very intelligent and open minded being. Don't let anyone try to speak to you saying things like "Oh yeah the flood happened! That's why we dont have dinosaurs! Noah forgot them!" just ignore them because you will find yourself frustrated from stupidity and ignorance of raw proven facts. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS, look for answers, and try not to step in the BS.
http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg
-
I believe that people take the Bible to literally. I think they were stories gathered together to be a "moral compass".
I don't think this holds up under scrutiny. I honestly don't think there's anything legitimate that shows, over the centuries, the main focus of people upholding the Bible is to make it a moral compass at all.
If that is the case, however, they probably should have written a few more drafts and had some more peer reviews before publishing ;)
I do believe in evolution, BTW, but who is to say that God didn't do that too? ;)
Ockam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
-
Good stuff liljp :thumbsup: When i wrote all that i was kinda doin it in a rush lol
Why is ignorance a respectable attribute? What in the world could ignorance possibly yield us? I find it depressing such a great number of people hold the thought that ignorance is somehow "good." Look around. Even after centuries of people chasing every bit of knowledge possible and it creating just about every single thing you use daily, ignorance is still a good thing? How does the acceptance of ignorance help us at all?
I meant to say the best faith is knowing you are ignorant.. the truth is everyone is ignorant even if they choose to pretend differently.
Nobody knows the true "god" or spirit, or religion etc.
find it funny how that supposedly god cannot be described, is not physical, and is completely behond comprehension.. .So how is it people still think they can explain god? haha, they use physical terms, and comprehensible information which obviously cannot be accurate at all... Its kinda like trying to describe something thoroughly by using only incorrect descriptions. If you keep adding more and more incorrect descriptions, at no point will it become clear what you are describing... in fact the more info you hear, the less you know and more confusing it is! haha. God and spirit are an experience and something you live, not something you can read about and describe to others.
The bible in its original form is unseen, the bible(s) that we do see have all been written and manipulated by oppressive forces.... Can anyone honestly read the "king james" version and not think about the irony that you are supposedly learning morals from a "king" which are generally accepted as the most oppressive force out there ? hehe. A long line of political tyrants have controlled the publishing of books for centuries, and people honestly thing the bible was somehow immuned to corruption, as if those in power wouldnt realize the power of the bible and the words contained inside. Of course they have been manipulated, and who can even vouch for those who wrote the very first draft? Every author was honest and talked to god etc.? none were corrupt? the amazing thing is not the belief in an invisible being in the sky,. the real amazing thing is that people actually trust the AUTHORS and publishers of these books as if they were written by god himself! (literally!)
Falconer :wave: :thumbsup:
-
The stories of the Bible are parables which teach us how God wants us to behave. I think it's a mistake to obsess over the details of the Noah's Ark story and insist that THEY, not the story's message, are the literal truth. But hey, fussing about whether or not there was really a Noah or an Ark is a wonderful way for people to avoid the hard work of learning how to be decent, compassionate human beings who are capable of working and living peacefully together! It's so much easier to have heated arguments about trivia, and declare that anyone who doesn't agree with you is going to hell.
-
I think there were what we call dinosaurs on the ark! What do you think the dragons in the middle ages were?
-
As a minister who has done some research. Dinasaurs did not exist when man did. I dont believe in dragons in the mythical sense. If you read your Bible...time wasnt created til the fourth day. So the 24 hour days of creation doesnt make since in God's frame of time. And since that seems to be the case, animals and fish were created before God created man which makes since to me to explain the thousands of years science seem to say the world existed. Also from the time of the existance of man Biblically, man has only existed for bout 7000 years which we are coming to. Just a thought.
-
My friend the stores of the Bible are more than parables. Besides being the Word of God, the Bible is also a historical document. Queen Victoria once asked to give her a sentence that proved the Bible was true. The answer was I can give you one Word to prove the Bible is true...JEW. The Bible was not only given to us as a light to how to live but is so much more. Everyday historians and scientist are finding more and more evidence to the validity of the Bible. Some things are hid from human existance because God wants us to live by faith not by sight...for it says in Hebrews for without faith it is impossible to please God. Just a thought. Have a great day.
-
Have any of you ever heard of Zachary Stitchin? And hes theories? (Which are and have been studied and some are reported to be true.) If you guys get a chance check him out. It wont hurt ya!!
-
My friend the stores of the Bible are more than parables. Besides being the Word of God, the Bible is also a historical document. Queen Victoria once asked to give her a sentence that proved the Bible was true. The answer was I can give you one Word to prove the Bible is true...JEW. The Bible was not only given to us as a light to how to live but is so much more. Everyday historians and scientist are finding more and more evidence to the validity of the Bible. Some things are hid from human existance because God wants us to live by faith not by sight...for it says in Hebrews for without faith it is impossible to please God. Just a thought. Have a great day.
So because Jewish people exist, it validates the Bible as a historical document? I think that assertion just caused a number kittens to commit suicide. What a ridiculous notion. Every day, historians and scientists are actually finding more and more that invalidates what the Bible says.
There are no talking snakes. The universe isn't 6,000 years old. The oldest remains of an upright walking hominid (the famous 'Lucy') date back to 3-3.6 million years. The oldest remains of a Homo Sapien date back approximately 100,000 - 200,000 years (it depends on what you classify as Homo Sapien), not the ridiculous 7,000 years you claim.
The Bible is not a set of guidelines on how to live morally (which is what I assume you mean by your statement). You do not get your morals from the Bible, you get them from the same places everyone else does. Which morals from the Bible do you abide by and which do you blow off as nonsensical and out of touch with reality? Do you follow the kinds of morals that say stone disobedient children and don't eat shellfish or the morals that say do unto others as you would have done unto you? If you only follow morals similar to the latter, why are the others nonsensical?
And then of course we get the stereotypical intellectual cop-out of "oh well, the big dude up there wants to stay invisible so we just have to have faith." Really thought provoking!
As a minister, you should probably do a bit more research before making claims and then adding some kind of disclaimer, "it's just a thought." You have responsibilities as someone in a position of leadership; spouting random nonsense that is blatantly false -- and I'm not even talking about your religion, I'm talking about specific historical and scientific facts that you are ignoring and manipulating -- is, frankly, morally reprehensible when you're standing up there with the eyes and ears of probably hundreds of people on you hanging on every word you say. The thoughts you've expressed here aren't really thoughts at all...thinking requires reasoning, critiquing, criticism, and research.
-
Everyone has some really good reply's here. Well, here's my take.
First you have to understand how vast our cultures differ from present time to Noah's Ark time. Much of the know world hadn't been discovered yet (as someone else pointed out) It's possible that the "Great Flood" only encompassed a small part of land. Heck, he could have been living close to the coast line and just sailed into the ocean.
If you are curious about the heavens and how everything works, I suggest looking up something called "The Blue Book" also titled "Urantia"
It's has no known authors because it was supposedly written by angels. They were trying to help us understand how our galaxy and universe works. Some VERY interesting reading there. It may just make your head explode because of the way it's written. I'm pretty sure there is a free online source of it somewhere. Oh, also, it even talks about the early life of Jesus. Yeah, his teen years, if you're curious about that.
-
I always love the thing people say bout comprehending...cause thats what makes christianity so different and right from all the others. In our human comprehending we cant. But God in his mercy and his wisdom sent us His Holy Spirit to guide us. When you have ask Jesus into your heart and mean it...your whole life really changes...II Corinthians 5:17 If any man be in Christ he is a new creation old things pass away and all things become new. When you know Him, and want really really want to know Him...the Holy Spirit will teach ya. Having said that, we still need to remember we arent perfect...we still live in this mortal body with all of its flaws and til we die we fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers in high places..Ephesians 6:12...the enemy of our souls..SELF and SATAN are constantly battling for our being..so we mess up we screw up and sometimes we dont get the right messages from the Holy Spirit we should but it is the Holy Spirit that opens up our understanding to Gods truth God word and the things that confuse us. To Love HIM is to KNOW HIM...My friends inspite of what you might think...the Bible is the truthest and greatest reality there is...Through out HISTORY...those civilizations who ignore it or try to stamp out perish...Jesus said and it has stayed true throughout the ages...like or not...He said heaven and earth may pass away but my Word last forever...Princes and kings have tried...dictators have tried...John lenin says we are more popular that Jesus Christ...he is dead and the beatles are no more...but Jesus is..others thoughout time have made simpler comments only to find...death and destruction in their wake...John 3:17 talks about how people hate to come to the light, WHY? because the Light revealed their darkness...thats why they try to disprove the Bible cause as the Scriptures say it is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path..Psalm 119:105 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Proverbs 14:12 so apart from God and Jesus Christ there is only death and Kaos. Agree or not...remember No one has or will ever love you as much as GOD does...Its just sad that we fight so hard against the things that are so right for us...
-
the Bible says to the logical and rational the cross makes them foolish...I Corinthians 1:18 I am sorry I dont argue scripture..to me it stands and always will stand on its on. My prayer is that you can look beyond the logical and rational and see the beauty that our God and Saviour has for you. You see a follower of Christ has nothing to lose and all to gain..but those who dont, have it all to lose...and hey if I am wrong when my life comes to an end...I have lost nothing...but If you come to your end and find out that I am and the millions who know its true...look what you have lost....All of you have a great day and a wonderful eternity.
-
the Bible says to the logical and rational the cross makes them foolish...I Corinthians 1:18 I am sorry I dont argue scripture..to me it stands and always will stand on its on. My prayer is that you can look beyond the logical and rational and see the beauty that our God and Saviour has for you. You see a follower of Christ has nothing to lose and all to gain..but those who dont, have it all to lose...and hey if I am wrong when my life comes to an end...I have lost nothing...but If you come to your end and find out that I am and the millions who know its true...look what you have lost....All of you have a great day and a wonderful eternity.
Did you really just try to use Pascal's Wager in a discussion about religion? =/ Come on. Regardless of beliefs, ministers are typically pretty intelligent people from my experiences with them...surely you can recognize the problem with your assertion -- that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Pascal's Wager has been torn to shreds by numerous theists, atheists, and philosophers since its inception. It is a fairly silly 'wager' that no longer retains any logical legitimacy. I'm really sorry if that logic has been the foundation of your faith for so many years; it's very poor to say the least.
-
The bible was written by men. Men are fallible. In the time period that the bible was written people of that day did not know the things we know today. How something was viewed then compared to how it would be viewed today would be a stark contrast. Men write books everyday however we do not look upon them as something to worshiped.
-
the Bible says to the logical and rational the cross makes them foolish...I Corinthians 1:18 I am sorry I dont argue scripture..to me it stands and always will stand on its on. My prayer is that you can look beyond the logical and rational and see the beauty that our God and Saviour has for you. You see a follower of Christ has nothing to lose and all to gain..but those who dont, have it all to lose...and hey if I am wrong when my life comes to an end...I have lost nothing...but If you come to your end and find out that I am and the millions who know its true...look what you have lost....All of you have a great day and a wonderful eternity.
Did you really just try to use Pascal's Wager in a discussion about religion? =/ Come on. Regardless of beliefs, ministers are typically pretty intelligent people from my experiences with them...surely you can recognize the problem with your assertion -- that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Pascal's Wager has been torn to shreds by numerous theists, atheists, and philosophers since its inception. It is a fairly silly 'wager' that no longer retains any logical legitimacy. I'm really sorry if that logic has been the foundation of your faith for so many years; it's very poor to say the least.
YOURE ONE OF 'SATAN'S DEMONS"!
RofLmfao
::)
Who here has watched Zeitgeist... and what did you think of it?
-
I believe it!! You all believe what you want and I believe what I want.... we'll all find out in the end what was true, right, false, fiction..... etc!!!
:thumbsup:
-
God's up there on a cloud laughing his *bleep* off at all the nincompoops digging around the Middle East, looking for that damned Ark!!!
-
the Bible says to the logical and rational the cross makes them foolish...I Corinthians 1:18 I am sorry I dont argue scripture..to me it stands and always will stand on its on. My prayer is that you can look beyond the logical and rational and see the beauty that our God and Saviour has for you. You see a follower of Christ has nothing to lose and all to gain..but those who dont, have it all to lose...and hey if I am wrong when my life comes to an end...I have lost nothing...but If you come to your end and find out that I am and the millions who know its true...look what you have lost....All of you have a great day and a wonderful eternity.
Did you really just try to use Pascal's Wager in a discussion about religion? =/ Come on. Regardless of beliefs, ministers are typically pretty intelligent people from my experiences with them...surely you can recognize the problem with your assertion -- that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Pascal's Wager has been torn to shreds by numerous theists, atheists, and philosophers since its inception. It is a fairly silly 'wager' that no longer retains any logical legitimacy. I'm really sorry if that logic has been the foundation of your faith for so many years; it's very poor to say the least.
YOURE ONE OF 'SATAN'S DEMONS"!
RofLmfao
::)
I've had my fair share of those comments directed at me. Wouldn't be a first if that was the next reply.
Who here has watched Zeitgeist... and what did you think of it?
A couple words: Tin foil hat + video camera = stupid
I believe it!! You all believe what you want and I believe what I want.... we'll all find out in the end what was true, right, false, fiction..... etc!!!
:thumbsup:
Except people rarely follow this. If you do, I commend you (that includes not indoctrinating your kids ;)). The overwhelming majority of people are incapable of keeping it to themselves.
-
So you don't think there's any possibility Christianity is based off an Egyptian Myth..? Then what's your theory?
-
So you don't think there's any possibility Christianity is based off an Egyptian Myth..? Then what's your theory?
Christianity is based off a great number of cultural traditions, myths, and beliefs. Egyptian is one of them, so yes. There's hardly anything (if any at all) in Christianity that is a unique idea.
This is one of the things brought up often...
http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm
-
So what part of Zeitgeist did you think was made up...?
-
Well that wasn't the most generic Christian apologist argument I've ever seen ::)
-
As far as dog breed go, at least, most of them are very modern, you take a single type of dog and breed for particualr qualities, eventually you get enough divergence for a "new" breed. But really it's just an accumulation of particular traits selected by humans.
Natural selection works pretty much the same way, except that things like death and the ability to find a willing mate do the choosing, not humans.
Personally, I don't feel that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Evolution is just a part of God's plan, and the mysteriousness of his ways.
-
Religion is man's attempt at God.. Religion is when you follow rules or traditions set by man. Catholocism, protestants, baptist, muslim, hindu.. ect... these are all examples or religion.. but if you know GOD and follow him and ONLY him and his WORD that is not a religion. Also.. Noah's Ark.. Was two of each KIND of animal not two of each speices.. so there were not all different speices of dogs, cats ect.. just one male, one female.. There are websites out there but I don't think I am allowed to give the link.. so just search up Ken Ham and Genesis..
-
Personally I believe in the bible however some of the translation by man could have gotten messed up not to mention figuring out what is to be taken literally and metaphorically. A million people can read the bible, but all have different conclusions as to what they get from it. So in a sense I somewhat agree about the "Blind" faith thing.
-
The whole point to understanding is FAITH, you have to believe to understand.
-
God wants you to go to him and that is your choice but if you are searching for knowledge without understanding that you will never be able to figure out all this without God wanting you to than you are wasting your time.
...what?
Your never going to know and that is how God wants it.
This quote is why intelligent people mock religion.
I always get a kick out of when something great happens to some extremist, they're all "PRAISE THE LORD! PROOF HE BLESSES HIS BELIEVERS! I AM RIGHT!!!" but when something awful happens, they're all "it's all in gods plan! This was supposed to happen! It's all clear to me!" It's really sad.
I really wish people would step out of their little ugly cramped box and face the facts. Reality's rough, but you're making it worse by telling lies to get dumb peoples hopes up. Do some simple research and face it. The ark isn't real. It never happened.
Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Dave D
-
I wish I could post a link here, but do a search for The Institute for Creation Research if you are open minded about the debate...They bring up some good questions about the impossibility of evolution.
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Radiocarbon dating is a bit unreliable in the science field. That, and it is VERY difficult to date anything like ash or rock from a recent volcano. But if you're referring to that old outdated research about the hawaiian volcano and how they miscalculated the rocks from it...that research was done in 1913. I've been in this argument before many times. Science has evolved immensily since then and they've perfected different date-determination methods since then.
I wish I could post a link here, but do a search for The Institute for Creation Research if you are open minded about the debate...They bring up some good questions about the impossibility of evolution.
I hate to sound rude, but "Creationist Research" and "Open Minded" cannot go in the same sentence. I've seen PLENTY of BS from creationist wackos. I've read a few books and laughed (the best one-- the UNIVERSE is 6,000 years old from a guy who has a masters in astronomy. HTF did he get THAT!?). I've even seen Islamic people try to show 'proof' of how we came from mud and water. It's pretty funny what happens when you try to make scientific sense of old religious texts. I'm sure you've seen that cartoon--
SCIENTIFIC METHOD-- *holding microscope* "Here's the facts! What conclusions can we draw from them?"
RELIGIOUS METHOD-- *holding bible* "Here's the conclusion! What facts can we find to support it!?"
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Dave D
And where did you hear about this carbon dating for something billions of years old? From the awesome, unbiased source of the Institute for Creation Research?
Carbon dating isn't used to date objects that old. Carbon dating stops being used at around 60,000 years. Pretty basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating. Wherever you heard this from probably shouldn't be trusted in the future as a source on science.
There is plenty of reading available on the methods of dating used in the field, as well as how scientists can be quite sure of the validity of this research.
As far as dog breed go, at least, most of them are very modern, you take a single type of dog and breed for particualr qualities, eventually you get enough divergence for a "new" breed. But really it's just an accumulation of particular traits selected by humans.
Natural selection works pretty much the same way, except that things like death and the ability to find a willing mate do the choosing, not humans.
Personally, I don't feel that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Evolution is just a part of God's plan, and the mysteriousness of his ways.
That becomes a problem when:
One side states all modern organisms evolved from single celled organisms over billions of years by means of natural selection
And the other side states:
Every living thing on this planet was created as is (or at least mankind was), and thus didn't evolve over billions of years into what we see today
They can't both be true, and they clearly contradict each other pretty significantly...
-
Religion is man's attempt at God.. Religion is when you follow rules or traditions set by man. Catholocism, protestants, baptist, muslim, hindu.. ect... these are all examples or religion.. but if you know GOD and follow him and ONLY him and his WORD that is not a religion. Also.. Noah's Ark.. Was two of each KIND of animal not two of each speices.. so there were not all different speices of dogs, cats ect.. just one male, one female.. There are websites out there but I don't think I am allowed to give the link.. so just search up Ken Ham and Genesis..
This brings up an interesting point.
Genesis 6:19 says:
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:2-3 says:
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
So uh, which one was it? Yet another reason to question the legitimacy of the tale.
Never mind the fact that we're supposed to believe Noah himself lived to be 950 years old. Just plain nonsense.
It's a lovely story, with some good metaphorical meanings...but, as usual, there's absolutely zero credible evidence or rational logic to support it.
-
:thumbsup: Listen to ' Bill Cosby... NOAH" ,,, hahahahahahahahahah
-
I think it takes more blind faith to believe this world came from nothing than to believe it was created by God...Just think about the human eye and how intricate it is. How could this have happened by chance?
-
oh yeh I totally believe in some kind of creator..... i just think mankind destroyed him.. think about it, everything can be GOD".. every lil molecule in the universe is a form of 'God"...the universe is just one big Life form in a way...i also believe in other existences... has to be...
if you all are looking for a beautiful hope, then you should check out jehovah witnesses.... they believe this earth is going to be a paradise soon hehe... if i had to pick and choose one faith it would be them... mostly cause they dont involve themselves with politrix, wars, etc.. almost occultish i guess.. but stilli think their belief makes a lil more sense than yur average Sect
-
I think it takes more blind faith to believe this world came from nothing than to believe it was created by God...Just think about the human eye and how intricate it is. How could this have happened by chance?
"Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities."
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator."
"Eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch." (found on pbs.org)
Okay so after some research online I find this which saved me 1500$ for retaking a college-level biology course and asking a professor about it. I prefer to think this as it shows that people are truly interested in figuring out and researching it and finding new sources of information to better our understanding of the world around us-- past and present.
Now I ask you-- can you please show me blunt proof of how god created the eyeball? Maybe some sort of left over 'finger-print' on each one that is absolute proof he exists? Maybe you can find something etches saying "GOD WUZ HERE" or something. Because if you're going to spurt out random bullshit one-liners that might seem rhetorical so they can't be answered, stop. You're being irrational-- you've got your head up in the clouds. It's illogical when, to persuade people, you should be logical and show what proof there is. Besides, we're talking about the ark here.
I'll quote more of the later posts when I have some more time...
if you all are looking for a beautiful hope, then you should check out jehovah witnesses.... they believe this earth is going to be a paradise soon hehe... if i had to pick and choose one faith it would be them...
NO! NONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOO!!!! You know why? I GREW UP AS ONE :-0 I'll elaborate if you want me to!
-
I think it takes more blind faith to believe this world came from nothing than to believe it was created by God...Just think about the human eye and how intricate it is. How could this have happened by chance?
You believe it came from nothing. I don't. The Big Bang Theory does not state the universe appeared out of thin air. The Theory of Evolution does not even make a comment on the origin of life; evolution itself has absolutely zero relation to how life originated. That is a completely different field of study labeled "abiogenesis."
