g_bambino Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) Don't you see, g. bambino? Meanings of texts, possible interpretations of them, whether or not they actually describes what betsy say they describe - all of it is irrelevant. The biblical texts mean exactly what betsy says they mean, because... God can introduce in one translation of the Bible texts that mean what betsy says they mean. Yes, of course. Betsy gets to choose one Bible translation that is the "right" one. She then gets to choose one interpretation of one of that translation's analogies that is the "right" one. This narrow selection allows for enough of a similarity to a scientific theory for her to say science has proven the Bible is the word of God, since the Bible contained scientific fact before humans even knew of it. It's impressively convoluted; but hollow, nonetheless. [ed.: sp] Edited September 26, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Yes, of course. Betsy gets to choose one Bible translation that is the "right" one. She then gets to choose one interpretation of one of that translation's analogies that is the "right" one. This narrow selection allows for enough of a similarity to a scientific theory for her to say science has proven the Bible is the word of God, since the Bible contained scientific fact before humans even knew of it. It's impressively convoluted; but hollow, nonetheless. [ed.: sp] Not only that, but the similarity is actually one word, which doesn't even mean the same thing in both cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) betsy:What about DESIGNER theory???? I've been bringing it up for so long! Canadien: I said THEORY, that is, as definied by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". The designer "theory" (the quotation marks are used on purpose here) does NOT meet this criteria. Ahhhh....you want an atheistic theory. Something that does not include any hint of of God or any god, since they say it's not proven He exists. In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true , a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” Among other things, he said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/ Arguments may be true - a proposition on which the court takes no position. Because ID is not considered science. It violates CENTURIES-OLD ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." Well it is science ground rules that needs to be updated and brought up to the 21st century! After all, we're unlocking a lot of things these days that science used to believe or endorsed decades ago - not to mention CENTURIES ago - that have been proven and are being proven false! On the other hand, look at the Bible - not only surviving through thousands of years.....but some claims have been proven true by modern science! Still very much relevant today! ------------------------------------------ ***Funny again that when I opened the Bible this morning, a section is explained in the study. Perhaps this is still a message for you? The verse is Romans 4:20 ((KJV) 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; The study explains: FAILURE OF FAITH There are six New Testament expressions that trace the decline of faith in an individual. Before a person is saved, he may have: (1) "vain faith" or belief in the wrong doctrine (1 Cor 15:14-17); or (2) "dead faith" or belief in orthodox doctrine without personal belief in Christ (James 2:19, 20). After a person is saved, he can expereince the following varieties of faith: (1) a kind of unbelief - experienced by believers who fail to accept the whole work of Christ (Mark 16:11-14), (2) "little faith" - a mixture of faith and unbelief (Mark 7:26) (3) "weak faith" - referring to belief expressed as mere legalism (14:1); or (4) "strong faith" - faith that is rooted in the promise of God (v.20) Illustrations: As Christians mature, they should grow in faith. This was the experience of Abraham. Early in his pilgrimage with God, he could not trust God to protect him in Egypt. This was weak faith (Gen 12:10-20). He was later able to trust God in sacrificing his son, Isaac. This was strong faith (Heb. 11:17-19) Application: The Christian life is a continual growing adventure in faith. (First reference, Gen. 15:6, Primary reference, Rom 4:20; cf Rom 8:16) Edited September 27, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Ahhhh....you want an atheistic theory. Something that does not include any hint of of God or any god, since they say it's not proven He exists. No. I want you to provide a scientific theory, if you have one. Which you don't. But thanks again for knowing what I want better than I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) No. I want you to provide a scientific theory, if you have one. Which you don't. But thanks again for knowing what I want better than I. Outdated ground rules. Needs revamping. Should look to the ancient Bible for some FRESH ideas and inspiration. Edited September 27, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I wasn't asking you about Elvis. Don't compare God to Elvis. Yeah. Elvis was real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Whether it's meant as an analogy or not, doesn't matter. It very obviously does matter, even to you. If "stretches out", "stretched out", or "spread out" (the inconsistent use of tense in different versions of the Bible being a salient factor to consider, since the past tense - "stretched" and "spread" - indicates the stretching and spreading stopped at some point, entirely unlike what the scientific theory of universal expansion says) is just a rhetorical analogy, it's open to different interpretations, not one. If it's a direct description of a factual event, which you say it is, it's not an analogy. You seem to have been caught in your own web. Still wating, betsy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Still wating, betsy... Oh boy....I even did a lurid comparison with the position of atheist evolutionists accepting the theory of "by accidents" as the origin, and you keep on like you didn't read it or you didn't understand it! If you don't want