The Bible

[jbg]

This post, given the thread title, is not off topic.

I am leading Torah Study next Saturday morning, and we cover Deuteronmy 24:14 through 25:19. The text is below. Any guidance or suggesions from "the group"?

Biblical text (no copyright) below:

14] You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land. 15] You must payout the wages due on the same day, before the sun sets, for the worker is needy and urgently depends on it; else a cry to the Eternal will be issued against you and you will incur guilt. 16] Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: they shall each be put to death only for their own crime. 17] You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the fatherless; you shall not take a widow's garment in pawn. 18] Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment. 19] When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not tum back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow-in order that the Eternal your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20] When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 21] When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 22] Always remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.

25:1] When there is a dispute between parties and they go to law, and a decision is rendered declaring the one in the right and the other in the wrong- 2] if the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have the person lie down and shall supervise the giving of lashes, by count, as warranted by the offense. 3] The guilty one may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your peer be degraded before your eyes. 4] You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. 5] When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a party outside the family. Her husband's brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir's duty. 6] The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. 7] But if the [family] representative does not want to marry his brother's widow, his brother's widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, "My husband's brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir." 8] The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. Ifhe insists, saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9] his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the [family] representative who will not build up his brother's house! 10] And he shall go in Israel by the name of "the family of the unsandaled one."

11] If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, 12] you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.13] You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller. 14] You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller. 15] You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that the Eternal your God is giving you. 16] For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the Eternal your God. 17] Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt- 18] how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. 19] Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Any interpretational help is appreciated.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

Any interpretational help is appreciated.

I enjoyed the part about the genitals.

[betsy]

This post, given the thread title, is not off topic.

I am leading Torah Study next Saturday morning, and we cover Deuteronmy 24:14 through 25:19. The text is below. Any guidance or suggesions from "the group"?

Biblical text (no copyright) below:

14] You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land. 15] You must payout the wages due on the same day, before the sun sets, for the worker is needy and urgently depends on it; else a cry to the Eternal will be issued against you and you will incur guilt. 16] Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: they shall each be put to death only for their own crime. 17] You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the fatherless; you shall not take a widow's garment in pawn. 18] Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment. 19] When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not tum back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow-in order that the Eternal your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20] When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 21] When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 22] Always remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.

25:1] When there is a dispute between parties and they go to law, and a decision is rendered declaring the one in the right and the other in the wrong- 2] if the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have the person lie down and shall supervise the giving of lashes, by count, as warranted by the offense. 3] The guilty one may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your peer be degraded before your eyes. 4] You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. 5] When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a party outside the family. Her husband's brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir's duty. 6] The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. 7] But if the [family] representative does not want to marry his brother's widow, his brother's widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, "My husband's brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir." 8] The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. Ifhe insists, saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9] his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the [family] representative who will not build up his brother's house! 10] And he shall go in Israel by the name of "the family of the unsandaled one."

11] If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, 12] you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.13] You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller. 14] You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller. 15] You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that the Eternal your God is giving you. 16] For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the Eternal your God. 17] Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt- 18] how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. 19] Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Any interpretational help is appreciated.

I'll have to read it tonight. Gotta go to work.

[bloodyminded]

You've posted that junk enough times for me to have seen it more than a few times too many. It proves nothing: you take the Bible literally when it suits you and you take it figuratively when it suits you.

Some of the "facts" you provided came with no corresponding Biblical passages. Of the remainder, many themselves require a subjective interpretation of either the Bible's words or the science in order to make them "match": The Bible's "proof" that there's an incalculable number of stars requires the assumption that science has told us there's an incalculable number of stars. The Bible's "proof" of an expanding universe requires one to assume not only that the writers of the Bible knew the heavens stretched any farther than the bounds of the visible horizon, but also that God (assuming there is one) continues to stretch heavens we're to assume have an infinite capability of stretching. The Bible's "proof" that the earth is a sphere requires one to interpret the word "circle" as "sphere". The Bible's "proof" of atoms requires one to assume science has told us atoms are invisible and then, subsequently, that these invisible atoms are God. Still more "facts" are simply your regurgitation of some other person's "science" based on subjective readings of the Bible: i.e. the finished creation, which requires one to read Genesis 2:1,2 as though it said for certain that God was completely done creating matter at the end of his seven day project. And other "facts" leave one saying: so what? So the Bible talks about mountains and trenches in the oceans? So the Bible talks about ocean currents? Mariners were aware of those things centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible mentions shipbuilding? Shipbuilders were aware of the trade centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible talks about rain feeding rivers? People were aware of that (and the process of condensation) centuries before the Bible existed. (I said this before: You go on in deliberate ignorance of the existence of the cultures in Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, Central America, and China, and the knowledge they possessed fully through investigation and discovery, without ever having known of your God or the Bible.)

