The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

tommy2bad

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Interesting new research on the illusion of free will :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-be-the-result-of-background-noise-in-the-brain-study-suggests-9553678.html

Well it would be if it was a study of free will. What it actually studies is the influences on random choice. I think they are using the term freewill loosely if they consider a choice with no factors other than 'now choose' as an example of free will.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Here's the things I want to know.

How did kangaroos get to Australia if Noah's ark docked on the Asian continent, and there was no land bridge allowing access to Australia?

How can there be trees 9,550 years old, if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

And how can there be layers of ice dated at 680,000 years if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

How can there be billions of stars further than 6,000 lightyears away from us?

tommy2bad

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Here's the things I want to know.

How did kangaroos get to Australia if Noah's ark docked on the Asian continent, and there was no land bridge allowing access to Australia?

How can there be trees 9,550 years old, if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

And how can there be layers of ice dated at 680,000 years if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

How can there be billions of stars further than 6,000 lightyears away from us?

Oh that God! what a joker!
He put them things their to test us. Reject what your eyes see and trust in the Lord and you will be saved. Amen brother.

Safehands

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Here's the things I want to know.

How did kangaroos get to Australia if Noah's ark docked on the Asian continent, and there was no land bridge allowing access to Australia?

How can there be trees 9,550 years old, if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

And how can there be layers of ice dated at 680,000 years if the earth is only 6,000 odd years old?

How can there be billions of stars further than 6,000 lightyears away from us?

Quite simple really, the flood is a fairytale and just like all fairytales you should not really delve too deep. Robin Hood, Excalibur, Fionn McCumhail and the Children of Lir are all legends, not true historical stories. The Ark is like that, a great story which doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old. That great book of Fairytales, called the Old Testament, says it is, but of course it isn't. Just because some people believe it doesn't make it so.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Quite simple really, the flood is a fairytale and just like all fairytales you should not really delve too deep. Robin Hood, Excalibur, Fionn McCumhail and the Children of Lir are all legends, not true historical stories. The Ark is like that, a great story which doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old. That great book of Fairytales, called the Old Testament, says it is, but of course it isn't. Just because some people believe it doesn't make it so.

Except the old Testament doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old, that comes from some nutter adding the ages up and presuming the whole thing was linear and literal. TBF the old testament only claims to be what it is, a collection of stories, some poems, some history and lots of little proverbs about plowing and stuff.
Yes it's a lot like fairy tales, the deeper you delve the more you learn about human nature.

Penny 4 Thoughts

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes it's a lot like fairy tales, the deeper you delve the more you learn about human nature.

I would agree it is unfair to dismiss the Old Testament as a bunch of fairy stories.

Like a lot of ancient books the Old Testament is a fascinating insight into the culture and politics of those who wrote it, and into how culture and politics can be shaped by religious and historical stories. Remember this is before the Internet and newspapers and mass media. The Old Testament is essentially a propaganda book to strengthen the claims of certain dynasties to rule the Holy Lands by creating a history (largely unsupported by historical evidence) that was advantageous for them. And after all what is more adventitious than being chosen by God.

In many ways it is very similar to the manner that the Tudors used Shakespeare to construct a version of history that directly supported their stability on the English Crown, a history that is still so ingrained in the general population that historians have a hard time dispelling the myths.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Safehands wrote: »

The Earth is not 6,000 years old. That great book of Fairytales, called the Old Testament, says it is, but of course it isn't. Just because some people believe it doesn't make it so.

So you are saying that only the New Testament is the true word of God, and that the Old Testament, as scripture, is fake? Well does that mean that 2 Timothy 13: 15-16, as part of the New Testament, is untrue?

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Safehands

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

So you are saying that only the New Testament is the true word of God, and that the Old Testament, as scripture, is fake? Well does that mean that 2 Timothy 13: 15-16, as part of the New Testament, is untrue?

Yes!

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Yes!

No. One doesn't follow the other unless your claiming Timothy was a literalist in the sense we now use it.
I doubt poor old Tim would recognize the way the old testament is presented by creationists now. Like most people of his time he would have read these stories as moral tales primarily. He would never think of them as histories the way think of history.
History for the people then wasn't a collection of dates and facts, it was a framework for their view of the world. It still is for a lot of people now because we as humans like to structure things in a narrative, we place our truths in a framework of truth by using history to carry the truth but the primary message is the truth not the historical facts which may be bent, spun and sometime made up to fit the 'truth'.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

No. One doesn't follow the other unless your claiming Timothy was a literalist in the sense we now use it.
I doubt poor old Tim would recognize the way the old testament is presented by creationists now. Like most people of his time he would have read these stories as moral tales primarily. He would never think of them as histories the way think of history.
History for the people then wasn't a collection of dates and facts, it was a framework for their view of the world. It still is for a lot of people now because we as humans like to structure things in a narrative, we place our truths in a framework of truth by using history to carry the truth but the primary message is the truth not the historical facts which may be bent, spun and sometime made up to fit the 'truth'.

