Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…163164166168169…232

Comments

  • #4952
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Inspiring and informing are not equivalent.
    Inspired adjective
    1.
    aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence:

    Inform verb (used with object)
    1.
    to give or impart knowledge of a fact or circumstance to:

    We are now down to semantics. :rolleyes: So is the Bible the word of god and inerrant or does it have flaws?


  • #4953
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    The above is like jumping randomly in at page xxx of a technical manual in a subject you don't really understand but if you know where to go you can come up with something like this.

    Psalm 23 King James Version (KJV)

    1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

    2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

    3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

    4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

    5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

    6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

    You could have just said you can't contexualise the quote.


  • #4954
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Harika wrote: »
    We are now down to semantics. :rolleyes: So is the Bible the word of god and inerrant or does it have flaws?

    Inerrant in matters of faith not science history or anything else. I know JC thinks it's an older version of the Koran, dictated by God into man's ear and written down verbatem but JC is nuts.:D


  • #4955
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Inerrant in matters of faith not science history or anything else.

    Where do you get that from?


  • #4956
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    steamengine wrote: »
    The above is like jumping randomly in at page xxx of a technical manual in a subject you don't really understand but if you know where to go you can come up with something like this.

    its not really, it is a fairly simple message. You might want to interpret this as something else, but the bible clearly states about not wearing certain types of clothing.

    Do not work on the sabbath day. What is difficult to understand about that?

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    So, slavery is ok, just not from Israel? Again, hard to see what is difficult to understand about that

    And therein lies the problem with creationists view of the bible, they want to take a literal meaning to the parts that suit the argument, but place some sort of context, or worse still decry the other person of not having sufficient knowledge to truly understand the meaning behind it.

    Jesus in the NT made things pretty straightforward, as did God in the 10 commandments. The problem being that there is so much that contradicts these simple messages that it is very hard to get a true understanding.


  • Advertisement
  • #4957
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    its not really, it is a fairly simple message. You might want to interpret this as something else, but the bible clearly states about not wearing certain types of clothing.

    Do not work on the sabbath day. What is difficult to understand about that?

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    So, slavery is ok, just not from Israel? Again, hard to see what is difficult to understand about that

    And therein lies the problem with creationists view of the bible, they want to take a literal meaning to the parts that suit the argument, but place some sort of context, or worse still decry the other person of not having sufficient knowledge to truly understand the meaning behind it.

    Jesus in the NT made things pretty straightforward, as did God in the 10 commandments. The problem being that there is so much that contradicts these simple messages that it is very hard to get a true understanding.

    Why fasten on a piece of cloth or other obscure pieces of what I understand is part of ancient Jewish Law. It reminds me of some one who picks up a technical manual, seeks out all the faults therein and misses the true picture of what the manual is all about.


  • #4958
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    steamengine wrote: »
    Why fasten on a piece of cloth or other obscure pieces of what I understand is part of ancient Jewish Law. It reminds me of some one who picks up a technical manual, seeks out all the faults therein and misses the true picture of what the manual is all about.

    But is it a fault?


  • #4959
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    It reminds me of some one who picks up a technical manual, seeks out all the faults therein and misses the true picture of what the manual is all about.

    It was just one line, there are multitude, but where would my listing of dozens of sections that are either absurd or contradictory benefit? Leroy42 added others.

    I also suggested you to take a line yourself that is considered controversial for non believers and that didn't suit either.


  • #4960
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    robdonn wrote: »
    But is it a fault?

    I'm not a biblical scholar - I don't know.


  • #4961
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    Would you care to explain ? :confused:

    You said...

    steamengine wrote: »
    Most of it would be rubbish if you come at it from the point of not believing in God. If you do believe though, and you understand the context of the OT, then it makes more sense.

    I then asked you to provide any line/section where you think non believers would find difficulty and try to put it into context for us so we could understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #4962
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    It was just one line, there are multitude, but where would my listing of dozens of sections that are either absurd or contradictory benefit? Leroy42 added others.

    I also suggested you to take a line yourself that is considered controversial for non believers and that didn't suit either.

    It's just that I'm not interested in brick batting an endless conveyor belt of atheist/agnostic perceived faults in the bible. In any event the NT is the more relevant to Christianity, not the old.


  • #4963
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Safehands wrote: »
    Where do you get that from?

    The catechism of the catholic church.
    "The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures."

    Its pretty much the official position. This from the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs;
    "For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that 'the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum, 11). What is important is the qualification of 'that truth' with 'for the sake of our salvation'."

    As far as I know this became official with Vatican 2, though it's a idea in theology since the 1600's.
    Not accepted by everyone in Catholicism mind but it is the mainstream and official stance.


  • #4964
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    It's just that I'm not interested in brick batting an endless conveyor belt of atheist/agnostic perceived faults in the bible.

