GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[DogOnPorch]

If God really wanted to impress the natives, you would think he/she/it would have penned E = MC² into Genesis's margins with *important* and a big red arrow pointing at it...

Edited May 27, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[?Impact]

E = MC²

The symbols E, M, and C are man's creation. The Bible does however tell us that there is more than can be seen:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

and that there is a great energy holding together matter

Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

and that the Lord can destroy matter in a great atomic explosion

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[DogOnPorch]

You know...the first 150 prime numbers in hidden Bible code....throw me a frickin' bone here.

[DogOnPorch]

...or something equally miraculous for the Bronze Age. The rate of spin on the 10 closest pulsars. Parables not included.

[?Impact]

...or something equally miraculous for the Bronze Age. The rate of spin on the 10 closest pulsars. Parables not included.

That will have to wait for Testament TNG. Ancient civilizations did not have the means and resolution to time pulsars. I don't know about the 10 closest, but many of them are measured in fractions of seconds. The second as a unit of time is only 1000 years old, way after the current Testaments were committed to paper. It was a Persian scholar that introduced the term, although it was as a division of time and I am not sure it could actually be measured.

[DogOnPorch]

That will have to wait for Testament TNG. Ancient civilizations did not have the means and resolution to time pulsars. I don't know about the 10 closest, but many of them are measured in fractions of seconds. The second as a unit of time is only 1000 years old, way after the current Testaments were committed to paper. It was a Persian scholar that introduced the term, although it was as a division of time and I am not sure it could actually be measured.

God is apparently all-powerful and he/she/it put the spin on those pulsars.

It was the pendulum and spring that allowed accurate timekeeping for the Industrial Age.

Edited May 29, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Were you a fan of Connections (etc) and The Day The Universe Changed?

[?Impact]

Were you a fan of Connections (etc) and The Day The Universe Changed?

Lots of good BBC series I never saw, those sound like good ones. Connections is available at the Grande Bibliothèque (downtown library part of Quebec National Archives), I will have to pick it up. It appears that Burke also wrote a book to accompany The Day the Universe Changed that I can get from the local public library, but I can't find the series.

Didn't the foliot pre-date the pendulum?

I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument.

[Scott Mayers]

We begin with the very first statement in the very first Book of the Bible.

The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an introductory statement.

It's an official declaration by the Creator.

Genesis 1

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That first statement informs us that:

1. the universe had a beginning

http://www.harvardhouse.com/universe_began.htm

.....but that was declared thousands of years ago (verbally passed by "primitive" ancient men for who knows how long before it got finally written down, on paper), long before the dawn of modern science.

2. it was Created

The NAS had officially stated:

.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

3. the Creator is God. God of Abraham. The Biblical God.

Problem (1): Any source asserting the authority of its written content is begging. If I wrote a book and began with, "What you are about to read is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Myself, because I'm 'God', and thus I would not lie to you."

Problem (2): The term, "God" originates not from the Bible but from Northern European sources for the very word, "good", that itself derives from a common term to "pour" and is that which pours, especially of things like wine, representing 'good' fortune, etc. The original term(s) are El, and in respect to Genesis, Elohim, which is plural for "the gods" unspecified. "El" also meant "The(e)" when granted significance, meant "the ultimate 'thee' or the One". (Arabian evolution of this becomes, Al- or "Al-lah" (the One). Example, "Ba'al" or "Ba'el", meant "Father (or Best) of One" and often represented the most luxurious of things, as in the cow.

"YHWY", "Ye- owey",..."Je- ova", all come from all the Middle East concept, meaning literally, "I, (the) ova", the egg, or generically, the 'source' derived from what was understood then as the most universal a 'perfect' shape, the circle, as represented by the literal Sun in the sky. From Egypt, the concept of 'shape' is aten (subjective) and atum (objective). The Aten, represented the SHAPE of the most perfect source, the Sun. The Atum, is the Earth and anything formed of solids of it. Thus this is where "Adam" also comes from. It was intended to mean by those back then as us beings made of the very Earth, just as is also indicated in the story of Adam being "Shaped from the Earth".