Even so, if this planet and universe are so incredibly complex as you imply, then the being you assume created it all had to be even more complex (infinitely so, based on Christian teachings of God). Who created your being? Wonder what you're going to say..."uh God is outside of time, he doesn't need creating." Intellectual copout that does nothing for answering the question. You're telling me an infinitely complex being that listens to billions of people's prayers and pays attention to every single thing that goes on in this universe requires less blind faith than the BBT or current hypotheses on how life came about? *I don't imagine you'll be able to answer this, as you've probably not done any research into the BBT or abiogensis yourself, but I hope you surprise me*
Furthermore, by inserting a supreme being into the equation -- a being that proponents claim cannot be understood at all -- what have you done to help solve the equation? Nothing. You've just inserted a random, unnecessary infinity into the equation. In no way have you solved the equation logically or derived any fact. I can prove 1=0, 2=1, or any other illogical statement if I place an infinity in there...but how does that help us?
A=B=1
It follows that A^2 = A*B (we simply multiply both sides by A)
and that A^2-B^2 = A*B - B^2 (we simply subtract B^2 from both sides)
Now, if we factor, we get
(A+B)*(A-B) = B*(A-B)
finally we cancel the A-B term on both sides (divide both sides by A-B) to give
A+B=B (or 2=1)
Now clearly this is a nonsense and anyone with any math awareness will spot the mistake - we introduce an infinity by dividing both sides by A-B since that is dividing by zero. The point is, however, that introducing an infinity doesn't explain anything and will nearly always lead to invalid conclusions. That is as true for 'God' as it is for dividing by zero
As for the eye, that's one of the oldest creationist arguments out there, and it's been abandoned by most creationists because they've come to recognize that it doesn't prove a point at all, and actually works against them. The human eye is flawed in design at even the most fundamental aspects. There's plenty of material out there that describes how the human eye is constructed, and frankly it's very poorly designed. The function and structure of the human eye is just what one would expect based on the theory of evolution. Never mind the fact that we've studied the structures and functions of eyes that are less complex than the human eye and we can fairly accurately map out the development/evolution over time.
We could also take a glance at octopi, who actually don't have a blind spot due to the structure of their eye (as humans do). So your supreme being thought it would be a better idea to give the octopus a better structured eye than humans? That's kind of odd.
If you want me to elaborate further on the structure of the human eye, I will, but I won't waste my time if you're not even interested.
-
If you guys so desperately want to not believe in a God and prove through Science how he doesn't exist, how can you live? You must be depressed and what about when you have kids? No wonder people loose their minds when babies die.
First of all, the people you're talking to are likely atheists. Atheism has nothing to do with proving god(s) doesn't exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s); it is no different than saying you lack belief in unicorns. Someone who lacks belief in unicorns isn't attempting to prove unicorns don't exist, that would be plain silly. The burden of proof lies on those who make the extraordinary claim; it is their duty to provide the evidence to support their claim, and until they do, atheists will probably continue the logical answer of lacking belief. This thread isn't discussing the validity of a god(s) anyway. It's discussing the historical validity of Noah's Ark, which didn't happen.
Second, you can't prove something doesn't exist, certainly not with science. There's no method of proving something doesn't exist unless you're in a vacuum or tautology. Science works by means of the scientific method. In order to use the scientific method, the question at hand must be founded in rationality, logic, mathematics, testing, experimenting, observation, etc. Given that none of these things apply to a being like a god(s), science doesn't even attempt to answer it with the scientific method.
Moving on...
Why must I be depressed? You don't believe in Allah, Zeus, Lord Krishna, the giant spaghetti monster, or any other supreme being and you're doing just fine happiness wise (I assume). I merely take it one step further than you and do not believe in the Christian God (Yahweh).
There is plenty of mystery and magic (albeit logical) in science (astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) that makes me appreciate my surroundings and to keep me happy. Let me pose you this:
When you accept the BBT, you recognize that everything in this universe is connected. Every proton, neutron, every molecule, every ion...everything is connected, as it all had a central origin. When you accept that life originated without a supreme being, you recognize that every living thing on this planet originated, biochemically, from the same place, thus making every single species connected. When you accept evolution, you recognize that every modern organism you see around you originated from the early single celled prokaryotes, thus making us all connected.
So everything on this planet and in this universe is connected chemically, biologically, and by the nature of physics. We are all one, in some fashion. How can that not make you feel larger than life and happy about your presence? You're part of a GIGANTIC picture that is all connected. And the catch: It's all founded in rational thought, logic, and evidence.
How do you all feel about death? What is the point of any of this, I mean people go nutso over men/women that cheat, does it even matter because when your dead, your dead.
I feel death is the natural process that ends an individual's life. It is nothing special, it just happens. It is the natural circle of life. I feel death is no more special for humans than it is for any other species on this planet.
Why do we accept that dogs, horses, bacteria, lions, and every other living thing on this planet simply dies and that's it, yet we have a problem accepting it for ourselves? The answer: fear. People have difficulty accepting the fact that they will one day die and there's nothing they can do about it. So they make up these comforting stories and plans of the afterlife, but they're just that, stories.
What is the point, or purpose, of all this? You find and make your own. There is no absolute purpose or point to life; it is subjective. My view is life is about enjoying yourself, leaving a lasting impression for future generations, leaving the world better than it was when you came in, helping others because it's the right thing to do, and simply living. The purpose of life is that there is no external purpose; it is up to you to decide what your purpose is.
Who's to say that God really isn't just an Alien that is very intelligent and can bring us back to life in another form? We have all kinds of technology but Aliens are probably 10 times smarter.
Nobody is to say that, as nobody even knows if aliens exist. They might or might not, there's no point in making baseless assumptions until further evidence is provided.
Belief in God is a way to just hope for something, I mean who in their right mind wouldn't want there to be a God and that is the real question. You say you don't but then you like life and have children, are you just animals?
It is sad, it really is but like the old saying goes: If it is 2 Good 2 Be True, Then it probably is
I think God is 2 Good 2 Be True :crybaby2:
Wanting there to be a god(s) doesn't make it any more likely that there is. I prefer not to delude myself into believing things that aren't rational or truthful. It serves no purpose. I can have hope, happiness, and be a good person without a supreme being. Why should I need one or desire one exist?
Yes, we're just animals. Incredibly capable animals, but still animals nonetheless.
-
I think it takes more blind faith to believe this world came from nothing than to believe it was created by God...Just think about the human eye and how intricate it is. How could this have happened by chance?
Even so, if this planet and universe are so incredibly complex as you imply, then the being you assume created it all had to be even more complex (infinitely so, based on Christian teachings of God). Who created your being? Wonder what you're going to say..."uh God is outside of time, he doesn't need creating." Intellectual copout that does nothing for answering the question. You're telling me an infinitely complex being that listens to billions of people's prayers and pays attention to every single thing that goes on in this universe requires less blind faith than the BBT or current hypotheses on how life came about? *I don't imagine you'll be able to answer this, as you've probably not done any research into the BBT or abiogensis yourself, but I hope you surprise me*
A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
When you acquire your own thoughts on the subject, I'll entertain them. I prefer not to have discussions with people who copy/paste their answers simply because it's convenient.
http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html
Even if I were to reply to the above, where would the discussion go? You don't seem to care about forming coherent arguments of your own, so why should this discussion continue? If I reply, you'll have nothing of your own to say and I'll simply be discussing the subject with copy/pasted material...I could go read those things if I wanted to.
If you want to copy/paste something that you didn't write yourself, at least cite the source and perhaps elaborate with your own thoughts.
-
marieelissa's long and pointless post
I actually read a great deal of it and realized there we no sources cited. If you took that from a creationist website, your 'proof' is deluded with creationist nonsense. That, and I love how it does not talk about anything beyond the 19th century. You know? The whole time when a lot of people still believed the world was flat, bacteria didn't exist, and mercury cured all ailments!
"While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience. Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology, this view is no longer widely held." (look up 'The Deluge' on google)
They feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from Geology to evolution.
I'd think a massive thing like the ark, which could carry 2+ of every animal on earth (do your research and see how many animals Noah would have to tend to) would be ridiculously humongous and we would have found it by now...if it did exist.
Let me put it to you this way--
People used to believe fly larvae were born from rotten meat- as if the rotten meat was the thing which conceived the maggots. People thought it made perfect sense. But then a scientist came around and contested that belief-- he did an experiment and watched the flies land on the meat, feast, and sometimes lay their larvae. He showed his proof and intelligent individuals believed him because he had physical evidence and it made perfect sense.
The same could be said about Eratosthenese and how he proved the world was round through basic geometry. But you know what? People continued to believe the world was flat for 1000's of years despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them. You know why? It was easier for them. It required no thought to sit in their little boxes and be ignorant because the truth would rock their little worlds and their whole thought process would be rearranged. This is the same reason why people still believe in the ark-- it's so much easier to sit in their box and blind themselves. You get people throwing dinosaurs onto the ark BECAUSE IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!
Well you know what? It's all bullshit. There is no physical evidence it ever happened except an old MYTH in which there's dozens of different ways to tell it. There's even one saying a giant frog cried and his tears caused a massive flood. And no, a piece of wood or seashell found on a mountain does not constitute ANY undeniable evidence. I'm sorry, but if you believe the ark is real, you're a delusional moron.
-
lol ok im replying to this last post made on here and all the other ones who are doubting Thomas's, honsetly i for one am a born again, spirit filled, God fearing Christian woman. i believe evolution came about because people simply were to scared to trust in and on their faith. Christianity is an exercise in faith. God made the earth, the universe, all the animals, and us, and on the seventh day the Sabath He rested ( Shabbot Shalom). What is so unbelievable about the Ark? hmm? Is Life and every aspect of it not miraculous? You know i believe in the Bible in its entireity and because of this you would call me a moron? HELLO!!??? LOL i will pray for you, i will pray that before it is your turn to face our Lord that you would find salvation and peace, but if you choose not to.... well either way on that day you WILL KNOW that God not evolution created the universe and everything in it. I'm not writting this to offend anyone just to have a say i suppose.......... God Bless!
-
This brings up an interesting point.
Genesis 6:19 says:
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:2-3 says:
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
So uh, which one was it? Yet another reason to question the legitimacy of the tale.
Never mind the fact that we're supposed to believe Noah himself lived to be 950 years old. Just plain nonsense.
It's a lovely story, with some good metaphorical meanings...but, as usual, there's absolutely zero credible evidence or rational logic to support it.
ok so if you look in addition to the animals that were to repopulate the earth, these "clean" animals were for food and for Noahs sacrifice after the flood (8:20-21)
-
Wanting there to be a god(s) doesn't make it any more likely that there is. I prefer not to delude myself into believing things that aren't rational or truthful. It serves no purpose. I can have hope, happiness, and be a good person without a supreme being. Why should I need one or desire one exist?
The only reason I would want a God is because when I die, I would like to see my loved ones again. I don't like the idea that when we die that's it, nothing else and you won't even remember you lived because you won't have a brain to do so with. Seems sad now because I'm alive but when I'm dead nothing will matter any more. It really has nothing to do with fear unless my fear is never seeing family or myself again
It seems to be a subconscious fear (or maybe not). You seem, pretty clearly, to be scared of the idea that when you die, that's it. You seem fearful of the idea that you will no longer see those who passed before you or those who will pass after you. That is precisely the fear I'm talking about.
If you believe in God for comfort, good for you. People believe in and do all sorts of things for comfort. The point that is being made, in general, is that you believing it doesn't make it any more true than if you didn't believe in it.
-
lol ok im replying to this last post made on here and all the other ones who are doubting Thomas's, honsetly i for one am a born again, spirit filled, God fearing Christian woman. i believe evolution came about because people simply were to scared to trust in and on their faith. Christianity is an exercise in faith.
Or rational individuals didn't blindly accept that a supreme being did it. Then they perhaps proposed the idea that all complex organisms evolved from simple organisms over billions of years by natural forces into what we now see today. Then they used their skills in observation and experimentation over decades to fill libraries of evidence backing this stance up.
What is so unbelievable about the Ark? hmm? Is Life and every aspect of it not miraculous?
Let's see. The idea that, a few thousand years ago, a 600 year old man (who lived to be 950 years old) had a one-on-one discussion with an invisible being in the sky, then built a boat large enough to hold an insanely large amount of animals, then rode out the largest flood mankind has ever known (of which there isn't a shrapnel of evidence supporting this outstanding flood), and then repopulated the entire planet...
I'd like to pose a question as well: What is believable about the story of Noah's Ark? Frankly, I think that would be easier to answer.
Define miraculous, as well, if you don't mind. If by miraculous you mean:
1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law
then no, not all life is miraculous, because life arose and continues to occur by natural means and in accordance with the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. For life to be "miraculous" by these definitions, it would have to defy the natural laws. And if you find some life that defies the natural laws of the universe, make a call to the Nobel Prize officials, because you're the first.
You know i believe in the Bible in its entireity and because of this you would call me a moron? HELLO!!??? LOL i will pray for you, i will pray that before it is your turn to face our Lord that you would find salvation and peace, but if you choose not to.... well either way on that day you WILL KNOW that God not evolution created the universe and everything in it. I'm not writting this to offend anyone just to have a say i suppose.......... God Bless!
Not a moron. Perhaps ignorant and/or deluded. I'd prefer you pray your God show himself. Perhaps we could ask him why he did such an inefficient job for having so much knowledge and power.
Evolution says absolutely nothing on the topic of the origin of the universe or life on this planet by the way. Your God would be silly to say it was he, not evolution, that created the universe. That evolution played no part in the origin of the universe and life is a well established, widely accepted fact. Evolution makes no effort to explain such things. Completely different fields of study.
-
What is so unbelievable about the Ark? hmm?
Did you read ANY of the posts besides mine? :BangHead:
Is Life and every aspect of it not miraculous? You know i believe in the Bible in its entireity and because of this you would call me a moron? HELLO!!??? LOL i will pray for you, i will pray that before it is your turn to face our Lord that you would find salvation and peace, but if you choose not to.... well either way on that day you WILL KNOW that God not evolution created the universe and everything in it.
I'm not calling you a moron because you stated the ark myth has problems with its legitimacy. GOOD JOB! :) I wish more people had the brainpower to do that. But you don't need to pray for me...I'm one to not believe that some jewish zombie can make me live forever if I telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can remove an evil force from my soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Blantly put, I'm not christian.
I feel I have the right to stand back from it all and question aspects of religion. Not necessarily to make people angry (which usually happens and then they get all defensive and blow up into an illogical mess) but to make some people think and possibly make them stand back too. I would have been hung for thinking this 500 years ago, so I'm going to do it because I'm thankful I can. I believe humanity just needs to get past the whole nonsense of a lot of the bibles myths and just focus on the ones that can relate to peoples problems of today instead of defending the delusional stories that they think happened, but in reality never did.
I'd prefer you pray your God show himself. Perhaps we could ask him why he did such an inefficient job for having so much knowledge and power.
BECUZ ITS ALL IN HIS MASTER PLAN!!! DONT U GET IT??? ITS A TEST!!! OMG UR GOING TO HELL NOW FOR QUESCHUNING OUR LORD AND SAVYOR
-
lol :o
-
My friend the stores of the Bible are more than parables. Besides being the Word of God, the Bible is also a historical document. Queen Victoria once asked to give her a sentence that proved the Bible was true. The answer was I can give you one Word to prove the Bible is true...JEW. The Bible was not only given to us as a light to how to live but is so much more. Everyday historians and scientist are finding more and more evidence to the validity of the Bible. Some things are hid from human existance because God wants us to live by faith not by sight...for it says in Hebrews for without faith it is impossible to please God. Just a thought. Have a great day.
That does not even make sense. The only evidence of the "truth" of the Bible is that other older religions have had similar stories with different names - the great flood, a carpenter savior, creation. The word is faith and that is not fact.
-
All you have to do is read your bible and you will get all the answers you need.
You will never get all the answers just reading the Bible. It is full of many things we will never be able to comprehend, until it is revealed to us when we get to Heaven. If you believe in God, then faith that all things are possible and trust in God that all things have a purpose.
-
The gods of the Greeks are now called "mythology." Other religions will suffer the same fate eventually, that is, if people start understanding the way things are.
-
Okay it looks like there is some 'religious experts' in here...I was hoping maybe to get a better explanation about this whole 'Noah's Ark' story...To me it is one of the many inconsistencies in all the many different translations of Bible(s)... The whole concept seems impossible to me...you would think there would be some more detailed info about this...since it was such an important part of this Existence today...I mean do I even have to explain...? just think about it, GOD supposedly chose two of each animal...as an example, so what kinda super breed of dogs did he choose...? lol I'm trying figure out so many different breeds/species of animals just came about into existence....and so on and so forth etc....
Peace
It wouldn't seem impossible if you believed in a God capable of creation ex-nihilo.
But to try to ask someone to explain how exactly something happened that no one today was there for is simply bewildering. There are too many variables involved in this story for us to know how many animals, how many breeds, what size of animals, how animals out of their climates would survive.
I also can't comprehend how out of all these different religions/sects/cults ...each one of say they have the "Truth" and the answers etc... lool.. who's to know which one is the right source...
Here was a comparative list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by 'the lamb of god, the light, good shepard'
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
ATTIS (1200bc greece)
born dec 25
born of virgin
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
KRISHNA (900bc india)
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
performed mircles with disciples
ressurected
DIONYSUS (500bc greece)
born of a virgin
born on dec 25
performed miracles
known as 'king of kings, alpha omega, gods only begotton son'
resurrected
MITHRA (1200bc persia)
born of a virgin
born on december 25th
12 disciples
performed miracles
dead for 3 days
resurrected
known as 'the truth, the light'
sunday worship
Some of these have definite differences, and need to be researched more closely. I recall that there was one Indian deity person who was born of a virgin...sort of. What happened was that one of the Gods (I think) went swimming, and his seed got spread into the water. Then that deity person's mother went swimming, and got impregnated by the seed in the water. So many of these myths share a common idea of a woman giving birth to a God yet they were never with the explicit act with another male, but the means are different. Not at all like Mary, whose pregnancy was truly supernatural.
The common thread is there is one Truth, and all religions point to that Truth in some way. Some religions point to that Truth more than others, but all religions point towards the Truth. That's why there's common elements to many religions. Similarly, C.S. Lewis argues that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are preparatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a savior. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death. They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.
Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it's that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.
Another better approximation to the Gospel is Orpheus, who descends to the dead to bring back his loved one. Here's a hint to life, love and other mysteries: If you're reading a story, song, epic poem, play or haiku, and someone goes underground, in a cave, a dark place, etc., they've just died. If they come back, it's a resurrection. If they go down to save someone, they're a Christ-figure.
And that's why I hated Bacchae so much. He doesn't even technically get imprisoned; a bull does it for him. I always forget my heresy names, but this is close enough to one of them to make me giggle.
I do believe in a GOD(creator, higher force or whatever) and that IT made us to enjoy this life...I believe he guides me everyday... I just don't think he has anything to do with any man made belief... and I believe it is wrong to even try and comprehend our Creator.... To me the best Faith is ignorance... i mean how can anyone say they understand who our Creator is...
The basis of your faith cannot supprt your claim, unless you accept to grant the fundamental assumption, if only for argument's sake, that God can exist as an object for knowledge, even imagined or delusional knowledge.
-
So your question is basically: Can someone give me a relatively simple, logical, realistic explanation for the story of Noah's Ark?
Probably not.
Depending on what sort of God he believes in, your argument may be baseless.
So your question is basically: Can someone give me a relatively simple, logical, realistic explanation for the story of Noah's Ark?
His question is probably futile since his assumptions (naturalistic ones) and worldview conflict with the nature of the story that a 'relatively simple, logical, realistic explanation' would be absurd.
Flood "epics" appear in quite a few ancient texts. The idea of such a story was nothing new around the time the Bible is dated. The story of Noah is quite similar to that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh and the character, Noah, shares a good deal of similarities with the Sumerian fictional character, Tagtug. A very brief explanation of Sumerian tale of Gilgamesh (more can be found, but I'll leave that to you):
The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.
The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods.
So what?
and any contemporaneous record is likely to be referring to a previous event or is based on a previous epic/tale/myth of another culture.
What's the basis of your claim?
There is a good deal evidence that supports large scale floods (NOT global) throughout history. The Black Sea flood hypothesis matches up somewhat closely to many ancient stories of large scale floods. It's still quite a controversial proposal though.
The point is there is currently no geological, paleontological or archaeological support for any serious flood at the period indicated, and any contemporaneous record is likely to be referring to a previous event or is based on a previous epic/tale/myth of another culture.
Certainly if you're a naturalist or materialist it would appear that way. However, a Biblical theist is less inclined to agree with you.
-
I believe that people take the Bible to literally. I think they were stories gathered together to be a "moral compass". I mean if you ask any person today if they believe that a shrub will talk to them, and if it is possible, a majority will tell you no.
I think that if you want to believe in God, He will be satisified if you believe in your way. You don't have to believe the way man tells you to. Just my opinion, not disagreeing with anyone here...
I do believe in evolution, BTW, but who is to say that God didn't do that too? ;)
The problem here is this betrays a very ahistorical, abstracted view of Christianity, which can tend toward all sorts of Christological heresies (i.e., referring to anything in the Bible as "allegory" presupposes a kind of Gnostic world via vacuum reading the Bible through the fact/value dichotomy: either it's all "literal fact" or it's all moralistic allegory.)
-
Almost every culture has stories like these (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth)
If he believes in the bible, then they could be re-tellings of an event by his descendents. But I'm not sure.