    Fair enough.

    steamengine wrote: »
    In any event the NT is the more relevant to Christianity, not the old.

    The OT was extant for approx 1,500 years before the NT and was said to foretell what was to come in the NT. If it was the construct of God it has to be relevant.


  • #4965
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    The OT was extant for approx 1,500 years before the NT and was said to foretell what was to come in the NT. If it was the construct of God it has to be relevant.

    Even Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).


  • #4966
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Harika wrote: »
    Even Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18).

    Sooo... no room for error then.


  • #4967
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    steamengine wrote: »
    Why fasten on a piece of cloth or other obscure pieces of what I understand is part of ancient Jewish Law. It reminds me of some one who picks up a technical manual, seeks out all the faults therein and misses the true picture of what the manual is all about.

    Because we are told that the bible is the truth. We are told that it is the word of God. Creationists believe that Adam & Eve started in the garden of Eden, not because of any evidence but because that is what is written.

    Now, the problem then becomes you either believe it all or you can question it all. You cannot simply take the NT as it paints God in a better light, it is based on the OT.

    If I get a technicial manual that makes such errors I will call into question the overall use of the manual. If it is clearly has a simple spelling error, then fine, but if it makes statements, and continues to make statements, which appear to contract what comes later then I would question which part to trust. I certainly wouldn't simply accept that mistakes are made and sure I'll just leave that bit out.

    And I wouldn't go around preaching from it and claiming that anyone else who notices the errors or simply nitpicking.

    The problem with the bible is not what is written in it, no more than any other book, it is that because people give it devine rights, it can then be used to justify any action once it fits in with their interpretation of the bible.

    From saying being gay is a sin, to Israel claiming right over the promised land. Such a powerful book deserves the closest scrutiny.


  • #4968
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Fair enough.




    The OT was extant for approx 1,500 years before the NT and was said to foretell what was to come in the NT. If it was the construct of God it has to be relevant.

    I did say more relevant - one of the more well known general differences is the 'eye for an eye' concept in the OT which is replaced by 'turning the other cheek' in the NT. Christianity teaches the latter, therefore simultaneously cannot teach the former. The OT forms the backdrop to Christianity is how I'd sum it up.


  • #4969
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Because we are told that the bible is the truth. We are told that it is the word of God. Creationists believe that Adam & Eve started in the garden of Eden, not because of any evidence but because that is what is written.

    Now, the problem then becomes you either believe it all or you can question it all. You cannot simply take the NT as it paints God in a better light, it is based on the OT.

    If I get a technicial manual that makes such errors I will call into question the overall use of the manual. If it is clearly has a simple spelling error, then fine, but if it makes statements, and continues to make statements, which appear to contract what comes later then I would question which part to trust. I certainly wouldn't simply accept that mistakes are made and sure I'll just leave that bit out.

    And I wouldn't go around preaching from it and claiming that anyone else who notices the errors or simply nitpicking.

    The problem with the bible is not what is written in it, no more than any other book, it is that because people give it devine rights, it can then be used to justify any action once it fits in with their interpretation of the bible.

    From saying being gay is a sin, to Israel claiming right over the promised land. Such a powerful book deserves the closest scrutiny.

    Where does the bible say being gay is a sin for example ? This is a good example of misinterpreting the bible in my opinion.


  • #4970
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    Where does the bible say being gay is a sin for example ? This is a good example of misinterpreting the bible in my opinion.

    The OT is part of the bible (as you know) and the term laying with another man is considered very sinful.

    Not going to google the quote as I'm in work. :D


  • #4971
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    The OT is part of the bible (as you know) and the term laying with another man is considered very sinful.

    Not going to google the quote as I'm in work. :D

    All that refers to obliquely is an unspecified sexual act so is vague, but 'being gay' refers to sexuality which is different. God given sexuality too, if you're a believer.


  • Advertisement
  • #4972
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    All that refers to obliquely is an unspecified sexual act so is vague, but 'being gay' refers to sexuality which is different. God given sexuality too, if you're a believer.

    I knew you’d say that.

    Leroy 42 didn’t say Gayness was a sin, he said BEING gay, which implies acting gay. Besides, it would be impossible for gay man not to have gay thoughts about another man he found attractive. And isn’t it taught that thinking about something is as bad as acting out a sin??


  • #4973
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    steamengine wrote: »
    Where does the bible say being gay is a sin for example ? This is a good example of misinterpreting the bible in my opinion.

    You are quite right, a careless use of words on my part. The bible only condemns the act of homesexuality.


  • #4974
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You are quite right, a careless use of words on my part. The bible only condemns the act of homesexuality.

    Even with homosexual acts AFAICS a lot of context is missing. There are homosexual acts within loving committed relationships including marriage, lustful homosexual acts, experimental homosexual acts by heterosexuals and possibly many other variations. The bible doesn't cover this adequately IMO. Therefore I would be interested in hearing how gay sex within a committed relationship could be a sin, particularly as sexuality is God given.


