PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Bible Inconsistencies
       The bible is not a good literal reference tool

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are many, many inconsistencies in within the bible.  If it isn't even be internally consistent then it isn't a valid literal reference book and should only be taken metaphorically.

Here is a website that shows the many of the inconsistencies which are present in the bible.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 4:16 PM on August 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"metaphorically" AT BEST. I don't believe that saying that bats are birds was a metaphor.

To believe that the Bible referred a metaphoric but solid sky to separate the literal waters from below from the metaphoric waters from above, is being too merciful.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:53 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the bible has NOT ONE inconsistency.

frankly, i get kind of tired of evolutionists telling creationists that they need to understand evolution before trying to argue against it, only to argue against something they don't fully understand:  the bible.

i have studied the bible for a number of years now, and i too found myself questioning a few things that seemed somewhat inconsistent, but as time went on, and i studied more...these "inconsistencies" actually turned out to be more consistent than i had even imagined.

funny enough - when i see such disregard to the process of thought it actually makes me think:
maybe you evolutionists are right:  maybe i SHOULDN'T argue against this thought of evolution until i've spent some more time digging into it.  i'm saying to myself, "geez...i wonder if i sound as silly to them as they sound to me."  

perhaps creationsists arguing against evolution sound as silly to evolutionists as the evolutionsists arguing against the bible sound to creationists.

let's do each other a favor, and think before we speak without simply taking some website's word for it.   i'll spend some more time trying to openly understand the science of evolution.  and you spend some more time trying to openly understand that the bible, when read with context in mind, actually holds NO inconsistencies.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:21 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the bible has NOT ONE inconsistency.

How about just plain mistakes, like this one:

"Leviticus 11:20-21 (King James Version)
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

No bird goes on four legs, none.  This is a biblical error.

"Leviticus 11:20-21 (King James Version)
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;"

All insects have six legs, not four.  This is another example of the many inaccuracies of the bible.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:55 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, who understand the Bible fully? What's to understand? If they say it's literal, it shouldn't be difficult at all.

A small group of people try to argue against science in general (not only evolution). They try to weaken the solid foundations of a evolution (to no avail, of course).

It's true i don't understand the Bible. I mean, i've read it, but i didn't "study" it. I prefer to study Japanese.

Can you understand that i don't feel that it's worth it? I don't want to disrespect you, but that's how i feel.

Perhaps i post ignorant phrases about the Bible. Well, explain it to me! If there's any way in which those seemingly obvious contradictions make sense, tell me, instead of stating how tired you get!

i have studied the bible for a number of years now, and i too found myself questioning a few things that seemed somewhat inconsistent, but as time went on, and i studied more...these "inconsistencies" actually turned out to be more consistent than i had even imagined.
That's interesting. And i would really like to know some of the solution to the seeming inconsistencies.

And why would a perfect God make a text with apparent inconsistencies? Why not make it clear??

"geez...i wonder if i sound as silly to them as they sound to me."
Haha! Man, i like you! Perhaps it's like you say.

But bear in mind that not many people would take interest in the Bible and it's "inconsistencies" if christians didn't try to disprove evolution.

On the other hand, it's christians who feel science threatens their beliefs, and they try to defend them.

perhaps creationsists arguing against evolution sound as silly to evolutionists as the evolutionsists arguing against the bible sound to creationists.
Most likely you're right. But bear in mind that creationists don't agree between themselves, and sound silly to each other plenty of times.

let's do each other a favor, and think before we speak without simply taking some website's word for it.
Word? It's the text of the Bible! Well, it's flawed translation.

i'll spend some more time trying to openly understand the science of evolution.  and you spend some more time trying to openly understand that the bible, when read with context in mind, actually holds NO inconsistencies.
Don't take it wrong, but i don't believe it. I don't know how can i open my mind more without my brains falling out. I'm still waiting your reply to my last post in "i dare you".

Do you have messenger? I'm not lying when i say i like you. =D


(Edited by wisp 10/2/2008 at 3:00 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:57 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:55 PM on October 2, 2008 :
the bible has NOT ONE inconsistency.