Peanut Butter Jelly asked about the Flood. That is like any other legend, a great story but not true. Timothy is supposed to have said that all scripture is given by the influence of God. That is clearly not true, unless the God who inspired the old testament was a vile murderous being.

Peanut Butter Jelly

tommy2bad wrote: »

History for the people then wasn't a collection of dates and facts, it was a framework for their view of the world. It still is for a lot of people now because we as humans like to structure things in a narrative, we place our truths in a framework of truth by using history to carry the truth but the primary message is the truth not the historical facts which may be bent, spun and sometime made up to fit the 'truth'.

So we prove something to be true by using historic facts, but the historic facts may not actually be facts, but facts edited or made up to fit the truth? So the truth isn't a truth, but a lie?

Quick side-question: It's the second epistle (which I presume is a letter) addressed to Timothy from Paul, so would it not be Paul saying it?

Lantus

J C wrote: »

Freedom provides freedom to do good or ill ... to love or to hate ... and you can write all of the rules or laws you like ... they won't prevent people from doing evil or sinning.

agreed, laws don't make people good. But the environment we create can affect people behaviour significantly. The vast majority if not all of the 'abhorrent' behaviour we legislate against today could be designed out with the intelligent application of social engineering to create an environment where such behaviour is no longer a necessity.

When Jacque Fresco travelled to the south seas he noted a culture that was very different from his. They did not have laws as we did and there was no stealing, in fact there was no word for theft. All the islanders worked together to harness the natural resources which were shared between them. fishing and making nets were not 'jobs' but a pleasant way of live they enjoyed.

In our society most our problems are made by us. The vast majority of all our laws are related to theft and property but we insist and even enshrine a system of scarcity where we encourage poverty through the monetary system. Once mankind has rid itself of this detestable instrument and we finally start to use technology to give us a society we want where no one will need to steal because we can produce all our needs for everyone. 3d printers are a first step towards this goal where the age old ideas of commerce are going to be challenged and found wanting.

Our children will look back and ask us how we could of been so stupid to of used the monetary system for so long.

Safehands

Lantus wrote: »

agreed, laws don't make people good. But the environment we create can affect people behaviour significantly. The vast majority if not all of the 'abhorrent' behaviour we legislate against today could be designed out with the intelligent application of social engineering to create an environment where such behaviour is no longer a necessity.

When Jacque Fresco travelled to the south seas he noted a culture that was very different from his. They did not have laws as we did and there was no stealing, in fact there was no word for theft. All the islanders worked together to harness the natural resources which were shared between them. fishing and making nets were not 'jobs' but a pleasant way of live they enjoyed.

In our society most our problems are made by us. The vast majority of all our laws are related to theft and property but we insist and even enshrine a system of scarcity where we encourage poverty through the monetary system. Once mankind has rid itself of this detestable instrument and we finally start to use technology to give us a society we want where no one will need to steal because we can produce all our needs for everyone. 3d printers are a first step towards this goal where the age old ideas of commerce are going to be challenged and found wanting.

Our children will look back and ask us how we could of been so stupid to of used the monetary system for so long.

Wow, I'd love to discuss this with you, but unfortunately its not for this thread. Great thoughts though.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

No. One doesn't follow the other unless your claiming Timothy was a literalist in the sense we now use it.
I doubt poor old Tim would recognize the way the old testament is presented by creationists now. Like most people of his time he would have read these stories as moral tales primarily. He would never think of them as histories the way think of history.
History for the people then wasn't a collection of dates and facts, it was a framework for their view of the world. It still is for a lot of people now because we as humans like to structure things in a narrative, we place our truths in a framework of truth by using history to carry the truth but the primary message is the truth not the historical facts which may be bent, spun and sometime made up to fit the 'truth'.

Historical facts may sometimes be bent or spun to suit the story but nothing like the biblical "facts" which are regularly made up to fit the truth, such as the story of the flood. Noah living until he was 900 and people believing that???

