Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: How can we trust the bible..?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Langley, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    How can we trust the bible..?

    The bible says things that we cannot prove or test to be true, but says the things that we CAN prove and test to be completley false!


    Here are just a few of the many false statements in the bible:


    1.) The Bible tells us that the Earth is flat and has a lid on it rather than the globe we know it to be.

    2.) The Bible tells us that the bat is a bird rather than the mammal that we know it to be.

    3.) The Bible tells us that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 30:10 -- that is, 3:1 rather than 3.1415926534 ... :1.

    4.) The Bible tells us that God created all animals after their own kind about 6,000 years ago, and we know that all life forms evolved from a single parent organism.

    5.) The Bible tells us that plant life thrived on Earth before the Sun and Moon existed and we know the Sun existed almost half a billion years before the Earth even formed.

    If the Bible cannot be trusted in its reports about things that we can test, why should I believe its reports about things that we cannot test?
    CoWbOy CoRbY

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    18
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Nowbody really tells you to believe in the Bible, all Christians do though...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    330
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Dear Corbin,

    Please provide the scriptures where it says what it says in your points 1,2,3.

    As for your points 4,5, most Christians including me already know that evolution is the biggest lie ever told to mankind. A leading Christian site where evolution is debunked is:

    http://answersingenesis.org/home.asp...=United+States

    God bless

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Langley, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I got those points from many various sites that did not include all the scriptures. I, however, will find all of these scriptures asap, and if anyone wishes to assist me I will be really grateful.

    For the topic of evolution...

    On a very basic level, we generally can determine the date of something by carbon testing it. We measure the amount of carbon built up in something, and we can esstimate how old it is. (that's not 100% true, but pretty close)

    Now how do you explain dinosour fossils? They are carbon dated to millions of years ago. They have uncovered fossils from prehistoric man. Do you deny this?

    Also, geology supports evolution. Geologists can determine what conditions the planet was in, millions of years ago. They can also determine what type of life our planet could support many millions of years ago.
    CoWbOy CoRbY

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Gun Barrel City, Texas
    Posts
    530
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Concerning your points 1 & 2...
    Often times, the bible mentions things as they appear not as they truly are.
    For example...even today, as we know how the solar system works and planets' movements and all, we still say sunrise and sunset, and we talk about the sun coming up. We know scientifically that the sun doesn't rise, but because of the movement of the earth (it's rotation and all) it just "looks like" the sun rises and sets.
    Same deal with the bible. It is very often written from the similar point of view.
    2 Timothy 4:2-4
    <(((><
    1 Peter 3:15
    __________________

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Fledge
    Concerning your points 1 & 2...
    Often times, the bible mentions things as they appear not as they truly are.
    Amen Brother Fledge!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    75
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: How can we trust the bible..?

    Originally posted by Corbin
    4.) The Bible tells us that God created all animals after their own kind about 6,000 years ago, and we know that all life forms evolved from a single parent organism.
    Who exactly is the 'we' here? And shouldn't it say 'we are pretty sure' instead of 'we know'? If not, I'd love to read your sources.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Eeeeexcellent
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I read in a book once that carbon testing once "proved" a LIVE mollusk to be 2,000,000 years old. LOL.
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
    Psalm 14:1

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    289
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    No question, carbon-dating is wildly erratic. Also, I don't think most evolutionists even believe in the common ancestor anymore.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    461
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: How can we trust the bible..?

    Corbin,

    the fact is, unsaved man, woman, boy or girl, not only will not trust the Bible to be truth, he or she is literally unable to trust the Bible to be true.

    There are numerous websites out there, that have addressed every single so-called contradiction in Scripture, and it would probably take you less than 5 minutes using a good search engine, to find more than you ever thought existed.

    The problem is, with spiritually dead eyes, and a heart of stone, the unsaved not only cannot see it, but it's pure foolishness to him. It doesn't matter how much proof anyone could offer, unless the Holy Spirit opens the understanding, no amount of proof is enough.