How about just plain mistakes, like this one:

"Leviticus 11:20-21 (King James Version)
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

No bird goes on four legs, none.  This is a biblical error.

"Leviticus 11:20-21 (King James Version)
21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;"

All insects have six legs, not four.  This is another example of the many inaccuracies of the bible.



here is some commentary for you my friend

         first from  John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"(Lev 11:20  All fowls that creep,).... Or rather 'every creeping thing that flies'; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts, &c. so the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, Ben Gersom, and Maimonides...

(Lev 11:21  Yet these may ye eat,).... Which are after described and named:

of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four; even though it is a creeping thing that flies and goes upon four feet, provided they be such:

which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; there is a double reading of this clause; the textual reading is, "which have not legs", and is followed by several interpreters and translators; and the marginal reading, which we follow, is, "which have legs"; and both are to be regarded as true, and written by Moses, as Ainsworth observes; for locusts are born without legs, and yet creep low, as Pliny asserts (z), and they have them afterwards; and it is a canon of the Jews, that what have not legs or wings now, or have not wings to cover the greatest part of them, but shall have after a time when grown up, these are as free (to eat) now, as when grown up (a). Dr. Shaw thinks (b) the words may bear this construction, "which have knees upon" or "above their hinder legs, to leap withal upon the earth"; and applying this to the locust afterwards, and only instanced in, he observes, that this has the two hindermost of its legs and feet much stronger, larger, and longer than any of the foremost. In them the knee, or the articulation of the leg and thigh, is distinguished by a remarkable bending or curvature, whereby it is able, whenever prepared, to jump, to spring, or raise itself up with great force and activity. And these Aristotle (c) calls the leaping parts; and though he attributes to the locust six feet, as does also Pliny (d), yet he takes the two leaping parts into the account; whereas Moses distinguishes those two from the four feet; and so Austin (e) observes, that Moses does not reckon among the feet the two hinder thighs with which locusts leap, which he calls clean, and thereby distinguishes them from such unclean flying creatures which do not leap with their thighs, such as beetles; and so the Jewish writers always describe a clean locust as having four feet, and two legs, thighs, or knees. Maimonides (f) gives three signs of them, which are these, whatsoever has four feet and four wings, which cover the greatest part of its body in length, and the greatest part of the compass of it, and has two thighs or knees to leap with, they are of the clean kind; and although its head is long, and it hath a tail, if its name is "chagob" (a locust) it is clean.

(z) Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29. (a) Maimon. ib. c. 1. sect. 23. (b) Travels, p. 420. (c) De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 6. (d) Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 48. (e) Retract. l. 2. c. 15. (f) Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. "

         and Here is some from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

" (Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep )- Such as the bat, already mentioned, which has claws attached to its leathern wings, and which serve in place of feet to crawl by, the feet and legs not being distinct; but this may also include all the different kinds of insects, with the exceptions in the following verse.
Going upon all four - May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.

(Lev 11:21 Which have legs above their feet) - This appears to refer to the different kinds of locusts and grasshoppers, which have very remarkable hind legs, long, and with high joints, projecting above their backs, by which they are enabled to spring up from the ground, and leap high and far."


I hope this helps shed some light on these passages of the law.


(Edited by dubie903 10/2/2008 at 8:32 PM).

(Edited by dubie903 10/2/2008 at 8:34 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 8:27 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2008 :
 and you spend some more time trying to openly understand that the bible, when read with context in mind, actually holds NO inconsistencies.

-d


Interesting comment.  