Liljp617 knows his stuff. Everything he said is completely logical and rational...
ESineM, I can conclude that you're either a or on your way to being a very intelligent and open minded being....just ignore them because you will find yourself frustrated from stupidity and ignorance of raw proven facts. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS, look for answers, and try not to step in the BS.
"Raw proven facts" doesn't seem to matter too much in a discussion where there are commitments to different presuppositions.
"Oh yeah the flood happened! That's why we dont have dinosaurs! Noah forgot them!"
Nobody is claiming this. Who are you talking about?
-
I meant to say the best faith is knowing you are ignorant.. the truth is everyone is ignorant even if they choose to pretend differently.
Nobody knows the true "god" or spirit, or religion etc.
find it funny how that supposedly god cannot be described, is not physical, and is completely behond comprehension.. .So how is it people still think they can explain god? haha, they use physical terms, and comprehensible information which obviously cannot be accurate at all... Its kinda like trying to describe something thoroughly by using only incorrect descriptions. If you keep adding more and more incorrect descriptions, at no point will it become clear what you are describing... in fact the more info you hear, the less you know and more confusing it is! haha. God and spirit are an experience and something you live, not something you can read about and describe to others.
The bible in its original form is unseen, the bible(s) that we do see have all been written and manipulated by oppressive forces.... Can anyone honestly read the "king james" version and not think about the irony that you are supposedly learning morals from a "king" which are generally accepted as the most oppressive force out there ? hehe. A long line of political tyrants have controlled the publishing of books for centuries, and people honestly thing the bible was somehow immuned to corruption, as if those in power wouldnt realize the power of the bible and the words contained inside. Of course they have been manipulated, and who can even vouch for those who wrote the very first draft? Every author was honest and talked to god etc.? none were corrupt? the amazing thing is not the belief in an invisible being in the sky,. the real amazing thing is that people actually trust the AUTHORS and publishers of these books as if they were written by god himself! (literally!).
Strawman.
-
Who here has watched Zeitgeist... and what did you think of it?
Interesting documentary. Very ‘persuasive’ but sadly misconstrued. Esp the Christian/Pagan comparison, which has been around for centuries.
This really is a silly movie that thinks it has somehow proven things.
So you don't think there's any possibility Christianity is based off an Egyptian Myth..? Then what's your theory?
This may or may not be true in certain cases. Generally the "astonishing similarities" between Greek/Egyptian stories and the Jesus of the Gospels are taken from the mystery religion versions of these cults, which involved later forms of the stories. So, for instance, the stories about Horus in 1000 BC differed plenty from the stories about Horus in 50 BC-150 AD. It's the "mystery religion" versions of the stories that are supposedly so similar to those of Jesus; the case is only made once they've got several centuries worth of stories to pick and choose from.
Usually people who forward this kind of assertion aren't taking into account the fact that the mystery religions (like Horus, Osiris-Dionysus) were (more) grounded in Plato’s worldview (if you actually study them and read their stories outside of the web) while the Gospels and Paul are rooted in the Old Testament, so despite the “astonishing similarities” between Greek/Egyptian stories and the Jesus of the Gospels, every single word means something completely different.
-
So you don't think there's any possibility Christianity is based off an Egyptian Myth..? Then what's your theory?
Christianity is based off a great number of cultural traditions, myths, and beliefs.
It's true they're related but 'based off?' No, I'm not buying it, since I've seen has been scholars saying, "Hey, look, there are similarities! X must be based off Y!". I can sort of see it if I were an atheist and believed religion evolved over time, but, then again, religious studies is one of the reasons I reject naturalism.
Egyptian is one of them, so yes. There's hardly anything (if any at all) in Christianity that is a unique idea.
I realize that those incorporating themselves into the pagan culture around them were, in many ways, abandoning Judaism's origins and purpose. I don't deny that there was a mixture; I do deny that the primary tenants of Judaism, and of Christianity, came from paganism. Maybe altered, maybe cast in a new light, but not originally from outside. And I see no reason to resort to that explanation.
This is one of the things brought up often...
http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm
Not only is this a vast misrepresentation of Gen 1 (in contrast with other ANE cosmogonies, it's not about an indicative struggle), it's missing the marked differences between the Hebrew versions of various stories and other versions common in the ANE. The differences are what show us the strong distinctives of Hebrew thought and practice over against the surrounding cultures.
-
So what part of Zeitgeist did you think was made up...?
There's so much disinformation I don't know where to begin. Ever heard of popular mechanics?
But here's just a few things in this amazing documentary that I'm talking about in Part 1.
First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who gullibly made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.
"Conflict between Horus and Set
By the Nineteenth dynasty, the previous brief enmity between Set and Horus, in which Horus had ripped off one of Set's testicles, was revitalised as a separate tale. According to Papyrus Chester-Beatty I, Set was considered to have been homosexual and is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food (the Egyptians thought that lettuce was phallic). After Set has eaten the lettuce, they go to the deities to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The deities first listen to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answers from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the deities listen to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answers from inside Set.[6] In consequence, Horus is declared the ruler of Egypt."
And Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.
Zeitgeist appears to have an impressive and verifiable source-list but I'd hardly call it impressive as they've also been debunked. Those sources are based off the old "Jesus Myth" where these kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned.
Here was a brief list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by 'the lamb of god, the light, good shepard'
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
Compare the Wikipedia article (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus") on Horus with the website's claims. Notice that they don't describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set -- even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his "virgin birth" (say, reproduction by masturbation) and "death and resurrection" (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the "virgin birth" or "death and resurrection" of Jesus. Obviously what's going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus' life.
Even so, let's see which looks better -- that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.
born dec 25 -- Jesus wasn't born Dec 25
Christians don’t actually believe that Christ was born on December 25th, but decided to celebrate it that day. That alone proves the site’s material is dubious, poorly researched, and extremely unreliable. The author’s clearly manipulating data to contrive arguments and evidence.
born of virgin -- unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)
(Additionally, Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis - so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.
"Conception:
Isis had Osiris' body returned to Egypt after his death; Set had retrieved the body of Osiris and dismembered it into 14 pieces which he scattered all over Egypt. Thus Isis went out to search for each piece which she then buried. This is why there are many tombs to Osiris. The only part she did not find in her search was the genitals of Osiris which were thrown into a river by Set. She fashioned a substitute *bleep* after seeing the condition it was in once she had found it and proceeded to have intercourse with the dead Osiris which resulted in the conception of Horus the child.[5]"
Likewise, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ - he was born in a swamp.)
star in east appeared at birth -- Perhaps they're thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.
adorned by 3 kings -- There weren't 3 kings who adorned Jesus
teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 -- This is on the level of, "Started driving at age 16."
had 12 disciples -- 12 tribes of Israel
Nevertheless, this video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples - I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.
performed miracles -- Moses, Elijah, etc.
known by 'the lamb of god, the light, good shepard' -- "Light" motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.
crucified, resurrected -- death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets
And I didn't even have to take things out of context. ;)
-
Personally, I don't feel that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Evolution is just a part of God's plan, and the mysteriousness of his ways.
The Christian should presuppose that God has been actively involved with His creation. Therefore, what is commonly referred to as supernatural, is really completely natural, but it is simply divine. Anyway, my big problem with theistic evolution is that it borrows faulty naturalistic presuppositions. When we look at the universe, it only appears to be billions of years old if we presuppose things occurred naturally. The only reason we would have to explain away why stars appear to be millions of light years away is if we presuppose that the light had to come to earth naturally. As a Christian, I should reject that sort of presupposition. Why? Because they’re contrary to what I believe. If I don’t believe the earth was created through natural means, why would I look to the universe using naturalistic presuppositions? It doesn’t make sense. Its like playing a “what if” game in my mind and then letting my mind get the best of me. And I’m not certain how making predictions about the age of the universe is in the same ball park as looking through a telescope and realizing the sun is in fact not the center of the universe.
Further, I’m really not concerned with explaining why figurative language shouldn’t be taken literally or why a book written 2000 to 3000 years ago doesn’t conform to 21st century western science textbook standards. And most Christians reject certain evolutionary theories and other scientific explanations because they come from secular science rather than Scripture. Sure I can interpret Genesis to be figurative, but if I do so I’m doing so because of secular science not because the Bible does so. I’m letting science interpret Scripture instead of letting Scripture interpret science, which is what the Catholic Church appears to be doing, using the 'theory of evolution' to 'factualize' their faith, representing their faith as scientific fact, which I have a problem if someone tries to say that the existence of God is more 'fact' than faith. Again, your observation shows us that "creationists" (and I quote because I'm not using it in a general sense) can use "incompatible logic" to explain how God created everything. IOW, religious people trying to justify their beliefs by interpreting their scripture by science instead of exclusively sticking with their own theistic beliefs. There's no room for evolution in the place of religion, at least in the bible.
-
Personally I believe in the bible however some of the translation by man could have gotten messed up
This is mostly trivial...
not to mention figuring out what is to be taken literally and metaphorically.
This would only be a problem if one falls into the trap of modern dualisms.
-
The whole point to understanding is FAITH, you have to believe to understand.
How do you define faith, biblically?
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Dave D
Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ in 1962. One of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, "he claims that" science does not tend towards the pursuit of truth, but rather it undergoes what he called, “paradigm shifts.” He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview. If a scientist does not want to believe in God, then that will skew how he interprets evidence; and he won’t necessarily come to the right conclusion so much as he will come to an acceptable conclusion.
-
I wish I could post a link here, but do a search for The Institute for Creation Research if you are open minded about the debate...
I'd stay from sites like this. And the ID movement isn't really worth your time.
They bring up some good questions about the impossibility of evolution.
The theory of evolution, that is the biological process and natural mechanism for the diversity of life, is a well established idea among the science community, although it's not considered a fact in scientific terms because there are no such things as facts.
-
SCIENTIFIC METHOD-- *holding microscope* "Here's the facts! What conclusions can we draw from them?"
RELIGIOUS METHOD-- *holding bible* "Here's the conclusion! What facts can we find to support it!?"
Homer said "Facts are meaningless. They can prove anything that is even remotely true."
-
Religion is man's attempt at God.. Religion is when you follow rules or traditions set by man. Catholocism, protestants, baptist, muslim, hindu.. ect... these are all examples or religion.. but if you know GOD and follow him and ONLY him and his WORD that is not a religion. Also.. Noah's Ark.. Was two of each KIND of animal not two of each speices.. so there were not all different speices of dogs, cats ect.. just one male, one female.. There are websites out there but I don't think I am allowed to give the link.. so just search up Ken Ham and Genesis..
This brings up an interesting point.
Genesis 6:19 says:
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:2-3 says:
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
So uh, which one was it?
7 clean 2 Unclean animals, that's not contradictory.
Yet another reason to question the legitimacy of the tale.
When I was a child my grandfather "proved" to me that 2=1 by using what was for a small boy a seemingly sophisticated proof. Of course, I didn't start believing that 2=1; I just believed that he knew some trick that I didn't. In the course of time he showed me that he had divided by zero in the proof, and that that invalidated the proof. The problem wasn't with mathematics; the problem was that he wasn't doing math as math was meant to be done.
Never mind the fact that we're supposed to believe Noah himself lived to be 950 years old. Just plain nonsense.
God created the universe just 6 chapters earlier. He's about to cause a flood that will destroy virtually all life on the planet. However, your big hang up is over Noah's age...it seems rather reasonable that the God destroying the planet could also make someone live longer.
It's a lovely story, with some good metaphorical meanings..
Which might or might not remove literalism, which would then remove only the requirement of a literal Noah, but it would not preclude the possibility.
Example: Robin Hood is a myth, but there was a saxon Lord by the name Robert of __________ (not lockesly) the exact same name and time as some of the Robin Hood myths. Hence non literalism would only preclude the facts being true in totality in the literal sense.
If you guys so desperately want to not believe in a God and prove through Science how he doesn't exist, how can you live? You must be depressed and what about when you have kids? No wonder people loose their minds when babies die.
This thread isn't discussing the validity of a god(s) anyway. It's discussing the historical validity of Noah's Ark, which didn't happen.
marieelissa's long and pointless post
They feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from Geology to evolution.
I'd think a massive thing like the ark, which could carry 2+ of every animal on earth (do your research and see how many animals Noah would have to tend to) would be ridiculously humongous
Let's see. The idea that, a few thousand years ago, a 600 year old man (who lived to be 950 years old) had a one-on-one discussion with an invisible being in the sky, then built a boat large enough to hold an insanely large amount of animals, then rode out the largest flood mankind has ever known (of which there isn't a shrapnel of evidence supporting this outstanding flood), and then repopulated the entire planet...
All of these seem like a rather petty obstacle when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
the giant spaghetti monster,
The "Giant Spaghetti Monster" is not an argument. It has to be an argument for it to need refutation.
-
we would have found it by now...if it did exist.
I doubt it. Of course, over the past 4000 years it's probably been destroyed.
I love how it does not talk about anything beyond the 19th century.
People used to believe fly larvae were born from rotten meat- as if the rotten meat was the thing which conceived the maggots. People thought it made perfect sense. But then a scientist came around and contested that belief-- he did an experiment and watched the flies land on the meat, feast, and sometimes lay their larvae. He showed his proof and intelligent individuals believed him because he had physical evidence and it made perfect sense.
The world is full of morons until they finally bring in the light? Come on now, this is chronological snobbery. If you can't embrace all of history then you ought to suspect that you're being a bit too narrow in your judgment of history.
The same could be said about Eratosthenese and how he proved the world was round through basic geometry. But you know what? People continued to believe the world was flat for 1000's of years despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them.
If you're measuring the Earth's circumference, it seems to me that you must be pre-supposing that the Earth is round. Any arguments based off a measurement of the Earth's circumference would be absurd to someone who didn't believe the Earth was round in the first place.
You know why? It was easier for them. It required no thought to sit in their little boxes and be ignorant because the truth would rock their little worlds and their whole thought process would be rearranged. This is the same reason why people still believe in the ark-- it's so much easier to sit in their box and blind themselves. You get people throwing dinosaurs onto the ark BECAUSE IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!
But according to the OP, this reason serves as the best Faith, which might make your point self-refuting.
God wants you to go to him and that is your choice but if you are searching for knowledge without understanding that you will never be able to figure out all this without God wanting you to than you are wasting your time.
...what?
Your never going to know and that is how God wants it.
This quote is why intelligent people mock religion.
I always get a kick out of when something great happens to some extremist, they're all "PRAISE THE LORD! PROOF HE BLESSES HIS BELIEVERS! I AM RIGHT!!!" but when something awful happens, they're all "it's all in gods plan! This was supposed to happen! It's all clear to me!" It's really sad.
I really wish people would step out of their little ugly cramped box and face the facts. Reality's rough, but you're making it worse by telling lies to get dumb peoples hopes up. Do some simple research and face it. The ark isn't real. It never happened.
Delusion - a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact
Well you know what? It's all bullshit. There is no physical evidence it ever happened except an old MYTH in which there's dozens of different ways to tell it. There's even one saying a giant frog cried and his tears caused a massive flood. And no, a piece of wood or seashell found on a mountain does not constitute ANY undeniable evidence. I'm sorry, but if you believe the ark is real, you're a delusional moron.
Why do you care?
-
Then they perhaps proposed the idea that all complex organisms evolved from simple organisms over billions of years by natural forces into what we now see today.
Perhaps based on fallible and dubious assumptions.
Then they used their skills in observation and experimentation over decades to fill libraries of evidence backing this stance up.
We can observe the earth from space and see that it isn't flat. All of our navigation for airplanes is based on the idea that the earth is round and not flat. For that matter, we can travel to the edge of the earth and realize there is no edge because the earth isn't flat. No tests or speculation are necessary. We can observe that the earth isn't flat.
Can you explain to me how we can observe 4.5 billion years of evolution? Is it really fair to compare something which is easily observable to something which is impossible to observe and put them on the same level?
-
Another thing that I have heard somewhere...can't remember where...and definately not to be taken as fact...just interesting thinking...If you had to put 2 elephants on the ark to repopulate the earth, would you take two full grown elephants, or two young ones? Of course you would take the younger ones. They would be smaller to save space. On that too...the ark was big...it had enough room to hold everything.
Another thought...God could have put the animals into a hibernation state too so that they wouldn't have had to eat and poop.
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Dave D
Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ in 1962. One of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, "he claims that" science does not tend towards the pursuit of truth, but rather it undergoes what he called, “paradigm shifts.” He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview. If a scientist does not want to believe in God, then that will skew how he interprets evidence; and he won’t necessarily come to the right conclusion so much as he will come to an acceptable conclusion.
Yet I'm consistently told by theists that a theistic scientists, even a YEC or someone who takes the Bible literally, can be great scientist and keep neutrality in the lab (which I completely agree with). Francis Collins for example -- the director of the Human Genome Project -- is someone who literally believes there was a talking snake. No problem; didn't effect his studies or job as director.
The idea that someone who doesn't believe in a god(s) is going to inherently show bias toward the results and inherently become dogmatic towards science is nonsense. They may observe something from a different perspective, but that's completely different from skewing results or observations. That's the heart of science. Never mind the fact that any legitimate study is peer reviewed over and over before it gains any validity. A scientist can't propose some random nonsense based on their on individual perception and have it fly through the pipes with no criticism.
What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity. Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
-
Then they perhaps proposed the idea that all complex organisms evolved from simple organisms over billions of years by natural forces into what we now see today.
Perhaps based on fallible and dubious assumptions.
Examples please. (You don't think scientists have entertained this thought?)
Then they used their skills in observation and experimentation over decades to fill libraries of evidence backing this stance up.
We can observe the earth from space and see that it isn't flat. All of our navigation for airplanes is based on the idea that the earth is round and not flat. For that matter, we can travel to the edge of the earth and realize there is no edge because the earth isn't flat. No tests or speculation are necessary. We can observe that the earth isn't flat.
Can you explain to me how we can observe 4.5 billion years of evolution? Is it really fair to compare something which is easily observable to something which is impossible to observe and put them on the same level?[/quote]
I didn't make the comparison or place them on the same level, you did.
We have observed evolution. On a small time scale, certainly (for obvious reasons). The mechanisms of evolution do not change as the time span elongates. They remain the same. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
-
Wow Stealth3si I had a TON of time on his hands! GEEEEZ!
Why do you care?
I already stated this-- I just want people to look at the big picture rather than sit in their little box of irrational hatred to anyone who thinks otherwise. Religious extremists do this very well. Basically I just find this a major problem with humanity in my eyes-- "Don't believe what I believe? Well you're going to hell then!". It's much worse when they have power. :(
Oh and about the dinosaur/ark thing if you're still curious about why I said it...I see it preached massively within the confines of creationist science websites and books. Hell, my neighbor even spurted it at me a while back. It's just ludicrous. So I just thought with all the people in this post saying that they believe the ark happened and quoting CS websites, that some probably believe that as well. An assumption? Sure. Don't overthink it.
Homer said "Facts are meaningless. They can prove anything that is even remotely true."
All of these seem like a rather petty obstacle when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
The whole main point of my frustration with ark-believers is their unwillingness to be rational when trying to prove it happened. It just perplexes me how they will defend something they've probably been thinking since childhood and never questioned it. You'd think once you hit a certain age, you'd do so. It's like you telling me your grandpa is completely right about 2=1 after you've matured and there's no way he could be wrong. End of story. Gate's closed. Don't say anything else. I won't take any other answer but that one.
The world is full of morons until they finally bring in the light? Come on now, this is chronological snobbery. If you can't embrace all of history then you ought to suspect that you're being a bit too narrow in your judgment of history.
I'm not sure if you got my point so I'll make this example quick-- The discovery of bacteria meant we should alter our way of thinking about..a doctor handling newborn children after...handling a diseased cadaver by cleaning himself so the disease cannot spread. We were 'brought into the light' as you put it and it improved our way of doing things. But what if doctors kept doing things the old way despite the new evidence and just shut their ears yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I AM NOT LISTENING!"? Not good! My point was simply to show that the old way of thinking isn't necessarily the most logical way of thinking (a lesser example? the ark story). This just ties into my paragraph above I guess.
Can you explain to me how we can observe 4.5 billion years of evolution?
Delorean + Flux Capacitor = Answer
-
This isn't one of those black and white things-I think there's a middle ground here. I think that something happened where this man did have to build and ark and he did actually bring 2 of each animal that he knew of at the time. It probably did save some species. Did the entire Earth flood? I don't know. Did everything that we know today come from what was brought on that ark? Maybe. I think that animals DO evolve in a way-they remain the same for the most part, but they change to adapt to their situations. I just heard today on the radio that polar bears are smaller than they were years ago-it's a form of adaption. I think that God allows for that kind of change over time-maybe He even changes things as time goes on. Why? I don't know-maybe he gets bored looking at all the same stuff all the time :) There's SO many possible explainations! Noah's Ark's story is just one of the several things that probably happened and may (or may not) have had an impact on what all these creatures are today.
-
It is amazing to me how scientists can say things are so many billions of years old...I heard that they carbon dated a rock that was formed in the eruption of Mt. Saint Hellens and dated it as billions of years old!
Dave D
Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ in 1962. One of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century, "he claims that" science does not tend towards the pursuit of truth, but rather it undergoes what he called, “paradigm shifts.” He says science can be just as dogmatic as religion, if not more-so. Scientists interpret evidence according to their pre-conceived notions of how things are (or rather should be). They aren’t necessarily interested in finding the truth, but in finding evidence that can be interpreted to justify their worldview. If a scientist does not want to believe in God, then that will skew how he interprets evidence; and he won’t necessarily come to the right conclusion so much as he will come to an acceptable conclusion.