    I would hope that the Holy Spirit is doing a work on you even now, that you might begin to see and understand, what is truth, and what isn't.
    "SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Posts
    125
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Hi Corbin:

    “On a very basic level, we generally can determine the date of something by carbon testing it. We measure the amount of carbon built up in something, and we can esstimate how old it is. (that's not 100% true, but pretty close)”

    ME: You’re right in positing that this can get close by averaging the testing of many specimens. But what does this have to do with the Bible?

    “Now how do you explain dinosour fossils? They are carbon dated to millions of years ago. They have uncovered fossils from prehistoric man. Do you deny this?”

    ME: No, and they are found in half the museums of the world. Do you really think that Christians don’t believe in dinosaurs? That would be funny if that were the case.

    “Also, geology supports evolution. Geologists can determine what conditions the planet was in, millions of years ago.”

    ME: There we disagree. Scientists can only speculate what our earth was millions of years ago. But none of this conflicts with the Bible. How do you think it does? And geology has little to do with evolution. We must look at biology and the general laws of science to examine this.
    Peace on earth and good will to all men is not just for Christmas. Peace, Jep

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Langley, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    The problem is, with spiritually dead eyes, and a heart of stone, the unsaved not only cannot see it, but it's pure foolishness to him. It doesn't matter how much proof anyone could offer, unless the Holy Spirit opens the understanding, no amount of proof is enough.


    How can I understand something that is not detectable by any of my senses and has no verifiable proof to back it up?

    I will adress the other comments later tonite.
    CoWbOy CoRbY

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Edmond, OK
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    hei JustGina, thanks for mentioning bout the 2000 000 yr old live mollusk!! carbon dating is unreliable.
    my bio teacher subcribes to these magazine that has reports bout archaeologists finding stuff in the Bible. they found lots of it but carbon dating shows that the stuffs are older than what the Bible says. guess carbon dating really messes up
    Jesus Rocks!!!!!!!!

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Langley, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    hei JustGina, thanks for mentioning bout the 2000 000 yr old live mollusk!! carbon dating is unreliable.
    my bio teacher subcribes to these magazine that has reports bout archaeologists finding stuff in the Bible. they found lots of it but carbon dating shows that the stuffs are older than what the Bible says. guess carbon dating really messes up


    Well it's not 100% accurate by any means, but most of the time it is pretty close. And how do you know that it was the "testing" that was wrong. Did it say in the magazine that the artifacts were not dated correctly, or are you coming to that conclusion yourself?
    CoWbOy CoRbY

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    461
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Corbin
    [I]

    How can I understand something that is not detectable by any of my senses and has no verifiable proof to back it up?

    Well, in a nutshell, you can't. While the evidence of God's creation is clearly seen all around you, understanding the spiritual impact of that, and what His word is telling you, is not possible until He opens your eyes.

    I believe, when someone begins to have a hunger for understanding God's word, that is evidence of God doing that very thing... opening their eyes, and stirring up a hunger there, to understand.

    So my advice to you is, pray, read your Bible, ask Him to show you what it means, and keep reading.
    "SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Corbin, with reference to the points you made I have come to the following conclusions:

    1)I have been unable to find this scripture so I can't comment on it.

    2)The ancients concidered the bat to be a bird and the particular scripture (Leviticus 11:13-19) was written to be relevent to them.

    3)This again was because of what the ancients believed, (c;r = 3;1) if God was to pop in half way through the author writing this and explain that he had made a slight mathmatical error then he would have just confused everyone.
    Another way of looking at this is the passage only says it was round, not perfectly circular.
    Whichever way you look at it it is still only a minor point which does not in any way discredit the Bible.

    4)The 6000 year figure is not in fact what the Bible states. It is the figure arrived at when all the ages of the people are added together. & what's the problem with that anyway?

