The Bible - just an interesting read or the divine inspired flawless Word of God? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2004, 07:01 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
And keep in mind that Genesis 1 & 2 give different accounts of how humans were created; they can't *both* be literally correct. (An example of a contradiction for BLS. )
Are they accounts of different things or a repetition (the second with greater detail)? Genesis 2 is merely a detailed description of Genesis 1:27.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 07:21 PM   #92
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 11:25 AM
One thing you'll find nb is that a lot of schools of theology and seminaries hold the two stories view point. That's what you get taught at Knox College, the main seminary of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The first account was most likely written by a priest during the exile in Babylon, while the second was written during the reign of Solomon. These aren't fringe views or the views of religious critics they are held by a great many learned theologians. You are entitled to your interpretation but it is not the only one sanctioned by the organized church.
__________________

__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 07:58 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Also, how do you know marsupials were only in Australia before the flood?
Marsupials were a step in the evolutionary path on the way to modern mammals (IMHO). If I remember my school studies correctly the reason Australia has marsupials and most other places donít, is because Australia did not experience the last ice age Ė which wiped out the marsupials and other wussy animals in the northern hemisphere. Old marsupial remains have been found in California, USA.

If you take the time line out of this equation (and the fact that Im an atheist ) its theoretically possible there where marsupials on the ark.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 08:06 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:25 AM
I disagree with your reasoning. Marsupials died out, because they were unable to compete with mammals, who ate them all. Marsupials are older than mammals, and are theorized to have developed in present-day North America--but when all the continents were merged as the "Pangaea" supercontinent. As the continents separated, Australia was isolated before mammals evolved, and, as such, there are no native mammals to Australia. That is the only reason they survived in Australia and became extinct everywhere else.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 08:24 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Hi Melon,

I agree with most of what you posted. Yep, most of them where killed off by mammals. I was under the imperssion that there were still some marsupials in the Northern Hemisphere immediately previously to the last ice age - some species of possums etc.

Marsupials did survive in Australia because of lack of competition from mammals. I was taught at school (not infallible, I know) that if Australia had experienced the last ice age it would have wiped out most of the indigenous wildlife due to marsupials not being particularly robust creatures. And then there would have been no marsupials at all.

What I was unsuccessfully attempting to say was that if the 'bible is 6000, 4000, whatever years old' theory is suspended then it is possible that there were possums on the ark.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 09:13 PM   #96
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
I think the title of this thread sets up a false dichotomy. You can believe that the Bible is not *always* meant to be taken literally without consigning it to the pile of "interesting reads."

"The Bible - just an interesting read or the divine inspired flawless Word of God?"

What in my title say anything about literality? (Is that a word? )

Is the loaded word 'just'? Because I think the Bible is the most interesting thing I've ever read
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 03:13 AM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:25 AM
I believe in the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible is truth as far as purpose and message are concerned. The Bible was never intended to be a book of history or science. People who criticize the Bible b/c it conflicts with science are wasting their time. You'd never look for scientific fact in a classic novel, or a children's book, so why assume the Bible has to fulfill the role of Scripture AND science? As Calvin said in different words, if you want science, read a science book! The Bible is the authority on what it's supposed to be the authority on. Since God is responsible for both the Bible and Creation (science) they are complementary. As a Christian, I SHOULD be interested in science, but like the Bible is a tool through which the Holy Spirit works in us, a science book is a tool for understanding science.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 04:29 AM   #98
Refugee
 
thrillme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: <---over that'a way
Posts: 1,947
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by intedomine
The bible, pure fairytale, just a more famous version of Harry Potter.

Not a very interesting story by the way.
Written by someone who seems to have not actually read it, to be sure.

--------------------------------------------------

There's so many posts, to read through the rest, I'll just cut to the chase.

If the Bible says you are doing something wrong, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., and you don't agree, of course, you're going to look and find every reason not to believe the Bible is true, it sets limits on what you can and can't do. Also says those who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, are not gonna make it into Heaven. If the Bible is wrong about flood, then its wrong about Heaven and Hell too right?

Dinosaur and human footprints have been found, side by side. http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

Most dinosaur fossils are found in sedimentary rock, sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is laid down by moving water, layer upon layer, in a process known as hydrologic sorting.-http://www.dinosaur-fossil.com/

Marine life fossils have been found on some mountain tops, I suppose fossil evidence only works when it disproves creation in favor of evolution, but not the other way around.

Bible supports "pangaea" idea, describes water cycle, states the Earth is round, is suspended in space, and rotates, blood is the source of life (why on earth did blood letting not cure much??)

Proof of evolution? (I mean macro-evolution, change from one species to a completely new one), perhaps you haven't read, "Darwin's Black Box, the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," by Micheal Behe.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm Behe takes criticism of his book, and offers rebuttals.

It all depends on what you're looking for, you can find reasons to believe in the Bible, and reasons not to.