And that shoddy mess of partial construal and irrelevancies is supposed to serve as the foundation upon which you build the claim that the Bible is proof of the existence of God? It's so preposterous it ends up as nothing more than a joke.

Nicely done.

It'll have no effect, but that's not your fault.

[betsy]

This post, given the thread title, is not off topic.

I am leading Torah Study next Saturday morning, and we cover Deuteronmy 24:14 through 25:19. The text is below. Any guidance or suggesions from "the group"?

Biblical text (no copyright) below:

14] You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land. 15] You must payout the wages due on the same day, before the sun sets, for the worker is needy and urgently depends on it; else a cry to the Eternal will be issued against you and you will incur guilt. 16] Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: they shall each be put to death only for their own crime. 17] You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the fatherless; you shall not take a widow's garment in pawn. 18] Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment. 19] When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not tum back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow-in order that the Eternal your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20] When you beat down the fruit of your olive trees, do not go over them again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 21] When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. 22] Always remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.

25:1] When there is a dispute between parties and they go to law, and a decision is rendered declaring the one in the right and the other in the wrong- 2] if the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have the person lie down and shall supervise the giving of lashes, by count, as warranted by the offense. 3] The guilty one may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your peer be degraded before your eyes. 4] You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. 5] When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a party outside the family. Her husband's brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir's duty. 6] The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. 7] But if the [family] representative does not want to marry his brother's widow, his brother's widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, "My husband's brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir." 8] The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. Ifhe insists, saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9] his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the [family] representative who will not build up his brother's house! 10] And he shall go in Israel by the name of "the family of the unsandaled one."

11] If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, 12] you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.13] You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller. 14] You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller. 15] You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that the Eternal your God is giving you. 16] For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the Eternal your God. 17] Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt- 18] how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. 19] Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Any interpretational help is appreciated.

The Bible study notes explains that from 24:8 - 25:4, relates to the ninth Commandment. The concept of fairness is emphasized.

24:17-22, the orphan, stranger and widow were to be dispensed justice and charity alike.

The key phrase is: Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there;

The Old testamnet insists that the protection of the weak is a duty not only of kings, but also of the whole society.

25:1-3 guarantee the proper exercise of justice to convicted criminals in cases of demanding corporal punishment. Excessive beating would humiliate a man to the level of a beast and thus his dignity would be offended. Forty blows was the maximum number, a figure that occurs also in the Assyrian Code and suggests a widespread custom.

25:4 Animals were to be treated mercifully. Love and kindness were to be shown to all God's creatures.

25:5-10 deal with levirate marriage. Levirate is from the Latin meaning "brother in-law" or "husband's brother." This was not unique with Israel, for the Hittites and Assyrians observed the practice. The Assyrian extended the practice to a betrothed person.

(Note Gen 38:1-10 for the ancient practice in Israel)

This custom was designed to prevent extinction of the family name and property (cf Num 27 and 36 with the daughters of Zelophehad).

Lose his shoe (cf Ruth 4:7, 8). When the woman did this to the man it indicated that the brother had abandoned his responsibility, and therefore deserved the shame symbolized by spitting.

25:13-16. A just weight is a "righteous one," a weight that conforms to the norm. Not only does the law prohibit the use of dishonest weights and measures, but it even prohibits their possession, Israel was urged to avoid tempting situations as well as the actual acts themselves.

[g_bambino]

Nicely done.

It'll have no effect, but that's not your fault.

Thank you. But, you're right; she'll just ignore it. And then demand that people address the posted "facts", no doubt.

