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…5556586061…232

Comments

  • #1712
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    J C wrote: »
    ... a stub of a theatre ticket may trigger great memories of 'fun and games' with your wife ... for you ... but anybody else discovering it would throw it in the bin as a piece of useless litter!!
    I don't mean to be dismissive of your obvious romantic tendencies ... I'm merely pointing out that these things are only meaningful to yourself and your wife ... and they are completely meaningless to anybody else.
    The Bible is written to be meaningful to everybody who reads it.

    Hey, way to go in spectacularly missing the point.

    The Bible is a record of the love relationship between God and His followers. And since all of mankind are invited to come into this relationship it is meaningful to everyone who reads it.
    What are the accounts of Creation, The Flood and the various actions, battles, etc recorded in the Bible all about then ... are they fairy stories or downright lies?
    Neither. Some are historical narrative, but some appear to take the form of extended parables.

    The job of the Christian is to examine them in humility and, to the best of our ability and aided by the Holy Spirit, to determine what genre they belong to. If we get it wrong now and again it isn't the end of the world.

    The Christian approach to Scripture is to be Christocentric. Keep that in mind, try being a bit more humble and not flinging out wild accusations about lies or fairy stories, and you won't go far wrong. It's all about Jesus.


  • #1713
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Gerry T wrote: »
    What’s wrong with living your life, dying and that’s the end of it, why does there have to be an afterlife?

    if there is no afterlife then nothing's wrong with that. If there actually is an afterlife then there's everything wrong with living your life that way.

    If you really want to argue that there's no afterlife etc then I've got good news for you. boards.ie has provided an Atheism and Agnosticism Forum for you.


  • #1714
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Havn't seen Rashomon then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)

    Interesting read, but this is either all characters telling un-truths or one telling the truth and the rest un-truths. Still only 2 possibilities. As for our nature being corrupted and that not being the original plan, my understanding of our God is he knows everything and his original plan would have included the corruption or vulnerability in our nature. Either way the bible is still either a work of fiction or an accurate account, if its supposed to be accurate then it’s on liquid foundations as the stories doesn’t seem to fit our current scientific understandings.


  • #1715
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    When it comes to the Law, I think this is generally meant to be taken (and was taken) in a fairly straightforward sense.

    But this is the point. What indication is there that Genesis 7 is not meant to be taking in a "fairly straightforward sense", you know other than if it was it clearly is nonsense if it was.

    Both quote God's message to humans. Why do we get to interpret one as not really being what God meant, but not the other? Why does a passage starting "And God said ..." mean literally meant what he said in one part and not really literally meant in another part?

    "The Lord said to Moses ... Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not defraud or rob your neighbor."

    Can we say well the authors didn't mean us to take that that literally .... ?


  • #1716
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    J C wrote: »
    You are way off the mark ... no amount of pressure or time will form a sedimentary rock in the absence of a cementing agent. It will remain dry sand or mud or whatever.
    I can't argue this as I'm not well enough versed in geology, but conventional science would put the earth at 4billion years and the universe at 14billion years old. The last ice age starting about 2 million years ago, that wasn't the first one either, many more before that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    if there is no afterlife then nothing's wrong with that. If there actually is an afterlife then there's everything wrong with living your life that way.

    If you really want to argue that there's no afterlife etc then I've got good news for you. boards.ie has provided an Atheism and Agnosticism Forum for you.
    Have you ever seen that much touted survey of increased frequency of atheism among scientists of the National Academy of Science?
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

    Note the discordance between figures for "belief in god" and "belief in personal immortality" (which I assume means "after life"). If it is possible to believe in an afterlife without god, is it possible to believe in god without an after life?


  • #1718
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    PDN wrote: »
    if there is no afterlife then nothing's wrong with that. If there actually is an afterlife then there's everything wrong with living your life that way.

    If you really want to argue that there's no afterlife etc then I've got good news for you. boards.ie has provided an Atheism and Agnosticism Forum for you.
    I suggested living your life with respect, love and charity so how could there be anything wrong in living your life like that? Are you suggesting that you have to believe in God to gain entry at the pearly gates? I would rather live without belief in God and live a humble charitable life with consideration to others than a “sinful” life with an end of life repentance coupled to a belief in God. Honestly if you life a good life and don’t believe in God I can’t see him having a problem with that?


  • #1719
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    Hey, way to go in spectacularly missing the point.

    The Bible is a record of the love relationship between God and His followers. And since all of mankind are invited to come into this relationship it is meaningful to everyone who reads it.
    If that was all the Bible was, you would have a point ... but it clearly sets down accounts of apparent historical events, like Creation and the Flood ... and many others besides.