"Eden" (or Eten) is the source where Aten rises each day, the Eastern Sun on the horizon. Thus why the 'Garden of Eden' is assumed to have derived from and another non-literal interpretation to signify our birth, youth, and naivete prior to becoming wise.

"Eve", while represented as a female, just as Eve, as male, also meant ALL men/womenkind that FOLLOWED. Reference etymological links are to "even" and "ever". Note that "odd" is also a term that "God" is later applied to in Europe, where Oden, likely coming from Aten too, was commonly understood as the same.

I'll leave it at this because this is most significant to start off with. If you need to appropriately investigate the Bible, you have to understand its roots within context of the times. Originally, Genesis had a mixture of common wisdom of many societies and the story(ies) had multiple meanings as in very clever cartoons intent on helping people remember key secular ideals and purposes.

[DogOnPorch]

Lots of good BBC series I never saw, those sound like good ones. Connections is available at the Grande Bibliothèque (downtown library part of Quebec National Archives), I will have to pick it up. It appears that Burke also wrote a book to accompany The Day the Universe Changed that I can get from the local public library, but I can't find the series.

Didn't the foliot pre-date the pendulum?

I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument.

The Foliot would be part of the spring assembly...no? A counter-wheel...or fly wheel to rewind the spring...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Universe_Changed

Edited May 29, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[Peter F]

the series is here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cji4q_the-day-the-universe-changed-01-10-the-way-we-are-it-started-with-the-greeks_shortfilms

Brilliant stuff.

[DogOnPorch]

the series is here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cji4q_the-day-the-universe-changed-01-10-the-way-we-are-it-started-with-the-greeks_shortfilms

Brilliant stuff.

Thanks, Peter.

[Scott Mayers]

From ?Impact: "I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument."

DAMN, I hate when this ALWAYS seems to happen with the evangelical. And I wasted a post that I really WOULD like to see challenged! Maybe you could advocate on what I wrote, if at least for fun?

[Scott Mayers]

Thanks, Peter.

Yes, Burke's "Connections" is a big influence of my own approach. It's old to me now but I highly double recommend this too and prefer these type of approaches to learning. Note that Burke is one of the first film series that used this approach of history connections across various areas. But this was common in the early half of the last century and was heightened by those like Asimov, one of the last of the traditional jack-of-all-trade's approach to understanding.

[?Impact]

Maybe you could advocate on what I wrote, if at least for fun?

Problem (1) - Not a problem

While your argument is true for all secondary authorities, it obviously does not apply to the primary authority. There is a hierarchy, we have the equivalent in modern legislation like the Constitution of Canada is the primary authority to which all other legislation must be tested against.

Problem (2) - Not a problem

God is known by many names (God, Lord, Jehovah, ...), I believe over 900 names have been documented and there are probably countless others that never made it to paper. Yes, those common names may derive from other concepts to which man is familiar. The true name of God however was only revealed directly to Moses, who never shared it with others. The Lord promised to revel his name in:

Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

and then delivered on that promise:

Exodus 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

[?Impact]

The Foliot would be part of the spring assembly...no?

Ok, I think we are using different terms. I see the foliot (and balance wheel) as what you are calling the spring assembly, and the balance spring being an enhancement to that assembly to improve its performance. Early foliots (not sure about balance wheels) did not have a balance spring to limit their travel and just relied on inertia from the force of the escapement [edit: and friction]. That became a problem as the primary drive would not be consistent throughout its travel (eg. as a weight got lower, or a mainspring unwound). There were other enhancements to even out the primary drive like linking the primary drive through a conical pulley to the escapement, but it was the balance spring that obsoleted those methods. Of course there have been subsequent improvements in the balance spring itself, like the use of bi-metal laminates to compensate for temperature, etc.