The fact that no one was around to see just how the world came into being, doesn't stop people from believing it's the cause of the big bang/evolution, God/other supernatural being/entity/force, aliens even.
__________________
thrillme is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 05:28 AM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thrillme
Written by someone who seems to have not actually read it, to be sure.
Because someone's opinion differs from yours they must automatically be uninformed?

Quote:
If the Bible says you are doing something wrong, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., and you don't agree, of course, you're going to look and find every reason not to believe the Bible is true, it sets limits on what you can and can't do.
This is both over simplistic and offensive to those who don't consider the Bible to be the "truth." You imply that people reject the Bible bcause they wish to lie, steal or cheat. I choose not to do those things because they are inherently wrong and they can cause harm to other people. My limits on "what I can and can't do" are guided by what impact my actions have on other people and the idea that doing good is its own reward. Please don't imply that all non-Christians must be liars, cheats and thieves: it really don't make for the most interesting of debates.

Quote:
The fact that no one was around to see just how the world came into being, doesn't stop people from believing it's the cause of the big bang/evolution, God/other supernatural being/entity/force, aliens even.
No, but there is at least some viable scientific evidence of the "big bang" theory. There is no scientific evidence to support the Biblical view of "creation," people accept is as a matter of faith, not because they have studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that the Bible is correct when it claims God created the world in seven days. (BTW, that sentence isn't meant to imply that it's necessarily a bad thing to believe something as a matter of faith, but rather that those who believe in the "big bang" theory have valid reasons for that belief.)
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 06:32 AM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:25 PM
You are not doing proper science there buddy. Dinosaur footprints have been discovered all over the world so have human footprints however they are not discovered together because the two species are seperated by 65 million years. The "trackways" that are used to "prove" the existence of man and dinosaur are simple hoaxes. If you were to refuse to accept that think about why they would only be found in Dakota and Texas (both areas filled with misinformed belivers (read fundamentalists) in the bible) and not anywhere else in the world. You are right that dinosaurs are found in sedimentary rocks and it is true that it is often layed down by moving water however to say this is evidence of a flood is just plain wrong. Dinosaur fossils are often found in large clusters within mudstone because if a dinosaur were to die and be swept down a river it would often end up at the bottom of a river bend where the water slows down and deposits more silt. The time it takes for these layers to be layed down is really IMPORTANT! for hydrologic sorting to operate you would allmost certainly see a totally jumbled fossil record with species totally out of order and no dicernable pattern at all. Because when you go out and excavate a site you will only find animals that lived at particular times within the same layers of rock you can say that it was layed down over millions of years and not over a period of weeks or months. Other evidence for this is the large strata beds where we can clearly see that a particular strata was underwater and had fish and waterlife fossilized in it before any land dwelling vertibrates. If your version were to be believed this would mean that fish had to have died at around the same time as the dinosaurs and because they are at the bottom would have been the first animals to die (from drowning perhaps?) in the flood.

As for marine life on mountain tops obviously you refuse to accept basic plate techtonics. You see hundreds of millions of years ago a lot of the earth was covered with ocean, over time animals that lived in the sea died and became fossilized, these fossils would become part of the bedrock beneath the ocean. As time goes by the plates of the eath move (they are moving right now exerting tremendous pressure, ever think about earthquakes or do they not exist?) and over millions of years this process can raise mountains. The best example of this is the himalayas. Around 250 mya, the area where the himalayas exists now a shallow sea called the Tethys was created between the splitting continent of Pangea. As a result silt from each half depositied within the shallow sea, this silt gradually covered ammonites that died in that sea and created sedimentary strata with fossils within them. As time went on the Indian sub-continent plate and the upper half of pangea the Eurasian plate began to collide with eachother (this was around 70 MYA). As they collided the indian plate moved north at around 15 cm per year (remember that were talking geological time here, a year is nothing when we look at the world, a thousand years is minimal and a million is slight) Now as these two continental plates collided the sea in between them (the Tethys) began to rise from the massive pressure and the sea retreated leaving the sea bed that contained the fossils. The collision continued and it continued to rise a mountain range along the edges of the plates and this is why at the very top of the Himalayas we see fossils from a 250 million year old ocean. You can back this up by dating the fossils up there you will come up with 250 million years. Because the process is still going on we can measure how much the continental plates move, this is empirical evidence that proves the technonic plates move at a given rate and it can explain how all the continents and some of the mountain ranges were formed. I say some because not all ranges are formed because of the collision of techtonic plates if you want to find out borrow an introduction to geology book.