    A plain reading of the Bible is indeed meaningful ... but arguing that something doesn't mean what it clearly says ... like the Flood not being worldwide, like the ancestry of Jesus indicating anything other than Creation less than 10.000 years ago, like the account of Creation being anything other than an account of Direct Perfect Creation ... is destroying the credibility of the Bible on some very crucial (and testable) issues.

    PDN wrote: »
    Neither. Some are historical narrative, but some appear to take the form of extended parables.

    The job of the Christian is to examine them in humility and, to the best of our ability and aided by the Holy Spirit, to determine what genre they belong to. If we get it wrong now and again it isn't the end of the world.

    The Christian approach to Scripture is to be Christocentric.
    ... this is the Jesus who is one person in the One God ... who always was and who always will be ... and who directly inspired the writing of the Old and New Testaments ... including the accounts of Creation and The Flood.


    PDN wrote: »
    Keep that in mind, try being a bit more humble and not flinging out wild accusations about lies or fairy stories, and you won't go far wrong. It's all about Jesus.
    Ok ... so I stand in front of a young person who raises the issue of the veracity of the Creation Account or the account of the Flood ... and I say 'its all about Jesus' ... so please top asking peskey questions about the veracity of other aspects of the Bible!!!
    ... do you think I have given her/him any reason to believe in the Bible ... and by extension Jesus Christ?
    I don't think so!!!
    ... and if the Creation Account or the account of the Flood aren't true ... and the Bible is found to be lying, then it can be safely 'taken with a pinch of salt' in all of it's other pronouncements ... or ignnored altogether.
    ...it's as serious as that ... and that is why Athesists have a considerable interest in disproving these accounts ... that they dismissively claim were written by 'bronze age goat herders'!!


  • #1720
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    J C wrote: »
    ...it's as serious as that ... and that is why Athesists have a considerable interest in disproving these accounts ... that they dismissively claim were written by 'bronze age goat herders'!!
    Its not about disproving these accounts, its about proving them, then we can say the bible is holding the truth. Then we can go out and stone all the homosexuals, thats between 2 and 8% of the population http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx so conservative figures of the 7 billion people thats 140Million, this could take some time !


  • #1721
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Its not about disproving these accounts, its about proving them, then we can say the bible is holding the truth. Then we can go out and stone all the homosexuals, thats between 2 and 8% of the population http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx so conservative figures of the 7 billion people thats 140Million, this could take some time !

    It would be better if you actually engaged with what people believe rather than trolling with nonsense about stoning homosexuals. That's usually a sign that people are losing a debate and wish to revert to silliness.

    This is the Christianity Forum, so why not engage with what Christians believe (which does not include stoning homosexuals)? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Its not about disproving these accounts, its about proving them, then we can say the bible is holding the truth. Then we can go out and stone all the homosexuals, thats between 2 and 8% of the population http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx so conservative figures of the 7 billion people thats 140Million, this could take some time !
    That was a Law recorded in the Bible allright ... but it was certainly questioned by Jesus Christ ... when He asked anybody without sin to cast the first stone ... and it is recorded that nobody did.

    We are enjoined to love all sinners ... because we are all sinners in need of God's mercy ourselves.
    I agree that loving 140 million homosexuals is a massive task ... that could take some time ... so we should start with loving and caring for the ones that we know ... and the hetrosexual people as well!!.


  • #1723
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    and that is why Athesists have a considerable interest in disproving these accounts
    This is bizarre and sums up the complete lack of knowledge you have regarding how science works.

    It is scientists, not atheists, who are working on evolutionary theory. It is scientists, not atheists, providing reliable and consistent data.

    Scientists do not labour under the auspices of "disproving the bible". Their work may be in contradiction with its teachings, but its never an aim. Their work may be interpreted in popular media as "disproving the bible" but its never an aim. The vast majority of scientific projects are not designed to address any biblical claims. You are operating under delusions of grandeur if you think differently.

    Atheists may use the work of scientists to argue over the veracity of biblical accounts. However, you completely fail to see that it is not up to atheists or scientists to "disprove" biblical accounts, in the same way that it is not up to atheists or scientists to "disprove" the existence of Oliver Twist.

    Science tells us how things are, regardless of how we want them to be. Science tells us that evolution is fact. If you don't want it to be so, then you need to do more than mangle biological theories beyond recognition. You need to do more than invent meaningless criteria on which the evidence for evolution mysteriously fails. You need to do more than assert utterly unsupportable modifications to geological and plate tectonic theory. Because these are still just stories.