[betsy]

You've posted that junk enough times for me to have seen it more than a few times too many. It proves nothing: you take the Bible literally when it suits you and you take it figuratively when it suits you.

Science can and have proven some which can be taken literally.

Some of the "facts" you provided came with no corresponding Biblical passages. Of the remainder, many themselves require a subjective interpretation of either the Bible's words or the science in order to make them "match": The Bible's "proof" that there's an incalculable number of stars requires the assumption that science has told us there's an incalculable number of stars.

Stars are not scattered randomly through space, they are gathered together into vast groups known as galaxies. The Sun belongs to a galaxy called the Milky Way. Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also!

Hipparcos mapped millions of stars in our galaxy, but how many more are there?

It has been said that counting the stars in the Universe is like trying to count the number of sand grains on a beach on Earth. We might do that by measuring the surface area of the beach, and determining the average depth of the sand layer.

If we count the number of grains in a small representative volume of sand, by multiplication we can estimate the number of grains on the whole beach.

For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 1011 to 1012 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 1011 or 1012 galaxies.

In 1995, an image from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) suggested that star formation had reached a peak at roughly seven thousand million years ago. Recently, however, astronomers have thought again.

The Hubble Deep Field image was taken at optical wavelengths and there is now some evidence that a lot of early star formation was hidden by thick dust clouds. Dust clouds block the stars from view and convert their light into infrared radiation, making them invisible to the HST.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html

The Bible's "proof" of an expanding universe requires one to assume not only that the writers of the Bible knew the heavens stretched any farther than the bounds of the visible horizon,but also that God (assuming there is one) continues to stretch heavens we're to assume have an infinite capability of stretching.

But to have used the most accurate word, "stretching" or "stretches," 11 times, by more than one author, in the same context, and relating to creation....written by people who probably didn't even understand what it was they were describing at the time!

You could almost see them now - probably scratching their heads and wondering, "what was that all about?"

The Bible's "proof" that the earth is a sphere requires one to interpret the word "circle" as "sphere".

Well, it could be semantics. The following is an answer to the question:

How can one prove the world is round?

Now that we have access to space, the easiest way to prove the Earth is spherical is to leave it and view it from a distance. Astronauts and space probes have done just that. Every picture of Earth ever taken shows only a circular shape, and the only geometric solid which looks like a circle from any direction is a sphere.

One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape, however, can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse. The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. Once again, the only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere."

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm

The Bible's "proof" of atoms requires one to assume science has told us atoms are invisible and then, subsequently, that these invisible atoms are God.

Here is the verse that was quoted, specifically talking about the creation of the universe.

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Can you see atoms with your naked eye?

Still more "facts" are simply your regurgitation of some other person's "science" based on subjective readings of the Bible: i.e. the finished creation, which requires one to read Genesis 2:1,2 as though it said for certain that God was completely done creating matter at the end of his seven day project.

Hello? What do you mean by this so-called, "some other person's "science?"

The First Law of Thermodynamics, the most firmly established natural law in science, confirms the Biblical statement concerning a finished creation,

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=346

And other "facts" leave one saying: so what? So the Bible talks about mountains and trenches in the oceans? So the Bible talks about ocean currents? Mariners were aware of those things centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible mentions shipbuilding? Shipbuilders were aware of the trade centuries before the Bible existed. So the Bible talks about rain feeding rivers? People were aware of that (and the process of condensation) centuries before the Bible existed. (I said this before: You go on in deliberate ignorance of the existence of the cultures in Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, Central America, and China, and the knowledge they possessed fully through investigation and discovery, without ever having known of your God or the Bible.)

Here we go again with the litany of ancient places.

You mentioned a variety of ancient places/cultures there. Now, can you please cite one single ancient book written by one of the ancient places you mentioned - an ancient book as old or even older than the Bible, which contains as many scientifically proven facts.

Well, cite one ancient book! What scientifically proven facts do they have?

To an atheist, "so what!" is an expected answer. You will resist at all cost, any evidences given to you. Why shouldn't you resist?

Proof of God's existence is the swan song of atheism.

