The Bible

[g_bambino]

The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, after thousands of years, it turned out science* supports the Bible*!

* As personally interpreted by betsy.

Edited September 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[betsy]

Either the salt was created spontaneously (which "a finished creation" says wouldn't happen), or the salt was brought from the surrounding area (which requires energy) or she wasn't really turned into a pillar of salt at all.

You're objecting to your own supposition??

There's 3 possibilities:

(1) God created the salt spontaneously

(2) the salt was brought from the surrounding area

(3) it didn't really happen the way the Bible says (the "pillar of salt" is allegorical or the whole thing made up.)

You objected to case one and offered supposition #2 as a response. We're dealing with that right now.

Even on a hot day at 100% humidity, a cubic meter of air only holds about 25 grams of water. And when salt water evaporates, most of the salt is left behind (how did they get salt back in those days? They put salt water into a pool, let it evaporate, and the salt was left behind.) There's less than a gram of salt in a cubic meter of sea air. So to get 100kg of salt to Lot's wife's location, God would have had to have harvest that salt from a volume of over 100,000 cubic meters of air and give it energy to accelerate it to location. Bringing the salt there required energy. To say nothing of the hard part of the job, which is either building a crystal around her or replacing the molecules of her body with salt.

So, the whole exercise required energy, but "a finished creation" says that wouldn't happen. So we're left

No, I'm accepting "a finished creation" (as you defined it-- matter and energy are no longer being created) and using it to contradict other parts of the Bible.

You: "A finished cration" is a fact!

Me: If that's true...

You: That's a supposition!

You can't dismiss as supposition an argument that follows from me accepting your initial premise! To do so would be to dispute your own premise.

Yes you're accepting the initial premise - a finished creation - however, you're trying to negate it by using a supposition.

That's all there is to it, Kimmy. No matter how hard you try....that's jusy the way it is.

You can't contradict a fact with a supposition.

You're the one insisting that "a finished creation" is a fact. That means God is no longer creating matter or energy. By definition, that's a constraint. Your insistence that God no longer creates matter or energy is a limitation on God's ability. Whether that is by his own choice is irrelevant to the discussion: it's a constraint that limits the ability of Christians to explain many of the situations that are described in the Bible by saying "God did it."

As supported by the laws of thermodynamics.

Nothing is limiting God's ability. Nothing is restraining God....after all, He is God. Whatever He decides to do....that's up to Him. He can do as He wishes....as He pleases.

But of course, that's me speaking through faith.

It's because you condemn others for suggesting things may be allegorical, then when it's convenient to your own beliefs, you're willing to accept other things as allegory.

Aren't we getting too melodramatic here? Who did I condemn for saying they may be allegorical???

How did you become the authority on which parts are literal and which aren't?

And apparently you're the one who gets to decide which.

Some parts are shown to be literal by science. (Hydrological cycle, "Stretching" heavens,

Mountains and trenches in the sea, atoms, sanitary practices, disease prevention and public health, blood, human body made from dust, et.,)

Some - like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection - are taken literally by faith.

You've been promoting the idea that science proves the Bible to be true... up until we get to portions of the Bible that science proves couldn't have happened that way, at which point we get "well, that's just allegory".

I'm saying that science supports the Bible - and I've given the listed facts (most, if not all are supported by science).

We also learn from the interpretations of religious scholars which ones are allegorical - example is the mustard seed.

It's because you, who've been calling others lemmings who can't think for themselves, are actually the most lemming like of all. Your arguments all appear to come from some authority you admire or some intelligent design website that concocts all these arguments for you.

Dr Craig has invested 25 years in research and studies in defense of Christianity. His work is dedicated to defend Christianity - and he's given Christians the tool and resources.

Why shouldn't any Christian involved in debates use the resources he's providing, after all that's what they're there for?

For years, new atheists have been using the "resources" given by Dawkins and contemporaries.

That Dawkins turned out to be faulty and unreliable - well, that's the problem of his fans.

Anyway, your usage of "lemming" is out of context.

Posters who parrot and repeat statements and claims made by others without giving any thought as to the credibility and accuracy of said statements....are whom I call, lemmings.

One example: Usage of "Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pie-in -the-sky!"

Like, c'mon! Why'd everybody have to use the exact phrase? And as it turned out - the coined title doesn't even jive correctly with belief in God!

And yes, they can't think for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be repeating a faulty line.

I bet there are some phrases or arguments in the God Delusion that's been bandied and used too!

He's not "My Mr Dawkins".

I don't blame you!