Reading without context would imply reading literally, rather than than understanding that meanings might be different from the surface text.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:38 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it is important to keep in mind that the bible has been translated over many many centuries.  this ends up being a factor when interpreting now.  this is why i always like to go as far back to the original writing as possible.  we need to look at what hebrew words were used in the original context.  yes, the original authors were "inspired by god", and i believe this.  but it has never been proclaimed that the translators were ever "inspired by god".  god ensured that the scriptures would survive time, and that the message of the gospel would reach the "four corners" of the earth.  translation of the bible is one method of doing this.  however, what's important to remember is that the translations were a best effort approach by the translators going through quite tedious processes.  in other words, the scripture in its original form is holy and without flaw.  any translation thereafter should be considered with care and thought and study compared to the original.

the word used for "fowls", and sometimes "insects"in this instance is the hebrew word: owph - literally meaning:   "flying creatures." this would include anything from birds to bats to insects.  moses is simply referring to things like bats when he says, " all fowls(flying things) that creep on all four.  

The other word in verse 21 that is commonly mistranslated into "insects" or "fowl" is the hebrew word "sherets".  in the king james version, this is translated "flying, creeping thing".  this actually refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. it can refer to a number of things as well.  in Genesis, the word refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account, specifically, sherets refers to rodents.  in leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it always specifically refers to "insects" is misleading.

the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs.  this can be a number of creatures as well.  so... to be clear as to which specific creatures were being discussed, there is a little something thrown in about the legs of these creatures.

if you look closely to lev. 11:21, it's evident that it was aware at the time that there were certain creatures that did, in fact, have six legs.  and of them, only certain ones were ok to eat.

this is a common translation:
"'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

this is the king james translation:
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four which have legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth"

(it is also important to note that in the original hebrew did not contain punctuation.)

the phrase that is of importance here is "which have legs above their feet to leap"

it seems strange at first.  i mean don't all feet have legs above them?  

the key again is what words are actually used in the original hebrew to describe these legs and feet.  hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kara).

the word "kara" is exclusively used in hebrew for describing the large, propelling, hind legs of a locust or grasshopper.  the word "regel" is used to describe the four other "feet" which the insect uses for walking

what this verse is saying is that these creatures walk on there anterior four feet(regel) and use their legs(kera) for jumping / propulsion.  thus all six appendages are mentioned.

all this passage is saying is that of ALL flying things that have four legs and crawl close to the ground, but don't have the large hind jumping legs - don't eat these...they'r not good for you.

bats crawl around on four close to the ground.  and there are some insects that also crawl around "on fours" but don't have the large hind legs used for jumping.   so the differentiating factor among the crawling / flying creatures is whether or not they're hindmost legs are the large legs used for jumping(i.e. the locust, cricket, and grasshopper).

WISP:
btw -  nope, i don't have im.  but i'm glad u feel like we can actually discuss things and try to be progressive and not destructive.
i like that as well.

and, yes - i remember that last post in "dare u" needs a reply - i just haven't found time to be thorough enough, and i'm still digging up stuff for another post.

i'll get to it eventually though.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 12:26 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2008 :
 and you spend some more time trying to openly understand that the bible, when read with context in mind, actually holds NO inconsistencies.

-d


Interesting comment.  

Reading without context would imply reading literally, rather than than understanding that meanings might be different from the surface text.






not sure exactly what ur geting at, but i'm interpreting it as a bit of sarcasm.  sure some things should not be taken literally, but this does not make void the entire book.

i've heard it said that the bible cannot be taken literally; that it is one big metaphore.

here's just my brief explanation:
there are, indeed, certain aspects that can only be taken in a spiritual sense and not a literal sense.  but one can only understand these spiritual statements and stories AFTER understanding some fundamental things.

let's take one issue (and again, i'll be brief - this isn't sunday or sabbath school).

a lot of people take a few things out of context and come up with this idea that when u die - u will go straight to heaven and live forever or straight to hell and ...well...live forever(burning in eternal damnation, of course).
this misconception is due to a lack of one fundamental principle being known:  the ONLY way to immortality is heaven.  any other misconception fails to grasp this fundamental principle, thus leading to confusion.  

my point:  once the fundamental principles are acheived, the things which need to be interpreted spiritually and not literally will easily become clear.  

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 12:42 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 12:42 PM on October 3, 2008 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 8:38 PM on October 2, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2008 :
 and you spend some more time trying to openly understand that the bible, when read with context in mind, actually holds NO inconsistencies.

-d


Interesting comment.  

Reading without context would imply reading literally, rather than than understanding that meanings might be different from the surface text.






not sure exactly what ur geting at, but i'm interpreting it as a bit of sarcasm.  sure some things should not be taken literally, but this does not make void the entire book.

i've heard it said that the bible cannot be taken literally; that it is one big metaphore.

here's just my brief explanation:
there are, indeed, certain aspects that can only be taken in a spiritual sense and not a literal sense.  but one can only understand these spiritual statements and stories AFTER understanding some fundamental things.

let's take one issue (and again, i'll be brief - this isn't sunday or sabbath school).

a lot of people take a few things out of context and come up with this idea that when u die - u will go straight to heaven and live forever or straight to hell and ...well...live forever(burning in eternal damnation, of course).
this misconception is due to a lack of one fundamental principle being known:  the ONLY way to immortality is heaven.  any other misconception fails to grasp this fundamental principle, thus leading to confusion.  

my point:  once the fundamental principles are acheived, the things which need to be interpreted spiritually and not literally will easily become clear.  



Let me be blunt!  If you are going to represent a biblical point of view, please do so biblically.  2 Tim 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."  To accurately handle the word of God, you must be taught by the Holy Spirit, you must be born again.  The bible is a literal account of origins and history and a spiritul account of how crooked and vile man is, and how God has made a way for our spiritual man to spend eternity with Him.  It is also an account of the Holiness of God.  It gives record to the plan of God being carried out through history.  When the Bible is misrepresented, it is a great injustice to God and what He has given to man.  


Quote from dijonaise at 12:42 PM on October 3, 2008 :a lot of people take a few things out of context and come up with this idea that when u die - u will go straight to heaven and live forever or straight to hell and ...well...live forever(burning in eternal damnation, of course).
this misconception is due to a lack of one fundamental principle being known:  the ONLY way to immortality is heaven.  any other misconception fails to grasp this fundamental principle, thus leading to confusion.  


The Bible states you will spend eternity somewhere after death.  John 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good {deeds} to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil {deeds} to a resurrection of judgment."  
Eternal life in Heaven With God is only found through Jesus Christ His Son.  John 14:6 "Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."  Eternal life is Eternal life with God.   John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Now eternity in Hell is not living forever, but the Bible calls it the second death.  Revelation 2:11 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.' --Revelation 20:14 "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire."  Accurately handling the word of truth in these days and when trying to present an argument about the Bible as being true, is critical.  Just throwing out stuff you think the Bible says is wrong and misrepresents the Word of Truth.  Eternal Damnation in Hell is an eternal punishment and is the Second death, it is not living forever, but rather eternal death.  Once again I am sorry to turn the science forum into a religious debate, I know there is a forum for religion, but I do not like the Bible to be misrepresented or say stuff it does not say.


(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 1:20 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 1:16 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dubie:

man, i knew that would happen.  it's not my intention to turn this into a religious debate among fellow christians.  maybe i should have left out my example, but really, by reading your post...i don't understand where we disagree.  i agree with everything u said.  i believe that there will be a second coming of christ, and it is at this time that the wicked that have died will experience the second death.   i think where we might disagree is what the second death really is.  to be blunt:  it is just that; DEATH.  so, in fact, the righteous will live forever, and the wicked will be dead forever.  

as a matter of fact, i COMPLETELY agree with you.  (that is unless ur saying that our judgment comes immediatly following death).  again though, this isn't the place for u and i to debate this issue.

it seems that we actually agree...  so...why the fuss?  is it because i basically stated that the wicked do not live forever in hell?  a lot of people believe this, u know.

of the biblical quotes u used, i have absolutely no problem with them.  it is COMPLETELY clear that hell is, in fact, the "second death."  the wicked do, in fact, DIE forever;  it is an everlasting punishMENT; not everlasting punishING.

so...where do we disagree?

i would suggest that if we are to pursue this particular discussion further, that we start a new thread in a different fourum so as to not obscure what we're doing in this thread.  

perhaps u r right;  perhaps i shouldn't have been so bold with my statement, but again...it IS a misconception that our judgment comes immediately following death.  the judgment comes at christ's second coming when the graves r opened and "each will receive his reward according to his works."

i was merely trying to throw out this example of how things get misconstrued, and i think we've shown... that it is a good example, indeed.


again - where do we disagree?