    5)The stories at the begining of Genisis were handed down by word of mouth for many centuries before finaly being recorded by Moses so there might be a few inconsistancies. In fact Christian evoloutionists explain away the creationist stories by saying it could well be just folklore. I'm a creationist tho. Remember evoloution is just an unproven theory with many holes in it (e.g there are no transitional species.) Chew on the following:
    How could irriducible organs evolve?
    MOVE OUT THE WAY
    GIVE UP THE MIC'
    X TO ME IS EXTREMLY CHRIST
    LIVIN' UP IN ME LIKE IT OR NOT
    PUT AN X ON MY CHEST COS' X MARKS THE SPOT
    Extreme Days by Toby Mac

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by JC FR3AK
    Corbin, with reference to the points you made I have come to the following conclusions:

    1)I have been unable to find this scripture [purporting a flat earth] so I can't comment on it.
    Isaiah 24:1 - ... the earth is turned upside down to scatter its inhabitants.

    Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth... [Please note that the author of Isaiah uses the Hebrew word for circle (chuwg) instead of the word for ball (duwr).]

    Daniel 4:10-11 - Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

    Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world...

    2)The ancients concidered the bat to be a bird and the particular scripture (Leviticus 11:13-19) was written to be relevent to them.

    3)This again was because of what the ancients believed, (c;r = 3;1) if God was to pop in half way through the author writing this and explain that he had made a slight mathmatical error then he would have just confused everyone.
    Another way of looking at this is the passage only says it was round, not perfectly circular.
    Whichever way you look at it it is still only a minor point which does not in any way discredit the Bible.
    Don't you think it's interesting that God, supposed to possess all knowledge, never demonstrates any knowledge the Hebrews didn't already have? Couldn't He have easily cleared a bunch of things up for them? Advances in science and technology may have helped His chosen people enlighten the world as well as given them more might with which to resist pagan invaders. Instead, almost all the understanding we have of the shape of the earth, the structure of matter, and mathematics comes from the pagan Greeks.

    4)The 6000 year figure is not in fact what the Bible states. It is the figure arrived at when all the ages of the people are added together. & what's the problem with that anyway?
    The problem, of course, is all the evidence we have that the earth is much older than this and that the universe is older still (rather than a day or two younger as presented in the Genesis accounts).

    5)The stories at the begining of Genisis were handed down by word of mouth for many centuries before finaly being recorded by Moses so there might be a few inconsistancies. In fact Christian evoloutionists explain away the creationist stories by saying it could well be just folklore. I'm a creationist tho. Remember evoloution is just an unproven theory with many holes in it (e.g there are no transitional species.) Chew on the following:
    How could irriducible organs evolve?
    A couple of notes: evolution is not an unproven theory -- it's a proven theory. It is the basis of all modern biology and has contributed greatly to many other scientific disciplines as well. You claim that there are no transitional species when actually, they are all transitional species -- change is constant and inevitable even if it's subtle.

    It's true that we will never have direct evidence of every organism which ever existed on our planet because not all bones ossify to become fossils. Does that mean they never existed? Imagine looking through my mother's photo album. You might find photos of me as a child posing for a department store photographer and maybe some of me at a couple of birthday parties. Now imagine that a book was absent and the next book you looked at showed me as an adult. Uh-oh! My development is full of holes! If no photos can be found of me as a teen-ager, then Abraham's God wiggled his nose and I went straight from the age of seven to twenty-one...

    At least, that's the creationist position. Most people would correctly deduce that my life took a normal course and required no miracles.

    You mention irreducible organs (and I assume you mean organs of irreducible complexity as Behe suggests, since natural processes make all our organs reducible after we die!) and ask how they could evolve. Which organs are you referring to?