Suddenly, nobody's trying to be associated with Dawkins on this forum! That includes the poster who - quite sometime ago - was so awed by Dawkin's "meme" bs!

I don't think I've ever cited Dawkins on this forum. I've never spit out anything he says. I don't think I would have even heard of Dawkins if it weren't for you and your many, many posts about him. He's not a leader or a "pope" or a priest to me. He's some guy who is out there who doesn't believe in god either.

Well, good for you! And I mean it. Three cheers for Kimmy!

You seem to think that if you can just "beat" Dawkins, you will win the war against atheism and everybody will come back to Jesus.

Ehhh?

FYI, I'm "beating" Dawkins - and this founded new atheists - for starting a war on Christianity!

I'm not at war with atheism. If they've been told about the good news, have been invited to come and join Christ, and yet they stubbornly refuse....well, we don't waste time on them.

They can believe whatever they want! You can't force faith.

For some atheists....the time will come when they will seek out and join Christ.

But that's not the case. Many of us were never with Jesus in the first place. We didn't become atheists because some English guy wrote some books. Some of us are atheists because we were never converted.

That's true.

That's why you're not the lost sheep that's referred to by Jesus.....for how can He lose someone who's never belonged to Him in the first place.

Others are atheists because they ceased to believe, and few of those need any persuasion from Dawkins to make that decision. Maybe instead of worrying about Richard Dawkins, you should worry about figuring out why so many people decide that the church just isn't relevant to them anymore.

Yes. These are the ones! Our lost brothers and sisters.

They have their own reasons for turning their backs on Christ.....and I think it appropriate to say that Christians would love to seek and welcome them back, that they may find rest and peace in Him.

Cheers!

Edited September 14, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

You still do not get the FACT that St. Paul was NOT talking about atoms, do you?

According to your (non-scientific theory), he might have been talking about Uranus and Neptune, wormholes, or even the secret of the Caramilk.

He might've been although how'd he known about uranus or the milky way? That doesn't make any sense at all.

As I've said, these ancient people wouldn't have known about the atoms...and must've been puzzled themselves as to the meaning of what they've written.

Besides, the verse states, God's creation of "the universe."

Then, thousands of years later, along came science. Science found out that we have these building blocks called atoms.

Therefore, this verse had become literal in meaning. Uttered in the right context. Supported by science.

Hebrews 11:3

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.

Edited September 14, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Still a voice from one of the few "scientists" who keep refusing to see what is evident.

You are not contesting one of the key features of Darwin's theory and of evolution theory? Really, and I mean really, do you knw what you are talking about?

You have a problem with me talking about a key component of the evolution theory? Could it be because you are not contesting it? You are laughable.

What Dawkins thinks is not the issue here. it is the FACT that evolution is an evidenced scientific theory. doesn't science come from God?

I usually try to avoid wuoing from wikipedia, but here's an article about the infamous "Scientific Dissent from neo-darwinism" link.

A few highlights:

And the claims that there is a controversy or that evolution is a theory in crisis are drowned by the voices of all those scientific organizations that have made it clear that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory.

Your "discussion" has now ceased to be a discussion. Your responses had deteriorated into adhominems like..."that's laughable," "you don't know what you're talking about," and just simply insisting that evolution is true. Well ladida - so, is the tooth fairy!

You've also completely ignored my arguments, including the articles...and, you've got nothing new to say.

You're stubbornly digging in and hiding behind obtuseness.

And I won't budge....because I know I'm right.

So....really, what's the point.

Edited September 14, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Yes you're accepting the initial premise - a finished creation - however, you're trying to negate it by using a supposition.

That's all there is to it, Kimmy. No matter how hard you try....that's jusy the way it is.

You can't contradict a fact with a supposition.

Thank you, Betsy. That was even more hilarious.

[CANADIEN]

He might've been although how'd he known about uranus or the milky way? That doesn't make any sense at all.

As I've said, these ancient people wouldn't have known about the atoms...and must've been puzzled themselves as to the meaning of what they've written.

On the contrary. St. Paul would be puzzled at how much you are missing the point... again. Clearly, he was alluding to a fundamental truth about God, which is part of the core beliefs of the vast majority of Christains. God created out of NOTHING.

Your non-sense that the text you quote is a reference to atoms stems from ignorance of science and, most importantly, misreading and misunderstanding of the biblical text you quote.

Edited September 14, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Your "discussion" has now ceased to be a discussion. Your responses had deteriorated into adhominems like..."that's laughable," "you don't know what you're talking about,"

Actually, this descriptions fits your style of ahem discussion like a glove. Comprared to you, I am an amateur.

and just simply insisting that evolution is true.