to accept the logic of my explanation regarding that, then what can I say? Believe what you want. Edited September 28, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 Non believers only want to make fun of and bully believeers so I never partake i nthese threads for those reasons. Most people are anti bullying except when it comes to Christians. I wonder if they will publicly badger Muslims in the same way? Some how I doubt it out of fear of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) You argue about the exact "mechanics" that are not specified in the Bible, and yet you don't see what's the very specific and literal commands or God - such as gay union - that are repeatedly stated in the Bible. Your first part contradicts the second part in that paragraph. Another theory? Hello? Are you all there? What about DESIGNER theory???? I've been bringing it up for so long![/ I even said that Christians can go freely where the evidence(s) lead....whereas atheist scientists are stuck inside their little box and clinging to their myth with pathetic rebutts that practically only says, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it!" Oh this would be a good time to say 'it's just a theory not fact'. Haven't I been complaining that your camp - the atheist evolutionists - don't want to even consider the possibility of Design/Creator since it would mean that there is a God! The camp you're with doesn't want your God to exist! Do you entertain the idea that god does NOT exist? You can't expect one from the other without at least admitting a possibility that we are all wrong. That's why I wonder and question your so-called faith in the first place! Lols. You're arguing with me for nothing!You're a waste of time.... On to page 35 for more of the same. Edited September 28, 2012 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) I even did a lurid comparison with the position of atheist evolutionists accepting the theory of "by accidents" as the origin, and you keep on like you didn't read it or you didn't understand it! I didn't even read it because it had nothing to do with what you and I are talking about. We are talking specifically about your claim that the Bible is proven to be the word of God by the "fact" the Bible contianed scientifically accurate "facts" before man discovered those scientific facts for himself (the question of how could the Bible be written by man when it contained things he couldn't yet grasp?). But, when the scientific "fact" you point to in the Bible is actually just your selective interpretation of a selective translation of a rhetorical analogy, your argument completely falls apart. Neither "stretches out", "stretched out", or "spread out" necessarily refer to the metric expansion of space (in fact, it is entirely illogical to argue the opposite for latter two, since they are past tense, meaning the stretching or spreading has ceased, contrary to scientific observation of the universe). That then follows on to all the other analogies you selectively picked out from all the Bible's analogies and claimed them to be "scientific fact". Please address that, not some other subject you're discussing with others. [ed.: +] Edited September 28, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 I didn't even read it because it had nothing to do with what you and I are talking about. That's what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 That's what you think. At least he is thinking and not just regurgitating the biblical lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 That's what you think. We are talking specifically about your claim that the Bible is proven to be the word of God by the "fact" the Bible contianed scientifically accurate "facts" before man discovered those scientific facts for himself (the question of how could the Bible be written by man when it contained things he couldn't yet grasp?). But, when the scientific "fact" you point to in the Bible is actually just your selective interpretation of a selective translation of a rhetorical analogy, your argument completely falls apart. Neither "stretches out", "stretched out", or "spread out" necessarily refer to the metric expansion of space (in fact, it is entirely illogical to argue the opposite for latter two, since they are past tense, meaning the stretching or spreading has ceased, contrary to scientific observation of the universe). That then follows on to all the other analogies you selectively picked out from all the Bible's analogies and claimed them to be "scientific fact". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) We are talking specifically about your claim that the Bible is proven to be the word of God by the "fact" the Bible contianed scientifically accurate "facts" before man discovered those scientific facts for himself (the question of how could the Bible be written by man when it contained things he couldn't yet grasp?). But, when the scientific "fact" you point to in the Bible is actually just your selective interpretation of a selective translation of a rhetorical analogy, your argument completely falls apart. Neither "stretches out", "stretched out", or "spread out" necessarily refer to the metric expansion of space (in fact, it is entirely illogical to argue the opposite for latter two, since they are past tense, meaning the stretching or spreading has ceased, contrary to scientific observation of the universe). That then follows on to all the other analogies you selectively picked out from all the Bible's analogies and claimed them to be "scientific fact". I understand what you're saying. I boldened your point. And that's what I was addressing! Whether the scientific facts - plural since there are numerous facts listed in the Bible topic - are just my "selective" interpretation, that doesn't make any difference. The fact is that they are in the Book and were proven by modern science! As with the word, "stretches," the science websites I've cited are the ones who say that, "stretching" is the more accurate description instead of "expanding." It's not me who's saying that - it's the science folks! I'm