Poll: How did human life come about?

[So]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: So
How did quoting the bible get into this thread? I know Christians are smart enough not to think that they will sway anyone with arguments from the bible, since no scientist is going to take a book as a valid reason to accept an argument.

Again, they aren't capable of accepting other versions of truth. the book tells them truth...case closed.

Wha? You didn't answer the question, you just said "I say the book is true, and that is good enough, so NYAH!"

You have to realize that the bible doesn't convince nonbelievers, and isn't evidence in a scientific debate so brining it up is a waste of time whether or not you think it's true.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I mention it, because many fundamentalists who use the Bible to support their anti-homosexuality stances, point to the King James version as the end-all be-all of the debate. I find it blissfully ironic that the man who commisioned the translation was in fact, homosexual. It's also another way to discredit the infallibility of such translations.

I can definitely see the irony, but I guess I still don't see how it has any bearing on the truthfulness of the Bible. It could have a bearing on the translation of the Bible, that I could see. However, since even the KJV is very specific on homosexuality, I don't see how it could have been an issue. If it was, wouldn't he have had those verses removed?

Sorry, I understand what you're saying, I just don't see how it points to infallibility of translation.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

And here is where you wannabelievers prove that you're completely ignorant about this book of fiction which you let run your lives. The 10,000 year number is wrong, it's 4,500 to 6,000 years and not "outdated". The BIBLE ITSELF provides that number. If you had ever bothered to read it and understand it this little work of fiction creates a very nice timeline of events. Starting with Adam and Eve there's a long and complete list of who begat whom. And the bible also generously provides (make that "foolishly invents") the ages of these people at the key events in their lives. The bible tells you when they were born, what they did, who they begat and how long they all lived. It wasn't calculated out of thin air, the names, numbers and dates were provided by the bible itself. And it's not "outdated". It has not changed because the bible has not changed. It's still the same pack of lies and it still continues to prove itself false. The only people who fail to understand that are the ones who are truly ignorant about the book. Let me repeat this again since you keep trying to ignore this most pertinant fact: The bible provides the timeline and the timeline is false

The world itself is not 4,500-6.000 years old. We know that for a fact
Mankind has not been around for 4,500-6,000 years. We know that for a fact
There was no worldwide flood 3,500 years ago. We know that for a fact
The population of the earth wasn't wiped out except for one family 3,500 years ago and then repopulate from the same DNA. We know that for a fact.

Your most holy piece of fiction proves itself wrong from the very first chapter. It's not a church elder who invented some calculations and it's not an outdated set of numbers. They're the very numbers that come from the book. To believe the book you MUST believe the numbers. If you don't you're rejecting the entire book. If that's the case, congratulations. You just took the first step on the long road of evolution where hopefully you'll grow a brain.

If you could stop with the vitriol for one moment, I'd like for you to answer the question I asked you before in this thread and tell us exactly where (chapter and verse please) that the "BIBLE ITSELF provides that number." I imagine you ignore me on this because it doesn't. I already explained that the Ussher Chronology is the source of "that number," not the Bible. It really was calculated "out of thin air." Hell, the Catholic church completely rejects it.
So yeah, Young Earth Creationism is a complete fiction, but that doesn't justify your hate against the Christian religion in its entirety, or provide any reason (as you claim) that one should reject the entire book (for one thing, it's not even a single book, but a compilation).
BTW, Paine (of whom I am an immense fan) was referring to state religions, i.e. those with compulsory membership and tithes, not religion in general.
I prefer Jefferson's quote on the same subject: "They (the Anglican priests in Virginia who wanted to establish themselves as the state religion) fear me, and well they should, for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every tyranny over the minds of men."

ROFLMAO!! You're continuing to prove your own ignorance on this subject as assuredly as the bible proves its own lies. You want ME to provide the numbers from a book that you claim to know. When I do, will you then cease your childish ravings and admit that the bible is pure, fictional crap? No you won't and I won't repeat the work that been done 1000 times already. Do a little google action (you might have a difficult time with google as it works, unlike that book of fiction you worwhip) and search for a biblical timelime. There, in black and white the EXACT numbers, ages and family trees will spread forth before your sure to remain unbelieving eyes. It's there Vic-ey old boy and it's been there for hundreds of years. Your pathetic little church has had their biblical scholars working on it for hundreds of years hoping to disprove it because science so easily proves that it's pure bullshit. You know why they have not done so? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. There's the fly in the oinment Vic and there's the point that proves your complete and abject foolishness in continuing to argue this subject. The church can't dispute the book because the numbers are concrete and your insistent on ignoring that fact proves that you don't have the slightest clue about what the book says. You should not need me or any of the 1000 timelines that exist to quote you chapter and verse. If you had read the book you'd know it's there. You obviously have not read the book and still you let it run your life.

Sad, very very sad. Hopefully one day you'll open the pages of this work of fantasy that you let contro, you and you'll really read what it has to say. If you do so you might hopefully one day understand just how completely wrong it is and you might break free of its shackles. I sincerely doubt that though. The fact that you're screaming like a child to support it even in light of the massive mountain of evidence that exists to prove that it's false shows that you're simply too far gone. You've managed to turn off your brain and cling to those lies so desperately that you'll be like this forever.

The evidence is right there in the book Vic. It's indisputable. READ IT!!

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.

it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.

Honestly, I really don't have time to play philosopher and lexiconographer. I'll just tell you that my final authority is the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV is the perfect [pure], preserved word of God, as I believe. It is a perfect translation. If you wish to usurp your authority over the brilliant translators of the 1600's, be my guest; but do not think that I will strongly value your interpretation over their genius. And the words you wish definitions for can be found in a dictionary, and they will correspond with what I have said. Thank you.

Psalm 12:6

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

The OED perhaps? are you aware of it, and what kind of "dictionary" it is? I don't currently have access to a full set, but it is the only dictionary that will provide this information (concerning the English translation). Again, I'm not looking for definitions of words that you will find in Webster's or Oxford (definitions that are highly irrelevent to this discussion), but definitions of words as they were used at the time of translation. As for finding the definitions of the words in Hebrew, that were translated into the English language...no, I don't know where to find those. I'm not a linguist. But I assure you, they will not be found in a "dictionary."

As I said, I do not care about philosophical semantics; neither would I be hasty to adopt your interpretation of a word over the interpretation of the 50+ translators of the KJV.

It seems to me that whenever intelligent individuals such as yourself begin to debate the Bible, they lose all forms of common sense and logic in favor of philosophy and the lexicon.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

uh.... the KJV is widely known to contain many errors and ommissions. even bible scholars know that. they invented the word "hell" and disregarded God's name, Jehovah. those are very big errors in their singularity. couple them with the 3000+ other errors and you have an overall bad translation.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous
What makes the KJV the perfect, pure preserved word of God? The closest to pure that we can ever get is the original hebrew, and the scrolls written in aramaic. The KJV is a translation. therefore, it will always be a secondary source of the text. your logic can't be so perverted that you would deny even this?

Zin, all that matters to me is that God said he would preserve his word forever, and in unadulterated form. I certainly believe that the God who has the capacity to create the universe would also be able to guide the human translators to keep his promise.

What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case

No, what makes it perfect is God's promise to man that he would preserve his word. It doesn't matter if the Bible was ratified by the church of Satan, all that matters is that he said he would preserve it and keep his vow. In God's workings, the means do not matter, only the end result.

As for the claim of homosexuality, it seems that you do not realize that the accusations of the King's sexual orientation were made by his most vile haters wishing to undermine him and his legacy. Either way, the sexuality of the King has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the translation.

fair enough (see bolded), but historians disagree. might I hazard a guess towards where you receive your information?

Sure, here is a short read and here is a long read.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous
What makes the KJV the perfect, pure preserved word of God? The closest to pure that we can ever get is the original hebrew, and the scrolls written in aramaic. The KJV is a translation. therefore, it will always be a secondary source of the text. your logic can't be so perverted that you would deny even this?

Zin, all that matters to me is that God said he would preserve his word forever, and in unadulterated form. I certainly believe that the God who has the capacity to create the universe would also be able to guide the human translators to keep his promise.

What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case

No, what makes it perfect is God's promise to man that he would preserve his word. It doesn't matter if the Bible was ratified by the church of Satan, all that matters is that he said he would preserve it and keep his vow. In God's workings, the means do not matter, only the end result.

As for the claim of homosexuality, it seems that you do not realize that the accusations of the King's sexual orientation were made by his most vile haters wishing to undermine him and his legacy. Either way, the sexuality of the King has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the translation.

fair enough (see bolded), but historians disagree. might I hazard a guess towards where you receive your information?

Sure, here is a short read and here is a long read.

there are literally hundreds of translations of the bible around today.... in the english language alone. when exactly did god put his stamp on that particular version?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
uh.... the KJV is widely known to contain many errors and ommissions. even bible scholars know that. they invented the word "hell" and disregarded God's name, Jehovah. those are very big errors in their singularity. couple them with the 3000+ other errors and you have an overall bad translation.

Just as a clarification, Jehovah is Christ's premortal name. God's name is Elohim.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
uh.... the KJV is widely known to contain many errors and ommissions. even bible scholars know that. they invented the word "hell" and disregarded God's name, Jehovah. those are very big errors in their singularity. couple them with the 3000+ other errors and you have an overall bad translation.

Just as a clarification, Jehovah is Christ's premortal name. God's name is Elohim.

yhwh, or yahweh is the hebrew word for god's name, so i hardly believe the jews consider the tetragammon yhwh to be jesus' prehuman name.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: So
How did quoting the bible get into this thread? I know Christians are smart enough not to think that they will sway anyone with arguments from the bible, since no scientist is going to take a book as a valid reason to accept an argument.

Again, they aren't capable of accepting other versions of truth. the book tells them truth...case closed.

Wha? You didn't answer the question, you just said "I say the book is true, and that is good enough, so NYAH!"

You have to realize that the bible doesn't convince nonbelievers, and isn't evidence in a scientific debate so brining it up is a waste of time whether or not you think it's true.

Uh...have you been paying attention to the posts? I'm on your side. I never said "I." I said "they." don't put words in my mouth.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I mention it, because many fundamentalists who use the Bible to support their anti-homosexuality stances, point to the King James version as the end-all be-all of the debate. I find it blissfully ironic that the man who commisioned the translation was in fact, homosexual. It's also another way to discredit the infallibility of such translations.

I can definitely see the irony, but I guess I still don't see how it has any bearing on the truthfulness of the Bible. It could have a bearing on the translation of the Bible, that I could see. However, since even the KJV is very specific on homosexuality, I don't see how it could have been an issue. If it was, wouldn't he have had those verses removed?

Sorry, I understand what you're saying, I just don't see how it points to infallibility of translation.

contradict yourself, much?

we should take this to another thread, but I'm interested in the very specific points that you mention regarding homosexuality.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles

Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.

it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.

Honestly, I really don't have time to play philosopher and lexiconographer. I'll just tell you that my final authority is the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek. The KJV is the perfect [pure], preserved word of God, as I believe. It is a perfect translation. If you wish to usurp your authority over the brilliant translators of the 1600's, be my guest; but do not think that I will strongly value your interpretation over their genius. And the words you wish definitions for can be found in a dictionary, and they will correspond with what I have said. Thank you.

Psalm 12:6

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

The OED perhaps? are you aware of it, and what kind of "dictionary" it is? I don't currently have access to a full set, but it is the only dictionary that will provide this information (concerning the English translation). Again, I'm not looking for definitions of words that you will find in Webster's or Oxford (definitions that are highly irrelevent to this discussion), but definitions of words as they were used at the time of translation. As for finding the definitions of the words in Hebrew, that were translated into the English language...no, I don't know where to find those. I'm not a linguist. But I assure you, they will not be found in a "dictionary."

As I said, I do not care about philosophical semantics; neither would I be hasty to adopt your interpretation of a word over the interpretation of the 50+ translators of the KJV.

It seems to me that whenever intelligent individuals such as yourself begin to debate the Bible, they lose all forms of common sense and logic in favor of philosophy and the lexicon.

right, so you're saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Google OED, you might learn something. Again, these aren't my interpretations (believe me, I'm just as unconvinced of your interpretation of verse as you are of mine.)

The OED gives you the meaning and derivation of words in the English language from their earliest inception, citing contemporary sources of that particular word's use during the era of it's meaning. It seems that that the changing meaning of words over the centuries comes as a shock to you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This is not philosophy. You confirmed that I could seek my answers in a dictionary, and they would support your argument. I'm just showing you how you don't understand the argument, and how inappropriate a simple dictionary is to the discussion.

BTW, the OED is an invaluable resource for biblical scholars/translators. It is one that that they use to make the interpretations you find so valuable.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: zinfamous
What makes the KJV the perfect, pure preserved word of God? The closest to pure that we can ever get is the original hebrew, and the scrolls written in aramaic. The KJV is a translation. therefore, it will always be a secondary source of the text. your logic can't be so perverted that you would deny even this?

Zin, all that matters to me is that God said he would preserve his word forever, and in unadulterated form. I certainly believe that the God who has the capacity to create the universe would also be able to guide the human translators to keep his promise.

What makes it pure and perfect? The council that "adopted" this to be accepted as pure?
(off topic, I know, and this isn't an attack of any sort, but...>) I hope you don't have a problem with homosexuality, as Mr James himself was a latent queen. I only mention this because fundamental tendancies towards literal "truth" are often equated with homophobia and general bigotry. Again, I am not accusing you of such, just trying to burst your bubble a bit if that is the case

No, what makes it perfect is God's promise to man that he would preserve his word. It doesn't matter if the Bible was ratified by the church of Satan, all that matters is that he said he would preserve it and keep his vow. In God's workings, the means do not matter, only the end result.

As for the claim of homosexuality, it seems that you do not realize that the accusations of the King's sexual orientation were made by his most vile haters wishing to undermine him and his legacy. Either way, the sexuality of the King has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the translation.

fair enough (see bolded), but historians disagree. might I hazard a guess towards where you receive your information?

Sure, here is a short read and here is a long read.

read one side of the story much? here is your source: (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article

thanks, try again. perhaps you should try and read sources from his contemporaries, here is an easy source that you should have found...i can only imagine why you didn't cite it...
This source is vetted by several sources, not just one person's opinion:

 

[GD695372]

Wow...A religion thread...AT has certainly grown over the years.

 

[eojinlim]

For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.

For people to criticize King James for his homosexuality and to state that it is ironic that he is in fact gay is completely ignorant about the historical background of the KJ version. The KJV was commissioned by King James but was actually translated by 1000s of scholars...King James had no part in the scholarly translations of the Bible nor was he ever really that interested about anything regarding ancient texts or any scholarly works.

The Bible does not explain HOW things came into being nor does it explain WHAT or WHEN things happened...it isn't a fortune telling book. It explains WHY we are here, WHY we should care about helping others, and WHY people should put their faith in God as well as their fellow man.

If you ever have gone to church and have really committed to listening to what's being said, as well as reading the Bible itself and praying to God for strength and understanding (which I am 99% sure a non-believer would not have done so) you would realize the lineage as well as all of these timelines should not be taken at face value. To miss the entire point of the Bible - that Jesus was sent here to die for us because he loves us so much - and to focus in on whether Person X was born before Person Y, and whether it took x amount of years for this to happen and then later to declare that as complete nonsense because science refutes irrevocably, is missing the entire point of the Bible.

Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

 

[eojinlim]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

And here is where you wannabelievers prove that you're completely ignorant about this book of fiction which you let run your lives. The 10,000 year number is wrong, it's 4,500 to 6,000 years and not "outdated". The BIBLE ITSELF provides that number. If you had ever bothered to read it and understand it this little work of fiction creates a very nice timeline of events. Starting with Adam and Eve there's a long and complete list of who begat whom. And the bible also generously provides (make that "foolishly invents") the ages of these people at the key events in their lives. The bible tells you when they were born, what they did, who they begat and how long they all lived. It wasn't calculated out of thin air, the names, numbers and dates were provided by the bible itself. And it's not "outdated". It has not changed because the bible has not changed. It's still the same pack of lies and it still continues to prove itself false. The only people who fail to understand that are the ones who are truly ignorant about the book. Let me repeat this again since you keep trying to ignore this most pertinant fact: The bible provides the timeline and the timeline is false

The world itself is not 4,500-6.000 years old. We know that for a fact
Mankind has not been around for 4,500-6,000 years. We know that for a fact
There was no worldwide flood 3,500 years ago. We know that for a fact
The population of the earth wasn't wiped out except for one family 3,500 years ago and then repopulate from the same DNA. We know that for a fact.

Your most holy piece of fiction proves itself wrong from the very first chapter. It's not a church elder who invented some calculations and it's not an outdated set of numbers. They're the very numbers that come from the book. To believe the book you MUST believe the numbers. If you don't you're rejecting the entire book. If that's the case, congratulations. You just took the first step on the long road of evolution where hopefully you'll grow a brain.

I think you are missing the entire point of the Bible. It isn't there to provide numbers, quantifiable variables, as well as a hypothesis of why things are the way they are. The Bible is basically about Jesus. Everything, from the prophets in the Old Testament, to Jesus' life, and then later on to the beginnings of the church revolve around one thing - Jesus, God's gift, and his burning desire that everyone loves one another, respects one another, and cares for one another.

The Bible has undergone many translations - from Hebrew to Greece to Latin to English to....the numbers may not add up but the truth remains. God could care less whether the timelines are messed, and whether the number's don't add up. Read the Bible, pray to him, and then you will realize that reading the Bible with Him by your side truly reveals a certain level of truth that allows people to live their lives more happily. It doesn't hurt that to believe Jesus' sacrifice could save you from going to Hell.

Isn't this the reason for why the Bible is so important to all of us? Does anyone agree with me?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eojinlim
For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.

For people to criticize King James for his homosexuality and to state that it is ironic that he is in fact gay is completely ignorant about the historical background of the KJ version. The KJV was commissioned by King James but was actually translated by 1000s of scholars...King James had no part in the scholarly translations of the Bible nor was he ever really that interested about anything regarding ancient texts or any scholarly works.

The Bible does not explain HOW things came into being nor does it explain WHAT or WHEN things happened...it isn't a fortune telling book. It explains WHY we are here, WHY we should care about helping others, and WHY people should put their faith in God as well as their fellow man.

If you ever have gone to church and have really committed to listening to what's being said, as well as reading the Bible itself and praying to God for strength and understanding (which I am 99% sure a non-believer would not have done so) you would realize the lineage as well as all of these timelines should not be taken at face value. To miss the entire point of the Bible - that Jesus was sent here to die for us because he loves us so much - and to focus in on whether Person X was born before Person Y, and whether it took x amount of years for this to happen and then later to declare that as complete nonsense because science refutes irrevocably, is missing the entire point of the Bible.

Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

You might want to alert your fundie friends to take the Bible as allegory, which i agree with

 

[eojinlim]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eojinlim
For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.

For people to criticize King James for his homosexuality and to state that it is ironic that he is in fact gay is completely ignorant about the historical background of the KJ version. The KJV was commissioned by King James but was actually translated by 1000s of scholars...King James had no part in the scholarly translations of the Bible nor was he ever really that interested about anything regarding ancient texts or any scholarly works.

The Bible does not explain HOW things came into being nor does it explain WHAT or WHEN things happened...it isn't a fortune telling book. It explains WHY we are here, WHY we should care about helping others, and WHY people should put their faith in God as well as their fellow man.

If you ever have gone to church and have really committed to listening to what's being said, as well as reading the Bible itself and praying to God for strength and understanding (which I am 99% sure a non-believer would not have done so) you would realize the lineage as well as all of these timelines should not be taken at face value. To miss the entire point of the Bible - that Jesus was sent here to die for us because he loves us so much - and to focus in on whether Person X was born before Person Y, and whether it took x amount of years for this to happen and then later to declare that as complete nonsense because science refutes irrevocably, is missing the entire point of the Bible.

Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

You might want to alert your fundie friends to take the Bible as allegory, which i agree with

Well, I understand that Middle America is rampant with fundamentalist Christians that believe word for word what the Bible states. However, these are probably the same people that believe Intelligent Design should be part of a scientific curriculum - which is insane in my honest, humble opinion.
Many people who have had an education (at least an education rooted in mathematics and science) will understand that their world view and the view of the Bible are perfectly compatible with each other.

Whether the Bible is an allegory to everything that happened or whether the Bible is a chronological record of events that have passed is completely stupid. Fundamentalists and non-believers alike have a hard time looking past the numbers and looking at the truth that's written on the wall. There are many beautiful things that happen in this world. Can't people just stop being cynical and accept that there really is someone grand out there?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

yhwh, or yahweh is the hebrew word for god's name, so i hardly believe the jews consider the tetragammon yhwh to be jesus' prehuman name.

Yes, the phrase 'YHWH Elohim', translated 'LORD God', is found in the Old Testament 915 times. Christ is Lord, God is God.

Elohim

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

contradict yourself, much?

we should take this to another thread, but I'm interested in the very specific points that you mention regarding homosexuality.

Yes, I was afraid that wouldn't come out the way I wanted. Let me try again.

It could have had a bearing on the translation of the Bible, but since the Bible does still contain verses condemning the activity, I don't see how you can make any claims of "infallibility of translation".

Let me make one thing clear. I believe there were errors in the translation, 100%. I have no problem accepting that. However, I don't see KJ's sexual preferences pointing to infallibility of translation considering what wasn't mucked up in the translation.

I hope that helps and clarifies what I was trying to say, but knowing me, I probably just screwed it up again. As for the verses, I'll pm them to you so we can keep this out of the thread.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: eojinlim
For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.
...
Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

Science wasn't really around back then, so there was no counter to people writing an expansive work of fiction. Nowadays we have checks and balances, and if such a piece of work to come out today it would be discounted as a work of pure fiction. 2000 years of brainwashing getting passed into family tradition is a hard line to break, so I can understand why you believe so heavily in this book written years ago by mortal men.

Truth of the matter is, is that a lot of the times religion is a good thing. If people need to be fearful of hell so that they don't do bad things, then so be it. When it becomes a bad thing is when it's policy encroaches on things which it has no place in, namely public eduction and scientific studies. Examples include stem cell research, the RU-486 pill, and the most idiotic of them all, Intellectual Design (which was proven in court to be a farce).

If you want to look at the bible as a book of poetry and prose, then that's cool with me. If it makes you a better person, then read it all over again. When it starts encroaching on government grants and tries to force it's way into our public school system, then it needs to be pushed back, and rightfully so.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: eojinlim
For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.
...
Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

Science wasn't really around back then, so there was no counter to people writing an expansive work of fiction. Nowadays we have checks and balances, and if such a piece of work to come out today it would be discounted as a work of pure fiction. 2000 years of brainwashing getting passed into family tradition is a hard line to break, so I can understand why you believe so heavily in this book written years ago by mortal men.

Truth of the matter is, is that a lot of the times religion is a good thing. If people need to be fearful of hell so that they don't do bad things, then so be it. When it becomes a bad thing is when it's policy encroaches on things which it has no place in, namely public eduction and scientific studies. Examples include stem cell research, the RU-486 pill, and the most idiotic of them all, Intellectual Design (which was proven in court to be a farce).

If you want to look at the bible as a book of poetry and prose, then that's cool with me. If it makes you a better person, then read it all over again. When it starts encroaching on government grants and tries to force it's way into our public school system, then it needs to be pushed back, and rightfully so.

I agree. Using the book as a philosophical / metaphorical guide to how an individual leads his or her life is fine. Using the bible specifically to set public policy is where the problem starts.

 

[eojinlim]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: eojinlim
For non-believers to state that the Bible does not explain the infinite processes occurring in the world is ludicrous. The Bible is not some sort of scientific manual explaining everything in detail. It is metaphorical and meant to teach people how to gain strength through love, peace, and kindness, as well as to give us faith in times of loneliness and vulnerability.
...
Don't cite the Bible itself to prove that it doesn't exist. It's like using a dictionary to prove that the theory of evolution doesn't exist. I am not sure if that made any sense at all but I guess I want to emphasize that literally taking the Bible's words at it's face value is farcical. That is not why the Bible was written.

Science wasn't really around back then, so there was no counter to people writing an expansive work of fiction. Nowadays we have checks and balances, and if such a piece of work to come out today it would be discounted as a work of pure fiction. 2000 years of brainwashing getting passed into family tradition is a hard line to break, so I can understand why you believe so heavily in this book written years ago by mortal men.

Truth of the matter is, is that a lot of the times religion is a good thing. If people need to be fearful of hell so that they don't do bad things, then so be it. When it becomes a bad thing is when it's policy encroaches on things which it has no place in, namely public eduction and scientific studies. Examples include stem cell research, the RU-486 pill, and the most idiotic of them all, Intellectual Design (which was proven in court to be a farce).

If you want to look at the bible as a book of poetry and prose, then that's cool with me. If it makes you a better person, then read it all over again. When it starts encroaching on government grants and tries to force it's way into our public school system, then it needs to be pushed back, and rightfully so.

I agree. Using the book as a philosophical / metaphorical guide to how an individual leads his or her life is fine. Using the bible specifically to set public policy is where the problem starts.

It's a problem because United States are listening to these fundamental lobbying groups. The Iraq War has basically labeled the West as some bigoted fundamentalist Christian super-state.

I just don't like it when people attack the Bible, declare is fallible, and then come up with some argument declaring that Christianity is one big farce.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: eojinlim
Upon reflecting on the question I must say that the "life evolved over only 10, 000 years" is completely false. However, as a Christian, I would like to point out that this 10, 000 year estimate is completely outdated. It was "calculated" by some member of the church hundreds of years ago and nowhere in the Bible does it state the timeline or any quantifiable evidence that it occurred over only 10, 000 years.

Therefore, it frustrates me to absolutely no end, when non-believers, Atheists, et al. bring up a counter point of how evolution has PROVEN that everything could not have possibly shaped the world in a matter of only 10, 000 years - chump change really.

And here is where you wannabelievers prove that you're completely ignorant about this book of fiction which you let run your lives. The 10,000 year number is wrong, it's 4,500 to 6,000 years and not "outdated". The BIBLE ITSELF provides that number. If you had ever bothered to read it and understand it this little work of fiction creates a very nice timeline of events. Starting with Adam and Eve there's a long and complete list of who begat whom. And the bible also generously provides (make that "foolishly invents") the ages of these people at the key events in their lives. The bible tells you when they were born, what they did, who they begat and how long they all lived. It wasn't calculated out of thin air, the names, numbers and dates were provided by the bible itself. And it's not "outdated". It has not changed because the bible has not changed. It's still the same pack of lies and it still continues to prove itself false. The only people who fail to understand that are the ones who are truly ignorant about the book. Let me repeat this again since you keep trying to ignore this most pertinant fact: The bible provides the timeline and the timeline is false

The world itself is not 4,500-6.000 years old. We know that for a fact
Mankind has not been around for 4,500-6,000 years. We know that for a fact
There was no worldwide flood 3,500 years ago. We know that for a fact
The population of the earth wasn't wiped out except for one family 3,500 years ago and then repopulate from the same DNA. We know that for a fact.

Your most holy piece of fiction proves itself wrong from the very first chapter. It's not a church elder who invented some calculations and it's not an outdated set of numbers. They're the very numbers that come from the book. To believe the book you MUST believe the numbers. If you don't you're rejecting the entire book. If that's the case, congratulations. You just took the first step on the long road of evolution where hopefully you'll grow a brain.

If you could stop with the vitriol for one moment, I'd like for you to answer the question I asked you before in this thread and tell us exactly where (chapter and verse please) that the "BIBLE ITSELF provides that number." I imagine you ignore me on this because it doesn't. I already explained that the Ussher Chronology is the source of "that number," not the Bible. It really was calculated "out of thin air." Hell, the Catholic church completely rejects it.
So yeah, Young Earth Creationism is a complete fiction, but that doesn't justify your hate against the Christian religion in its entirety, or provide any reason (as you claim) that one should reject the entire book (for one thing, it's not even a single book, but a compilation).
BTW, Paine (of whom I am an immense fan) was referring to state religions, i.e. those with compulsory membership and tithes, not religion in general.
I prefer Jefferson's quote on the same subject: "They (the Anglican priests in Virginia who wanted to establish themselves as the state religion) fear me, and well they should, for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every tyranny over the minds of men."

ROFLMAO!! You're continuing to prove your own ignorance on this subject as assuredly as the bible proves its own lies. You want ME to provide the numbers from a book that you claim to know. When I do, will you then cease your childish ravings and admit that the bible is pure, fictional crap? No you won't and I won't repeat the work that been done 1000 times already. Do a little google action (you might have a difficult time with google as it works, unlike that book of fiction you worwhip) and search for a biblical timelime. There, in black and white the EXACT numbers, ages and family trees will spread forth before your sure to remain unbelieving eyes. It's there Vic-ey old boy and it's been there for hundreds of years. Your pathetic little church has had their biblical scholars working on it for hundreds of years hoping to disprove it because science so easily proves that it's pure bullshit. You know why they have not done so? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. There's the fly in the oinment Vic and there's the point that proves your complete and abject foolishness in continuing to argue this subject. The church can't dispute the book because the numbers are concrete and your insistent on ignoring that fact proves that you don't have the slightest clue about what the book says. You should not need me or any of the 1000 timelines that exist to quote you chapter and verse. If you had read the book you'd know it's there. You obviously have not read the book and still you let it run your life.

Sad, very very sad. Hopefully one day you'll open the pages of this work of fantasy that you let contro, you and you'll really read what it has to say. If you do so you might hopefully one day understand just how completely wrong it is and you might break free of its shackles. I sincerely doubt that though. The fact that you're screaming like a child to support it even in light of the massive mountain of evidence that exists to prove that it's false shows that you're simply too far gone. You've managed to turn off your brain and cling to those lies so desperately that you'll be like this forever.

The evidence is right there in the book Vic. It's indisputable. READ IT!!

Uh... WTF is your issue? I'm not even religious, much less a Christian. It isn't my church (as you say), it doesn't "run my life" , I don't "cling to lies" :roll: , you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. My advice to you would be to take your own advice, and read it. You obviously haven't. And you obviously haven't even read this thread either. Either that or you're delusional. That's the only way someone could read this thread and come to the false conclusion that I'm a Christian. WTF?
However, I don't talk against things I don't understand as bigotry is the combination of hatred and ignorance. So I have in fact read the Bible cover-to-cover twice (first time KJV, 2nd time NIV). I'm also read the Book of Mormon, Quran, Veda, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Talmud. I like to read and such things were important to me at one time.
As such, let me say that you haven't the slightest clue what you're fscking talking about. I'd say it's pretty clear that you went on this little personal attack rant to cover that up. Bad news for you: it just made you look worse. If you have an intelligent argument to bring to this discussion, do so. But if you're going to accuse everyone who questions your precious prejudices as blind religious fanatics (even when, as in my case, the entire board here knows that I am not), well... kindly take that trolling elsewhere. This thread has been trolled enough as it is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!