And that shoddy mess of partial construal and irrelevancies is supposed to serve as the foundation upon which you build the claim that the Bible is proof of the existence of God? It's so preposterous it ends up as nothing more than a joke.

well, instead of just calling it a joke...why don't you stretch your neck out a bit and defend your argument with a real argument?

Why don't you be like me? I could've just as easily dismissed your response - considering the kind of previous responses I had from you (hello Mr Trilobites, for one) - and yet I rebutted your list one by one. I even corrected your mistakes.

Saying, "it'preposterous!" or "it's ridiculous!" or "it's a joke!" is not enough. You gotta have a back-up and explain, why! CREDIBLY. With supporting sources. Personal opinions do not count.

You didn't say anything new. You regurgitated the same-old, resurrected the same lame arguments which of course you tried to tweak around so as to make it like new.

As you can see, it still got the same fitting answers.

Edited September 7, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

I have been very clear on my belief regarding the Creator God. Feel free to call him whatever you want, I will call by His one name: GOD.

I also been very clear on what I think of the fraudulent pseudo-science that seeks to undermine real and sound scientific knowledge, namely the evolution of life from early life forms to the current ones, including humans. But just in case...

These have been the most recent arguments I used for Intelligent Design. Below was an excerpt of my response to another poster in Creation.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument

Betsy:

I'm saying, you should abandon the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of ID.

That is, if you want to be scientific about it, and not faith-based.

`The "Intelligent Design" movement's premise, that life forms are essentially the same today as they were in the beginning, is scientifically unsound.

How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument.

Its claim that life is too complex to have evolved is scientifically unsound.

How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument.

Its methods have nothing do with science,

How so? Explain how its methods has nothing to do with science.

and its claim there is a huge controversy among scientitists regarding evolution, is false.

How so? Support your statement. Cite.

Less and less Christians are buying this little trick of passing knwoledge gained through faith (the creator God) as scientifc knowledge in order to undermine scientific knowledge some don't like.

While I could mention some scientists and famous atheists like Philosopher Anthony Flew - who promptly reversed his position and became Deist, embracing Intelligent Design, your assertion however needs some back-up.

Support your statement that less and less Christians are buying into this. Can you show some data? Where did you get your numbers?

Edited September 7, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

please cite one single ancient book written by one of the ancient places you mentioned - an ancient book as old or even older than the Bible, which contains as many scientifically proven facts.

Anything written by Aristotle for starters...

[jbg]

The Bible study notes explains that from 24:8 - 25:4, relates to the ninth Commandment. The concept of fairness is emphasized.

24:17-22, the orphan, stranger and widow were to be dispensed justice and charity alike.

The key phrase is: Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and that the Eternal your God redeemed you from there;

The Old testamnet insists that the protection of the weak is a duty not only of kings, but also of the whole society.

25:1-3 guarantee the proper exercise of justice to convicted criminals in cases of demanding corporal punishment. Excessive beating would humiliate a man to the level of a beast and thus his dignity would be offended. Forty blows was the maximum number, a figure that occurs also in the Assyrian Code and suggests a widespread custom.

25:4 Animals were to be treated mercifully. Love and kindness were to be shown to all God's creatures.

***********************

25:13-16. A just weight is a "righteous one," a weight that conforms to the norm. Not only does the law prohibit the use of dishonest weights and measures, but it even prohibits their possession, Israel was urged to avoid tempting situations as well as the actual acts themselves.

Quite a forward-looking portion. It would do some people good to actually read it. The Bible as progressive literature eh?

[g_bambino]

I stand corrected on my opinion that betsy wouldn't respond.

----------

Stars are not scattered randomly through space, they are gathered together into vast groups known as galaxies. The Sun belongs to a galaxy called the Milky Way[, etc., etc.]

The pertinent excerpt from your link:

So how many stars are there in the Universe? It is easy to ask this question, but difficult for scientists to give a fair answer!... [W]ith Herschel... [w]e will be one step closer to provide a more reliable estimate to that question asked so often in the past - "How many stars are there?"

How many stars are there in the Universe?

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the "fact" that it is impossible to calculate the number of stars. However, as evidenced by the quote above, science has not yet concluded whether or not the number of stars is incalculable. Your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

----------

But to have used the most accurate word, "stretching" or "stretches," 11 times, by more than one author, in the same context, and relating to creation....written by people who probably didn't even understand what it was they were describing at the time!