Actually, the term I use is fact. Like in a SCIENTIFC theory. Surely, unlike some of the chief proponents of the Intelligent Design movement, you know what a scientific theory is, don't you?

You've also completely ignored my arguments (...)

How could I, or anyone, with fonts that are 3 miles high? And, unlike what you claim, I have address your arguments, by pointing that they are non-sense and why.

Are we talking about the stuff by your latest prophet, Ashby Camp? i didn't want to embarass you with him, but if you insist...

So....really, what's the point.

The poin is that your inisistence on going anywhere the evidence leads except where it actually leads and your very inventiv 9and selective) reading of the Bible are highly entertaining.

[CANADIEN]

Yes you're accepting the initial premise - a finished creation - however, you're trying to negate it by using a supposition.

That's all there is to it, Kimmy. No matter how hard you try....that's jusy the way it is.

You can't contradict a fact with a supposition.

Interesting, isn't it, that nobody else sees that?

Aren't we getting too melodramatic here? Who did I condemn for saying they may be allegorical???

How about the Christian you accused, falsely, of not being a Christian. Your lack of memory is laughable.

Dr Craig has invested 25 years in research and studies in defense of Christianity. His work is dedicated to defend Christianity - and he's given Christians the tool and resources.

Why shouldn't any Christian involved in debates use the resources he's providing, after all that's what they're there for?

If what you have posted from your prophet Dr. Craig is the best he can produce, thank god that He (God) is able to defend Himself.

As to the "resources" your prophet is providing, they are an embarassment to any Christain with even the most rudimentary knowledge of actual science.

Edited September 14, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Want to talk about your new Prophet, Ashby Camp, and his ahem rebuttal of Dr. tehobald writings about macroevolution and common descent, betsy?

Let,s start with an admission on my part. The vocabulary the two of them use is beyond my understanding of biology, and their writings is not what i base my understanding of evolution on. In other words, I'll take Evolution 101, thank you very much.

You, on the other hand, seem ready to take Dr. Camp argument as conclusive proof. If so, you have an understanding of science, namely biology, far above that of most people. So, let me ask, where did you get your PH.D. in biology? And surely, you must be able to bring the level of discourse use by Theobald and Camp done to a level most people can understand. Or is your understanding of what they say limited to "Theobald believes in macro-evolution, Camp opposes Theobald. therefore Camp is right and Theobald is wrong". If you or anyone wants to convince me, based on their texts, that either one of them is right, better come with an explanation of the scientific arguments the two of them are supposedly presenting.

Because that's what their exchange is supposed to be, and is presented as.In which case, it is interesting to notice the credentials (as in academic training and experience) of the protagonists. Dr. Theobald holds a PH.D. in biology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and is an Assitant Professor at Brandeis University. Mr. Camp holds a Law Degree from the Duke University School of Law and a Master of Divinity from harding University School of Divinity. His fellow adversary of Dr. Theobald. casey Luskin, seem to have abetter knowledge of science, with an M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and a law Degree from the University of San Diego.

Not that I would disparage theological studies (some of my best friends hold a master of Divinity, abnd yes they understand evolution), or Law degrees. But frankly, someone who wants to debates biology (including evolution) at a PH.D. level is usually more credible when he or she actually has a corresponding academic background and experience. Don't you agree, betsy?

Edited September 14, 2011 by CANADIEN

[netspawn]

In 'Word of God' author Charles Price say: ... It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost every literary style you’ll probably find in this book. There’s history, there’s poetry, there are songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is parable, there is allegory, and probably other things.

.

Yeah, other things including FICTION (eg. book of Jonah) and historical-fiction (eg. Lk-Acts). Christians ought not to be embarrassed that their sacred library includes fiction, and yet many are not only extremely reluctant to admit it, but even go out of their way to deny it!

.

... and a little bit of it was written in Africa

.

Including several NT books; such as the gospels and epistles of John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2Peter. Here again Christians are extremely reluctant to face the facts and admit the truth.

.

... And when they wrote it by hand, they wrote it with incredible accuracy.

.

What Mr Price here means to say is: 'And when they COPIED it by hand, they COPIED it with incredible accuracy.' Which strikes me as a very deliberate deception, since the majority of scribes had no qualms about changing the text if they imagined that there were 'errors' that had somehow crept into the text, and thus required correction. I am, of course, here referring to *Christian* scribes only, since the Jewish scribes had sufficient respect for the text of the Tanach (OT) not to make random and unjustified changes.