Yet I'm consistently told by theists that a theistic scientists, even a YEC or someone who takes the Bible literally, can be great scientist and keep neutrality in the lab (which I completely agree with). Francis Collins for example -- the director of the Human Genome Project -- is someone who literally believes there was a talking snake. No problem; didn't effect his studies or job as director.
This looks like a positivist view of Popper, whose system is rather naïve and quite frankly nothing more than question-begging when it comes to conflicts between the naturalist and the supernaturalist. In a post-Kuhn and post-Polanyi world, it’s just inexcusable for a scientist or philosopher to be so naïve to think that we can do science neutrally without having to get into conflicts in preliminary assumptions and the frameworks by which we interpret evidence in the first place.
Francis Collins for example -- the director of the Human Genome Project -- is someone who literally believes there was a talking snake. No problem; didn't effect his studies or job as director.
This reminds us of the theme of social engineering in extreme fundamentalism, which we already met in Hitler's eugenics. The Human Genome Project is a further attempt at social engineering, allowing us to make people into whatever we need them to be in order to create our "utopia." I'm not saying I'm against curing the sick, etc; simply, the Genome Project is part of a program of genetic social engineering to normalize society. Its purpose is not merely to stop disease and so forth. Its purpose is ultimately to stop abnormality of any sort.
The idea that someone who doesn't believe in a god(s) is going to inherently show bias toward the results and inherently become dogmatic towards science is nonsense. They may observe something from a different perspective, but that's completely different from skewing results or observations. That's the heart of science. Never mind the fact that any legitimate study is peer reviewed over and over before it gains any validity. A scientist can't propose some random nonsense based on their on individual perception and have it fly through the pipes with no criticism.
I completely agree that this idea is absurd to scientists and the world of science frowns upon this but what is going on is that "normal science," as Kuhn calls it, is concerned with justifying one's paradigm by fitting all the available evidence into it, like puzzle pieces.
However—and this is the whole point of Kuhn's book— because every so often normal science completely fails to fit a piece of evidence in the puzzle, scientists are often forced, by the nature of science (i.e., "self-correction"), to refrain from doing this. Consequently, scientists then abandon the paradigm and desperately scramble for a new one: a scientific revolution. Out of the chaos, a new paradigm is chosen to replace the old because it is a better fit of the evidence.
Hypothetically, we can even envision a wide number of reasons why a scientific theory is so accepted in the scientific community by possibly taking a cue from Kuhn and realizing that this is what the scientific community does when a new paradigm is identified which is very popular and upon which much other science is based—they exclude dissenters. Also, empirical evidence is clearly available for this hypothesis with respect to evolution.
What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity.
Kuhn ("On The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") is a philosopher of science who argued that science (and, correlatively, other knowledge) develops not by objective reasoning but by the fleshing out of new paradigms for looking at the world and along with Feyerabend ("Against Method"), a philosopher of science who showed that every scientific rule designed to ensure objective reasoning has been broken by a major scientist, so scientific successes cannot be fundamentally attributed to objective reasoning (at least alone). Exactly what Kuhn said or proved is a very complicated thing, and so anti-science reactionaries tend to make wild claims by invoking his name and pro-science reactionaries tend to make wild claims about how "postmodern" and "irrational" he is. Some of the basics are undeniable, but interpretation of Kuhn is really complex. That's why I generally don't get into the nitty-gritty of what he said, because if scholars of the philosophy of science are arguing about it then I'm certainly not qualified to make a comment. But, unquestionably, he (along with Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge, Tacit Dimension," to a lesser extent) represents the beginning of a long trend (continued in Feyerabend and others) in both epistemology and the study of science that undermines scientific positivism and reductionism.
Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
I don't think these are the right questions that would be asked from reading Kuhn because the issue here is when people interpret theories based on naturalistic presuppositions. But there are much deeper questions to be asked by both sides. For instance, what kind of naturalistic assumptions go into science, and how can we work to do a non-naturalistic science? How do the structures of scientific thought shape our understanding of the world, and how should we reshape them?
But that's not the job of the scientist because, you see, science answers questions about how things work and what things are through the assumption-centered hypothesis which teaches that an unobservable principle is responsible for speciation and order through random alterations, but it cannot answer the questions of greater meaning that scientific discoveries may point to. That is the realm of the scientific philosophers, whom many scientific philosophers are also scientists, but not all scientists are scientific philosophers and some scientific philosophers are not scientists.
As it so happens, most of the fellows at the Discovery Institute (the leading ID think tank) DO happen to be PhD's in science as well. But I don't believe that even those at the heart of the ID movement would claim that ID is science. ID is actually a system of asking questions of science, and speculating on the larger implications of scientific theories. I think ID would be more accurately defined in terms of scientific philosophy, which is the discipline that thinks about science, but is not actually science itself.
-
Then they perhaps proposed the idea that all complex organisms evolved from simple organisms over billions of years by natural forces into what we now see today.
Perhaps based on fallible and dubious assumptions.
Examples please. (You don't think scientists have entertained this thought?)
In science you can't pick the evidence. You have to account for all of it but in science you can pick the presuppositions which interpret how the evidence will fit to justify the scientist's worldview of which its naturalistic presuppositions are fallible. Testing it only validates the fallibility of the presupposition and confirms the fault in the logic behind it, irregardless of the results. It's bad logic because it assumes how things work now is the way it has always been working. For example, I certainly think that the evolutionary theories are the best present scientific models, but I believe they're fallacious at best. In addition, the Pangaea theory more or less holds the same natural mechanics in the historical universe as evolutionism.
I didn't make the comparison or place them on the same level, you did.
We have observed evolution. On a small time scale, certainly (for obvious reasons). The mechanisms of evolution do not change as the time span elongates. They remain the same. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over.
What you're implying is that, within the fossil record serving as evidence of a 4.5 billion year observation of evolution (which isn't comparable to easily observable phenomena), a multitude of "missing link" transitional fossils appear in the strata layers exactly where evolutionary theory predicts we'd find them, but this is absurd. I could point you to fossils where layers are upside down, things go in reverse order, etc. Actually, that is not the creationist argument, but you have here something that is ridiculous (about rock layers.) Geology, minerology and fossils are areas I am knowledgeable about, and before you make a claim this silly, please pick up your local college's textbook on geology from the library. For example, a large section of Australia has a 200 mile or so area where the layers are in reverse order. Then again, there was the beer can I dug out of "16 million" year old strata in Kettleman city.
Not that anomalies support a worldwide flood or are detrimental to evolution but there are literally hundreds of them. In fact, the beer can I found in strata didn't really fit Noah's flood that well. What did it fit? I do not know, but the fact remains that your claim here has no basis in fact, and you need to not make such claims. How do ferns fossilize slowly? How do I have a non-fossilized megdalon tooth. How come I have chunks of fossilized muscles? How did meat slowly form into stone? There is a fossilized heart in existence. The man who owned it gave it to ICR, to a man named Fred Wilson.
-
Wow Stealth3si I had a TON of time on his hands! GEEEEZ!
Ha. This is the only time I have on the forum.
Why do you care?
I already stated this-- I just want people to look at the big picture rather than sit in their little box of irrational hatred to anyone who thinks otherwise. Religious extremists do this very well. Basically I just find this a major problem with humanity in my eyes-- "Don't believe what I believe? Well you're going to hell then!". It's much worse when they have power. :(
I did not see any one here in this forum hating others.
All I saw was you calling people irrational for being irrational.
But you also seem to me looking down on others who aren't being logical as you would be, or especially, believing in something you don't like.
Why do you care?
Oh and about the dinosaur/ark thing if you're still curious about why I said it...I see it preached massively within the confines of creationist science websites and books. Hell, my neighbor even spurted it at me a while back. It's just ludicrous. So I just thought with all the people in this post saying that they believe the ark happened and quoting CS websites, that some probably believe that as well. An assumption? Sure. Don't overthink it.
Seems like extreme fundamentalism.
I would think the global flood of Noah, followed by an ice age due to climactic shifts, could have well driven them to extinction.
Really, I view them as just another extinct species, like the dodo.
Hence, from a biblical worldview it seems like a large reptile would not fair too well in a world chilled. However, why is the saber toothed cat gone? I have no idea, but extinctions have always occured and fairly rapidly, which would explain why we see greater bio-diversity within the fossil record. Without intervention from governments, our generation would have spelled the end to the elephant and tiger, and many of the mightiest of beasts. Earlier generations have generally been crappy conservationists; hence, an extinct mighty beast seems very plausible from human or natural causes, but after a global flood, we would expect a climactic shift in much the same way the huricanes in FL kept Chicago unseasonably warm until one morning.
Homer said "Facts are meaningless. They can prove anything that is even remotely true."
All of these seem like a rather petty obstacle when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.
The whole main point of my frustration with ark-believers is their unwillingness to be rational when trying to prove it happened.
You must take into account that this particular story involves the Christian belief in a biblical God. A God who stretches beyond science, knowledge and understanding. A God who is believed to have made the sun sit still in the sky, a God who created the universe, created heaven, made man out of dust and woman out of a rib, a God who parted a sea...the list of unbelievable stories goes on. The supporters of this story believe in that. To try and use the argument that "the story isn't logical or probable" holds no ground in a discussion involving a very strong belief in an extraordinary God. To use that argument one would have to first disprove the existence of a God, and rid all belief of him in the believers.
Whether or not it happened wouldn't be an issue if god is presupposed.
It just perplexes me how they will defend something they've probably been thinking since childhood and never questioned it. You'd think once you hit a certain age, you'd do so.
I think you're perplexed because unbelievers can try to smuggle empirical thoughts into a theistic worldview and materialize raw proven facts like "no geological proof" but when directly faced with a Christian narrative that arches a biblical thread of continuity of the "flood epic" of Noah's Ark they will run into the same impasse because they are approaching the question with drastically different presuppositions. Every single piece of evidence, every single argument presented will necessarily be interpreted differently by each side. For one who assumes naturalism and does not allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation, of course a supernatural event will be thought to be impossible. His argument is necessarily circular, going back to his ultimate commitment to naturalism. Likewise, the Christian's argument will necessarily be circular, as he will continually go back to his ultimate reference point, his belief in God. If it were not so, it would not truly be his ultimate commitment. "Raw proven facts" simply will not do, as the facts mean very different things to the theist and the atheist.
It's like you telling me your grandpa is completely right about 2=1 after you've matured and there's no way he could be wrong. End of story. Gate's closed. Don't say anything else. I won't take any other answer but that one.
My point was there was no problem with the story, but how people read into the story.
The world is full of morons until they finally bring in the light? Come on now, this is chronological snobbery. If you can't embrace all of history then you ought to suspect that you're being a bit too narrow in your judgment of history.
I'm not sure if you got my point so I'll make this example quick-- The discovery of bacteria meant we should alter our way of thinking about..a doctor handling newborn children after...handling a diseased cadaver by cleaning himself so the disease cannot spread. We were 'brought into the light' as you put it and it improved our way of doing things. But what if doctors kept doing things the old way despite the new evidence and just shut their ears yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I AM NOT LISTENING!"? Not good! My point was simply to show that the old way of thinking isn't necessarily the most logical way of thinking (a lesser example? the ark story). This just ties into my paragraph above I guess
I got your point, which is you're actually showing an elitist mindset of Enlightenment dogma. It is this 21st century post-modern understanding of paradigm shifting in scientific discoveries that parades itself as your standard of human progress but really dehumanizes people and waters science down.
And my point is, look, even at least be a little less harsh on a person like Aristotle. He was the greatest scientist of all time (arguably?). He worked in astronomy, meteorology, physics, geology, biology, and psychology. (Not to mention philosophy, logic, poetry, literary theory, rhetoric, politics, political theory, and training Alexander the Great...) Instead of treating the senses disparagingly (as have most people who have said that they wanted to "shun traditional dogmatisms," your characterization of the Enlightenment of science, like the early Greek philosophers, Descartes, etc.), he used them, filling his Lyceum with specimens, engaging in experiments, etc.
Granted, at some point he trusted his "reason" a bit too much -- for instance, he assumed that a large stone would fall more quickly than a small stone -- but when you're not only writing the Encyclopedia Brittanica but inventing the disciplines and doing all the scholarship that the Encyclopedia studies, there's only so much you can do. A thousand years from now we'll have plenty of comparable reasons to "mock" Galileo, and perhaps the 20th century will be painted at the idyllic era in which some thinkers finally broke the oppressive chains of modernist tyranny and finally started to "think for themselves" instead of trusting Enlightenment dogma. Hopefully my counterpart in that era will be unimpressed with that kind of talk?
Can you explain to me how we can observe 4.5 billion years of evolution?
Delorean + Flux Capacitor = Answer
Precisely my point. ;)
-
It is not just a story it is true events. God can do anything he made you. He made everything that you look at everyday so He can also bring every animal from every where and put them in one place and as many as He desireth. Keep thinking that it' s just a story you'll find out in the end what God is capable of.
-
It is not just a story it is true events.
Prove it.
-
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature. I wasn't exactly there, so I can't tell you everything. Whether Dinosaurs got left behind, whether they got on and then became extinct after, or whether they were there and then devolved is up for debate, but whatever. So a mating pair of each animal was put on board (by God leading them there), and then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until the whole world was covered (even Mt. Everest). All the humans on earth died, and all the leftover animals as well. Noah and his family rode out the storm and made it safely to land. All the animals mated, and a ton of years afterward, we have all the species today. I don't see why people think that would be impossible when they would easily accept the theory that from a whole bunch of random chemicals, a single cell was formed (by CHANCE), and reproduced (by CHANCE), turned into a different thingy mabob (by CHANCE), turned into bigger thingy mabobs (by CHANCE), came out of the water and survived and became a different animal (by CHANCE), mutated, mutated, mutated and mutated some more (by CHANCE) until it became every species of today, all living simultaneously (by CHANCE). Wow, lot of lucky happenings there.
and also, how are there sea creature fossils on mountains if the sea wasn't up to the mountains?
-
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.
Prove it. Where is the evidence of this "Noah?" Where is the evidence of this unimaginably huge boat? Archaeological, paleontological, historical, anything...nope, not a shred. Why is this "Noah" character extremely similar to multiple other mythical characters of other ancient civilizations (Gilgamesh particularly)? Why is the story of Noah's Ark extremely similar to multiple other global flood myths of other ancient civilizations (again, Gilgamesh in particular).
This "Noah" character is said to have lived to be 950 years old -- very realistic. Even if you claim that it's a result of mistranslation, he's still listed at 83 years old -- also unrealistic given the time period.
There is literally zero legitimate historical evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period. There is literally zero legitimate paleontological evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period. There is literally zero legitimate archaeological evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period. There is literally zero legitimate historical evidence of such a physical being as Noah existing in the time period.
The Bible is not a legitimate historical source when nothing can be cross referenced to confirm what it says on this issue.
I wasn't exactly there, so I can't tell you everything.
You can't tell me anything. You have nothing to support anything you say in this post except a book from people who would be amazed by a wheel barrow.
Whether Dinosaurs got left behind, whether they got on and then became extinct after, or whether they were there and then devolved is up for debate, but whatever.
It's not up for debate at all among sensible people. It is only up for debate among silly, naive young earth creationists.
So a mating pair of each animal was put on board (by God leading them there), and then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until the whole world was covered (even Mt. Everest). All the humans on earth died, and all the leftover animals as well. Noah and his family rode out the storm and made it safely to land. All the animals mated, and a ton of years afterward, we have all the species today.
Again, show me even a slight amount of historical, archaeological, or paleontological evidence and then we can discuss the subject a bit better.
Why is it so hard to believe? Because it goes directly against the history we know. It goes against the age of the Earth. It goes against logic. It goes against evidence.
I don't see why people think that would be impossible when they would easily accept the theory that from a whole bunch of random chemicals, a single cell was formed (by CHANCE), and reproduced (by CHANCE), turned into a different thingy mabob (by CHANCE), turned into bigger thingy mabobs (by CHANCE), came out of the water and survived and became a different animal (by CHANCE), mutated, mutated, mutated and mutated some more (by CHANCE) until it became every species of today, all living simultaneously (by CHANCE). Wow, lot of lucky happenings there.
If you're going to use the term "thingy mabob" when describing evolution, it's pretty likely you don't have the slightest clue what it really is or what the theory encompasses.
and also, how are there sea creature fossils on mountains if the sea wasn't up to the mountains?
You assume the water rose to that level, rather than those mountains actually being at a lower sea level in the past. One proposal is supported by scientific evidence of the Earth and every sensible geological historian, the other isn't.
-
[/quote]What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity. Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
[/quote]
Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!
-
What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity. Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!
What other races? Races outside of Caucasians?
What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist? Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?
The fact of the matter is this: Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example). He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.
He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:
"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."
It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection. His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.
But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race. I'm very interested to hear it.
-
Christians would really be quite funny to observe were it not for the fact that such uber-passionate supremacy is potentially so dangerous.
I did get a couple chuckles from this thread tho ;D
-
Yeah this is getting ridiculous. I wish they would just delete this whole thread.
If the world's ice caps melt the planet would be completely under water. So do we build and Ark and bring 2 of each kind of animal or just let ourselves die off.
Yeah I saw this in a movie once with Kevin Costner. I remember it because he had to drink his own pee. But I vote for ark! We should also have 1 man do it all himself. Seems like a logical manuever considering it happened in an old outdated book with disproven myths.
The rainbow is there to remind people God won't flood the Earth again
And thunder is just angels bowling in the clouds. Oh, and remember...if you don't say "god bless you" after someone sneezes, their soul jumps out of their body.
Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!
I'm sorry...but PLEASE stop making stupid posts. I might as well just say you're a racist and leave it at that. Because it's gotta be true, right? I mean I don't have any proof or instances that I could show, but...you know...
But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race. I'm very interested to hear it.
I'd be surprised if they do. But I wouldn't count on it.
-
I'm baffled how people can be so easily mislead and deceived.
-
I'd be surprised if they do. But I wouldn't count on it.
I have no expectations. I merely feel it necessary to leave the challenge out in the open so they look more ignorant when they have no rebuttal.
-
What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity. Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!
What other races? Races outside of Caucasians?
What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist? Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?
The fact of the matter is this: Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example). He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.
He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:
"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."
It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection. His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.
But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race. I'm very interested to hear it.
OK, I did some research..(accepted your challenge) http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html and found that darwin was in fact an abolitionist...He was less racist than the society he was in which still had slavery...the English people of that day considered cultures who didn't sit and drink tea as savages. Here is an interesting quote from Travels in Brazil (quote)Two very different feelings are excited in the observer when he beholds the children of Africa placed amidst the more exalted relations of European civilisation; on the one hand he remarks with joy the traces of humanity which gradually develop in the negro by his intercourse with the whites* while on the other hand he cannot but grieve that means so cruel, so contrary to the rights of mankind as the slave trade, were required to afford to that unhappy race, degraded even in their own native country, the first school of moral, education. These feelings affected us still more deeply when we were obliged to go to the slave-market to look for, and purchase, a young negro for ourselves.(end quote)
I did find though that other scientists took his ideas and perverted them to promote their racist agendas...(yes, even Hitler) One person I read said that many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists. Maybe Darwin has been lumped in with them?
On another perhaps unrelated note...I think it is sad that people who claimed to be Christians have used God and the Bible to rationalize and support their atrocities throughout history. It seems to me that Christians should be less racist than anyone else because they believe we all came from a common ancestor.
-
To the contrary,......
most self proclaimed Christians of today have no idea what the true history of the religion entails. They know only what is spoon-fed to them by their pastor/preacher/minister etc. They have also been indoctrinated usually from a very young age to be very fearful of questioning the church even if these questions were unspoken in their own minds. They will not even entertain the possibility of wrong doing by the church itself and instead blame anyone who is unlucky enough to be confronted acting in an immoral fashion of only "claiming to be christian" but doesn't represent the true description of what it truly means to be Christian.
Church officials throughout the history of christianity have preached supreamacy and encouraged vile and vicious behavior towards non-christians.
The following are two instances of church hierarchy instigating atrocious behavior,......<b> are these men just claiming to be christian???<?b>
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600094.html
"In the eleventh century Pope Gregory proclaimed that God sanctioned wars against nonbelievers and enemies of the Church."
and also......
"The Rights of Non-Christians. In the thirteenth century Pope Innocent IV suggested that non-Christians possessed the same rights as Christians under natural law. He then asked rhetorically, “s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess, or which belongs to them?” In answering that question, Innocent IV argued that violations of natural law by nonbelievers, such as Christian conceptions of sexual perversion or idolatry, created a duty in the Pope to force the miscreant peoples to admit missionaries into their lands. If the nonbelievers did not convert to Christianity, Innocent argued, he could then authorize secular governments to declare war on the nonbelievers and force them to accept the faith. Out of Innocent IV’s theory emerged two competing lines of authority. One recognized that non-Christian peoples held property rights and sovereignty under the theory of natural law, and the other maintained that under certain conditions Christian nations could encroach upon and extinguish those rights. This ambiguity, which essentially gave non-Christians natural rights with one hand and took them back with the other, controlled philosophical discussions of Native American rights for the next five hundred years. Thus, even before Columbus set sail for the West, Christian European governments possessed legal theories that they believed gave them the right to seize the lands of Native Americans. These doctrines were based on the premises that western culture was sanctioned by God and that Europeans were spiritually and culturally superior to peoples of other lands and faiths. Under that flag of cultural arrogance Europeans could invade and conquer the lands of non-Christians, and they could by right sanctioned by God take the lands of the conquered and make them their own."