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the fact that the universe is expanding. However, your only affirmation of the claim is, yet again, a personal assumption that the word "stretch" used in the Bible is not simply a metaphor for the span of the visible sky from horizon to horizon, and no farther (it can be said that a bridge stretches from shore to shore with no implication that the bridge is expanding). As you cannot prove your assumption to be true, your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

----------

How can one prove the world is round? [Etc., etc.]

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the fact that the planet earth is a sphere. However, your only affirmation of the claim is, yet again, a personal assumption that the word "circle" used in the Bible means "sphere". Your link only talks about how to prove the earth is "round", a word that describes both a sphere and a circle; it says nothing about how "sphere" is a synonym for "circle". And, in fact, elementary geometry tells us it is not. Your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

----------

Can you see atoms with your naked eye?

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the "fact" that all matter is made from atoms and atoms are invisible. Whether or not atoms are visible to my naked eye is irrelevant; atoms have been seen. Your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

----------

What do you mean by this so-called, "some other person's "science?"

The theories based on subjective interpretations of the Bible put forward as "science" by someone other than you.

----------

can you please cite one single ancient book written by one of the ancient places you mentioned - an ancient book as old or even older than the Bible, which contains as many scientifically proven facts.

In order to meet the request, you'd have to first establish just how many scientific facts are actually in the Bible. As this exercise has proven, there aren't as many as you think.

Well, cite one ancient book! What scientifically proven facts do they have?

See the still extant works of Euclid (geometry), Pythagoras (geometry), Hippocrates (medicine), Hipparchus (astronomy, geography, mathematics), Archimedes (mechanical engineering), Shi Shen (astronomy), and Gan De (astronomy), for starters.

----------

well, instead of just calling it a joke...why don't you stretch your neck out a bit and defend your argument with a real argument?

See above.

[c/e]

Edited September 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[betsy]

I stand corrected on my opinion that betsy wouldn't respond.

----------

I don't want to waste time.

The pertinent excerpt from your link:

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the "fact" that it is impossible to calculate the number of stars. However, as evidenced by the quote above, science has not yet concluded whether or not the number of stars is incalculable. Your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

It is therefore, incalculable, to date. That they've had to re-think with Huble (discovering that there were "hidden" stars)...and now rely on Herchel (?).....

You're missing the whole point, my friend.

How does a simple man - simple in the sense that his knowledge couldn't have possibly think, let alone imagine, the magnitude of knowledge that science would've shown to man thousands of years into the future - know enough to even make a simple statement that compares the numbers of stars to sand?

Why didn't he just look up, and do a quick calculation - he didn't have to be precise - to all the stars he saw above him?

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the fact that the universe is expanding.

The Bible stated simple statements - a description of the Creator and His creation - that described His action of "stretching/stretches the heavens."

It is science that says, the universe is expanding.

Furthermore, as my science source indicated, the most accurate word to describe the "expanding" universe is that....it is "stretching."

However, your only affirmation of the claim is, yet again, a personal assumption that the word "stretch" used in the Bible is not simply a metaphor for the span of the visible sky from horizon to horizon,

Such an uncanny personal assumption, don't you think? Especially when based on 11 or so Biblical verses stating the same thing.

Anyway, you are making assumptions in seeing it as metaphor for the sky that is visible - a real "stretching" that is - since whoever stated the incalculable stars didn't calculate what is visible in the sky.

and no farther

Oh yeah?

(it can be said that a bridge stretches from shore to shore with no implication that the bridge is expanding). As you cannot prove your assumption to be true, your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

If you are standing at one end of the long bridges (I don't know the name) that connect islands, can you see the "expansion" happenning as the constructors add some more on the other end?

Even if you're riding on a rig truck, you can't see if the bridge is broken - let alone "expanding" - until you reach the point when you can see it!

The same goes for the atoms and the sphere. You're missing the point.

You're grasping at semantics and preciseness - although the descriptions given are too close for comfort - yet failing to understand that all these came from men who didn't have any idea at all that something such as science is going to exist in the future, and support their "assumptions."

We're not talking about one or two or three "coincidences" here that turned out to be true!