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Peanut Butter Jelly asked about the Flood. That is like any other legend, a great story but not true. Timothy is supposed to have said that all scripture is given by the influence of God. That is clearly not true, unless the God who inspired the old testament was a vile murderous being.

Ahh I see what you mean, sortoff.
all scripture is given by the influence of God doesn't mean that the events happened so we could draw lessons from them though. Finger for the moon. The scripture is just as inspired or given by the influence of God when it's a parable as a retelling of history or sensible advice about marriage;

Proverbs 21:19 (New Living Translation)
It is better to live alone in the desert than with a crabby, complaining wife.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

ents happened so we could draw lessons from them though. Finger for the moon. The scripture is just as inspired or given by the influence of God when it's a parable as a retelling of history or sensible advice about marriage;

Then if this is the case why was the bible written (both old testament and new) as if everything in it, including all the bits that contradict the other bits (to quote Ned Flanders) were literally true?

You cannot read the bible and say "the writers of all these stories meant them allegorically". The way they were written, from the details inserted to the manner of the language gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Then if this is the case why was the bible written (both old testament and new) as if everything in it, including all the bits that contradict the other bits (to quote Ned Flanders) were literally true?

You cannot read the bible and say "the writers of all these stories meant them allegorically". The way they were written, from the details inserted to the manner of the language gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.

Are you sure your not JC's tag team mate?
Because apart from 7 day creationists and you, no one thinks that the way they were written gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.
Some are, some aren't. It not one book, you do know that? it's a libiary of books. Are you trying to tell me that all the books in a collection must be read the same way? The bible is curated by theme not genre.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are you sure your not JC's tag team mate?
Because apart from 7 day creationists and you, no one thinks that the way they were written gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.
Some are, some aren't. It not one book, you do know that? it's a libiary of books. Are you trying to tell me that all the books in a collection must be read the same way? The bible is curated by theme not genre.

I am sure that all cultures have their legends. Take some time out to read the story of Fionn MacCumhaill. That is very similar to these old testament stories, with magical happenings. In reality this is about mythical people who performed great deeds and had almost supernatural abilities. The Bible is no different. Great literature, but with no real historical basis. People who believe in the stories are entitled to do so, once they don't harm anyone else.

Lantus

There are many other stories which have a striking similarity to biblical passages. The egyption god horus for example: -

1/ born dec 25th
2/ had a virgin mum who was also a virgo.
3/ his coming was foretold by a star in the east
4/ was adorned by three kings
5/ was baptised at 30 when he began his ministry
6/ travelled around with 12 disciples healing the sick and performing miracles.

He had a number of nicknames like the 'lamb of god' and the 'good Shepard.' was betrayed, crucified, dead for 3 days and then was resurrected.

Other Gods from other cultures some or many of the same characteristics such as Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra, and many many more. As Christianity is relatively recent compared to some of these its not unreasonable to say the stories have been shared and passed around by cultures by word of mouth from which modern religion has come about. I doubt the creators of these religions ever thought that humanity would be so well connected that we would be able to spot the linkages.

There are good reasons for why all cultures adopted these similar characteristics although I wont go through them all here. many movies on you tube explaining this in details with sources to back it all up.

tommy2bad

Lantus wrote: »

There are many other stories which have a striking similarity to biblical passages. The egyption god horus for example: -

1/ born dec 25th
2/ had a virgin mum who was also a virgo.
3/ his coming was foretold by a star in the east
4/ was adorned by three kings
5/ was baptised at 30 when he began his ministry
6/ travelled around with 12 disciples healing the sick and performing miracles.

He had a number of nicknames like the 'lamb of god' and the 'good Shepard.' was betrayed, crucified, dead for 3 days and then was resurrected.

Other Gods from other cultures some or many of the same characteristics such as Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra, and many many more. As Christianity is relatively recent compared to some of these its not unreasonable to say the stories have been shared and passed around by cultures by word of mouth from which modern religion has come about. I doubt the creators of these religions ever thought that humanity would be so well connected that we would be able to spot the linkages.

There are good reasons for why all cultures adopted these similar characteristics although I wont go through them all here. many movies on you tube explaining this in details with sources to back it all up.

Their are not. This nonsense is from D.M. Murdock it has no academic support whatsoever. No historical records to support it and no one in their right mind believes it. Stop getting your 'facts' from doggy websites like the zeitgiest movement. Even wikipedia for all it's faults is a better souce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are you sure your not JC's tag team mate?
Because apart from 7 day creationists and you, no one thinks that the way they were written gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.
Some are, some aren't. It not one book, you do know that? it's a library of books. Are you trying to tell me that all the books in a collection must be read the same way? The bible is curated by theme not genre.