just quoting them. Read the sources I gave. As for the petty past tense or present tense argument of the word, "stretches" - that argument is laughable coming from someone who readily accepts the theory that everything began by sheer accident without a single evidence to prove it ever did. They don't even know where the water came from, for crying out loud! They are assuming it got here by accident too! Everything is one accident after another..... Well, the word "stretches" managed to get itself used and appeared in the Bible, 11 times, by different authors, from different time frames, in the right context! If that's by sheer accident - that's an amazing accident x 11! Kinda like lightning hitting the same spot, 11 times. By "accident," of course. So like I said, your argument is just the same old re-run that's been addressed before! They're mostly just skating around the real issue. As usual, nobody's hitting the bulls-eye. Edited October 2, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Whether the scientific facts... are just my "selective interpretation," that doesn't make any difference...As with the word, "stretches," the science websites I've cited are the ones who's saying that "stretching" is the more accurate description instead of "expanding." It's not me who's saying that - it's the science folks! I'm just quoting them... As for the petty past tense or preesnt tense argument of the word, "stretches" - that argument is laughable coming from someone who readily accepts the theory that everything began by sheer accident without a single evidence to prove it ever did. Selectivity isn't only a difference, it is a task inherently necessary for you to perform in order to reach the conclusion you want. You do so again right in the same post in which you declare being selective doesn't matter: Simply deflect with a made-up assumption about my beliefs as a way of ignoring mention of the fact that most versions of the Bible that do use a variant of the word "stretch" use the past tense "stretched", indicating the act of stretching has ceased. That willful ignorance allows you to carry on pretending the use of the term "stretches" in the Bible is incontrovertibly the description of a scientific fact. This is the same as your deliberate ignorance of the uncertainty about what is the absolutely, most correct modern English translations of ancient Hebrew; to you, there's only one translation, and that's the one that fits into your "the Bible is scientifically accurate" argument. Just because other people make the same self-serving selections as you doesn't make them right, and therefore their claims don't make yours true. That kind of argument uses circular logic, which is faulty. [ed.: +, sp] Edited October 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Selectivity isn't only a difference, it is a task inherently necessary for you to perform in order to reach the conclusion you want. You do so again right in the same post in which you declare being selective doesn't matter: Simply deflect with a made-up assumption about my beliefs as a way of ignoring mention of the fact that most versions of the Bible that do use a variant of the word "stretch" use the past tense "stretched", indicating the act of stretching has ceased. That willful ignorance allows you to carry on pretending the use of the term "stretches" in the Bible is incontrovertibly the description of a scientific fact. This is the same as your deliberate ignorance of the uncertainty about what is the absolutely, most correct modern English translations of ancient Hebrew; to you, there's only one translation, and that's the one that fits into your "the Bible is scientifically accurate" argument. Just because other people make the same self-serving selections as you doesn't make them right, and therefore their claims don't make yours true. That kind of argument uses circular logic, which is faulty. [ed.: +, sp] Yep. Circular. That's why I said, believe what you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Yep. Circular. That's why I said, believe what you want. My God, g_bambino: you broke her. Edited October 2, 2012 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 As with the word, "stretches," the science websites I've cited are the ones who say that, "stretching" is the more accurate description instead of "expanding." It's not me who's saying that - it's the science folks! I'm just quoting them. Read the sources I gave. Do you actually UNDERSTAND what those sources mean by stretching. If you think it means the same type of stretching as in the biblical texts, think again. As for the petty past tense or present tense argument of the word, "stretches" - that argument is laughable coming from someone who readily accepts the theory that everything began by sheer accident It is also coming from people who KNOW, though faith, that the Universe was created by God. Me being one. So like I said, your argument is just the same old re-run that's been addressed before! Talking to yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Talking to yourself? Feels like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiblethead Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 just gonna add my 2 cents. God does not exist, to me there is Santa, the easter bunny, and then there is god, allah, etc. it's just hard for people to accept that there are questions we have, which have no answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 it's just hard for people to accept that there are questions we have, which have no answer.And I think the fact that there are no answers enriches our existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 it's just hard for people to accept that there are questions we have, which have no answer. Yes, it is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Yes, it is.... Posting that cartoon risks getting you killed; and not by Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Posting that cartoon risks getting you killed; and not by Christians. No but I wish he was dead, actually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.