And proof for macro evolution, perhaps you didnt want to notice the "whale with legs" that creationists insist hasnt been found and continue to use as an argument to day. Please read this website (http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm)
and just take the time to look at the transitional forms that have allready been discovered. Creationists insist that dinosaurs and man must have lived together because we have legends of dragons and other great beasts. Rather than try to explain such tales with something that is clearly extinct and hasnt existed for a long time doesnt it make more sense that when man found fossils and remains all over the world the interpereted such great animals as dragons and ancient beasts. This makes a lot more sense than just assuming that events depicted in art have to have taken place. By the logic that if it is drawn it must have happened I can say that egypt was populated by various gods that where chimera-like in appearence and that the pharoh was definitely a man-god. You must understand that new discoveries are made to enhance our knowledge of the world, I as an atheist can enjoy that because I find it wonderfull for humanity to move forward and others who are deeply religious can enjoy the inherent wonder in discovering gods creation.

Seriously you must also back up your claims about cosmolgy and biology being beLIEf's. You can say that the Big Bang theory is a load of shit however you must reciognize that we have evidence to support it. When we look into the sky with powerful telescopes we can see stars, when we analyse these stars we know that they are made of the same basic stuff as other stars (hydrogen, helium) and as such you will find small black lines in a spectroscopic analysis. The thing is that galaxies that are furthur away have these black lines at lower and lower freequencys of light. There is a clear trend that the furthur away the galaxy the more the points will shift. This is known as a redshift because the points move closer to the red part of the spectrum. Now if we relate this change in frequency to something we allready know the doppler effect (think of a racing car traveling past you, hight pitch at first because of a high frequency, low pitch as it moves away) then we can say that the stars must be moving away from us and the frequency of the light given out is lower because it is in effect being pulled one way by moving the other. So here we have empirical evidence that the other galaxies are moving apart or to be more precise space between them is spreading apart. Because the outer galaxies appear to be moving faster we can look at this expansion like an explosion where the outer pieces of shrapnel move faster than those inside, This in turn allows us to come to the conclusion that at some point in the past (around 13.7 Billion years according to most recent measurement of hubble constant) all of space was at a single point, a singularity if you will, a point of 0 with infinite curvature and influence by dimensions we cannot percieve today. Science merely explains HOW something of such magnitude can happen, the specifics and technical details. It can never answer why in a metaphysical sense and that is where religion comes in. People dont believe in be big bang, they think that it happened because it is the explaination that best fits and predicts our data and because it is falsifiable it is a scientific theory.

Nobody who knows about science can honestly say that there is absolutely no possibility of there being a god because such a proof is impossible. We can however unravel the mysteries of the universe and in the process discover whole new ones. So come on all you creationists, pick up a science book and fill your heads with knowledge so that when you make any decision you will have made it with all the information on the table to not do so you are simply cheating yourself into not understanding the inherent beauty of the universe from the smallest crystal too the largest cosmic cluster.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 07:11 AM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Does anyone here believe as I do that science and math demonstrate the existence of God?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 07:34 AM   #102
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 11:25 AM
Yup, a great many theoretical physicists believe in God and were convinced by the numbers.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 07:46 AM   #103
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Im not sure if it is apt to describe god being within the numbers, I belive that you are refering to einsteins famous quote (in regards to the Copenhagen interperatation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) "I don't accept that God plays dice with the universe". It is true to say that many theoretical physicists come to the conclusion that there will allways be questions that we can't answer and that god is as good as any explaination in these subjects, these encompass things like initial state of the universe, what is outside the universe, is the universe finite, if it is what happens "outside" and if not why not. Infinite itself as a concept is pretty god like, just try to fathom that if we had an infinite universe with infinite variation of physical laws it is certain that a: Particles will go through every single permutation permissible by the laws of particle physics (say that 10 times fast ) We can then say that every single historical situation must play off, there must be an infinite number of solar systems with an identical arrangement of particles as ours with other versions of ourselves living on them, it would also mean that every single play, story and TV show universe has to exist somewhere in the universe, freaky. It really is bizzare and beyond human understanding, we can however describe and use it to great effect within the framework of mathematics.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 08:29 AM   #104
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:25 AM
I believe some of the complexities of math and science are so beautiful and perfectly organized that they could not be random. Look at the periodic table of elements, for example. Yes, humans designed the chart, but we didn't design the patterns upon which the chart is based. I definitely think these factors and others point to intelligent design behind the universe (i.e. God).
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-06-2004, 08:33 AM   #105
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave



"The Bible - just an interesting read or the divine inspired flawless Word of God?"

What in my title say anything about literality? (Is that a word? )

Is the loaded word 'just'? Because I think the Bible is the most interesting thing I've ever read
1.) Well, I took "divine, inspired, and flawless" to mean literally flawless. If you want to argue instead that the Bible is intentionally flawless but not necessarily literally flawless, I can agree with that.

2.) I agree too that "just" is a loaded word. The Bible to me is obviously on a different level from even some very interesting reads, like Anna Karenina or what have you. But I don't believe it to be literally flawless, no. I can think that and still consider the Bible to be *the* holy book of my faith; that is, much more than an interesting read.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com