.

betsy say: There is no doubt that Science does not contradict, but rather supports the Bible.

.

This is a rather sweeping generalization, betsy. The situation is rather more complex than that. For example, the bible claims that before sin there was no death, that death was the result of sin. Science, on the other hand, shows us that death LONG preceded sin; that death is the result of life, and that "sin" is a human invention that has nothing to do with physical death; although it has nothing to say about the relation between sin and *spiritual* death.

[netspawn]

betsy say: ... Then, thousands of years later, along came science.

.

Actually, science "came along" with philosophy centuries before the advent of Joshua of Nazareth. Indeed, Aristotle was as much of a scientist as he was a philosopher. If you'd spend some time reading the literature of such intellectual giants you may be less inclined to make such absurd statements as this:

.

Science found out that we have these building blocks called atoms.

.

Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...

.

Therefore, this verse had become literal in meaning. Uttered in the right context. Supported by science. "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" (Hebrews 11:3).

.

Is there a problem with a biblical author having some knowledge of the great philosophies of his day?

.

... And I won't budge....because I know I'm right.

.

Oh betsy, such vanity is most unbecoming in a believer.

Is it not apparent by now that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do?

Are you open-minded enough to admit that maybe you're NOT always right?

Edited September 15, 2011 by netspawn

[CANADIEN]

.

Actually, science "came along" with philosophy centuries before the advent of Joshua of Nazareth. Indeed, Aristotle was as much of a scientist as he was a philosopher. If you'd spend some time reading the literature of such intellectual giants you may be less inclined to make such absurd statements as this:

.

.

Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...

.

.

Is there a problem with a biblical author having some knowledge of the great philosophies of his day?

.

.

Oh betsy, such vanity is most unbecoming in a believer.

Is it not apparent by now that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do?

Are you open-minded enough to admit that maybe you're NOT always right?

Actually, St. Paul was not talking about atoms, but it's interesting that at least one scientist/philosopher came with the idea.

[netspawn]

CANADIEN say: Actually, St. Paul was not talking about atoms,

.

Paulos didn't write the essay misnamed 'Hebrews', CANADIEN, so technically you are correct. As for the author of Hebrews, can you prove he wasn't talking about atoms? Sometimes what the biblical authors DON"T say is just as important as what they do say.

.

but it's interesting that at least one scientist/philosopher came with the idea.

.

Are you referring to me, perchance?

[CANADIEN]

.

Paulos didn't write the essay misnamed 'Hebrews', CANADIEN, so technically you are correct.

i stand corrected as to the authorship.

As for the author of Hebrews, can you prove he wasn't talking about atoms?

Proving a negative...

Sometimes what the biblical authors DON"T say is just as important as what they do say.

Indeed. That being said, what we have here is one verse in a larger text. Hebrews was likely aimed at a Greek-speaking community, familiar with judaic religious practices. It's main themes are the divinity of Jesus, His prietshood, and holding fast in the face of persecuion. I do not see how an unspoken reference to the atomism theory (the idea, developped in India 6 centuries before Hebrews, then in Greece by Leucippus 5 centuries before Hebrews, that the universe is composed of indivisible particles and empty void) would fit with the rest of the message.

[g_bambino]

Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...

Right on the first point, because the evidence that supports it is still there. Nothing, though, to prove the second point to be true; it rests on two assumptions: first, that the passage in Hebrews about what is seen being not made out of what was visible is actually speaking about atoms (despite, as has already been shown, atoms are not, nor ever have been, invisible) and, second, that the author of Hebrews was inspired by the Ancient Greek theory.

[Rue]

Heavens to Betsy wants to teach

deal with the contradictions before you preach:

The Order of Creation

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.

Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.

Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later

[Rue]

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

not to worry the above was written for a Jew

oh but wait more contradictions from Christians too...

Psalm 58:10-11: The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will say, "Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.

Revenge is celebrated.

Proverbs 24:17-18: Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

Colossians 2:13: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.

"All" of our sins are forgiven.