  • #1724
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    PDN wrote: »
    It would be better if you actually engaged with what people believe rather than trolling with nonsense about stoning homosexuals. That's usually a sign that people are losing a debate and wish to revert to silliness.

    This is the Christianity Forum, so why not engage with what Christians believe (which does not include stoning homosexuals)? :rolleyes:

    The bible doesn't look so favourably on homosexuals, lots of fire and brim stone there. I'm not one myself but don't see anything wrong with what they do, my reply was not to be taken seriously and I think your taking it out of context. My point was that I'm not trying to disprove the accounts within the bible; if someone showed evidence of the great flood or other events within the bible then I wouldn't be disappointed. God may well have created the universe, there’s no other plausible option on the table that I can see so all's not lost for me - yet . This debate is looking at both side of the argument, creation versus evolution, one taking the bible and its stories the other modern scientific beliefs to debate. In the end does it really matter? God could have created evolution and the bible could be a work of fiction, I doubt we will find out in our life time. Hell could be what you experience on earth, or maybe there is that eventuality waiting for some of us. We can only live our live as best we can.
    But I do think with any God that the state of the Catholic Church is a disgrace and should be dismantled, the constant evidence of cover-ups, dodgy money deals and abuse his proven it is corrupt to the core. There are many priests & people that carry out fantastic work, they don't need this church to do that. Why do members of the Church defend and protect that. Why does the Church have to accumulate so much wealth? Doesn't make any sense to me. I see the bible and Church on one side, God on the other, simplistic I know.
    I don't need the threats of damnation to motivate me to do what I think is the right thing, I wouldn't call myself an Atheist more a Christian, but I wouldn't have much stock in the bible or Church either.


  • #1725
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    and that is why Athesists have a considerable interest in disproving these accounts

    doctoremma
    This is bizarre and sums up the complete lack of knowledge you have regarding how science works.
    I wasn't talking about science ... just the (understandable) determination of Atheists to disprove key passages of the Bible ... in order to discredit the rest of the Bible ... and by extension Theism in general and Christianity in particular.

    I also wasn't talking about Evolution ... but it's interesting that you immediately started to defend Evolution ... which tells its own story in relation to the critical role the Evolution plays as THE alternate Atheistic 'origins' story to the Theistic Creation 'origins' account.


  • #1726
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    You are way off the mark ... no amount of pressure or time will form a sedimentary rock in the absence of a cementing agent. It will remain dry sand or mud or whatever.

    Gerry T
    I can't argue this as I'm not well enough versed in geology, but conventional science would put the earth at 4billion years and the universe at 14billion years old. The last ice age starting about 2 million years ago, that wasn't the first one either, many more before that.
    Those long ages are required to provide enough time to make Spontaneous Evolution superficially plausible.

    ... as an experiment ... take some sand ... put half of it in an oven ... and then put it into a vice.
    ... take the other half and mix it with water and cement ... and see which half forms a rock-like mass within, say a week!!!:)


  • #1727
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Those long ages are required to provide enough time to make Spontaneous Evolution superficially plausible.

    ... as an experiment ... take some sand ... put half of it in an oven ... and then put it into a vice.
    ... take the other half and mix it with water and cement ... and see which half forms a rock-like mass within, say a week!!!:)
    What's the point of this? You are assuming someone has made several leaps of 'faith' in your tall tales to get to this point.


  • #1728
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Well, what do you say about this?
    1 Kings 7:23-26, NIV wrote:
    He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

    If this passage is to be taken literally (just like what you do with the Book of Genesis), it says pi = 3, rather than approx. 3.14.


  • #1729
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    What's the point of this? You are assuming someone has made several leaps of 'faith' in your tall tales to get to this point.
    I'm proving that the Evolutionist 'old wives tale' that sedimentary rocks were formed under high pressures and long time is wrong ... and it was cementation and short time that did it!!!:).


  • #1730
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    J C wrote: »
    I'm proving that the Evolutionist 'old wives tale' that sedimentary rocks were formed under high pressures and long time is wrong ... and it was cementation and short time that did it!!!:).
    Just another fairy tale you mean. Geology has nothing to do with religion & everything to do with Reality


  • #1731
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Well, what do you say about this?



    If this passage is to be taken literally (just like what you do with the Book of Genesis), it says pi = 3, rather than approx. 3.14.

    Gosh, the New Atheist urban legends are really flying around today, aren't they?

    To claim that this passage gives a value for pi requires a special kind of idiocy.

    For anyone who stops to think for a moment, there are several possibilities here.

    For example, most people when describing something round it up or down to the nearest unit. So, when I tell people I live 9 miles from Drogheda, I'm not being untruthful if the actual distance is 8.7 miles.

    Also, the passage is referring to a decorative bronze item. It is quite possible that one measurement was of the top of the basin (ie measuring across its open mouth) while the circumference was measured at the base or another point.

    Do you see how any kind of discussion is derailed by this kind of silliness? This passage is describing what the Temple looked like - not giving a precise mathematical blueprint.


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Well, what do you say about this?

    Originally Posted by 1 Kings 7:23-26, NIV
    He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

    If this passage is to be taken literally (just like what you do with the Book of Genesis), it says pi = 3, rather than approx. 3.14.
    I am not a Bible literalist ... I take a plain (practical) reading of the Bible ... and the above measurements are obviously correct ... the container had an outer diameter of 10 cubits and the thickness of the walls were obviously 0.225 cubits (about 4 inches) and therefore the inner diameter of the container was approximately 9.55 cubits which has a circumference of 30 cubits.
    The 'rim to rim' measurement is obviously the outer measurement ... while the measurement of its functional circumference is the internal measurement.:)


  • #1733
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Lelantos wrote: »
    Just another fairy tale you mean. Geology has nothing to do with religion & everything to do with Reith.
    You're the guys with the obvious 'old wives tales' ... claiming that rocks, which have clearly formed by cementation, took millions of years and mega-bars of pressure to set ... when any child can tell you that hydraulic cement sets in a matter of hours ... even under water!!!!


  • #1734
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    JC I think you might just have revolutionised geology with that experiment. Really. I mean, why didn't geologists ever think of using microwaves and vices to mimic the vast forces of the Earth? It seems so...obvious now you mention it.


  • #1735
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    J C wrote: »
    You're the guys with the obvious 'old wives tales' ... claiming that rocks, which have clearly formed by cementation, took millions of years and mega-bars of pressure to set ... when any child can tell you that hydraulic cement sets in a matter of hours ... even under water!!!!
    Pollyfilla needed for all the cracks in your posts, or some of your home made cement perhaps


  • #1736
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    JC I think you might just have revolutionised geology with that experiment. Really. I mean, why didn't geologists ever think of using microwaves and vices to mimic the vast forces of the Earth? It seems so...obvious now you mention it.
    It is indeed obvious that cement sets very rapidly indeed ... and Creation Geology Rocks!!!
    Long Age Geologists claim that rocks, which have clearly formed by cementation, took millions of years and mega-bars of pressure to set ... when any child could tell them that hydraulic cement sets in a matter of hours ... even under water!!!!

    ... microwaves and vices to mimic the vast forces of the Earth ... should be right up their street!!!:)


  • #1737
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Lelantos wrote: »
    Pollyfilla needed for all the cracks in your posts, or some of your home made cement perhaps
    Polyfilla won't fill the yawning chasm in Evolutionary Geology that has now opened up for the 'long ages' apologists!!!

    Please address my point ... but, of course, you can't ... because it is the truth!!!


  • #1738
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    J C wrote: »
    Polyfilla won't fill the yawning chasm in Evolutionary Geology that has now opened up for the 'long ages' apologists!!!

    Please address my point ... but, of course, you can't ... because it is the truth!!!

    Evolutionary geology...? JC, that is a very confusing term.


  • #1739
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    J C wrote: »
    Polyfilla won't fill the yawning chasm in Evolutionary Geology that has now opened up for the 'long ages' apologists!!!

    Please address my point ... but, of course, you can't ... because it is the truth!!!
    You don't have a point, you are arguing with yourself & providing sport for the rest of us. I don't feel threatened by religion, you seem to feel threatened by science & evolution though


  • #1740
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    pauldla wrote: »

    Evolutionary geology...? JC, that is a very confusing term.
    Didn't you know? All these fields of science aren't independently verifying each others' claims. No, no, no. Don't be naïve.

    It's a vast, intricately organised conspiracy to fool the world into believing a lie!


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Didn't you know? All these fields of science aren't independently verifying each others' claims. No, no, no. Don't be naïve.

    It's a vast, intricately organised conspiracy to fool the world into believing a lie!

    So do I have to worry about rocks becoming self-aware and taking a terrible revenge on humanity for our thousands of years of quarrying? ;)


Advertisement