You may now make the claim that all of that is in the past and the church has evolved.....really?
lets take a look at the recent apology <b>by the church</B> for the deaths of over 50,000 children who were forcefully removed from their homes and placed into christian residential schools and then died there.
http://archive.hiddenfromhistory.org/html/spin.html
".....In effect, under this strategy of Redefinition and Containment, the Christian churches were to be absolved and made immune from prosecution for their crimes of Genocide against non-Christian Indians, in order for the issue of genocide itself to be diffused and discarded.
....through a series of legal decisions which made the churches (Catholic, Anglican and United) liable with the government for only certain, restricted tort offenses, such as physical and sexual abuses; and which placed severe restrictions on Indians' right to sue their oppressors..........these churches felt free to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the wider crimes in the residential schools, in a series of astounding public relations "spins" of the issue that would make even many lawyers blush........"
I could go on and on with more examples of the abuse people of this continent have suffered at the hands of Christians, but I'm sure you get the point, and maybe, not likely but maybe, some of you will pull your head out of the sand and start truly thinking for yourself.
-
What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity. Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)? Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief? What are they achieving by doing this?
Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!
What other races? Races outside of Caucasians?
What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist? Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?
The fact of the matter is this: Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example). He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.
He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:
"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."
It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection. His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.
But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race. I'm very interested to hear it.
I did find though that other scientists took his ideas and perverted them to promote their racist agendas...(yes, even Hitler) One person I read said that many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists. Maybe Darwin has been lumped in with them?
To state the obvious, Hitler was not a scientist by any stretch of the definition. To correct a common misunderstanding, Social Darwinism is the idea that natural forces also play an "evolutionary" role in the change of ideas, the actions of nations, and the actions of individuals in modern society.
As for the other "early evolutionists," I don't know who you're talking about or where you got the information, so I see no possibility of commenting.
It should be noted that Hitler was also a devout Christian, both in public and private. Heinrich Himmler (the head of the SS/Gestapo and basically the man in charge of the Holocaust) was also a devout Christian. The majority of the *bleep* Party was Christian. *bleep* belt buckles read "Gott mit uns," which translates to "God with us." So on and so forth.
I am making no effort to say religion caused the Holocaust or had anything significant to do with WWII, I just always have a brief lapse of sanity when people tell me Hitler and the *bleep* Party carried their actions out because of something like atheism or evolution.
-
noahs ark was a ark a huge ship pretty much
that was constructed by a man named noah
the story goes he was told by god to build it
why?
bcuz there was going ot be a huge flood
he also had to get 2 of each of the same animal such as 2 elephants
and 2 giraffes and watnot
also there were ppl on board so they can stay alive.
of course its in the bible
also u can google it
they have wat they believe is the real noahs ark
-
Read the bible
(http://www.fusioncash.net/sig.php/af535bc58aec.png) (http://www.fusioncash.net/?ref=tee1618)
-
Read Genesis chapters 6 through 10 of the Bible.
-
lol typical Bible Thumper...ignoring all the opinions in this thread.
-
If you read the bible then it will tell you everything
-
If you read the bible then it will tell you everything
Doubtful
-
lol
-
Read the bible
Read Genesis chapters 6 through 10 of the Bible.
If you read the bible then it will tell you everything
Did you even read ONE POST of this thread? Holy hell you people are funny!
-
Stop flaming religion and other peoples beliefs unless you want the mods to ban you. It is one thing to disagree with religion, but another to degrade someones beliefs In it.
-
it almost seems like they are just doing it to annoy us xD
-
Stop flaming religion and other peoples beliefs unless you want the mods to ban you. It is one thing to disagree with religion, but another to degrade someones beliefs In it.
Should I be banned for "degrading" (I haven't seen any degrading in this thread to be honest, but whatever) your political ideology? What about your favorite sports team? What about your taste in clothes? What about your hairstyle?
Your religion is no more on a pedestal than any of those things just mentioned. If you get offended by people telling you Noah's Ark is a farce, and frankly an unoriginal fairy tale, tough luck deal with it.
You don't want people to stop "degrading" your beliefs, you want people to bow down and confirm that your beliefs are the only correct ones out there. There's the difference between a religious person and a non-religious person in a discussion -- the religious person makes their views known with the expectation that those listening will confirm their beliefs; the non-religious person makes their views known with the expectation that those listening will challenge what they say.
Quit whining. If you want people to respect the nonsense of Noah's Ark, prove it occurred. Until then, move along.
-
WORD~!
-
Noah's Ark is a good fable for children but impossible that it ever happened...my opinion...So complain all you want, but if you get to preach GOD to me, I should be able to give my opinion and preach to you....AMEN :angel12:
-
I really shouldn't be responding to this because I am so sad at what I'm reading. Have you ever heard the word "faith"? Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise. All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof. Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet. If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing". Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered. In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
-
All you need to know is Evolution is based on facts and is the truth, the Bible is based only on beliefs and is fake.
-
The bible is based on stories, tales, legends and myths from an even earlier time then when it was compiled.
-
All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof.
If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing".
Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered.
What a nicely-worded way to say "REMAIN IGNORANT, CHRISTIANS!" :P
-
Have you ever heard the word "faith"?
Yes.
Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise.
And this is a good thing for what reason?
All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof.
In other words, you don't have the challenge a book written and edited countless times at the hands of ignorant people with corrupt agendas...
Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet.
And it should be treated as if it hasn't been proven yet (ie questioned, challenged, doubted, etc.). Why? Because it hasn't been proven, as you so clearly state.
If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing".
Clearly the men who wrote the Bible knew what to write and how to describe events, and thus in some fashion must have been knowledgeable about all the events (how else could they have written it). Or they made stuff up (I choose this one).
Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered.
They will likely be answered by the people who are looking for the rational answers, not by the people proclaiming the answers shouldn't even be looked for.
In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
The burden of proof is on you, however. The burden of proof is not on the individual who says your claim is irrational and baseless. If you want to make extraordinary claims, be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence supporting those claims. Otherwise, you have nothing and can't complain when people point that out.
-
If you read the bible then it will tell you everything
False
-
Have you ever heard the word "faith"?
Yes.
Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise.
And this is a good thing for what reason?
All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof.
In other words, you don't have the challenge a book written and edited countless times at the hands of ignorant people with corrupt agendas...
Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet.
And it should be treated as if it hasn't been proven yet (ie questioned, challenged, doubted, etc.). Why? Because it hasn't been proven, as you so clearly state.
If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing".
Clearly the men who wrote the Bible knew what to write and how to describe events, and thus in some fashion must have been knowledgeable about all the events (how else could they have written it). Or they made stuff up (I choose this one).
Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered.
They will likely be answered by the people who are looking for the rational answers, not by the people proclaiming the answers shouldn't even be looked for.
In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
The burden of proof is on you, however. The burden of proof is not on the individual who says your claim is irrational and baseless. If you want to make extraordinary claims, be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence supporting those claims. Otherwise, you have nothing and can't complain when people point that out.
I am not Telling anyone how to Believe or to Believe. Everyone here could sit here and debate this all day. The kind of Proof you want as if you want God Himself to appear out of the clouds and say hey i am God Believe in me. One day that will happen but not today. I see these topics up all the time on here, so either others want to know more about God or just want to Debate with others.
-
Have you ever heard the word "faith"?
Yes.
Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise.
And this is a good thing for what reason?
All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof.
In other words, you don't have the challenge a book written and edited countless times at the hands of ignorant people with corrupt agendas...
Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet.
And it should be treated as if it hasn't been proven yet (ie questioned, challenged, doubted, etc.). Why? Because it hasn't been proven, as you so clearly state.
If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing".
Clearly the men who wrote the Bible knew what to write and how to describe events, and thus in some fashion must have been knowledgeable about all the events (how else could they have written it). Or they made stuff up (I choose this one).
Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered.
They will likely be answered by the people who are looking for the rational answers, not by the people proclaiming the answers shouldn't even be looked for.
In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
The burden of proof is on you, however. The burden of proof is not on the individual who says your claim is irrational and baseless. If you want to make extraordinary claims, be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence supporting those claims. Otherwise, you have nothing and can't complain when people point that out.
so either others want to know more about God or just want to Debate with others.
Or want to combat the atrocities and annoyances religion propagates on a daily basis by attacking the root of the issue (moderate religion). Or want to challenge the baseless notion that blindly believing in something because you're told to is a good attribute to have. Or want to simply make people think about what it is they claim. Or hope that one day someone will actually bring something to the table even slightly proving their claim.
So on and so forth. There are plenty of reasons to discuss religion. It is one of the biggest factors in everyone's life on a daily basis, regardless of denomination or lack there of.
-
liljp617 and falconer02: Why are you so defensive about what I wrote? Why do you feel you have to tear my comments into pieces and dispute sentence by sentence? This forum asked a question and I simply answered from my point of view. Maybe I shouldn't have spoken for all Christians, I was wrong to do that, but these are my beliefs and I thought I could voice them here without being judged. I didn't judge you or anything you had to say or anyone else for that matter. I didn't come on here to debate with anyone. I simply stated what I believe just as you did. You seem so angry and I don't know why. I happen to have strong Christian values and am comfortable knowing, without question, where I will spend eternity. I voiced thoughts in a public forum where both of you certainly have the right to do whatever you want with them. If you are so comfortable with your own destiny, then why are you being so aggressive and intent on disproving what I believe to be true? I knew when I wrote what I did that some people would disagree which is to be expected. But I didn't expect to participate, sharing my point of view, and be ripped apart so disrespectfully.
-
I really shouldn't be responding to this because I am so sad at what I'm reading. Have you ever heard the word "faith"? Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise. All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof. Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet. If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing". Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered. In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
The problem with Faith is the question as to where it comes from. If you want to talk about Faith in a "higher force" or even some "almighty being" thats your choice. However when it comes to the bible, you really are not relying on your own faith. You are reading other human beings tell stories and they convince you to believe in their stories. If the bible was not there, you would still have faith maybe in a higher power.. however you wouldnt have 'faith' in Jesus Christ, or anything else in the bible unless you first read it. So you are now putting this power of faith in the hands of mere mortals, humans. As for proving or disproving, you generally cannot prove something untrue. This is always the case, the burden of proof lands on the person making the claim. Anyone can say "we all live in a giant petrie dish, or santa clause is really God in disguise. These things cannot be proven, and thats why they would not be taken seriously. What your basically saying when you ask people to have faith in the bible is. "Do not have faith in everyone elses book which contradicts ours, even though this book has just as much fact and information as any other, this one is the one you should be faithful too" and this would be told to you by a mere mortal... So you faith is in that mortal, not in a god. If you faith was truly in a god or whatever else you would like to call a higher force, then you wouldnt need the bible and all these false idols in a church or a book. As for faith, Im sure most people already are aware of what faith does... Read about Rev. Jim Jones and his cool aid, or David Koresh and his followers... there was heavens gate... there was Charlie Manson... All these people got their victims for only one reason, they all had "faith" in him and what he spoke... they believed it was from a higher power, and had no proof, just faith... and they ended up dead. Thats what faith can do when its put into a human or a book written by a human.
-
eSineM: I hear what you are saying but am happy to agree to disagree. I must say though will all due respect, man didn't write the Bible. OK. He held the quill or whatever it was. God actually wrote the Bible. He used various persons as vehicles to copy his words. Secondly, I never said I have faith in the Bible. The Bible albeit Holy, is a book and you don't have faith in something tangible. I read the Bible because that's what He wants me to do. I have faith in my God and the promises he has made to me. I know he will do what He says he will do because I have faith. The same is true if you tell a friend "I have faith in you". You don't actually have faith in an object i.e. person, but you have faith in the intangible: their actions that will lead them to the end they desire. As for the Bible, it serves as a "road map" that directs me in the direction I should go, tells me what I need to do to serve God and live my life as faithfully as possible, no matter how seriously flawed I am as a human.
-
eSineM: I hear what you are saying but am happy to agree to disagree. I must say though will all due respect, man didn't write the Bible. OK. He held the quill or whatever it was. God actually wrote the Bible. He used various persons as vehicles to copy his words. Secondly, I never said I have faith in the Bible. The Bible albeit Holy, is a book and you don't have faith in something tangible. I read the Bible because that's what He wants me to do. I have faith in my God and the promises he has made to me. I know he will do what He says he will do because I have faith. The same is true if you tell a friend "I have faith in you". You don't actually have faith in an object i.e. person, but you have faith in the intangible: their actions that will lead them to the end they desire. As for the Bible, it serves as a "road map" that directs me in the direction I should go, tells me what I need to do to serve God and live my life as faithfully as possible, no matter how seriously flawed I am as a human.
Agreed and Well said
What God says he will always follow through. God don`t turn his back on you. He is there when you need him.
-
liljp617 and falconer02: Why are you so defensive about what I wrote? Why do you feel you have to tear my comments into pieces and dispute sentence by sentence? This forum asked a question and I simply answered from my point of view. Maybe I shouldn't have spoken for all Christians, I was wrong to do that, but these are my beliefs and I thought I could voice them here without being judged. I didn't judge you or anything you had to say or anyone else for that matter. I didn't come on here to debate with anyone. I simply stated what I believe just as you did. You seem so angry and I don't know why. I happen to have strong Christian values and am comfortable knowing, without question, where I will spend eternity. I voiced thoughts in a public forum where both of you certainly have the right to do whatever you want with them. If you are so comfortable with your own destiny, then why are you being so aggressive and intent on disproving what I believe to be true? I knew when I wrote what I did that some people would disagree which is to be expected. But I didn't expect to participate, sharing my point of view, and be ripped apart so disrespectfully.
I said nothing about you nor did I judge you as an individual. Could you point to where I did either of these things? I addressed and judged what you wrote (completely different), and I did so without personal insults. If you take offense to someone questioning your beliefs, I'm sorry, but that's not an issue of mine. If you can't handle someone questioning your beliefs or you have no intentions to discuss/debate the topic, make a post stating your views and don't come back to the thread to see the replies you get. That's the only solution I can think of.
I would, however, be inclined to say your post fits right in with what I've said multiple times: Religious people make their views known with the expectation that others will confirm what they say; non-religious people make their views known on the subject with the expectation that what they say will be challenged.
I am very calm by the way. If I was angry it would be much more apparent. There is no purpose in getting angry; nothing is said on these forums that I haven't read countless times elsewhere. Almost everything said in all these types of threads are centuries old arguments that have been refuted for as long as they've been present. I don't dance around what it is I want to say, because this notion that religion is on a pedestal, immune to criticism, is ridiculous and I have no intentions to uphold such an idea. I am blunt in what I say. If that offends you, grow thicker skin or form some logical counterarguments. If you don't wish to do either of those, I don't know what else to tell you. I certainly won't sacrifice my right to freely express myself just so you don't get offended, especially when I've said nothing offensive.
-
eSineM: I hear what you are saying but am happy to agree to disagree. I must say though will all due respect, man didn't write the Bible. OK. He held the quill or whatever it was. God actually wrote the Bible. He used various persons as vehicles to copy his words. Secondly, I never said I have faith in the Bible. The Bible albeit Holy, is a book and you don't have faith in something tangible. I read the Bible because that's what He wants me to do. I have faith in my God and the promises he has made to me. I know he will do what He says he will do because I have faith. The same is true if you tell a friend "I have faith in you". You don't actually have faith in an object i.e. person, but you have faith in the intangible: their actions that will lead them to the end they desire. As for the Bible, it serves as a "road map" that directs me in the direction I should go, tells me what I need to do to serve God and live my life as faithfully as possible, no matter how seriously flawed I am as a human.
Or so a man told you, and asked you to have faith in him that he is telling the truth. In fact it was of course many men all who made the same claim, as did Charles Manson and all the people I mentioned before. This is how it always is framed, they always say it is a higher being speaking through them, even psychics ask you to believe this.
However of course, faith is not logic based. If you have faith that god wrote the book through these people, and have faith that these people are telling the truth or whatever.. and have faith that nothing in the bible has been changed through the centuries, then you have faith. Nobody can or should stop you, but I only mention the fact its a dangerous thing, and it all comes down to the faith put into the authors/editors etc.
-
eSineM: I hear what you are saying but am happy to agree to disagree. I must say though will all due respect, man didn't write the Bible. OK. He held the quill or whatever it was. God actually wrote the Bible. He used various persons as vehicles to copy his words. Secondly, I never said I have faith in the Bible. The Bible albeit Holy, is a book and you don't have faith in something tangible. I read the Bible because that's what He wants me to do. I have faith in my God and the promises he has made to me. I know he will do what He says he will do because I have faith. The same is true if you tell a friend "I have faith in you". You don't actually have faith in an object i.e. person, but you have faith in the intangible: their actions that will lead them to the end they desire. As for the Bible, it serves as a "road map" that directs me in the direction I should go, tells me what I need to do to serve God and live my life as faithfully as possible, no matter how seriously flawed I am as a human.
In fact it was of course many men all who made the same claim
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
-
Noahs ark is true! Case and point. :P
-
Noahs ark is true! Case and point.
OMG THX 4 TEH PROOF, DUDE!1!!!!!
-
eSineM, thank you for your response to my last post. I finally feel like I'm having an intelligent "discussion" with someone who has his own convictions while respectfully allowing equally for the convictions of others.
-
liljp617, for someone who doesn't "believe" and doesn't care for the opinions of those who do, you sure have spent alot of time on this thread. You have made greater than 150% more posts than the original author of this thread. I'm not coming back on this forum as you suggested, not for your reasons, but because I've said what I was compelled to say and am completely at peace with what I know and with my ultimate destiny. :)
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
[/quote]
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
-
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
Why don't you save him some time (because I know he will post proof-- I've done the research on this too) and do this--
A.) Go to Google
B.) type in "Gospel contradictions"
C.) Read any of the links or listen to any of the videos. There are plenty of sites dedicated to this basic notion right on their first pages. I assure you there are a ridiculous amount of contradictions.
Just trying to save you both some time waiting/typing.
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an *bleep* and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
There are plenty more, many even focusing on quite significant aspects of the crucifixion, resurrection, and Nativity/birth:
Only two of the Gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin, the others make no mention of it -- to me, that seems like a fairly important detail of his being. Paul never mentions the virgin birth, and actually says he "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
You have contradictions involving the dates: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
How did Judas die?
a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There is disagreement over the details of the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
I'm sure you could find dozens and dozens more with simple Google searches. The Gospels and the Bible as a whole have contradictions; this is plain fact. You will not find an unbiased Biblical scholar who maintains the Bible is without contradiction or disagreement. I don't care if this influences anyone to change what they believe -- all I said was the Gospels are contradictory between one another.
Of course, much of this makes sense when you recognize that it's fairly unlikely the Gospels are first hand/eyewitness accounts and were written many years after these supposed events. It is also significant to recognize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source -- of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360.
This raises more questions: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
And we move on to Mark...if one analyzes Mark and puts it into the context of the history, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark.
And I'll stop there since I doubt anybody will even read this...
-
:o
-
Personally I have the same questions as you. Everyone interperates the word of the bible in different ways... personally I think there are many stories in the bible with factual bases but have been exaggerated to make it more entertaining and maybe even confusing so that we as humans have to use our minds.
-
you can watch the 2009 version of "2012" with john cusak and amanda peet
you will see 3 arks in that movie
or
"even almighty"
-
you will see 3 arks in that movie or "evan almighty"
It's called Hollywood Magic, dude....are you using this as your base that it did happen? If so, I'm so so sorry. That is very depressing.
-
you will see 3 arks in that movie or "evan almighty"
It's called Hollywood Magic, dude....are you using this as your base that it did happen? If so, I'm so so sorry. That is very depressing.
oh no are you serious? that isn't footage from 0-100 a.d. ?
yes this is what i use for my basis. i trust everything i see on tv, they wouldn't lie to us or exaggerate now would they?
oh no that is right, u are a moron and your post is pointless and wasteful :bootyshake: :BangHead:
:thumbsup:
:male:
-
oh no are you serious? that isn't footage from 0-100 a.d. ?
Well with all the psycho christians on this forum, I couldn't tell what you were trying to say!
yes this is what i use for my basis. i trust everything i see on tv, they wouldn't lie to us or exaggerate now would they?
TOTALLY! Just like the bible!
u are a moron and your post is pointless and wasteful
Ouch. My pride. Now I know I have a heart because it's broken, random internet man :sad1:
-
random internet man :sad1:
:dontknow:
i really don't know what to say, which is good, this isn't a debate thread but answer the what is with the whole ark thing.
so me being speechless as usually is for the best
except for my silent snickers, the good thing about pain, it lets us know we are alive! it was worth typing that blunt response just to hear you call me "random internet man"
-
;D lawlerskatez ;D
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an *bleep* and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
There are plenty more, many even focusing on quite significant aspects of the crucifixion, resurrection, and Nativity/birth:
Only two of the Gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin, the others make no mention of it -- to me, that seems like a fairly important detail of his being. Paul never mentions the virgin birth, and actually says he "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
You have contradictions involving the dates: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
How did Judas die?
a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There is disagreement over the details of the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
I'm sure you could find dozens and dozens more with simple Google searches. The Gospels and the Bible as a whole have contradictions; this is plain fact. You will not find an unbiased Biblical scholar who maintains the Bible is without contradiction or disagreement. I don't care if this influences anyone to change what they believe -- all I said was the Gospels are contradictory between one another.