  • #4975
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    But if just a single part of it is show to be incorrect then it undermines the rest of it.
    True.
    robdonn wrote: »
    Take evolution for example, problems have been highlighted with it in the past so the theory has been changed over time. The Bible is shown to have many inaccuracies, but the story never changes and the inaccuracy is simply explained away as misinterpretation rather than fault with the material.

    That is not an honest way to interpret information.
    There are still major issues with Evolution (as an explantion for Pondkind becoming Mankind) ... and if there has been misinterpretation of any part(s) of the Bible, then surely it should be corrected.

    robdonn wrote: »
    Actually it simply requires a single proven supernatural event amongst all of the natural ones.
    ... one of the problems with trying to do this is that conventional science a priori precludes the scientific examination of supernatural explanations (even if the only plausible explantion, as indicated by the evidence, is a supernatural one).
    That is fair enough, IMO, because conventional science confines itself to evaluating materialistic phenomena and explations.

    This is where Creation Science comes in ... it uses conventional forensic science principles to evaluate the physical evidence for the supernatural causation of life as well as scientifically evaluating the evidence for historical events recorded in the Bible. All Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists and they apply conventional scientific principles in their research. They are simply conventional scientists who don't limit themselves to scientifically evaluating materialistic causation hypotheses only.


  • #4976
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    CSFI has never been objectively observed in anything biological as there is no scientific evidence that the concept exists in biology.
    It is patently obvious from even a cursory examination of the information encoded in the DNA within any living cell that it is Complex, Specified and Functional ... to extremely high degrees, actually. The presence of CSFI in living genomes is an objective, repeatably observable (i.e. scientifically established) fact.
    What this fact means may well be open to interpretation ... but an Evolutionist denying it has no more credibility in doing so, than a Creationist denying the objective fact that Natural (and Artificial) Selection occurs.
    robdonn wrote: »
    What is the definition of 'complex' in biological CSFI? What is 'specified information' in biological CSFI? The entire argument is a manipulation of probability interpretation with nothing to back said interpretation. The only examples that Dembski can ever point to with CSFI is examples of irreducible complexity that have, time and time again, been shown not to be irreducibly complex.

    The CSFI hypothesis does not take into account well understood and observed factors of evolution such as scaffolding or co-option of function
    CSFI merely describes a fact about the type of information that is found in living cells. How it came to be there is open to explanation/interpretation ... but the fact that it is CSFI is objectively verifiable.


  • #4977
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    There are still major issues with Evolution (as an explantion for Pondkind becoming Mankind) ... and if there has been misinterpretation of any part(s) of the Bible, then surely it should be corrected.

    Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean by Pondkind to Mankind.

    As for misinterpretation of the Bible, what happens when the Bible itself is wrong? Not a misinterpretation but a factual error.
    J C wrote: »
    ... one of the problems doing this is that conventional science a priori precludes the scientific examination of supernatural explanations (even if the only plausible explantion, as indicated by the evidence, is a supernatural one).
    That is fair enough, IMO, because conventional science confines itself to evaluating materialistic phenomena and explations.
    This is where Creation Science comes in ... it uses conventional forensic science principles to evaluate the physical evidence for the supernatural causation of life as well as scientifically evaluating the evidence for historical events recorded in the Bible. All Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists.

    And how does Creation Science go beyond the realm of "conventional" science?


  • #4978
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean by Pondkind to Mankind.
    I mean the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that postulates that aquatic unicellular life (Pondkind) evolved into mammals (including Mankind) over millions of years.
    robdonn wrote: »
    As for misinterpretation of the Bible, what happens when the Bible itself is wrong? Not a misinterpretation but a factual error.
    If such a thing were to be found, it would obviously eliminate any claim to it's inerrancy and Divine inspiration.
    robdonn wrote: »
    And how does Creation Science go beyond the realm of "conventional" science?
    It does so by pursuing the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for the supernatural causation of life and the historical events recorded in the Bible. Conventional science precludes itself from doing so.
    ... and like I have already said, I have no issue whatsoever with Conventional Science doing so ... but Conventional Science should reciprocate by having no issue with Creation Science pursuing research into an area that Conventional Science has (quite legitimately) precluded itself from.


  • #4979
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    How does creation science explain jesus turning people into goats as described in the infancy gospel of thomas? Or are those stories inaccurate and the bible ones correct?


  • #4980
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    For starers it's laser :P

    FUN FACT: It was supposed to be called LOSER.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #4981
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    FUN FACT: It was supposed to be called LOSER.

    MrP
    I can see why some marketing guru had a problem with that one ... and probably suggested LASER as a much sexier alternative to "Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (LOSER)"!!!

    Thanks Mr P for adding levity our day with this fun fact !!!:)


Advertisement