Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[blueblood]

  On 9/5/2012 at 10:07 PM, cybercoma said:

Why should he tolerate ignorance?

Not according to Betsy. In her opinion she's well read on what she believes in. Religious people have been told and rightly so that they must tolerate people, so why do atheists get to brow beat people?

So is it you guys want a tolerant society, but only tolerate things you guys want? Cmon man!

[betsy]

  On 9/6/2012 at 1:50 PM, Black Dog said:

If an incorrect or inaccurate term is used repeatedly, that doesn't make it any less incorrect or inaccurate.

But that doesn't negate the fact that the word, "stretches" or "stretching" ended up appearing in the Bible 11 times - the correct word to describe expanding universe.

Edited September 6, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

  On 9/6/2012 at 2:06 PM, Black Dog said:

I'm sorry: which part of these primitive's cosmology is correct, again? The part where the sky is made of a solid material? Or the part where the earth it covers is a flat disc suspended on water?

Now, I've looked a bit at this and it seems there's an issue here over the translation of "raqia." Biblical apologists claim the original Hebrew word translates as "expanse". However, in the KJV, it's changed to "firmament".

So betsy, you're in a bit of a pickle here: on the one hand, the original Hebrew version of the story could, if one squints hard enough, support your notion that these primitive desert nomads were given a snapshot of a actual cosmological phenomenon. On the other hand, the version of the Bible that you say is your go-to for God's honest truth uses a word that describes a completely different view of the universe. How do you resolve this clear contradiction? Actually, no need to answer as I already know: you'll just ignore it.

Oh and one last thing: do you have any idea as to why the universe is expanding?

Don't change the channel.

No, my dear BD....it's you who's in a pickle.

You guys believe in the creation by sheer chance, or accident - without even any proof to back it up - and yet here's the word, "stretching" or "stretches" - which appeared 11 times, in the right context - used by ancient "dirt scrabbers" to give the simple description of the universe - corroborated by science in just a few decades ago!

Science in fact used an inaccurate word to describe it when they used the word, "expanding"....as explained by my sources. The accurate word is, "stretching."

Edited September 6, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

  On 9/6/2012 at 4:21 PM, The_Squid said:

So how were the other bible translations disproved to be the word of God?

And you haven't proven to me that Zeus is not real....

That vein of rebuttal had been used already...and it had been rebutted. Go to the topic, The Bible, and read!

Anyway, after the stunt you tried to pull about Bush...why should I even take you seriously? If you accepted that baloney, "God told Bush to make war," boy, the sky's the limit with you!

And yeah! I almost forgot - you don't read!

Aren't you the one complaining about Bible verses in Abortion On Christian Grounds? That was exasperating....but also hilarious!

So unless you've got something worth replying to, I won't bother, Squid.

Edited September 6, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

  On 9/6/2012 at 8:15 PM, betsy said:

Don't change the channel.

In other words: "I have no idea how to get out of this so I'm going to just repeat this dribble about one word appearing multiple times like it's at all relevant."

[The_Squid]

  On 9/6/2012 at 8:21 PM, betsy said:

That vein of rebuttal had been used already...and it had been rebutted. Go to the topic, The Bible, and read!

Answer those simple questions for us ignorant masses who just don't get it. No need to deflect, simply tell me how all the other versions of the bible are not the word of God.... how have they been disproved, as your link claimed?

Show me that Zeus doe not exist.

[The_Squid]

  On 9/6/2012 at 7:40 PM, blueblood said:

Not according to Betsy. In her opinion she's well read on what she believes in. Religious people have been told and rightly so that they must tolerate people, so why do atheists get to brow beat people?

Her opinion is open to scrutiny just like everyone's when they post on a public forum, especially when it is nonsensical and runs counter to all facts. And this is particularly so when someone makes a claim (the KJV is the word of God) and the evidence to back up this claim is laughable (no one has ever proven that it is NOT the word of God). The next logical question from someone debating this point is "show me how the other versions have been disproved as the word of God".

  Quote

So is it you guys want a tolerant society, but only tolerate things you guys want? Cmon man!

I would love a tolerant society. But a tolerant society does not mean that every opinion is treated as equal on an internet forum! Yours is a very rather narrow view of that term. A tolerant society is one where people are treated equally and religious people do not use their political clout to try and take away another person's rights.

[cybercoma]

  On 9/6/2012 at 7:40 PM, blueblood said:

So is it you guys want a tolerant society, but only tolerate things you guys want? Cmon man!

Do you tolerate rape and murder?

[betsy]

  On 9/6/2012 at 8:27 PM, The_Squid said:

Answer those simple questions for us ignorant masses who just don't get it. No need to deflect, simply tell me how all the other versions of the bible are not the word of God.... how have they been disproved, as your link claimed?

Show me that Zeus doe not exist.

I'm not trying to convince you, remember? Your question is just another rehash which was dealt with on numerous occasions in The Bible.

You don't want to read - then your choice to continue being ignorant.

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[Peter F]

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. ”

[betsy]

  On 9/6/2012 at 8:27 PM, Black Dog said:

In other words: "I have no idea how to get out of this so I'm going to just repeat this dribble about one word appearing multiple times like it's at all relevant."

More like your way of coping: "In other words: "I have no idea how to get out of this so I'm going to just try to deflect....or change the channel (hoping she'll fall for it)."

Another method you and your pals might do is try to "bury" these question(s) that you guys cannot - and will never be able to answer - unless you use your common sense!

For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence - to which you're implying also happened by accident because of translation mishaps!

Well, this particular Bible "mishap" just happened to surpass your imaginary version of origin.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION by "unsophisticated dirt scrabblers" from thousands of years ago, now being supported by modern science!

Furthermore, modern science needed the Huble to arrive at this finding...those ancient dirt scrabblers didn't!

Yup! We're talking simple common sense now, folks.

  Quote

How did the Bible come up with not only a simple description - but to use the accurate word - to describe what's happening? Science even had to correct itself with their use of the word, "expanding!"

  Quote

Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible!

11 times! In the right context!

How is that???

Oh, and may I remind you that this particular simple explanation by ancient "dirt scrabblers" is just one of many that's also been supported by science.

And may I remind you also, that in most, if not all, of those other stated simple explanations, science had to use technology to arrive at their findings....whereas the ancient "dirt scrabblers" had nothing - except the dictation from the One who knows.

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

  On 9/7/2012 at 9:43 AM, Peter F said:

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. ”

Well, obviously in this case yes, it did trample all those - showing your adherence to your belief defy reason, sense and understanding!

So, where is your reasoning? I'm still waiting?

That method of hit-and-run, then re-surfacing again pages later does not mean the challenge thrown to you does not stand anymore. It's still there!

Here, answer the same question I threw at BD and the doo-wap choir! Unless you're just another member of the choir? Singing the tiring refrain part?

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[Peter F]

  On 9/7/2012 at 9:56 AM, betsy said:

So, where is your reasoning? I'm still waiting?

That method of hit-and-run, then re-surfacing again pages later does not mean the challenge thrown to you does not stand anymore. It's still there!

Here, answer the same question I threw at BD and the doo-wap choir! Unless you're just another member of the choir? Singing the tiring refrain part?

My reason has already been said. To say the word "stretch"describes the workings of the stars above is (removed)

wilfull ignorance.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Peter F

[betsy]

  On 9/7/2012 at 10:09 AM, Peter F said:

My reason has already been said. To say the word "stretch"describes the workings of the stars above is (removed) wilfull ignorance.

Eh? Run that by me again, please?

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

  On 9/7/2012 at 9:47 AM, betsy said:

More like your way of coping: "In other words: "I have no idea how to get out of this so I'm going to just try to deflect....or change the channel (hoping she'll fall for it)."

Uh, I know you are, but what am I?

  Quote

Another method you and your pals might do is try to "bury" these question(s) that you guys cannot - and will never be able to answer - unless you use your common sense!

Continuing to duck the issue, eh?

  Quote

For someone who readily accepts the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence - to which you're implying also happened by accident because of translation mishaps!

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out the delicious irony in the conflict between the original Hebrew sources of the Bible and the KJV you claim is the most recent, God-approved edition of the Word.

  Quote

Well, this particular Bible "mishap" just happened to surpass your imaginary version of origin.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION by "unsophisticated dirt scrabblers" from thousands of years ago, now being supported by modern science!

Furthermore, modern science needed the Huble to arrive at this finding...those ancient dirt scrabblers didn't!

Yup! We're talking simple common sense now, folks.

It's cute that you think "simple common sense" leads one to the conclusion that a divine power ensured the same word was used multiple times to describe the same phenomenon. Common sense would actually point to coincidence or plagiarism.

  Quote

Oh, and may I remind you that this particular simple explanation by ancient "dirt scrabblers" is just one of many that's also been supported by science.

Like all the references to the earth being "fixed and unmoving??

  Quote

And may I remind you also, that in most, if not all, of those other stated simple explanations, science had to use technology to arrive at their findings....whereas the ancient "dirt scrabblers" had nothing - except the dictation from the One who knows.

Well, we've already stated that what the Bible describes is not the same phenomenon described by science, despite your attempts to retroactively change the meaning of the Biblical passages to fit with modern discoveries.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Black Dog

[GostHacked]

  On 9/7/2012 at 9:16 AM, betsy said:

I'm not trying to convince you, remember? Your question is just another rehash which was dealt with on numerous occasions in The Bible.

You don't want to read - then your choice to continue being ignorant.

Which version of the bible? Or is there only one true bible?

[The_Squid]

  On 9/7/2012 at 9:16 AM, betsy said:

I'm not trying to convince you, remember? Your question is just another rehash which was dealt with on numerous occasions in The Bible.

You don't want to read - then your choice to continue being ignorant.

haha... OK then....

It's funny when someone of faith can't answer or debate any simple, yet fundamental, questions...

[Black Dog]

  On 9/7/2012 at 3:29 PM, GostHacked said:

Which version of the bible? Or is there only one true bible?

It's the absolute word of God. He just happens to change it all the time, apparently.

[betsy]

  On 9/7/2012 at 1:34 PM, Black Dog said:

Uh, I know you are, but what am I?

Continuing to duck the issue, eh?

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm merely pointing out the delicious irony in the conflict between the original Hebrew sources of the Bible and the KJV you claim is the most recent, God-approved edition of the Word.

It's cute that you think "simple common sense" leads one to the conclusion that a divine power ensured the same word was used multiple times to describe the same phenomenon. Common sense would actually point to coincidence or plagiarism.

Like all the references to the earth being "fixed and unmoving??

Well, we've already stated that what the Bible describes is not the same phenomenon described by science, despite your attempts to retroactively change the meaning of the Biblical passages to fit with modern discoveries.

Just because you stated it doesn't make it so.

You can twist and turn, and flop and flip, and bury your head in the sand....but the reality isn't going to go away.

For someone (that would be you guys), who readily accept the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence - to which you're implying also happened by accident because of translation mishaps!

Well, this particular Bible "mishap" just happened to surpass your imaginary version of origin.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION by "unsophisticated dirt scrabblers" from thousands of years ago, now being supported by modern science!

Furthermore, modern science needed the Huble to arrive at this finding...those ancient dirt scrabblers didn't!

Yup! We're talking simple common sense now, folks.

  Quote

How did the Bible come up with not only a simple description - but to use the accurate word - to describe what's happening? Science even had to correct itself with their use of the word, "expanding!"

  Quote

Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible!

11 times! In the right context!

How is that???

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

What's with you evolutionists.....

No wonder William Lane Craig makes minced meat out of Dawkins. Just look....I make pate' out of you!

You know why, eh? My Reference Book has the answer.

And your belief doesn't stand on any legs at all. It's all myth!

...and one big fairy tale. Ribbit-ribbit.

Edited September 7, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Evolution from Christian standpoint....

[Black Dog]

  On 9/7/2012 at 7:50 PM, betsy said:

Just because you stated it doesn't make it so.

You can twist and turn, and flop and flip, and bury your head in the sand....but the reality isn't going to go away.

Ah, yes: reality. You should visit sometime.

  Quote

For someone (that would be you guys), who readily accept the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true - without any proof - you tell me why it's so hard for you to accept this particular occurence - to which you're implying also happened by accident because of translation mishaps!

Except I don't "accept the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true" without any proof. I accept that it's likely the best explanation there is based upon the scientific evidence available.

  Quote

Well, this particular Bible "mishap" just happened to surpass your imaginary version of origin.

What do you mean "surpass?" I mean, you know that this whole notion that Biblical references to the universe "spreading" were only seized on by your ilk to square it with the scientific theory of the origin of the universe (aka "the Big Bang"), right?

  Quote

SIMPLE EXPLANATION by "unsophisticated dirt scrabblers" from thousands of years ago, now being supported by modern science!

Furthermore, modern science needed the Huble to arrive at this finding...those ancient dirt scrabblers didn't!

Why do you think repeating stupid ideas makes them less stupid? Let me spell it out for you in simple terms you can understand: the ancient desert doods who wrote the Bible weren't talking about the metric expansion of space. They had an entirely different view of cosmology than we do today. In their world, the universe as consisting of a disk-shaped Earth that was the center of the cosmos, in which a domelike sky was supported by pillars of heaven. So, I have to ask: why would God include a hint about the actual composition of the universe in there, but not reveal anything else about it's actual nature? Why, it's almost as if you and your ilk are retroactively imposing a modern view of cosmology on the Hebrews of 3,000 years ago.

[Black Dog]

  On 9/7/2012 at 8:01 PM, betsy said:

What's with you evolutionists.....

No wonder William Lane Craig makes minced meat out of Dawkins. Just look....I make pate' out of you!

You know why, eh? My Reference Book has the answer.

And your belief doesn't stand on any legs at all. It's all myth!

...and one big fairy tale. Ribbit-ribbit.

Which version? The Hebrew original or the "edited" KJV?

[betsy]

  On 9/7/2012 at 8:33 PM, Black Dog said:

Ah, yes: reality. You should visit sometime.

Except I don't "accept the theory that everything was created by accident as valid and true" without any proof. I accept that it's likely the best explanation there is based upon the scientific evidence available.

What do you mean "surpass?" I mean, you know that this whole notion that Biblical references to the universe "spreading" were only seized on by your ilk to square it with the scientific theory of the origin of the universe (aka "the Big Bang"), right?

Why do you think repeating stupid ideas makes them less stupid? Let me spell it out for you in simple terms you can understand: the ancient desert doods who wrote the Bible weren't talking about the metric expansion of space. They had an entirely different view of cosmology than we do today. In their world, the universe as consisting of a disk-shaped Earth that was the center of the cosmos, in which a domelike sky was supported by pillars of heaven. So, I have to ask: why would God include a hint about the actual composition of the universe in there, but not reveal anything else about it's actual nature? Why, it's almost as if you and your ilk are retroactively imposing a modern view of cosmology on the Hebrews of 3,000 years ago.

You can question with all your why this....why that....and the answer is, only God knows. He let us know when He wants us to know, and what He wants us to know.

The crucial question however, is the how. How could those desert doods have stated what science only recently found out - and with the help of modern technology to boot!

[The_Squid]

  Quote

The crucial question however, is the how. How could those desert doods have stated what science only recently found out - and with the help of modern technology to boot!

The answer is simple! They did not know. Religious nutbars are simply defining, and redefining, to suit their agenda.

And apparently, it is in the Quran too!! Wow!!!! Amazing! 2 holy books!!! Allah AND God must be duking it out in the heavens for supremacy!!

http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/expanding_universe.htm

----------------------------

On a slightly different note about science/bible.... why does the bible tell us the earth is ~6000 years old when it is actually billions of years old?

How could it get the whole expanding universe so right but the age of earth so, so wrong???