When you originally said pendulum and spring, I thought you were referring to the mainspring as the primary drive. I expect weights as a primary drive predated that use of springs, but they were both in use in very early clocks. Obviously weights would pose significant problems for ships chronometers.

Edited May 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[Scott Mayers]

Problem (1) - Not a problem

While your argument is true for all secondary authorities, it obviously does not apply to the primary authority. There is a hierarchy, we have the equivalent in modern legislation like the Constitution of Canada is the primary authority to which all other legislation must be tested against.

This may be 'true' of one who already believes. The argument of its authenticity is at question though if one argues that outsiders to that belief should read it.

Note too, if you understand anything in logic, Godel's "Incompleteness" theorem technically addresses logic of a "consistent" nature and its second theorem asserts that no logical system can be used to prove itself. So your concern of primary authority was precisely what mathematicians of the past thought in a similar way as you are justly asserting. The potential 'solution' to this is to argue using an inconsistent logic, something that cannot be expected of us living in a specific world demanding it. For a person of religion, you could simply ask whether "consistency" matters but should they say no, while alright, they have to give up trying to argue the 'faith' with "consistent" types of reasoning.

Problem (2) - Not a problem

God is known by many names (God, Lord, Jehovah, ...), I believe over 900 names have been documented and there are probably countless others that never made it to paper. Yes, those common names may derive from other concepts to which man is familiar. The true name of God however was only revealed directly to Moses, who never shared it with others. The Lord promised to revel his name in:

Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

and then delivered on that promise:

Exodus 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

"Descended" in the cloud? Should this not be "ascended"? Perhaps this "lord" was a reference not to some god but to a real authority, often of the land?

On a serious note to this, if you pay attention to the background of when or where these assertions in the Bible occur, plus giving the time and place of the Middle East back then, it was 'multi-cultural' and a transient trading/meeting place as such. When people came upon anyone, it was expected (and respected) that others had come from different backgrounds. Asking of 'which' god one is, is a means of asking who their tribal associations are and to determine in faith if they ARE indeed worthy of respect. To come upon a (land)"Lord" is of one who is transient to come to those asserting settlements. To which one has to interpret how or why one is asserting "Lord"ship over them (a right to be respected authoritatively).

The Bible during Genesis and Exodus is about the adaptation of tribal life to civilization, settling the lands as opposed to being tribal hunters and gatherers. The conflict with those still in transition was very real because the concept of a 'right to OWN' was still new and odd to many. The Jews represented many of those from various backgrounds in the midst of settling. They initially disagreed with it.

I'm digressing. But as to names, the heroes and characters, including the gods themselves, in the Bible, were understood in their day to reference secular life, not actual religious or literal characters. Its important to point these out to those using the Bible to defend some interpretation, especially, when it is used with modern obscurity like poetry. Imagine our political "Constitution" being interpreted two thousand years from now by people who lack the same language base we do. They might interpret "Constitution", as the name of some God's name we all believed in from our time! The word, "mankind", might be reinterpreted as a name of our first existing essence, as in, "In the beginning, our Lord, "Nature", created "Mankind" in his form (nature, that is!). Then Mankind demanded of Nature that it (he) could not persist without some future to look forward to. So, the Lord, Nature, provided this by giving him this future, and called this, "Ever".

I'm just giving you an example. But when you demonstrate how significant records kept by most people deal with REALITY, it is likely that much of the Bible was just a collection of secular history that was designed to help pass on secular wisdom of the day, mixed with entertaining ways of doing so, like "The Simpsons", or "South Park", or an infinite other stories we have nowadays. [i chose those two because ancient times would have required a 'cartoon-like' way to teach or it would not be remembered as easily.

[BubberMiley]

If this universe were truly designed by a God, I would be concerned about his obsession with designing different kinds of bugs. He clearly went a little out of control there. How many kinds of beetles do we really need?

[?Impact]

If this universe were truly designed by a God, I would be concerned about his obsession with designing different kinds of bugs. He clearly went a little out of control there. How many kinds of beetles do we really need?

You will find comfort in Genesis 6.

[Topaz]

An expert that studies the Bible said the Bible has been translated down through the years so many times that the original doesn't exist. Thoughts?

[Guest]

An expert that studies the Bible said the Bible has been translated down through the years so many times that the original doesn't exist. Thoughts?

There are no originals. Just copies of copies of copies. The content has been chosen by committee, altered accidentally by scribes and also those with an agenda. This was a problem with most texts from the ancient world. It just happens to be worse with the Bible because it has been hand copied more than any other book.

The oldest fragment, called P52, is only the size of a credit card and is from the second century CE. The oldest full manuscript is from the third century, at least 120 years after the "originals" were written and it contains many differences from the older small fragments that have been found.

Since, we do have many hand scribed copies from various time periods, they can be compared and the numerous differences and errors can be analyzed. At the time printing press came a long, Oxford Biblical scholar John Mill spent 30 years comparing 100 different manuscripts to produce a somewhat accurate printed Greek version of the New Testament. Every time John found a difference in the copies that he considered significant he made a note of it. When finished he noted 30,000 significant differences.

Today there are more noted differences between various manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most are tiny, simple mistakes but others have been confirmed by historians to be willful alterations.

There are many books on this subject with probably the most popular being "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why?". If you're interested, here is a talk on the subject given by the author Bart Ehrman.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Guest

[betsy]

I was accused of plagiarism by another member of this forum (in the thread, God of the Bible).

Just for the record.....

There was nothing plagiarized in any of my posts. Yes, same topics posted in another forum (Political Forum) under the name of tosca 1 are posted here.

I am tosca1.

Tosca1 - May 28 2016 02:46 AM

betsy of Mapleleaf and I, are one and the same.

http://www.politicalforum.com/members/tosca1.html

Edited June 1, 2016 by Charles Anthony
merged "On accusation of Plagiarism"

[Moonlight Graham]

There are no originals. Just copies of copies of copies. The content has been chosen by committee, altered accidentally by scribes and also those with an agenda. This was a problem with most texts from the ancient world. It just happens to be worse with the Bible because it has been hand copied more than any other book.

The oldest fragment, called P52, is only the size of a credit card and is from the second century CE. The oldest full manuscript is from the third century, at least 120 years after the "originals" were written and it contains many differences from the older small fragments that have been found.

Since, we do have many hand scribed copies from various time periods, they can be compared and the numerous differences and errors can be analyzed.

But betsy claims from the OP: "Being God-inspired, the Bible is practically Authored by God..."

So then we must assume that all these alterations and mistranslations are also God-inspired by the divine hand. That must be your argument.

[Guest]

But betsy claims from the OP: "Being God-inspired, the Bible is practically Authored by God..."

So then we must assume that all these alterations and mistranslations are also God-inspired by the divine hand. That must be your argument.

Yes, of course that is my argument. I'm positive God had good reasons for having human scribes change the text and meaning of passages as the popular understanding of the scripture evolved over time. I do struggle with how to explain why an omnipotent being would need men to append entire new verses to preexisting passages hundreds of years after they were written and pass them off as original; but, I am sure these creative writing exercises were all part of God's plan.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Guest

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, of course that is my argument. I'm positive God had good reasons for having human scribes change the text and meaning of passages as the popular understanding of the scripture evolved over time. I do struggle with how to explain why an omnipotent being would need men to append entire new verses to preexisting passages hundreds of years after they were written and pass them off as original; but, I am sure these creative writing exercises were all part of God's plan.

Ya i don't understand why God needed men to write a Bible and then have them keep changing it to contradict itself. As an omnipotent being, why didn't he himself create a Bible right after he created Adam and Eve? Why doesn't he appear in the sky every once in a while to give us some guidance instead of having us believe a bunch of power-hungry schmuks in white robes that don't really know much at all?