----------

The theories based on subjective interpretations of the Bible put forward as "science" by someone other than you.

The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, science supports the Bible.

How many times do I have to explain that???

In order to meet the request, you'd have to first establish just how many scientific facts are actually in the Bible. As this exercise has proven, there aren't as many as you think.

Since I'm not done with the facts yet....why don't you just match the numbers of facts listed so far?

C'mon, give one ancient book - as old or older than the Bible - that has 50 science-supported revelations.

See the still extant works of Euclid (geometry), Pythagoras (geometry), Hippocrates (medicine), Hipparchus (astronomy, geography, mathematics), Archimedes (mechanical engineering), Shi Shen (astronomy), and Gan De (astronomy), for starters.

Thanks for the advice. But you do need to go back and brush up with the basics of

Reading and Comprehension.

Edited September 7, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited September 7, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Unfortunately, multi-quote doesn't seem to work for me, but oh well...

These have been the most recent arguments I used for Intelligent Design. Below was an excerpt of my response to another poster in Creation.

How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument.

How so? Explain why it's scientifically unsound. Support your argument.

How so? Explain how its methods has nothing to do with science.

How so? Support your statement. Cite.

While I could mention some scientists and famous atheists like Philosopher Anthony Flew - who promptly reversed his position and became Deist, embracing Intelligent Design, your assertion however needs some back-up.

Support your statement that less and less Christians are buying into this. Can you show some data? Where did you get your numbers?

That the methods and conlusions of the Intelligent Design are not scientifically sound should be self-evident to anybody who read or listen to them and who posess a basic understanding of science. So let's see what scientific organizations have to say about it (notte: quotes are taken from a wikipedia article, but all of them are referenced.

Amreican Association for the Advencement of Science:

No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory

.

American Astronomical Society:

"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Botanical Society of America

The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.

From a statement by the Internationsal Society for Science and Religion: link

The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

The Society retains the copyright of the statement, but gives general permission to reproduce it, in whole or in part, provided that the statement in the paragraph immediately preceding this is reproduced.

(...)We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

The last quote refers to one of the "examples" used by the Intelligent Design movements. Then, there's Dr. Francis collins, formerly head of the Human Genome Project, current head of the National Institute of Health (confirmed unamymously by the U.S. Senate, no less), evolutionist... and an evangelical Christian, once again on the Intelligent Design movement and the eye: link

(Intelligent Design) argues that there are certain constructs in biology, certain particular features that can't be explained by evolution because they have irreduceable complexity. Take the eye, for instance. How do you develop something as complicated as the eye by a process of natural selection. It doesn't seem like that would fit with the slow gradual process where small changes get selected for. You'd never get there. The problem with that argument is biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye which clearly could have evolution acting upon them and result in a complicated structure.

And the story of the flagellum is sufficiently known that I won't come back to that one.

Edited September 7, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

It is therefore, incalculable, to date.

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the "fact" that it is impossible to calculate the number of stars. That the number hasn't yet been calculated isn't proof that the number can't be calculated, which is what "incalculable" means. Even if we accept your present tense use of "incalculable" - as in, the number is currently incalculable because we don't have the technology to perform the calculation - to do so, you have to accept that the number could be calculated, which would mean that one day the Bible could be proven wrong. Your assertion, therefore, remains doubtful.

How does a simple man - simple in the sense that his knowledge couldn't have possibly think, let alone imagine, the magnitude of knowledge that science would've shown to man thousands of years into the future - know enough to even make a simple statement that compares the numbers of stars to sand?

Possibly because he possessed the ability to use dramatic metaphor, a linguistic tactic that existed thousands of years before the Bible did.

----------

Furthermore, as my science source indicated, the most accurate word to describe the "expanding" universe is that....it is "stretching." Such an uncanny personal assumption, don't you think?

You claimed the Bible is "proven" to be the word of God because it and science both agree on the fact that the universe is expanding. However, your only affirmation of the claim is, yet again, a personal assumption that the word "stretch" used in the Bible is not simply a metaphor for the span of the visible sky from horizon to horizon, and no farther (it can be said that a bridge stretches from shore to shore with no implication that the bridge is expanding). At least you've now admitted it is an assumption. As you cannot prove your assumption to be true, your assertion, therefore, is doubtful.