    Please take a look at this review -- it lays out the reasons Darwin's Black Box has failed to gain support within biological circles: American Scientist review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Okay first to irriducible organs! Irriducible organs are organs which have no function when reduced (reduced as in parts removed) e.g. the eye. Somthing as complex as the eye would take millions of years to evolve if not hundreds of millions of years. But if the natural selection process were in operation then only changes which would be immediatly useful (not only that but life saving or breeding enhancing.) Whereas the eye would not have any function before many millions of years had passed.
    So try and explain the following:
    Eye
    Bombadier Beetle
    Casette Tape

    Now the pi thing! Two more explanations here which I didn't have time to type out:
    1)If the diameter had been measured to the outside and the circumference to the inside the answer could have been three.

    2)The Hebrew characters for the Hebrew words for ten and thirty have numeric values and that if the numeric values are used it is possible to come very close to pi.

    Thirdly evoloution is only a theory. Although it is talked of as fact it is only theory (NOTE: All publications are forced to refer to it as the theory of evoloution.) If you can, please prove it to me, I think you can't!
    I do belive however that the earth is older than 6000 years, I am an ancient-creationist and was only explaining other peoples ideas. Trying to prove that from the bible is like trying to prove evoloution from the facts we currently have i.e none! Interestingly the acctual estimate was 10:30 AM on October the 21st 6004 BC, strange!

    Now for planets of the flat variety, note these were all in visions of some sort. Visions are confusing enough without being expected to recognise a ball as what you always thought was completely flat.

    As explained above people would not welcome extra confusing! The ancients had no use for the knowladge that a bat was not a bird by modern clasifications. As far as they were concerned it was and as far as we are concerned it is not! Why should we be right and they be wrong?

    God Bless You

    Renzo
    MOVE OUT THE WAY
    GIVE UP THE MIC'
    X TO ME IS EXTREMLY CHRIST
    LIVIN' UP IN ME LIKE IT OR NOT
    PUT AN X ON MY CHEST COS' X MARKS THE SPOT
    Extreme Days by Toby Mac

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by JC FR3AK
    Okay first to irriducible organs! Irriducible organs are organs which have no function when reduced (reduced as in parts removed) e.g. the eye. Somthing as complex as the eye would take millions of years to evolve if not hundreds of millions of years. But if the natural selection process were in operation then only changes which would be immediatly useful (not only that but life saving or breeding enhancing.) Whereas the eye would not have any function before many millions of years had passed.
    So try and explain the following:
    Eye
    Bombadier Beetle
    Casette Tape
    Again I remind you that what you are talking about is not irreducible organs, but organs of irreducible complexity. I tried to explain that in my last post but I don't think you read it very carefully. And <sigh> I'm quite sure you didn't follow my link.

    But I respect your desire for knowledge and I want to help you out. Unfortunately, a bombardier beetle isn't an organ (neither is a cassette tape, but it is the one example you list of intelligent design) so I'll just address the eye here, borrowing heavily from http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/...ye_stages.html.

    Let's make a fish eye. You start with what's on the outside of an organism since that's what light is most likely to interact with -- that organ is the skin. The skin of many animals reacts to light (i.e.: tans, sunburns) as well as transmits information gathered from the light (heat).

    Next take a group of particular and localized skin cells which are more sensitive than the other cells. You may have to wait for a mutation here to get them in one spot, but don't worry: you have a couple million years! Once these cells are gathered into a patch (or many patches) on an organism, these are its primitive light sensing organs; eyes, in other words. They aren't as useful as yours and mine, yet, but they could be useful enough to gain an advantage in food-gathering or threat-evasion. A slice of this eye might look like this: [these are just image files, please take the time to click on them]

    The cells towards the back (or bottom in the picture) are starting to get darker through natural selection because that helps direct the 'vision.'

    Speaking of natural selection, it's really in full swing now. At some point, a number of our organisms are going to be able to find more food, avoid predation, and locate healthy mates because they are now being selected for better eye-spots. One characteristic that's becoming popular is a depression under the eye-spot:

    Not only is it fashionable, but it increases visual accuracy and makes the eye-spot less prone to damage.