Of course, much of this makes sense when you recognize that it's fairly unlikely the Gospels are first hand/eyewitness accounts and were written many years after these supposed events. It is also significant to recognize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source -- of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360.
This raises more questions: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
And we move on to Mark...if one analyzes Mark and puts it into the context of the history, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark.
And I'll stop there since I doubt anybody will even read this...
Nice you got that from an infidel's site nonetheless christendom as a whole forgets to mention that the bible doesn't always follow chronological order.
-
This was all pretty strange until I read the post regarding the 'random internet man' and spit out my soda all over the keyboard. :)
As far as lilpj's list...I did read it. I've also read it before many many times. There are some good questions there. Many of them have been answered, and rebutted, and re-answered, and beaten to death by intellectual experts on high and mighty discussion panels at prestigious universities. There are two sides to each thing you posted and the suggestion that there is no plausible rebuttal is simply untrue. But since a forum like this is no place for a discussion of that magnitude, I'll just have to hope that people who are interested use your post as a jumping-off point for more detailed, independent study.
When it comes to Noah's ark, who knows? I'm always amused when people use the seemingly impossible examples of miracles in the Bible as a reason that the Bible is wrong. If God actually exists, won't his actions be, by the very definition of His nature, miraculous and surpassing understanding for us mere mortals? It's like the ancients saying that a flying machine is impossible because there's nothing to keep it in the air. To them it would have been miraculous. To us, it's a way to use frequent flyer miles. If God exists, He has way more information than we do as well as the ability to use it in a way we can't understand. I doubt "has to do things the way humans think He should" is a line on His resume.
-
If God actually exists, won't his actions be, by the very definition of His nature, miraculous and surpassing understanding for us mere mortals? It's like the ancients saying that a flying machine is impossible because there's nothing to keep it in the air. To them it would have been miraculous. To us, it's a way to use frequent flyer miles. If God exists, He has way more information than we do as well as the ability to use it in a way we can't understand. I doubt "has to do things the way humans think He should" is a line on His resume.
OMG! Finally, someone who realizes this fact, which makes every single religion debate null and void. The argument for Christianity is inherently infallible, since the basis of the argument allows for the impossible.
-
Greatest thread...EVER :icon_rr:
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an *bleep* and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
There are plenty more, many even focusing on quite significant aspects of the crucifixion, resurrection, and Nativity/birth:
Only two of the Gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin, the others make no mention of it -- to me, that seems like a fairly important detail of his being. Paul never mentions the virgin birth, and actually says he "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
You have contradictions involving the dates: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
How did Judas die?
a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There is disagreement over the details of the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
I'm sure you could find dozens and dozens more with simple Google searches. The Gospels and the Bible as a whole have contradictions; this is plain fact. You will not find an unbiased Biblical scholar who maintains the Bible is without contradiction or disagreement. I don't care if this influences anyone to change what they believe -- all I said was the Gospels are contradictory between one another.
Of course, much of this makes sense when you recognize that it's fairly unlikely the Gospels are first hand/eyewitness accounts and were written many years after these supposed events. It is also significant to recognize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source -- of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360.
This raises more questions: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
And we move on to Mark...if one analyzes Mark and puts it into the context of the history, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark.
And I'll stop there since I doubt anybody will even read this...
Nice you got that from an infidel's site nonetheless christendom as a whole forgets to mention that the bible doesn't always follow chronological order.
Not seeing your point. Are you still denying there are inaccuracies, contradictions, and illogical sequences of events in the Bible? Would you like me to find a different website (there are dozens upon dozens more that cite these very details)?
-
Okay, maybe I can help. I hold internet Bible Studies.
A vessel of such dimensions would have a displacementof about 20,000 tons and gross tonage of about 14,000 tons. Its carrying capacity equaled that of 522 standard railroad stock cars (each of which can hold 240 sheep). Only 188 cars would be required to hold 45,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving three trains of 104 cars each for food, Noah's family, and "range" for the animals. Today it is estimated that there are 17,600 species of animals, making 45,000 a likely approximation of the number Noah might have taken into the ark.
One has to wonder whether God's instructions made any sense to Noah. God told him to build a gigantic boat far from the nearest body of navigable water. But here we see that Noah was obedient even though God's instructions were hard to understand. This is one of the steps to doing God's Will, We may not understand how everything works, but we must do what God tells us is necessary. When we step out in faith, as Noah did, God will give us the success we seek.
-
/fail
-
Would you like to explain your version? I know what has happened to me, I know what God has done in my life. I used to be the skeptic, I used to go about this world doing as I pleased, yes, I didn't believe for years, until God called me. No I did not fail, because God would not let me. If I did, I would be dead and gone, like the rest of my friends that drank themselves to death, even when I tried to tell them about God, after I listened, or maybe I would still be laying on the side of the road, where I got hit by the car, had not He picked me up. Because there isn't one of them doctor's that can explain this one.
-
Would you like to explain your version?
Version of what? There have been numerous legendary, mythical tales of lone men/families surviving global floods and repopulating/saving the Earth. Why should I treat this one differently than I treat the others?
-
Would you like to explain your version? I know what has happened to me, I know what God has done in my life. I used to be the skeptic, I used to go about this world doing as I pleased, yes, I didn't believe for years, until God called me. No I did not fail, because God would not let me. If I did, I would be dead and gone, like the rest of my friends that drank themselves to death, even when I tried to tell them about God, after I listened, or maybe I would still be laying on the side of the road, where I got hit by the car, had not He picked me up. Because there isn't one of them doctor's that can explain this one.
hahaha... ok, now I want to hear this. So you were hit by a car and "God" picked you up... and something happened that doctors can't explain. Please do tell the story of this divine intervention. xD
-
For argument's sake I will just say I had lots of close encounters that could of been very horrible if I wasn't so lucky. Yep, I have been very lucky. Feels like someone is looking over me and protecting me.
Or you were, as you say, lucky. Perhaps the odds were merely in your favor. Are the people who get hit by a car and die not worthy of being "looked over" or "protected?"
-
For argument's sake I will just say I had lots of close encounters that could of been very horrible if I wasn't so lucky. Yep, I have been very lucky. Feels like someone is looking over me and protecting me.
Or you were, as you say, lucky. Perhaps the odds were merely in your favor. Are the people who get hit by a car and die not worthy of being "looked over" or "protected?"
I believe when it is our time to go, we go. We cannot live forever and do die.
Perhaps so. But is it necessary for anyone to die of anything except old age complications? Why do some people die in extreme accidents, and you got "protected" from things similar? Are those people who die in extreme accidents not worthy of being "protected?" Isn't it more likely they simply got the bad end of the odds and were unlucky?
-
Read Genesis chapters six through ten of the Bible and it will explain Noah's Ark. When it comes to religious stories such as Noah's Ark, you should turn to the Bible for an explanation. And if someone tries to explain the story to you without referencing passages from the Bible, they really have no idea what they are talking about. Try reading the account for yourself, and after you have read the story, then formulate questions that you may have pertaining to it; you draw a better understanding of it all. If you have not read it for yourself, then anyone can tell you anything that they want because it is all their interpretation of the account. It does not mean that it is true. The Bible is your only true source of that explanation.
-
No friend these people are so watered down most "christians" can't give you a simple answer because they are not Christians they are just church people you need the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Yes there is evidence of global flooding definately how much of the earth is water now??? How many mountains have they found underwater in several differant locations all over the world? Noahs ark was an event in which the world had become so wicked that God told Noah a righteous man of God and a pracher of Righteousness (in Hebrews) it was a depiction of God's grace and how man and earth had deserved and even cried out with their wicked lives for God to destroy the whole earth. If you read genesis you will see that God had given man the dominion over animals I truly believe if a man walks after the spirit he still has dominion over the animals I have never been attacked by an animal they have come at me though. However getting past that back to the point. God had commanded Noah to build the ark this was a great question of his faith in God do you know why he have to have faith in God? Because like small children we have no understanding of his power and of his atuhority Jesus said we must be likened unto a child to him. We need to humble ourselves because we are limited men in our mental capacity and in our value we are nothing outside of God's divine creation and plan in our lives. He spoke the breath of live and made the first man out of the clay. (this is in Genesis) Nasa recently in 1998 http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html
had discovered that the ingrediants to make man are found in the clay. These supposed "christians" need to cry out for the mercy of God to truly save them from their wretchedness and birth them in the Holy Spirit Jesus said in John 3:3 ye must be born again he emphasised this in that chapter very clearly also in John 3:16 foretelling once again how he was goign to lay down his life for man but we need to become his children to see this. It is only for the inside crowd who loves God! http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html
Anyway we need faith in God the same way (as God has designed us to see this) our small children need to have faith in us they cannot take care of themselves and learn everything on their own they need they parents with dependance as they rely on their parents who have more understanding and knowledge and experiance and strength and etc man will never have what God has. He is eternal in is the father everlating and when he told told noah to build the ark as with everything he does it was for a great purpose it was to show the world they had a chance to repent before the judgement was coming. It took 100 years for Noah to build that ark (this is scientifical too as we go back further in time men has lived longer. This was because God has given man longer to live original in the garden they had eternal life and their was no death but now death was coming upon the wholre world and only one man and his family were right with God and had their heart on him and Noah preached and pleaded with people to turn from their ways because the wrath of God was coming upon the world and their was a great flood but because they could not see it coming they mocked and laughed and continued in their wickedness. God wanted them to sincerely turn from their wickedness but they would not and so he allowed them this time and then when it was finished the time was up and the rain started coming but Noah shut the ark and it was too late. They have found the ark in the arab nations on the mountain tops (well parts of the ark) It was a depiction and forshadowing also of the coming destruction in the end of times and of how man can be saved but when the allotted time is up God's wrath comes down it also is a depction of Grace and the coming salvation in Christ you see God knew from the moment Adam sinned he was going to have to provide his only begotten son for their propitionation else he would have to exact direct judgement on them all and the whole race be damned as satan and his angels already were God provided a rainbow and a promise he would never flood the earth again because of man's wickedness you see God is not willing that any should perish but this was a depiction (as well as it was HISTORY) of how God had dealt with man in those times and how he will deal with them in these last times and we are in the closing times and God's destruction is coming but people are living in wickedness and unrighteousness and mocking God and saying his judgement is not coming as they have done throughout times and he has laid out his evidence as a big ark in front of us and we ignore it (speaking on the behalf of mankind I am saved and have heeded to Christs call and cried out for his mercy and salvation and have been saved and enlightened and transformed in my heart and in my mind and he is continually working on me as I grow closer to him he grows closer to me and for eternity this will be) but man is ignoring it because they want to live wicked unrighteous selfish lives and not Worship their creator they have made up many false gods and have defiled God's name because their hearts are wicked and they will not the truth of God in Christ Jesus the Lord. Those who have the mind of Christ are like noah warning people of the flood because the Lord has forewarned these of the judgement Hebrews 9:27 it is appointed uunto men once the death and then the judgement" All those who have not their name written in the lambs book of life are goign to be cast into the lake of fire and it is real and they have found it (your friendly athiest scientest and this they cannot deny) http://www.av1611.org/hell.html So is heaven so is God's grace and so is his salvation and he is calling out to you whosoever will believe it is ok though because God does not believe in athiests Read Romans 1 (KJV THIS IS WHY THEIR ARE SO MANY FALSE TRANSLATIONS BECAUSE SATAN HAS SPREAD MANY LIES AND THEY ALL ARE ALIKE THE KJV IS THE ONLY TRUSTABLE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. http://wwwav1611.org/attack.html)
-
If you people are searching for the truth or information on the matter, I highly suggest not reading Jerry1216's posts. He is delusional as he has proved a few times before. No doubt he will now say I'm a child-molesting drunkard who's a son of satan. And I'm not christian and he is ::) What a great advertisement to his faith.
It does not mean that it is true. The Bible is your only true source of that explanation.
This is interesting you would say this-- I like it. But my only quarrel with it is there are a ton of flood stories from various ancient cultures all happening at different time periods. Look up "The Deluge" and tell me what you think. Just curious.
One instance was I was eating a couple eggos and walking down the street and all of a sudden I was being chased by a dog and threw my eggo down and it would of been horrible if I didn't have that eggo because the dog left me alone and ate it and I was able to get away. I was lucky and yes that was what I said LUCKY
But you lost your eggo! NOOOO! What about the people that aren't so lucky that walk down the street without eggo waffles and mean dogs? I honestly think you and liljp are not running parallel in argument since he's being broader and you're focusing on the personal issues you've had. I think most of us have had atleast one close instance with death. Some people feel lucky and others feel like a higher power was watching over them. Nothing wrong with either unless it affects your judgement in other areas of your life.
-
JERRY YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!
WHY DOESN'T THE BIBLE READ ABOUT A HELLFIRE????
ahh I know I shouldn't yell at retawds like this
-
God is an extremely intelligent creator. The Bible says Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God. Psalms 8 gives you a clue to how awesome God is. Oh Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth. who has set thy glory above the heavens. God is all powerful, all knowing, and ever present all the time in our lives. Read how God gave Noah strict instructions and dimensions on the ark. God told Noah exactly what wood to use.
All because God saw how corrupt and self-serving His creations had become.
"5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Because Noah walked with the Lord and he found grace with God, he and his family survived the flood. Genesis telss how God instructed Noah to bring the animals into the ark and how fowls, cattle, creepy things would come to them. They just had to keep them up. At times we will not understand exactly how God is working a situation out. Faith requires us to hold on to His promises and not try to figure it all. God created us to choose whether we will believe or not. In the words of Franklin Graham--at some point we have to decide if the Bible is true or not. We can't pick and choose what we believe and don't believe. We must know that God is a God that cannot and will not lie.
Read the scriptures and ask God to reveal them to you. Get an understanding for yourself.
Be blessed
-
JERRY YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!
WHY DOESN'T THE BIBLE READ ABOUT A HELLFIRE????
ahh I know I shouldn't yell at retawds like this
The bible does mention Hell Fire.
Revelations: 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.
They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelations: 20:14
Then death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire isthe second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
I took this from the text of a jehovahwitness book my parents had
Definition: The word “hell” is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered “hell”; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge′en‧na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).
Now here's some scriptures out of the same Bible Jerry uses
Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.)
Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.”
What is the ‘torment’ to which these texts refer? It is noteworthy that at Revelation 11:10 (KJ) reference is made to ‘prophets that torment those dwelling on the earth.’ Such torment results from humiliating exposure by the messages that these prophets proclaim. At Revelation 14:9-11 (KJ) worshipers of the symbolic “beast and his image” are said to be “tormented with fire and brimstone.” This cannot refer to conscious torment after death because “the dead know not any thing.” (Eccl. 9:5, KJ) Then, what causes them to experience such torment while they are still alive? It is the proclamation by God’s servants that worshipers of the “beast and his image” will experience second death, which is represented by “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” The smoke, associated with their fiery destruction, ascends forever because the destruction will be eternal and will never be forgotten. When Revelation 20:10 says that the Devil is to experience ‘torment forever and ever’ in “the lake of fire and brimstone,” what does that mean? Revelation 21:8 (KJ) says clearly that “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” means “the second death.” So the Devil’s being “tormented” there forever means that there will be no relief for him; he will be held under restraint forever, actually in eternal death. This use of the word “torment” (from the Greek ba′sa‧nos) reminds one of its use at Matthew 18:34, where the same basic Greek word is applied to a ‘jailer.’—RS, AT, ED, NW
Just to name a few...I could go on but Im not that intrested.
-
Is the soul the same as the spirit?
Eccl. 12:7: “Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit [or, life-force; Hebrew, ru′ach] itself returns to the true God who gave it.” (Notice that the Hebrew word for spirit is ru′ach; but the word translated soul is ne′phesh. The text does not mean that at death the spirit travels all the way to the personal presence of God; rather, any prospect for the person to live again rests with God. In similar usage, we may say that, if required payments are not made by the buyer of a piece of property, the property “returns” to its owner.) (KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy all here render ru′ach as “spirit.” NAB reads “life breath.”)
Eccl. 3:19: “There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [Hebrew, ru′ach].” (Thus both mankind and beasts are shown to have the same ru′ach, or spirit. For comments on verses 20, 21, see page 383.)
Heb. 4:12: “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul [Greek, psy‧khes′; “life,” NE] and spirit [Greek, pneu′ma‧tos], and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Observe that the Greek word for “spirit” is not the same as the word for “soul.”)
Does conscious life continue for a person after the spirit leaves the body?
Ps. 146:4: “His spirit [Hebrew, from ru′ach] goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.” (NAB, Ro, Yg, and Dy [145:4] here render ru′ach as “spirit.” Some translations say “breath.”) (Also Psalm 104:29)
-
Dogs wernt around at that time they are a breed of wolf
-
I don't even know why I bother talking to you guys, it's like talking to a wall.
I'm sure most people continuing this thread would be in agreement that you fail to see any point and we're the ones who actually listen and further some points instead of jumping around all over the place most of the time making no sense. This thread is an argumentative thread.
Yea, entertain me one last time liljp and falconer02 - What are your views on Love? Is it Real? Can humans Love?
Hard to tell. Relationship-wise? I've loved and lost. I thought I loved and then ended it because I didn't feel anything. Family-wise? I'd say yes since I'd throw myself infront of a bullet for any of them. Animal-wise? I think dogs are more noble than humans! But besides the point, this isn't a thread for your emotionally-distraught viewpoints. We should get back on topic...
You 2 will argue with anything. Your lives must suck and I'm suprised your not suicidal or homicidal. I would be suprised if one or both of you don't snap one day because of the way you think and view life.
I love my life! It's this damn cold weather that's getting me down. Arguing for the sake of learning things and telling people new things (the ones who actually take the time to read) is perfectly acceptable. That's the point of this entire thread. Also you're being very offensive now-- despite your post to me saying I was offensive and should be banned for laughing at that psycho Jerry character. Do I smell hypocracy?
You 2 are very depressing and very annoying. Like you have nothing better to do than try to make life look like a piece of *bleep* that means nothing and there is no beauty in it. Like we are animals or something. You 2 probably don't even believe in Love or feel that humans can Love
You are getting way too emotional and way too offensive for these threads. Please avoid argumentative threads since you obviously can't deal with it. And yes, biologically we are animals.
The word “hell” is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered “hell”; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge′en‧na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).
This is true as far as I know-- I actually read from the same source as you as well as researching it in college (just for the hell of it-- no pun intended). What it comes down to is just another story. People need to believe these things in order to show that there's a consequence of doing bad things. It's a scare tactic. In other countries people will say they put a curse on you if you do something bad for the exact same reason. In a broader aspect it tends to keep people in line.
-
Agreed it's all a scare tactic...
I'm just trying to prove how confused Jerry poo is...and also point out JehovahWitnesses are the only religious group that actually go by the Bible.
-
I don't even know why I bother talking to you guys, it's like talking to a wall.
At least we share a common view on something ;)
You 2 just can't seem to get it. It doesn't sink in or something. I don't know about the people that are not so lucky, maybe they are mean people that refuse God and God doesn't care. Maybe they are just UNLUCKY. So what I was Lucky and they are not. Some are Rich while others are POOR. What's your point? That was the whole point I made. I WAS LUCKY!!! ME, not anyone else, ME!! I NEVER SAID THIS DOG WOULD OF KILLED ME but would of bit me. I had been bit before a couple years earlier. IT tried to bite my face and was lucky I was able to push him down and turn so he only got my leg. I have had brushes with death, things that could of killed me. These are not them
I didn't get it. That's why I was asking you questions about what you said. I was posing a different view by using questions, with the hope that you would expand on what you meant. And wouldn't you know, you did expand on what you meant! Thank you. People ask questions when they're confused about something. I don't see a problem.
You 2 will argue with anything.
I will argue against the illogical, irrational, inconsistent, factually incorrect, etc. I address your posts a lot because you make a lot of illogical, irrational, inconsistent, factually incorrect posts. If you don't like that, you have no obligation to reply to me. You can put me on your ignore list (Profile --> Ignore User Options, in case you're not sure how) if that makes you happier and that will be the end of the story.
Your lives must suck and I'm suprised your not suicidal or homicidal. I would be suprised if one or both of you don't snap one day because of the way you think and view life.
My life is perfectly fine and I will continue to make it better.
You know extremely little about how I view life. In fact, you know so little it's kind of humorous and fun. You know one thing about me: my position on religion. That view is an extremely small section of my life that hardly ever effects me negatively. I have nothing to snap over. I'm very content with where I am currently and feel I will be even more content as I continue through life. I appreciate your assessment of my outlook on life though.
I'm not going to waist my time replying to either of you again because you try to make everything look so dark and gloomy. You 2 are very depressing and very annoying. Like you have nothing better to do than try to make life look like a piece of *bleep* that means nothing and there is no beauty in it. Like we are animals or something. You 2 probably don't even believe in Love or feel that humans can Love.
Life is by no means a "piece of *bleep*." Life means what you make it mean. The purpose of your life is whatever purpose you give it. That is beauty.
There is plenty of beauty everywhere you look. There are plenty of awesome mysteries floating around in nature and in the universe, and part of the beauty is working to uncover the logic behind those mysteries.
Yea, entertain me one last time liljp and falconer02 - What are your views on Love? Is it Real? Can humans Love?
I would gladly address this question if:
A) It had anything to do with the thread
B) You hadn't just said you're not going to reply to me anymore
Why would I waste my time on something off topic and something you don't even really want to hear?
-
the story of the great flood can be found in many geographical realms as well as in many different religious sects. It is not exclusive to the Bible.
-
Liljp617 knows his stuff. Everything he said is completely logical and rational. If you believe that one man built a humongous ship and put EVERY pair of animal on this earth to escape a flood of epic proportions, you got some issues. Almost every culture has stories like these (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth)
ESineM, I can conclude that you're either a or on your way to being a very intelligent and open minded being. Don't let anyone try to speak to you saying things like "Oh yeah the flood happened! That's why we dont have dinosaurs! Noah forgot them!" just ignore them because you will find yourself frustrated from stupidity and ignorance of raw proven facts. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS, look for answers, and try not to step in the BS.
http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg
There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but in the end is death thereof.
-
I really shouldn't be responding to this because I am so sad at what I'm reading. Have you ever heard the word "faith"? Faith is believing in something from the heart when your head tells you otherwise. All Christians have to do is believe what the word of God tells us. We don't have to have proof. Many scientists have tried to prove the flood happened and have succeeded in gathering infomation but haven't PROVED it yet. If we have to prove everything the Bible says, which by the way was given to us by the "All-Knowing", that would mean we would be on the same level with God, and He says we cannot be nor will we ever be "all-knowing". Those are questions that we will have to wait to have answered, and they will be answered. In the meantime, Christians don't have to prove anything to Man, just as non-believers and Agnostics don't have to prove to us why what we have faith in is "untrue". :angel11:
The problem with Faith is the question as to where it comes from. If you want to talk about Faith in a "higher force" or even some "almighty being" thats your choice. However when it comes to the bible, you really are not relying on your own faith. You are reading other human beings tell stories and they convince you to believe in their stories. If the bible was not there, you would still have faith maybe in a higher power.. however you wouldnt have 'faith' in Jesus Christ, or anything else in the bible unless you first read it. So you are now putting this power of faith in the hands of mere mortals, humans. As for proving or disproving, you generally cannot prove something untrue. This is always the case, the burden of proof lands on the person making the claim. Anyone can say "we all live in a giant petrie dish, or santa clause is really God in disguise. These things cannot be proven, and thats why they would not be taken seriously. What your basically saying when you ask people to have faith in the bible is. "Do not have faith in everyone elses book which contradicts ours, even though this book has just as much fact and information as any other, this one is the one you should be faithful too" and this would be told to you by a mere mortal... So you faith is in that mortal, not in a god. If you faith was truly in a god or whatever else you would like to call a higher force, then you wouldnt need the bible and all these false idols in a church or a book. As for faith, Im sure most people already are aware of what faith does... Read about Rev. Jim Jones and his cool aid, or David Koresh and his followers... there was heavens gate... there was Charlie Manson... All these people got their victims for only one reason, they all had "faith" in him and what he spoke... they believed it was from a higher power, and had no proof, just faith... and they ended up dead. Thats what faith can do when its put into a human or a book written by a human.
This kind of faith you're talking about has nothing to do with what the bible says about covenant faith.
If when you place the "worldly" faith as you describe onto the bible then you would get either idiots or insane people like you mentioned, who are either mistaken or misled. Just because someone says God told them something doesn't make it true. Jim Jones and so on, probably justified their actions with OT commands, e.g., Abraham who was asked to kill his child. But in such a case it was not a command that was part of God's normal modus operandi in relating to humanity in general, but a very specific command to initiate the covenant with the fathers of the faith and to set one of the very first archetypes for the coming redeemer.
Biblical faith is what you'd want to attack but you can't effectively criticize something that you hadn't analyze, much less don't know much about, of which I don't think you'd really care to learn.
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
Yes, the Scripture may have seeming contradictions and ambiguities, but they are not related to Salvation in any way. Time? A note? Lack of detail? A number of men in a battle? The color of a robe? They really don't affect someone's Salvation in Jesus Christ. So I am saying that there may be errors in the text. However, I am also saying that these "errors" have nothing to do with a person's salvation.
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an *bleep* and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
There are plenty more, many even focusing on quite significant aspects of the crucifixion, resurrection, and Nativity/birth:
Only two of the Gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin, the others make no mention of it -- to me, that seems like a fairly important detail of his being. Paul never mentions the virgin birth, and actually says he "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
You have contradictions involving the dates: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
How did Judas die?
a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There is disagreement over the details of the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
I'm sure you could find dozens and dozens more with simple Google searches. The Gospels and the Bible as a whole have contradictions; this is plain fact. You will not find an unbiased Biblical scholar who maintains the Bible is without contradiction or disagreement. I don't care if this influences anyone to change what they believe -- all I said was the Gospels are contradictory between one another.
Of course, much of this makes sense when you recognize that it's fairly unlikely the Gospels are first hand/eyewitness accounts and were written many years after these supposed events. It is also significant to recognize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source -- of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360.
This raises more questions: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
And we move on to Mark...if one analyzes Mark and puts it into the context of the history, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark.
And I'll stop there since I doubt anybody will even read this...
lilpj617:
The polemical websites, e.g., evilbible, religioustolerance, infidels.org, where your data is from are roughly the equivalent of raptureready, answersingenesis, etc. Propositionally, they're quantitatively assuming that it's as simple as pointing at two things and saying, "Look, they contradict!" But, at least in all the cases where atheists love to parade around, that's just like when my grandfather "proved" to me that 2=1. The wiser thing was for me to keep denying that 2=1 even though I couldn't explain the error in his proof.
If you disagree, I'll point out that general relativity and quantum field theory are incompatible, and conclude that we should give up on science. But obviously we shouldn't -- we just conclude that our theories aren't good enough yet.
Accordingly, all, if not most, of the references were worthless -- e.g., none are biblical scholars, some even had errors in their own books, the use of the KJV, obsolete arguments, and a couple more are basically paraphrases not at all intended as serious study translations.
Like their adversaries, their "answers" given "to those who ask" are designed less in terms of real conversation and more in terms of winning. The arguments used are a mix between disingenuous and just plain bad. This is why Ehrman trashed William Lane Craig so badly. If I were writing a book on "reasoning to avoid" I could pretty much just grab Geisler or Moreland and select a random page to get a good example. And those are the "pros." For some really bad examples, try internet stuff -- infidels.org, James White, the triablogue, etc.
Specifically, infidels.org is just as incredible as anything Josh McDowell writes. I hope people trust it no more than they would trust him.
Personally, I think the Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) does a better job.
Nice you got that from an infidel's site nonetheless christendom as a whole forgets to mention that the bible doesn't always follow chronological order.
.. find a different website (there are dozens upon dozens more that cite these very details)?
According to one of the sites where you copied-and-pasted the information (unless you got it from a similar site,) "common decency says that you should include a reference" to the website in question, especially when it is not your own words or "argument/research" but even copying non-copyrighted material.
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
These contradictions that have been brought up also help to verify the authenticity of the Scripture. Think about it...if you were to write a book after the fact (i.e. just make a book to control naive people), wouldn't you at least take the time to make sure that time, notes, detail syncs, robe colors and numbers were matching? Now, what I'm not saying is that this point in and of itself proves the authenticity of Scripture, but I believe that the contradictions help (but aren't the only thing that verifies authenticity).
-
Man, this thread is depressing
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The website(s) where lilpj got his info from, evilbible.com and infidels.org, are basically the equivalent of Skeptics and fundamentalist Prophecy Experts, because they have a little bit of knowledge and think it can take them everywhere. At first these websites seem to be full of astonishing new information -- just as does the 700 Club or Josh McDowell to so many -- but as you grow and learn more you'll discover that it's not even worth reading what they write.
I can try to briefly expound a bit on this more if you or anyone else would like but it will take quite awhile...
-
As far as lilpj's list...I did read it. I've also read it before many many times. There are some good questions there. Many of them have been answered, and rebutted, and re-answered, and beaten to death by intellectual experts on high and mighty discussion panels at prestigious universities. There are two sides to each thing you posted and the suggestion that there is no plausible rebuttal is simply untrue. But since a forum like this is no place for a discussion of that magnitude, I'll just have to hope that people who are interested use your post as a jumping-off point for more detailed, independent study.
It is often said that the Gospel accounts were obviously contrived in order to push the views certain groups had invented. But then you are faced directly with the fact that the Gospel writers were looking at each others' material when they wrote their own, and yet they showed no concern for making room for simplistic harmonization with the other Gospels. This stands as evidence that they weren't just making things up, because otherwise they would have made for easy harmonizations.
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
Yes, the Scripture may have seeming contradictions and ambiguities, but they are not related to Salvation in any way. Time? A note? Lack of detail? A number of men in a battle? The color of a robe? They really don't affect someone's Salvation in Jesus Christ. So I am saying that there may be errors in the text. However, I am also saying that these "errors" have nothing to do with a person's salvation.
I didn't say they were related to salvation. I said there are contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible.
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
OK, now you are the one who is giving generalities... could you give us examples of contradictions?
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8. Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an *bleep* and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
There are plenty more, many even focusing on quite significant aspects of the crucifixion, resurrection, and Nativity/birth:
Only two of the Gospels state Jesus was born of a virgin, the others make no mention of it -- to me, that seems like a fairly important detail of his being. Paul never mentions the virgin birth, and actually says he "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
You have contradictions involving the dates: According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
How did Judas die?
a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.
In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There is disagreement over the details of the crucifixion:
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
I'm sure you could find dozens and dozens more with simple Google searches. The Gospels and the Bible as a whole have contradictions; this is plain fact. You will not find an unbiased Biblical scholar who maintains the Bible is without contradiction or disagreement. I don't care if this influences anyone to change what they believe -- all I said was the Gospels are contradictory between one another.
Of course, much of this makes sense when you recognize that it's fairly unlikely the Gospels are first hand/eyewitness accounts and were written many years after these supposed events. It is also significant to recognize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source -- of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360.
This raises more questions: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew need to use ninety percent of somebody else's book? Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, need to use a written source like Mark? If Luke knew Paul and Paul knew Peter, and Peter told Paul many stories about Jesus, then Luke could have written about Jesus from what he himself had heard, rather than relying on second or third-hand information.
Even if it seems that Matthew and Luke were relying on written third or fourth hand testimony, all is not lost if Christians can show that Mark was based on eye-witness testimony. Then the Gospels would be based on eyewitness reports. Perhaps they had gone through one or two people before Matthew and Luke retold the stories, but there would still be a connection between the disciples and the Gospel writers.
And we move on to Mark...if one analyzes Mark and puts it into the context of the history, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark.
And I'll stop there since I doubt anybody will even read this...
lilpj617:
The polemical websites, e.g., evilbible, religioustolerance, infidels.org, where your data is from are roughly the equivalent of raptureready, answersingenesis, etc. Propositionally, they're quantitatively assuming that it's as simple as pointing at two things and saying, "Look, they contradict!" But, at least in all the cases where atheists love to parade around, that's just like when my grandfather "proved" to me that 2=1. The wiser thing was for me to keep denying that 2=1 even though I couldn't explain the error in his proof.
If you disagree, I'll point out that general relativity and quantum field theory are incompatible, and conclude that we should give up on science. But obviously we shouldn't -- we just conclude that our theories aren't good enough yet.
Accordingly, all, if not most, of the references were worthless -- e.g., none are biblical scholars, some even had errors in their own books, the use of the KJV, obsolete arguments, and a couple more are basically paraphrases not at all intended as serious study translations.
Like their adversaries, their "answers" given "to those who ask" are designed less in terms of real conversation and more in terms of winning. The arguments used are a mix between disingenuous and just plain bad. This is why Ehrman trashed William Lane Craig so badly. If I were writing a book on "reasoning to avoid" I could pretty much just grab Geisler or Moreland and select a random page to get a good example. And those are the "pros." For some really bad examples, try internet stuff -- infidels.org, James White, the triablogue, etc.
Specifically, infidels.org is just as incredible as anything Josh McDowell writes. I hope people trust it no more than they would trust him.
Personally, I think the Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) does a better job.
Do you deny the Bible contradicts itself on more than minor details? Could you point to the specific examples I gave that are not in the Bible?
Would it have made any difference if I opened my own Bible and made the list myself?
Nice you got that from an infidel's site nonetheless christendom as a whole forgets to mention that the bible doesn't always follow chronological order.
.. find a different website (there are dozens upon dozens more that cite these very details)?
According to one of the sites where you copied-and-pasted the information (unless you got it from a similar site,) "common decency says that you should include a reference" to the website in question, especially when it is not your own words or "argument/research" but even copying non-copyrighted material.
The source is the Bible; I didn't think citing was necessary. People are free to go look up the references given in the examples in their own Bible.
-
that to me is so hard to explain all I know is 40 days and 40 nights
-
It is kinda like 2 day, if some one started building a ARK the size of Noahs, And was telling u the only way 2 save ur self was 2 get on the Ark or Boat what would you do.
Laugh in My face and say it want Happen or Help Build the Ark or Boat and save as many lifes as You can :angel12:
That what Happen 2 Noah, so he saved his own Family and 2 of each kind of animals that would fit in the ark, the ones that could swim stay.
You have search for Yourself. every ones views are Different.
That what is wrong 2 day Religion. Religion does not save you. People fighting over it Religion :(
-
But my only quarrel with it is there are a ton of flood stories from various ancient cultures all happening at different time periods.
Maybe it means that something in fact happened, and that's why we have all these flood stories all over the world.
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.
Where is the evidence of this unimaginably huge boat? Archaeological, paleontological, historical, anything...nope, not a shred.
I reckon the ark would come to rest at Mt. Ararat ....obviously. Of course, over the past 4000 years it has probably been destroyed.
Would you like to explain your version?
Version of what? There have been numerous legendary, mythical tales of lone men/families surviving global floods and repopulating/saving the Earth. Why should I treat this one differently than I treat the others?
I would say one story prefigures Christ, mirrors Baptism and God's action with God's people, and is therefore inspired, while the other one does not.
Myths are 'true' only in as much as they reflect Christ.
Current scholarship reasonably places the account of Gilgamesh as predating any Hebrew Scriptures. The earliest Gilgamesh accounts (Sumerian) definitely predate a Hebrew identity. Even the Akkadian versions do. But despite the opinion of many learned archeologists -- the Noahic flood and the event of Noah was the source for the Gilgamesh epic as well as the source for other 200+ flood accounts around the globe, respectively. The other accounts were most likely corrupted after mankind was dispersed at Babel.
Other than Aleister Crowley's fake modern 'witchcraft' by overpriced Llewellyn Press books, the most popular form of Gilgamesh most familiar to us was written down after the Hebrew account of Noah and comes from Assyria, when under the great warrior-scholar Ashurbanipal the familiar twelve tablets of Gilgamesh were preserved. This was in the 7th century BCE. The version may be anywhere from three to six hundred years older. I can't recall if the tablet was from Ashurbanipal's era or just added to the library of Nineveh under Ashurbanipal. Given the interaction of Assyria with Israel & Judah, it is unlikely that Assyrians would turn to the Pentateuch for their Flood account because they already had their own version in circulation.
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.
Why is this "Noah" character extremely similar to multiple other mythical characters of other ancient civilizations (Gilgamesh particularly)? Why is the story of Noah's Ark extremely similar to multiple other global flood myths of other ancient civilizations (again, Gilgamesh in particular).
Floods should be a common motif of Sumerian mythology for a few reasons.
First, look at their meaning. (The floods are a symbol largely of chaos, primordial chaos. Thus they are a common theme in a lot of ANE literature, period.)
Next, the flood accounts are not that similar. (Though if you want to look into this you should read Enuma Elish & Atrahasis)
I think the simple explanation is this. All probably descend from an actual flood. I would say the flood of Noah, be it local or global is the source of this. All the ANE cultures time a flood at roughly the same time, save one. (Egypt) Interestingly enough though, prior to this time period, all the cultures have really ridiculously long recorded life lengths.
The reality is that Gilgamesh ends up being standardized IIRC later than Moses, around 1000 to 1300 BCE. (Assuming Mosaic authorship of the flood narrative is going to have to be a given here to get that date.) IIRC, however, it is generally accepted that the Gilgamesh tale in earliest forms predates Moses by nearly a thousand years. But then again, if Moses either used sources, (which conservatives grant as a couple are cited in the Pentateuch) we do not know their age. However, the biblical flood account is honestly much less full of flagrant propaganda imagery than the mythological accounts because the difference isn't merely one of degree.
There's also more to the Gilgamesh Epic than the deluge tablet/story.
(See below.)
Look up "The Deluge" and tell me what you think. Just curious.
There are similarities. In fact, many cultures (but not necessarily all) have a basic Flood story: the gods or God sweep the earth with water and boats, mountains, caves, etc. are used to save a remnant of mankind (often with animals).
The account in Gilgamesh is actually transposed from the preceding epic of Atrahasis. I can't recall if Utnapishtim ("Noah") is meant to be Atrahasis or if they're two separate characters from different city-state myths (I think the latter, given how extensively the Gilgamesh epic borrows from Atrahasis without including the plagues and kingship of Atrahasis in the story of Utnapishtim).
From a Christian point of view, this ties in with Acts 17 (all men groping toward God) and the idea that pagan myths may preserve a kernel of truth ("common grace"). Heck, look at how we've found that the Iliad reflects a real conflict at a real Troy! Obviously, the Greek account is hardly what truly happened as Mycenaeans clashed with Hittite allies. Regardless, myths are not entirely unreliable. Many Near Eastern scholars are sure there was a historical Gilgamesh whose legacy caused a legend to arise (compare with the historical Arthur).
It is also important to note what R.O. noted: there is much more to the Gilgamesh epic than simply the Flood, and the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh is different than the more familiar Akkadian/Babylonian one. So if the author or authors of the Genesis was attempting to borrow from a pagan culture, he or she or they proved to be very selective. In fact, the way that the Gilgamesh epic reads, the story of Utnapishtim is clearly familiar to the audience and the Gilgamesh epic was not the first time it was heard (proven by the earlier Atrahasis account.)
Nonetheless, from a non-Christian point of view, it makes sense that as mankind spread out from Northern Africa and the Middle East (and generally all of the early civilizations that lived near rivers), the destructive nature of floods would work their way into the mythic accounts. And a destructive flood story doesn't make sense without survivors. But from a Christian point of view, these pagan flood stories (whether Utnapishtim or the familiar Greek story of Deucalion) are a fractured visions of the true story. Even the Norse had a myth about Ymir, a giant whose death at the hands of the gods caused a flood that killed all but two giants. From his body the earth was made and from his blood the seas were made -- compared to the death of the Tiamat in the Babylonian account, who was slain by Marduk and her body and blood used in a similar way. Current evolutionary theory holds that humans did not evolve independently in various parts of the world (as was once considered): we are all from the same stock. Coupled with the Christian understanding of how mankind twists the truth, it seems consistent (if not convincing) to see all Flood accounts as memories of a true flood (whether local or global).
As for the key differences: in the Gilgamesh account, there is conflict among the gods. Utnapishtim ("Noah") is saved because Enki finds a way to tell a human about the plan of the gods without directly doing so (he whispers the secret to Utnapishtim's reed walls). On top of this, gods like Inanna/Ishtar are not involved in the decision and are distraught to see humankind and the animals killed. Utnapishtim is also a bit grim, giving his house to the man who helps seal up his boat (fat lot of good that'll do him). There is indeed a sweet-smelling sacrifice that causes the gods to swear not to kill mankind in this fashion again. If I can be brutally honest, the corresponding segment in Genesis seems like the most reasonable place for a non-Christian to say: "Aha! Look at the similar phrases and plotting!"
Still, the Flood myth was older than Gilgamesh, and the fact that the Hebrews did not borrow any of the other trappings of the Gilgamesh myth, it doesn't seem conclusive that Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh, even if one doesn't have faith in the truth of the Word. Yes, there is an archetypal appearance of a snake (a snake steals a life-giving plants from Gilgamesh), but it only superficially resembles Eden's serpent. Furthermore, while there is a life-giving plant (renewed youth!) in Gilgamesh, it is underwater though unguarded by the gods, so it hardly seems like a predecessor or real echo of the tree of life in Eden. I think the Gilgamesh flood account is like the (breathtakingly beautiful!) Canaanite Baal epic in regards to the Hebrew Scriptures: there are enough similarities to raise a fair question, but enough differences to lead one to suspect there is either a lost source for both or to understand by faith that the pagan accounts are fractured versions of the truth.
-
Interestingly enough, many of the writings in the Bible (including the gospels) do not make the same claims. They contradict each other on what would seem to be very important details.
Yes, the Scripture may have seeming contradictions and ambiguities, but they are not related to Salvation in any way. Time? A note? Lack of detail? A number of men in a battle? The color of a robe? They really don't affect someone's Salvation in Jesus Christ. So I am saying that there may be errors in the text. However, I am also saying that these "errors" have nothing to do with a person's salvation.
I didn't say they were related to salvation. I said there are contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible.
Just because they're different doesn't mean one story is correct and the other is not, that even though the end result is the same, the accounts are different and so that someone's account of details is wrong. As a matter of fact, I don't see why two different accounts can't both be right. It's only two contradictory accounts that can't be right and I recognize very deeply that the Gospels are flat-out contradictory from the standpoint of post-Enlightenment historical standards.
But what reason do we have for universalizing post-Enlightenment historical standards? You need to subject the presuppositions from which you are analyzing Christian doctrine to the same rigor of criticism you are applying to Christian doctrine. The entire appeal of Enlightenment criticism is that it claims to be "reasonable" or "neutral." But upon even an ounce of inspection it turns out not to be "neutral" at all. Secular thought fostered the view that all accounts had to be completely uniform in order for them all to be true. Then it was realized that in fact they don't because different people have different perspectives, at which point they came up with the equally fallacious value of "diversity," meaning that we toss a bunch of contradictory things together and act like there's no conflict.
Neither should be followed. Instead of abstract uniformity, we need to recognize and affirm real diversity, which is the existence of variance in perspective and personality, whether cultural or individual. Instead of "diversity," we need to recognize and affirm organic unity between people in the fact that we are made and renewed in the image of God, and in union with Christ in the Church we commune together with the Trinity and with each other; this diversity brings us together on the grounds of similarity, not different, but revels in the existence of (non-contradictory) variance.
lilpj617:
The polemical websites, e.g., evilbible, religioustolerance, infidels.org, where your data is from are roughly the equivalent of raptureready, answersingenesis, etc. Propositionally, they're quantitatively assuming that it's as simple as pointing at two things and saying, "Look, they contradict!" But, at least in all the cases where atheists love to parade around, that's just like when my grandfather "proved" to me that 2=1. The wiser thing was for me to keep denying that 2=1 even though I couldn't explain the error in his proof.
If you disagree, I'll point out that general relativity and quantum field theory are incompatible, and conclude that we should give up on science. But obviously we shouldn't -- we just conclude that our theories aren't good enough yet.
Accordingly, all, if not most, of the references were worthless -- e.g., none are biblical scholars, some even had errors in their own books, the use of the KJV, obsolete arguments, and a couple more are basically paraphrases not at all intended as serious study translations.
Like their adversaries, their "answers" given "to those who ask" are designed less in terms of real conversation and more in terms of winning. The arguments used are a mix between disingenuous and just plain bad. This is why Ehrman trashed William Lane Craig so badly. If I were writing a book on "reasoning to avoid" I could pretty much just grab Geisler or Moreland and select a random page to get a good example. And those are the "pros." For some really bad examples, try internet stuff -- infidels.org, James White, the triablogue, etc.
Specifically, infidels.org is just as incredible as anything Josh McDowell writes. I hope people trust it no more than they would trust him.
Personally, I think the Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) does a better job.
Do you deny the Bible contradicts itself on more than minor details? Could you point to the specific examples I gave that are not in the Bible?
Would it have made any difference if I opened my own Bible and made the list myself?
Well, there are all kinds of ways these events could have happened which would allow for the diversity of the accounts we get in the Gospels. From that I conclude that skeptics are just trying to see contradictions when there really isn't a problem at all. Take for a couple of very easy examples, Matthew and Luke-Acts, of Juda's death and/or the purchase of the fields: Simply put, he hangs himself, falls flat on his face, and gets ripped up in the fall. The word for headlong in prenes, which doesn't connote being upside-down but instead being flat on your face, as opposed to on your back (which would be 'uptios', the opposite of 'prenes').
Much more interesting is that Judas is here said to have bought the field while in the Matthean account the chief priests buy the field. The obvious way for these to coincide is an indirect purchase, so the only reason to charge contradiction is if one has come trying to find contradiction; otherwise the issue doesn't even occur to us and we move on with our lives. Clearly, though, since Luke relied on Matthew, Luke didn't particularly care to write in such a way that 21st century atheists would not have opportunity to search for contradictions in the text, and I don't see why 21st Christians should care any more than Luke did.
I think that the only way to get a contradiction out of Matthew's and Luke's accounts of what happened to Judas is to be trying to find one. But, in principle, my point is that the easy conclusion to draw is that our understandings of the text just aren't good enough yet.
Let's draw the parallel:
Quantum Field Theory is a scientific reading of the world.
General Relativity is a scientific reading of the world.
Our interpretation of Luke is a Biblical reading of the world.
Our interpretation of Matthew is a Biblical reading of the world.
Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are incompatible.
Our interpretation of Luke and our interpretation of Matthew are incompatible.
From the incompatibility of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity we conclude that there is something wrong with Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity, not with scientific readings of the world.
From the incompatibility of our interpretations of Matthew and Luke we conclude that there is something wrong with or interpretations, not with Biblical readings of the world.
-
Oh hey, Stealth! You've returned once again I see. G'day, sir!
Maybe it means that something in fact happened, and that's why we have all these flood stories all over the world.
I actually do believe something happened...just not a flood of epic proportions written in the bible or any tale around the world for that matter. Perhaps a man just built a boat and saved his family and livestock during the end of the last ice age. Maybe it killed off all of his neighbors and he lived to spread the tale...this is just my assumption.
There are similarities. In fact, many cultures (but not necessarily all) have a basic Flood story: the gods or God sweep the earth with water and boats, mountains, caves, etc. are used to save a remnant of mankind (often with animals).
I read the entire post below this and it all seems reasonable. There are technical similarities and differences. I'd write more but it's 3 AM here. Maybe tomorrow. Thanks for the details though.
-
THis thread gets :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :thumbsup:
-
ok so species of every kind learn how to get smarter adapting to our enviroments but lets face it..... if we came from monkeys then why are monkeys not turning into ppl everyday and there would be someone new walking out of the woods everyday LOL.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
if we came from monkeys then why are monkeys not turning into ppl everyday
We didn't come from monkeys. Do your *bleep* research!
-
Hi esine,
Although we are free to practice any religion we choose or not practice any religion at all because we do have free will, The Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true and historically accurate by secular professionals such as scientists and archeologists.
As a Christian, I believe that God told Noah to build the ark to protect his animals from the flood when it rained for forty days and forty nights.
Have a great day!
-
The Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true and historically accurate by secular professionals such as scientists and archeologists.
False and false. Christianity is full of myths and I would not consider people living over 900 years to reach to 'historically accurate'. The Noahs Ark myth is furthest from what actually happened-- the exact opposite happened actually. Every 10-20,000 years, the Middle Eastern and Northern African world goes from lake-infested fertile land to dried up unlivable desert. Back and forth due to the worlds axis. Within the last 10,000 years, the area went from fertile to dry once more only in a few hundred years as it always does. There were lots of large lakes all over the Sahara, but they're gone now (retreated under the surface of africa).
The Ark myth could have formed due to the strong monsoon rains over the areas (maybe a farmer saved his animals on a small primitive boat because he couldn't get out of the area? I havent a clue and neither does anyone else.), but to say that the entire world was engulfed in water and that he saved every species of animal is just a foolish exhaggeration. Really think about that. There is no real evidence of this myth being true unless you dive into the disgusting logic of creationist science.
Though further into the bible, we do get events that run parallel to recorded history so I will give you that. I believe we've been over this already...not sure yet. It's been a while since I read this post.
-
:notworthy:
-
Actually, this explains it all......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgPp--ttTow
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :bootyshake: :wave:
-
I believe that if you want to keep your sanity and friends just avoid this discussion altogether. God is everywhere. :icon_rr:
-
The Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true and historically accurate by secular professionals such as scientists and archeologists.
False and false. Christianity is full of myths and I would not consider people living over 900 years to reach to 'historically accurate'. The Noahs Ark myth is furthest from what actually happened-- the exact opposite happened actually. Every 10-20,000 years, the Middle Eastern and Northern African world goes from lake-infested fertile land to dried up unlivable desert. Back and forth due to the worlds axis. Within the last 10,000 years, the area went from fertile to dry once more only in a few hundred years as it always does. There were lots of large lakes all over the Sahara, but they're gone now (retreated under the surface of africa).
The Ark myth could have formed due to the strong monsoon rains over the areas (maybe a farmer saved his animals on a small primitive boat because he couldn't get out of the area? I havent a clue and neither does anyone else.), but to say that the entire world was engulfed in water and that he saved every species of animal is just a foolish exhaggeration. Really think about that. There is no real evidence of this myth being true unless you dive into the disgusting logic of creationist science.
Though further into the bible, we do get events that run parallel to recorded history so I will give you that. I believe we've been over this already...not sure yet. It's been a while since I read this post.
Really...so you believe Christianity is full of myths huh? ??? Well. let's see if you feel the same way on the day your life ends here on earth and you stand before God at the judgement seat of Christ. On that day, that "myth" as you so believe will become all too real I promise you. Oh BTW...Christianity is based on faith...not science. Someone once said to me that if I could "prove" that miracles exist, then he would believe. I simply told him that "when you go to sleep tonight and wake up in the morning and you are still alive and breathing (on this side of the soil), you'll have your proof." There isn't a person on this planet that can absolutely guarantee that when they go to sleep at night that they will wake up the next day. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble here but WE don't control how long we will live on this earth nor do I have to ever "prove" anything that is contained in the pages of scripture (The Bible.) I believe everything the Bible says regardless of whether I completely understand (or can prove it). You either believe it or you don't. It's really that simple. The choice is yours. Just remember, with that choice come eternal consequences :dontknow:
-
Really...so you believe Christianity is full of myths huh?
Yes. By definition many of the stories are.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
Well. let's see if you feel the same way on the day your life ends here on earth and you stand before God at the judgement seat of Christ. On that day, that "myth" as you so believe will become all too real I promise you.
I'm going to quote an atheist from another thread on this forum--
It won't be just atheists standing there but 4 billion other people who aren't Christians. I would ask this god why he behaves like such a 2-year-old and created a world where all of our science and logic points AWAY from him.
Your promise has no solid ground and I would never stand with your personalized god if it existed. It is a very scary one and there are plenty of nicer ones out there that I could choose from that are just as real to the believers as you are to yours. Therefore I regard this as nothing more than a petty curse against me.
I simply told him that "when you go to sleep tonight and wake up in the morning and you are still alive and breathing (on this side of the soil), you'll have your proof." There isn't a person on this planet that can absolutely guarantee that when they go to sleep at night that they will wake up the next day.
That's not a miracle. It's not supernatural-- it does not rise above natures confines. Life and death-- it's natural. It's reality. If I woke up with superpowers granted to me from a deity (or deities), then yes. Miracle. If I woke up to an Italian mobster pointing a .38 at my head yelling at me for dumping his daughter, that's just plain reality.
WE don't control how long we will live on this earth nor do I have to ever "prove" anything that is contained in the pages of scripture (The Bible.) I believe everything the Bible says regardless of whether I completely understand (or can prove it).
If you don't have to prove anything, you don't have to explain anything. It's the easy fold-your-arms-and-walk-away route. The original post is asking for an explanation. I gave them one. You didn't.
...but for your sake, do a little research once and a while about things not in the bible or that contradict it. Don't try to connect everything with it. Jump out of the box once in a while and take in some fresh air. You'd really be surprised at some of the stuff out here. Good and bad.
Just remember, with that choice come eternal consequences
Consequences? Sure. Eternal consequences? Unless you have undeniable proof that rises above skepticism, you have nothing more than a guess. And there are an infinite amount of guesses out there.
-
I do believe in evolution, BTW, but who is to say that God didn't do that too? ;)
Evolution is not something one has to "believe" in. And god did not use evolution in his creation, if your god of choice is the god of the Bible. Mushy Christians only say this when the "logical" part of their brain whispers that the whole 6,000 years bit is utterly ridiculous.
The only practical application the fable of Noah's Ark has today is that it makes a cute theme for a nursery...well, "cute" to those that partake in such acts as chopping off part of their baby son's genitals, dunking their infant in magic water, and other silly acts to please their god.
-
hahaha how do you know God didn't use evolution in his creation? You know God? With God nothing is impossible.
Isn't it Scientific proof that circumcision makes for a cleaner environment down there on guys?!? Not always a religious thing to do this but a Cleanliness thing.
Because the Bible distinctly says that animals were made on one day, while Adam was made on another and from dirt - not monkeys - duh. <-- lulz at my Christianese logic
In regards to circumcision, once again you show you do absolutely no research of your own and instead rely on popular myths to run your life. A member with a jacket on it is only unclean if the guy himself is an unclean person, a.k.a. too lazy to take the extra couple of seconds during his daily shower to wash "under the hood". Circumcision is medically necessary in a few rare cases, but for the average healthy guy, the parents really did him a disservice sexually if they opted to succumb to ridiculous tradition.
Why is god so interested in a flap of skin that he himself put there to begin with?? Srsly...it is beyond strange. "If you love me, you'll chop off part of your precious newborn's *bleep*." ??!!? I ask: why is FGM in Africa not okay then? Just because it's not "for god"? (edit: well not Jesus, anyway)
-
If you believe what is contained in the scriptures (the Bible) even though you may not understand everything, it still comes down to one simple point. Faith. I believe the WHOLE Bible, not just certain parts of it that I don't understand. I believe Noah's Ark existed because it's in the Bible. I believe people used to live to 900 or so years old because it's in the Bible. I believe God through Moses split the Red Sea because it's in the Bible. But to those who just think that The Bible is just a "book" and not the word of God, the scripture says that "this is foolishness to them." It comes down to you either believe it or you don't.
People say God doesn't exist because we can not see Him. The Bible says that if we were to ever look upon God "as He is" (in Spirit) our minds would not be able to handle it and we would go insane. Why, well... I believe it is because God is Holy and since we are not, "that which is imperfect (us) cannot look upon someone that IS perfect (God) and live. (just my opinion.) Can you see air? no...but it exists. Give me a scientific definition for what LOVE is? Explain to me why some of the most highly educated doctors of our day, when they have done all they know how to do in saving someones life and can do no more, when God heals them, they have no explanation because they can't "scientifically" explain it?
Sometimes God doesn't heal, sometimes babies die, when plane crashes occur, sometimes everyone on board is killed except one person...why did all those innocent people have to die on 9/11? And many other millions of questions of which we may never know an answer to. Whether we are willing to accept it or not, God does NOT have to account for Himself to anyone. He is God! Many people have tried to disprove the authenticity of the Bible through many years of scientific trials and tests and to this very day...no one has been ever been able to do it.
I believe the Bible is the word of God and every word in it is truth (even though I don't understand it all.) I believe that Jesus is God and He is the ONLY way to Heaven! If you don't believe that then that is up to you...God gave you that choice and that freedom. It's called free will. He has never nor will ever force himself on anyone. You can choose to believe whatever you want. But when Jesus said "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and The Life and no one will come unto the Father but by me" that is a very Bold statement. No other person or "deity" has ever made such a claim.
It all comes down to Faith of which God gave every person a measure of. Let's put it this way, I would hate to believe in something (or someone else) and find out I was wrong in the end. Are you really willing to "risk" where you will spend your eternity on that? I'm not. Whether you believe it or not....Hell is just as real as Heaven and they are both permanent. No person on this Earth will ever be able to understand everything about who God is or why He does what He does or doesn't do or...that He even exists. The Bible says He does...that all I need to hear.
If you are looking for God to prove and explain Himself so that you will believe, well there is scripture for that too. Jesus said..."blessed are those that believe, yet do not see." God simply wants us to trust Him and believe FIRST and then move on from there...but then again, He may not (or ever) explain himself. He is God and I am not, that is why I need Him. Some people in this world feel they don't need anyone including God. Well, that is their choice but i can guarantee you that if a person who believes that, ever find themselves in a situation that "even they" cannot handle", they might find themselves calling on the God of the Bible for help that THEY say doesn't exist.
-
Evolution - the process of evolving; gradual development or growth
Evolutionism - theory of gradual biological change over time; a belief in bilogical evolution
Evolve - to progress or develop gradually
We are all Star Dust! Quit with the ooo ooo ah ah! We are Mammals.
Mammal - any of a class of warmblooded vertebrates that suckle their young
Ever heard of this...I come from the water, I crawled up on the shore? Ever heard that we were fish before Apes?
Um, you certainly don't need to define scientific terms for me. Especially so vaguely like that.
The problem with your "star dust" theory is that in the Bible it says dust from the ground, as in dirt. And you still did not solve the problem as to why god would say that he made all of the species of animals on one day and people on another. Why not just throw out the Bible altogether if you're not even going to follow what god says on page one? You guys sure love to refer to it when defending your god...
-
Now why do you talk such blasphemy? Have you ever read the bible? Have you ever picked it up? What are the first 3 words of the bible?
Let me point you to some scripture since you keep saying we are from dirt.
Genesis 3:19
"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
STAR DUST ANYONE??
I think blasphemy tastes delicious in the morning.
And once again marieelissa you embarass yourself by being so quick to point fingers and not doing your own friggin' research, because don't you know by now you are going to be called out when you're WRONG?
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." - Genesis 2:7-8
-
First of all, for those that beleive, they don't need any proof, and for those that do, you need to have all kinds of proof. with that said, yes, there are many inconsistancies in the Bible. But we must remember that it was written by mortal men, many generations after the events took place. So the accuracies of every story could be questioned. I do beleive there was a great flood, and a very good man, who hung on the cross, that part of the bible is consistant.
-
First of all, for those that beleive, they don't need any proof, and for those that do, you need to have all kinds of proof. with that said, yes, there are many inconsistancies in the Bible. But we must remember that it was written by mortal men, many generations after the events took place. So the accuracies of every story could be questioned. I do beleive there was a great flood, and a very good man, who hung on the cross, that part of the bible is consistant.
You're right, those that don't believe...need proof. but...If you believe the Bible to be 'the word of God" and not just another book of "nice stories and fables" as some do, than proof is really not needed. You just accept it by faith. As far as Biblical Inconsistencies, it may seem inconsistent to you if you look at it from a human "logical" or "intellectual" position but as I mentioned on previous posts, the Bible is a book of Faith. You either believe it or you don't. It is not a book of logic or humanism. You cannot look at it from a "carnal" mindset. That's like saying you can "bind" a spirit with physical chains. It may have been written by mortal men, but men who were "divinely inspired" and guided by God as they wrote it. And as far as the timing as to exactly when they wrote it, scripture teaches that God is timeless. He could have inspired them to write it anytime. That's why Jesus said "I am the same yesterday, today and forever" He is the first and the last, the beginning and the end. And BTW...That "very good man" that hung on the cross, was God "in the flesh" and still is God today!...Jesus, who paid the price for my sin...and yours. :angel12:
-
I believe that people take the Bible to literally. I think they were stories gathered together to be a "moral compass". I mean if you ask any person today if they believe that a shrub will talk to them, and if it is possible, a majority will tell you no.
I think that if you want to believe in God, He will be satisified if you believe in your way. You don't have to believe the way man tells you to. Just my opinion, not disagreeing with anyone here...
I do believe in evolution, BTW, but who is to say that God didn't do that too? ;)
Well your right to a degree I'm a spiritual person but I dont believe in the noah's ark story verse its a parable mostly, but I do believe in god, and I mean no disrespect to those who believe in and fallow this story. :peace:
-
A story Christians stole from the Sumerians??
-
Jesus was God's only begotten son.
And the Devil is his Rival...HA HA HA HA HA!
-
:thumbsup: Just listen to Bill Cosby's ... NOAH.... and he will explain it all.
-
First of all, for those that beleive, they don't need any proof, and for those that do, you need to have all kinds of proof. with that said, yes, there are many inconsistancies in the Bible. But we must remember that it was written by mortal men, many generations after the events took place. So the accuracies of every story could be questioned. I do beleive there was a great flood, and a very good man, who hung on the cross, that part of the bible is consistant.
You're right, those that don't believe...need proof. but...If you believe the Bible to be 'the word of God" and not just another book of "nice stories and fables" as some do, than proof is really not needed. You just accept it by faith. As far as Biblical Inconsistencies, it may seem inconsistent to you if you look at it from a human "logical" or "intellectual" position but as I mentioned on previous posts, the Bible is a book of Faith. You either believe it or you don't. It is not a book of logic or humanism. You cannot look at it from a "carnal" mindset. That's like saying you can "bind" a spirit with physical chains. It may have been written by mortal men, but men who were "divinely inspired" and guided by God as they wrote it. And as far as the timing as to exactly when they wrote it, scripture teaches that God is timeless. He could have inspired them to write it anytime. That's why Jesus said "I am the same yesterday, today and forever" He is the first and the last, the beginning and the end. And BTW...That "very good man" that hung on the cross, was God "in the flesh" and still is God today!...Jesus, who paid the price for my sin...and yours. :angel12:
So basically what you're saying is that you started from the point of the acceptance of faith you were raised around without critical analysis. So if you'd been born to a Muslim family in Egypt, you'd be equally certain of the message Prophet Muhammad received from the archangel Gabriel.
-
So basically what you're saying is that you started from the point of the acceptance of faith you were raised around without critical analysis. So if you'd been born to a Muslim family in Egypt, you'd be equally certain of the message Prophet Muhammad received from the archangel Gabriel.
That's exactly right. :thumbsup:
-
So basically what you're saying is that you started from the point of the acceptance of faith you were raised around without critical analysis. So if you'd been born to a Muslim family in Egypt, you'd be equally certain of the message Prophet Muhammad received from the archangel Gabriel.
That's exactly right. :thumbsup:
I'll second that and throw this in the mix. The Inuit Eskimos believe that the moon god, named Aningan, chased his brother, the sun, across the sky, and lives in a giant igloo in the sky. They have no belief in things such as 'Heaven' or 'Hell' either. So it follows that had you been born an Inuit....you can put that one together I believe.