OH BUT WAIT SHE'S GOT THE ANSWER

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

NOT SO FAST SHE AINT NO DANCER

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_bible

[Rue]

OOopsy daisy let's pull down Heavens to Besty's pants

to see what's really behind those rants:

http://www.entheology.org/POCM/index.htm

http://rawbible.blogspot.com/2010/11/horus-son-of-god.html

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

http://www.logoi.com/notes/babylonian_myths.html

Careful Besty you so sure your unique

or you just part of another son God clique...

you may think you are head of the class

but honey to me yer just parroting Mithras

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/386025/Mithra

Now next time you tell me you got the good news

take this hint this cursed member of the Jews

I dont' get care what you believe

what the hell was wrong with Adam and Eve

they gave birth to Abel and Cain

then one of them boyz went insane

you keep preaching to the converted

now me I think yer all perverted

never met a person who spread the word

who wasn't anything but absurd

now run along I aint a demon

I just can't stand yer religious screamin

get off my lawn before i take my water hose

and spray you good up your nose

If I need knowledge on life

of course i'll go and ask my wife

my idea of God is something nice

but certainly not yer version of jesus christ

I can't stand any man with a beard

as far as I am concerned they'z all wierd

as for people like you who claim to preach

yer nothing but a spiritual leach

you feed off the fear you incite in sheep

but yer words for me they sure as hell don't run deep

you parrot what you think you read

you just swallow it like cow feed

you think you express it as if you are wiser

oh get out honey its just fertilizer

God is nothing more than my free choice

to think, to feel, to rejoice

where you get off trying to think for me

and tell me what is misery

is nothing more than you being obnoxious

and all it does is make me nauseas

now I am out of here for the day

get off my lawn or I'll spray

wipe that righteousness off your face

for just this once this aint your place

I gotta right to live free of yer assumptions

not to mention your garbled conjunctions

holy cow can you people write clearly

those Bible passages sure are dreary

unless yer raping and stoning and killing heathen

or doin other stuff to try get even

not interested in your savage stories

reminds me of Mike Harris Tories.

Regards,

Rev. Rude Face

Edited September 15, 2011 by Rue

[kimmy]

It appears that Betsy has been raptured, and it feels a little weird adding to this thread without her.

Nonetheless, I just watched this fascinating video that I think would be interesting to a lot of people who participated in this thread:

The video is based on "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, which I have not yet read but will add to my always growing list. The claim presented is that Yahweh was, initially, just one member of a pantheon of gods of a polytheist mythology. Yahweh was the war god; others were Baal, Asherah, and El Elyon (the chief). Early versions of the stories made clear that Yahweh was just one of several, and only later when Yahweh's cult had gained ascendance (600BC, the time of Jeremiah and the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians) was worship of the other gods forbidden. Later everything was rewritten to replace references to the other gods with Yahweh. And the first chapter of Genesis, the start of everything, was written last, as a version of a Babylonian myth rewritten to feature Yahweh in the starring role.

That's the claim, anyway. I have not read Armstrong's book, and I haven't read the criticisms of it (which I am sure exist; too many people have vested interest in her being wrong for the criticism of her work to be anything less than ferocious.) Nonetheless, the warning "thou shalt have no other gods before me" suddenly makes a lot more sense.

-k

[sharkman]

I thought you didn't believe that God existed at all, it sounds like you're switching teams!

And Rue, did you know that some Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah? I met a former charasmatic who converted to Messianic Judaism(don't ask) and she told me the whole 411 on it. I alreay knew it, but it was interesting to hear it from the inside, so to speak.

[kimmy]

I thought you didn't believe that God existed at all, it sounds like you're switching teams!

I believe that Yahweh is just as real as Ares, if that makes you feel any better.

Finding out that monotheism was actually a late edit to a crappy-ass pantheon of middle-eastern deities would put a big dent in the idea of Biblical infallibility, wouldn't it? Sounds like kind of a show-stopper to me.

-k

[cybercoma]

From what I know, A History of God and The Great Transformation are Armstrong's legit books before she jumped the shark then went crazy.

Thanks for posting the video. I'm going to watch it.

[sharkman]

I believe that Yahweh is just as real as Ares, if that makes you feel any better.

Finding out that monotheism was actually a late edit to a crappy-ass pantheon of middle-eastern deities would put a big dent in the idea of Biblical infallibility, wouldn't it? Sounds like kind of a show-stopper to me.

-k

Oh, okay. I thought it appeared as though you were showing some kind of curiosity towards a higher power, but it seems you were just finding yet more proof of why God isn't real.

If I were you I wouldn't waste my time searching out and reading theories on ancient cults and religions, if you're happy that there is no God, then the matter is settled for you. And maybe this Armstrong was kind of a nut even before the shark was jumped.

Edited December 4, 2011 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

Maybe you didn't watch the video either. We'll never know because we don't have any evidence. Unless of course I just want to have faith in the idea that you didn't watch the video. Then I don't really need to base it on evidence and I can say people are persecuting me for my beliefs if they criticize me for it.

[sharkman]

Uh, I didn't watch the video. You can have faith in that if you like.