    As generation after generation passes, this process continues: the eye-pit deepens. At some point, the depression is about as deep as it is wide, and at some point it gains a protective jelly. This need not be a mutation; some organisms (especially fish-like ones which we're discussing anyway) have a protective slime over their skin to begin with. Now our population of critters has eyes similar to those of the flatworm and it's only taken a couple hundred thousand years:

    At this point I'm using too much space -- but I've got you started. Feel free to read about the rest of the process at http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/...ye_stages.html.

    Note that Michael Behe's argument for irreducible complexity actually takes place at the molecular level. A bit out of my depth there, but (again) feel free to visit American Scientist.

    Now the pi thing! Two more explanations here which I didn't have time to type out:
    1)If the diameter had been measured to the outside and the circumference to the inside the answer could have been three.

    2)The Hebrew characters for the Hebrew words for ten and thirty have numeric values and that if the numeric values are used it is possible to come very close to pi.

    Thirdly evoloution is only a theory. Although it is talked of as fact it is only theory (NOTE: All publications are forced to refer to it as the theory of evoloution.) If you can, please prove it to me, I think you can't!
    I still cringe every time I hear someone say, 'It's only a theory,' as if the word means it's just a guess or conjecture (and that's a lot of cringing). In common, everyday conversation, it's true that the word theory usually means that or something similar. According to dictionary.com, one definition of theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

    However, it also lists other uses for the word. The definition used here is actually a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. See? The theory of evolution isn't 'just a theory.' Look it up if you don't believe me.

    Anyway, just who is this global and Orwellian group forcing 'all publications' to refer to it by its proper name, anyway? I think you have an inaccurate view of how the process works.

    I do belive however that the earth is older than 6000 years, I am an ancient-creationist and was only explaining other peoples ideas. Trying to prove that from the bible is like trying to prove evoloution from the facts we currently have i.e none! Interestingly the acctual estimate was 10:30 AM on October the 21st 6004 BC, strange!
    No facts of evolution? Maybe some biology classes are in order. Did you know that even Dr. Kent Hovind, creationism's most infamous supporter, understands that evolution happens -- he just creates a special case called macroevolution to support his literal interpretation of scripture.

    Which is funny to me. We now know that Copernicus was only partially correct in his model of the solar system -- but nobody gets angry at him for it. Instead, he is (correctly, I think) admired as an innovator and given credit for taking the first steps to understanding the true nature of planetary motion. It seems to me that if there were any intellectual honesty among creationists, Darwin would be admired for introducing us to the process of microevolution even if macroevolution didn't happen. But I see kids wearing 'Darwin Lied!' tee-shirts and people continually hit the boards saying, "there's no evidence for evolution." Of course, when I point out that there is they always say, "oh, sure: microevolution, but not macroevolution," -- as if that's somehow not evolution.

    So ignorance and superstition brand Darwin a heretic instead of giving him credit for at least being partially right. Why is this? Could it be that at some level creationists understand that the theory of evolution is correct and that idea is so threatening to their fragile faith that they think they might not get to go to heaven unless the Bible is 100% literal?

    Could it be brainwashing?

    Now for planets of the flat variety, note these were all in visions of some sort. Visions are confusing enough without being expected to recognise a ball as what you always thought was completely flat.
    Hey, if you're suggesting that not everything in the Bible be taken literally, I'm on your side! That was probably Corbin's point in the first place.

    As explained above people would not welcome extra confusing! The ancients had no use for the knowladge that a bat was not a bird by modern clasifications. As far as they were concerned it was and as far as we are concerned it is not! Why should we be right and they be wrong?

    God Bless You

    Renzo
    Maybe if God had told these people the truth they wouldn't have written down their mythology and instead given us our first book on evolution!