I also agree that all passages in the Bible shouldn't be read literally ... some are obviously poetic, others obviously parables while others are obviously metaphorical.
However, there are also many passages that are clearly accounts of historical events, such as most of Genesis. A plain reading of Scripture is the correct approach.

... and getting fully back onto topic, here is a thought-provoking and balanced documentary made on 'Questioning Darwin' by HBO
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cbpqt_hbo-questioning-darwin_tech

Safehands

J C wrote: »

I also agree that all passages in the Bible shouldn't be read literally ... some are obviously poetic, others obviously parables while others are obviously metaphorical.
However, there are also many passages that are clearly accounts of historical events, such as most of Genesis. A plain reading of Scripture is the correct approach.

Who decides what to take literally JC?

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Who decides what to take literally JC?

You decide, based on a plain reading of scripture.

In the Secular World, we all do it all the time ... when we read a newspaper, for example ... we see articles on world events and historical accounts that we take literally ... and we see turns of phrase and analogies that we take metaphorically ... and poems that we ... er ... take poetically!!!:)

... and nobody needs to tell us which style of writing is being employed ... it is obvious from a plain reading of the article concerned ...
... ditto with the Bible.;)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

You decide, based on a plain reading of scripture.

In the Secular World, we all do it all the time ... when we read a newspaper, for example ... we see articles on world events and historical accounts that we take literally ... and we see turns of phrase and analogies that we take metaphorically ... and poems that we ... er ... take poetically!!!:)

... and nobody needs to tell us which style of writing is being employed ... it is obvious from a plain reading of the article concerned ...
... ditto with the Bible.;)

Hey JC

Why is your god allowing the Israeli's to kill people in his name

shewasdiesel

J C wrote: »

You decide, based on a plain reading of scripture.

In the Secular World, we all do it all the time ... when we read a newspaper, for example ... we see articles on world events and historical accounts that we take literally ... and we see turns of phrase and analogies that we take metaphorically ... and poems that we ... er ... take poetically!!!:)

... and nobody needs to tell us which style of writing is being employed ... it is obvious from a plain reading of the article concerned ...
... ditto with the Bible.;)

But people come to different conclusions after a plain reading of a newspaper articles all the time, so how do you explain that ?

Safehands

J C wrote: »

You decide, based on a plain reading of scripture.

In the Secular World, we all do it all the time ... when we read a newspaper, for example ... we see articles on world events and historical accounts that we take literally ... and we see turns of phrase and analogies that we take metaphorically ... and poems that we ... er ... take poetically!!!:)

... and nobody needs to tell us which style of writing is being employed ... it is obvious from a plain reading of the article concerned ...
... ditto with the Bible.;)

So I can choose what to take literally and what not to take literally, based on my sound judgement and reasoning, is that it JC? and you can do the same?

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are you sure your not JC's tag team mate?
Because apart from 7 day creationists and you, no one thinks that the way they were written gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.
Some are, some aren't. It not one book, you do know that? it's a libiary of books. Are you trying to tell me that all the books in a collection must be read the same way? The bible is curated by theme not genre.

I think JC has finally been beaten into submission. Logic is very hard to beat really.

PopePalpatine

Nope, he's just moved on to the evolution thread in A&A.

Turtwig

Yeah uh can somebody start a creationism thread in the Islam forum? Or pagan, buddhism, whichever. :pac:

Nick Park

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Then if this is the case why was the bible written (both old testament and new) as if everything in it, including all the bits that contradict the other bits (to quote Ned Flanders) were literally true?

You cannot read the bible and say "the writers of all these stories meant them allegorically". The way they were written, from the details inserted to the manner of the language gives away the fact that they were meant to be read literally.

That is manifestly untrue. Why on earth would you post about something without learning a little bit about it first?

For example, in Ezekiel Chapters 23 and 24 you find an extended parable about two women, Oholah and Oholibah, who represent Samaria and Jerusalem. Anyone with an ounce of wit can readily see that these are not literal women, but that they are an allegory about the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Scholars would all agree that the writer did not intend this story to be taken literally, nor would the original readers have understood it as literal, nor does anyone today.

The Bible is full of non-literal language such as figures of speech, parables, poetry. Even the person who claims to 'take everything in the Bible literally' realises and accepts that. The only people who don't get that, apparently, are a few atheists.