Anyway, you are making assumptions in seeing it as metaphor for the sky that is visible - a real "stretching" that is

In fact, I am not. I am pointing out to you that words that are open to interpretation will have more than one interpretation. Your statement about the Bible being proven true by science relies on the assumption that the way you interpret "stretching" in this context is the only way to interpret the word. I have demonstrated that it is not.

----------

The same goes for the atoms and the sphere... You're grasping at semantics and preciseness - although the descriptions given are too close for comfort - yet failing to understand that all these came from men who didn't have any idea at all that something such as science is going to exist in the future, and support their "assumptions."

I'm not targeting any assumptions made by "them"; I'm honing in on your assumptions. You assume "circle" means "sphere". You assume atoms are invisible. In these two particular cases, unlike the above two, there isn't even a possibility you could be right: a circle and a sphere are two entirely different things. Atoms are visible. Your assertions, therefore, are doubtful.

----------

The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, science supports the Bible.

How many times do I have to explain that???

Until the arguments upon which you base the claim cannot be put into doubt.

----------

C'mon, give one ancient book - as old or older than the Bible - that has 50 science-supported revelations.

50 is an arbitrary number. However: Euclid's Elements and Optics, both written approximately 300 BCE.

[c/e]

Edited September 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

When was Eve created?

Before or after Creation was finished?

Was Eve created before or after the creation process? What about during the creation process?

[jbg]

Was Eve created before or after the creation process? What about during the creation process?

No doubt a real "chicken and egg" problem.

[dre]

Was Eve created before or after the creation process? What about during the creation process?

What about never?

[CANADIEN]

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Interesting biblical verse. But not nearly as interesting as the way betsy manages to mishandle it.

Allegedly, Paul was talking about invisible things, such as the atoms (which ARE visible, but that's not my point here). So, in a twisted logics, science proves the Bible, or more exactly this verse ( astatement that is absolutely incomprehensible, but once again this is not my point).

My point is that the claim that the verse talks about invisible things, atoms or otherwise, flies in the face of a fundamental tenet shared by the vast majority of Christian denominations (the Mormons being one of the exceptions).

To conclude that the verse talks about invisalbe things, one necessarily has to take "what is seen was not made out of what is visible" as meaning that it was made out of what was invisible. Of SOMETHING that was not visible.

There is another possible interpretation, thought, which is that what the text means is that God created of NOTHING. The idea that God created oout of nothing, also known by its latin name, "ex nihilo", is part of the doctrine of the vast majority of Christian denomination.

So, what was presented as a, ahem, fact is actually a supposition that flies in the face of not only a well established fact (atoms ARE visible), but also the doctrine of most Christian denominations.

Well done betsy.

Edited September 7, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The so-called controversy about evolution...

According to proeminent organizations in the Intelligent Design movement, a huge controversy exists among scientists as to the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.

One prime example is the famous "Scientif Dissent from Darwinism" statement, trumpeted by the Discovery Institute as proof of a huge controversy. After all, more than 700 scientists have signed it since 2001.

Impressive number... or perhaps not. About a quarters of the signataries are biologists (biology is the science that studies ife and living organism). In other words, more than half of the signatories are not experts in the relevant field. There is probably about half a million scientists in the United States alone working in relevant earth and life science fields.

Controversy indeed...

[CANADIEN]

betsy wants numbers showing than less and less Christians ginore facts in God's creation and reject the theory of evolution.

Well... polls would be an unreable source, considering that results may vary widely depending who asks the question, how it's asked, and why it's asked.

I find the growing number of religious organizations issuing statements in favour of evolution to be more revelaing. The National Centre for Science Education maintains a list of statements by religious organizations, including:

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA)

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

The Lutheran World Federation

The Roman Catholic Church

The Untarian Universalist Association

The United Presbyterian Church in the USA link

[betsy]

betsy wants numbers showing than less and less Christians ginore facts in God's creation and reject the theory of evolution.

Well, you gave a statement that requires facts. How do you know? Just because your neighbor or some Christians say they believe in evolution, does not necessarily mean "less and less" christians believe in Creation.