    But what makes you think telling these people, 'look, a bat is not a bird,' would confuse them? Especially if it came from God. According to Hebrew scripture, when God proclaimed shellfish abominations (Leviticus 11:10) it doesn't appear they sat around and scratched their heads; they just wrote it down. When God referred to grasshoppers as four-legged (Leviticus 11:20-22), nobody got confused, heck, it appears nobody even checked this misinformation out -- it was simply accepted!

    Maybe an analogy would illustrate what I find troubling about this point: even if my children have no practical use for the idea that a bat is actually the only mammal alive with true flight capabilities (as wonderful as that is), I wouldn't let them remain ignorant of the fact if I found out they thought it was a bird. Why should God? Wouldn't it only increase their awe at His creation? Wouldn't dispelling their ignorance help them understand their dietary laws better?

    Or could it be that the scripture isn't actually the repository of all knowledge? That maybe it was written by humans and not dictated by Yaweh?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    179
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Hi Smugg Happy New Year:

    {So ignorance and superstition brand Darwin a heretic instead of giving him credit for at least being partially right. Why is this? Could it be that at some level creationists understand that the theory of evolution is correct and that idea is so threatening to their fragile faith that they think they might not get to go to heaven unless the Bible is 100% literal?}


    The Problem here is that faith has been misplaced, It is my opinion they have faith, but little in God, It is faith in the Bible,
    ( it is more Important of how religion is followed, than by why, who, what, when, and where.

    and as such, because there has been nothing new, they are still living in 65CE Their Faith, is 1,935 yrs behind.Yes there have been many edits, revisions, editions, but nothing new.
    it is this imbalance, that causes the knee jerk reaction.and intolerance,

    I would like to see some new Gospels, The Book Of Ghandi,
    The Book of Martin Luther King jr, and other contemporaries who lead their peoples to freedom from domination, Peacefully. Like Jesus, and Moses did,

    I would also like to see in the scriptures, denunciations of those who have manipuated religions to prove their own ends, That lead to Inquests, Enslavement of Peoples, wholesale murder.
    not only against Christianity, but by Christianity.

    Quote:
    { Maybe if God had told these people the truth they wouldn't have written down their mythology and instead given us our first book on evolution!}

    As you Know that I believe in God, I feel that you have to take into consideration here, Could mankind 4000 yrs ago with his
    limited education and his needs just to survive, Actually concieve of these ideas let alone try to write them down, God did then as he does now, Talks to us as to the limit of our comprehension.
    Is our grasp of science is, as it was, when I was in highschool
    No. In my text book I was tought, that man could not fly by his own power then That weekend I look at Wide world of sports and watched as people ran off a cliff Hang gliding. But in defence of science, and unlike religion it admits their mistakes and carries on and furthurs the sciences, and continually feeds itself with new Ideas, Unlike religion which feeds off itself.



    Quote:
    {Maybe an analogy would illustrate what I find troubling about this point: even if my children have no practical use for the idea that a bat is actually the only mammal alive with true flight capabilities (as wonderful as that is), I wouldn't let them remain ignorant of the fact if I found out they thought it was a bird. Why should God? Wouldn't it only increase their awe at His creation? Wouldn't dispelling their ignorance help them understand their dietary laws better?}

    Interesting analogy, and all we are doing here is conjecture,
    Could it be that Leviticus was allergic to shellfish?

    What I'm saying here is conceptual, If someone had an allergy you had a positive re-inforcement.

    Considering the Times wouldn't it be more dangerous to give mankind all the information all at once, With all that has happened in the world since 60 CE that we would not be here today, Isn't it just as bad to expect God to have given mankind all the answer 6,000 years ago, as the religions to question science now?

    Quote:
    {could it be that the scripture isn't actually the repository of all knowledge?}

    Definately, It Is not Nor I feel was it ever meant to be.


    Quote:
    (That maybe it was written by humans and not dictated by Yaweh}

    I think You give Mankind too much credit here.
    go in peace all things are great

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •