How Has the Bible Survived Against All Odds?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
complete spin!, that's all i can say!

Hmmmm...you can do better than that, can't you?














Oh, wait, you haven't shown me any EVIDENCE that you can do better, so I can't say whether you can do better or not, can I?

 

[Mattius_]

What more do you want? its a dead matter; You want it to go further, I believe i said everything i needed to say in my first post, and i stand by that.

every point you made had facts that were easily debateable. as a consequence, we could throw slander on either side all day long about 'truth'

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Kerrie, I can cite instances for each of my comments if you like...

I don't believe it was the comments Kerrie was referring to, but the name calling. Most forums, this included, will ban folk for name calling and insulting behaviour.

It is extremely easy to be drawn into that situation. The key is to avoid letting your emotions be lured into reacting. I always count it as a personal victory when I can avoid the emotional knee-jerk type reactions to stupidity or anger in another. When you do fall victim to letting your emotions into the act, can you truly say your in control of your own thoughts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
What more do you want? its a dead matter; You want it to go further, I believe i said everything i needed to say in my first post, and i stand by that.

every point you made had facts that were easily debateable. as a consequence, we could throw slander on either side all day long about 'truth'

In other words, you won't refute what I said, and you chose to flame me instead?

 

[Laser Eyes]

Most forums, this included, will ban folk for name calling and insulting behaviour.

But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

Nice try...read back to where I said I was sorry if you actually wrote it.

Now, why don't you try staying on topic, everyone...especially you, LE! It was your thread, after all(and I apologise for my contribution to the hijack)

 

[Laser Eyes]

Nice try...read back to where I said I was sorry if you actually wrote it.

Now, why don't you try staying on topic, everyone...especially you, LE! It was your thread, after all(and I apologise for my contribution to the hijack)

Well it was a pretty half-hearted apology Zero, but at least it was an apology. Actually I had dropped it and I wasn't going to mention it again. But radagast made a comment that I thought called for reply.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

Which is a pity, but these are much harder things to ascertain. While Slander certainly would be grounds for expulsion, it's hard to prove. And take lying, even if you know something said is false, it's an order of magnitude harder to know that the person making the false claim, knew it was false. I disagree with many, many theist here, but I would never assume they were lying.

Also, does the fact the forums don't police all possible transgressions make some OK? If this were part of arguing a point, it would seem very close to the Tu Quoque (you too) flaw.

If, however, you were referring to anything I've said, please point them out, so that I may address them.

 

[megashawn]

Well, there really isn't much more to be said. As Guybrush Threepwood linked to the Skeptics bible, Zero presented arguements for each of LE's points, which have yet to been responded to.

I myself have asserted that before you try to prove the Bible is gods word, you need to prove god is an actual being capable of producing a word.

There is not one single person on this Earth that can prove god is anything more then imaginary. And when I say prove, I don't mean pointing at a tree or cloud and saying "See".

And if your one of those people who simply attributed every little part of existence as proof of god, then you are simply altering reality so that you don't have to cope with it.

Also, I would like proof that the Quran is not God's word, that the Necronomicon is simply a piece of fiction, rather then the true (I think one of the oldest) explanation for the origins of existence.

You see, if you want to "Prove anything about a God" to a person who doesn't believe in a god, you're not only going to have to offer solid proof on your belief, but also why 75% of the rest of the world has gotten it wrong.

And to me, this is the biggest proof. If there was one true god, why is there all these millions of religions? It also seems that if gods word were so precious, he'd been able to had it written in a single language all man could understand, and have the original texts.

Is there one scrap of original bible text around anymore?

Sure, someones going to say "Oh, satan did it to confuse us" or "They are false idols", simply thumping another generic response out the bible for a question that gets right to the heart of the matter.

I don't know if this is completely on topic, but its a lil bit closer.

 

[Nade_Fodder]

I`m new to this so I`m just going to put a few ideas forward.

If the bible is the word of God then obviously he knew nothing about physics or time managment.

THE FLOOD.
An Ark that would enable placement of animals, food for those animals and plants {Because some plants we have now wouldn`t have survived the flood} would have to be several miles long or several thousamd feet high. It would have taken Noah and his sons around 90 years to complete using approx 100,000 acres of woodland and 100tons of metal not very likely.
Animals that are found in the arctic would not have survived long enough for Noah to get there and pick them up and they would have died in the warm climate where the Ark was built, so another thing not very likely.
The last thing is physics. All rain is from the evaporation of water on earth, for it to rain none stop all over the planet for forty days and forty nights the north and south poles would have to have evaporated, which is not possible due to the fact that for the temp to grow so high as to cause the ice at the poles to evaporate and not simply melt would have killed everything anyway so the only way the world could have flooded was for the poles to melt not from forty days and forty nights of rain.

In conclusion the bible was written by man from the uneducated words of man.

The bible has changed so often over the years to suit what is discovered by science that it is hard to believe that any of the original writing is still there. And don`t forget that the early writings said the Earth was a flat disc as was the sun and the moon.

Thats it I've had my rant cya l8r.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
But not for lying or publicly accusing someone of plagiarism without knowing or caring whether it was true.

Perhaps it was a hasty accusation. But I hope y'all can cut Zero some slack on this point. We mentors quite frequently find that such long posts are taken from someone else's website. It's a natural first impression. Based on Laser Eye's history here at PF, I'm willing to accept that he wrote it. So perhaps we can focus on the content of the post rather than the source for now.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
(i) Evolutionary theory suggests a fossil record that contains very simple life forms gradually changing into complex ones with transitional links between them and new body features starting to appear. Creation suggests a fossil record that contains complex life forms suddenly appearing, variety only within species, no transitional links between species and no partial body features. Many scientists openly admit that when you look for links between biological families they just aren't there.

"Many scientists" is not the majority of experts in the field who do see the links. There are many examples of transitional* features in the fossil record (examples provided upon request). Genetics has greatly augmented the ability to draw connections between species/families alongside the fossil record evidence.

* This terminology (along with "partial features") implies a directed goal from Feature A to Feature B...which is not an accurate reflection of the theory of evolution which pertains to selection forces on variations within a population (a branching of variations, not a ladder or one-way road). Similarly, simple-to-complex is not required for evolution. Most life has remained simple (most life throughout history has remained as bacteria) and there are examples of complex-to-simple (e.g., multiple toes changing to a single hoof). Evolution is change.

I would also say that Creationism suggests a fossil record*, with not just "complex life appearing suddenly", but in which all complex and simple life (aside from speciation within a "kind") appear instantaneously in the beginning. Humans and trilobites should be found in the same rock (they aren't).

* - Somehow! since the fossil record we see would take far longer than 6000 years to create (fossilization is a rare and slow process). That, plus the stratigraphy & geography of the fossil finds are still not explained with Creationism.

Even Darwin in his Origin of the Species admitted the fossil record did not support his theory when he said, "I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, ... imperfect to an extreme degree."

Darwin was indeed concerned that, because fossilization is so rare, the fossil record would be an imperfect proof of his theory. But he did not say that the fossil record disproved his theory.

After more than a century of research, and an extensive record now discovered, the fossil record reveals the same thing it did in Darwin's day: Complex life forms appearing suddenly without transitional links between different species. Far from supporting the theory of evolution, the fossil record lends weight to the arguments for creation.

Disagree. The fossil record shows a clear transition of life forms through the ages. The difficulty is in connecting each dot-to-dot because, again, fossilization is rare (and it's hard to find the fossils that did form). But, as you say, there is an extensive record available after a century of work and that does paint a picture of transition. Human fossils did not appear instantly...they had precursors that show up in the fossil record (e.g., earlier species of the genus Homo, preceeded by species of the genus Australopithecus, which was preceeded by the genus Ardipithicus, and so on and so on.).

Just recently, a well supported transition of land animals to whales was found in the fossil record.

It's worthy to note that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (proposed modification to the current theory of Neodarwinism) offers an explanation for examples of stasis in the fossil record (the idea being that the PACE of evolution speeds up and slows down at various times rather than proceeding at a constant slow pace as suggested by strict Darwinism). But even those faster times are still over long time frames.

In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

I'll have to dust off my copy of Cosmos to check that. It seems to be taken out of context, knowing that Sagan did not support Creationism.

 

[Zero]

As a completely side issue, debunking evolution, even if it were possible, doesn't prove the Bible to be true.

 

[Royce]

No it doesn't, Zero et al. But the debunking creationism doesn't mean that the bible contains no truth either. Personally I think the Creater used evolution to create a viable ecosystem and terraform Earth so that it is habitable for life as we know it and are a part of.

 

[Phobos]

What?!? These aren't "either-or" situations?

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…”
- - Genesis 1:20

Sounds about right.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Phobos
What?!? These aren't "either-or" situations?

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…”
- - Genesis 1:20

Sounds about right.

And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Phobos
Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[FZ+]

In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

Consistent, yes. But it would require an attitude of macroscopic deception to give people the false impression, which makes that approach a non-starter when it comes to rational consideration.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is it a matter of proof? Or, a matter of being able to make the association through one's experience?

I think that within context of the way it was presented to me and, that within context of the way I've come to understand it, it doesn't require proof. There's just too about it to suggest that it's anything other than "authentic."

And, while it may be considered a bit of a stretch to claim it to be the very "Word of God" -- which, for all intents and purposes need not be stipulated (IMO) -- we must also consider the fact that this is probably the closest thing on Earth that is.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that?

What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary? Or, of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, by which the Jewish race sprang? It's all about the human predicament isn't it? Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary?

well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...

Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose...
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...

Well she must have done something to catch his eye!

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose...
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt?

I think given the time and circumstances, the Bible gives a fairly accurate account of what it was like to live back in those times. Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues...

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

where is that? could you show some specific verse please...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues...

What's the point in having a relationship (between God and His people) if it doesn't involve being honest?

where is that? could you show some specific verse please...

"Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Corinthians 2:1-11).

These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the Earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the Earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters?

I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...

Well..a lot of people are allowed to do a lot of things in the bible stories..I think maybe it has something to do with "freewill" and all that, you know.
As for that other passage in the bible, the one that forbids incest..I think your speaking of Deuteronomy 23. An interesting point that you might want to remember...Deuteronomy was written 100's of years later. In fact, not even the ten commandments had been written at the time.
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.
Maybe, much of your confusion is simply a lack of knowledge.

 

[Zero]

Wow, you guys can debate mythology right into the ground, can't you?

 

[FZ+]

To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a necessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering about the possibility of that myself, but I didn't have time to look it up.

But it's like you say, we can't be sure it's a ringing endorsement of what actually happened.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a necessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both?

Somewhere between literally and figuratively I guess? ... Which, is pretty much the way we learn anything don't you think?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind?
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?
Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?

I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind?
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?

If you believe in Adam and Eve, then we are all "by-products" of incest.

Even so, I don't think such a thing comes highly recommended, except under dire circumstances such as this.

So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?

It sounds a bit extreme. Even so, I see no reason why we couldn't forgive you and put you out of your misery at the same time ...

Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?

Do you harbor any hatred towards Osama Bin Laden? I don't ...

I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one.

Can you argue that any other book is closer "in essence" to God than the Bible is? Perhaps there are others, but then again they would probably constitute different religions.