If you really analyze it:

rejecting Creation - which I mean to be that everything was/is created by God - means rejecting a Creator. That's why atheists don't accept Intelligent Design. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "evidences" or "science." Intelligent Design requires that a Creator exists. Atheists will never accept that...unless they become agnostics - which means they become skeptics. They come to believe that the existence of God or a god is possible.

Once they think and accept that possibility, they're no longer atheists!

Well... polls would be an unreable source, considering that results may vary widely depending who asks the question, how it's asked, and why it's asked.

I find the growing number of religious organizations issuing statements in favour of evolution to be more revelaing. The National Centre for Science Education maintains a list of statements by religious organizations, including:

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA)

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

The Lutheran World Federation

The Roman Catholic Church

The Untarian Universalist Association

The United Presbyterian Church in the USA link

Well, it's one thing for these groups to state they find evolution to be revealing, but do they specify if it's NEO-DARWINIST evolution they adhere to?

Do they adhere to the kind of evolution being promoted by atheists - which of course in their (atheists) own rationale eliminates the existence of God?

So what kind of Christian Churches would embrace such thing? Perhaps you need to inquire what exactly they believe in, and question what they exactly mean.

Don't forget, Intelligent Design does not reject evolution outright....but they don't require it! They want to follow the scientific evidences.

NEO-DARWINIST's position, on the other hand, is very narrow-minded! They've placed themselves in a small box, unwilling to step out and instead, they try to fit or mould everything to their inconclusive "conclusion."

Mind you, a Christian Church - can't remember which - actually announced they don't believe in Christ's divinity! I remember that statement caused a lot of controversy and criticisms within that church. So, go figure.

Edited September 8, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

You assume atoms are invisible.

Your rebutts are missing the point. This is one good example how you're missing or deflecting, or mis-interpreting my point.

Never mind my own "assumptions" about atoms.

You hedged on this one. Answer this:

Do you see atoms with your naked eyes?

Edited September 8, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

If you really analyze it:

rejecting Creation - which I mean to be that everything was/is created by God - means rejecting a Creator. That's why atheists don't accept Intelligent Design. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "evidences" or "science." Intelligent Design requires that a Creator exists. Atheists will never accept that...unless they become agnostics - which means they become skeptics. They come to believe that the existence of God or a god is possible.

Once they think and accept that possibility, they're no longer atheists!

Well, it's one thing for these groups to state they find evolution to be revealing, but do they specify if it's NEO-DARWINIST evolution they adhere to?

Do they adhere to the kind of evolution being promoted by atheists - which of course in their (atheists) own rationale eliminates the existence of God?

So what kind of Christian Churches would embrace such thing? Perhaps you need to inquire what exactly they believe in, and question what they exactly mean.

Don't forget, Intelligent Design does not reject evolution outright....but they don't require it! They want to follow the scientific evidences.

NEO-DARWINIST's position, on the other hand, is very narrow-minded! They've placed themselves in a small box, unwilling to step out and instead, they try to fit or mould everything to their inconclusive "conclusion."

And here we go... The merger of betsy's "logic" and the tenets of the Creationism/Intelligent Deisgn movement in all its glorious intellectual dishonesty.

Equating, on purpose, evolution science with neo-Darwinism.

Hiting that since atheists reject their pseudo-science, any Christian which recognizes evolution is in not really a Christian at all - while stragically backtracking from the purposeful equation of evolution science with neo-Darwinism.

But my favorite part is the claim that there is no rejection of evolution outright. No, no rejection - only the constant claims that evolution has been proved to be false, the claims that evolution is just a theory (showing a misunderstanding of what is a scientific theory), the claim of a (non-existing) crisis in the scientifc community. Words speak louder than words in this case.

PS: You may want to Google theistic evolution

[CANADIEN]

Your rebutts are missing the point. This is one good example how you're missing or deflecting, or mis-interpreting my point.

Never mind my own "assumptions" about atoms.

You hedged on this one. Answer this:

Do you see atoms with your naked eyes?

Here goes the empress insisting that her fully-clothed opponent puts clothes on, while ignoring that she is the one who has no clothes on.

PS: Not visible with the naked eyes is not the same as invisible.

Edited September 8, 2011 by CANADIEN