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:07 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 1:16 PM on October 3, 2008 :
 Once again I am sorry to turn the science forum into a religious debate, I know there is a forum for religion, but I do not like the Bible to be misrepresented or say stuff it does not say.




I forgot that this thread was actually dedicated to bible inconsistencies and not actually evolution vs. creation so I do not apologize for clarifying the word of truth, and stating religious beliefs, or biblical truths.  Now dijonaise consider these words from Jesus Christ concerning the eternal judgment.  Matthew 13:42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Matthew 13:50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.   Matt 22:13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'  Matthew 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.   Luke 13:28 "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.  

Please tell me how one can weep and gnash there teeth if they are just dead forever.  A Christian or Biblical point of view will look at all things as Christ did.  Read Luke 16:19-31 and tell me how the rich man in this passage can be in agony and torment if he is just dead forever.    
 





(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 3:55 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 3:15 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 3:15 PM on October 3, 2008 :
Quote from dubie903 at 1:16 PM on October 3, 2008 :
 Once again I am sorry to turn the science forum into a religious debate, I know there is a forum for religion, but I do not like the Bible to be misrepresented or say stuff it does not say.




I forgot that this thread was actually dedicated to bible inconsistencies and not actually evolution vs. creation so I do not apologize for clarifying the word of truth, and stating religious beliefs, or biblical truths.  Now dijonaise consider these words from Jesus Christ concerning the eternal judgment.  Matthew 13:42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Matthew 13:50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.   Matt 22:13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'  Matthew 24:51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.   Luke 13:28 "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.  

Please tell me how one can weep and gnash there teeth if they are just dead forever.  A Christian or Biblical point of view will look at all things as Christ did.  Read Luke 16:19-31 and tell me how the rich man in this passage can be in agony and torment if he is just dead forever.    
 





(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 3:55 PM).




for the record, nothing i am saying is misrepresenting the bible; i am merely making the point that interpretation and translation are not divine.  but the original word is divine.

with that said, it looks like we are getting into a religious debate after all.

i will be brief.

u ask how can one be in the state of weeping and gnashing of teeth, yet be dead forever.

consider this:  if you are burned up and turned to rubble under the feet of the righteous, it will certainly be a tormenting thing.  but NOWHERE in scripture does it state that this event is going to last forever.  there certainly will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but this will take place among the wicked as they are "burned up by the brightness of his coming."

saying that because the wicked will be experiencing weeping and gnashing of teeth is evidence that the wicked are punished forever and ever is...simply...wrong, my friend.

my point remains:  understanding fundamental principles comes first.  the findamental principle is this:  "the dead know nothing" (ecc. 9:5).

the wicked will certainly be burned up and experience weeping and gnashing of teeth, but once this process is finished, that's it.  their reward is everlasting, and the reward of the righteous is everlasting.

-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 4:59 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 4:59 PM on October 3, 2008 :


my point remains:  understanding fundamental principles comes first.  the findamental principle is this:  "the dead know nothing" (ecc. 9:5).

the wicked will certainly be burned up and experience weeping and gnashing of teeth, but once this process is finished, that's it.  their reward is everlasting, and the reward of the righteous is everlasting.

-d



When exactly does the Bible state that this process of punishment will be finished.  Consider these passages.  Matthew 18:8 ¶ "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.---Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It seems as though by the text above, that the fire is eternal and the punishment of fire is also eternal.  So when does the punishment of fire stop if it is eternal.




(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 5:44 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:42 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :
yes, the original authors were "inspired by god", and i believe this.  but it has never been proclaimed that the translators were ever "inspired by god".  
What WAS proclaimed is that He had a minute plan (which is consistent with His also proclaimed omniscience). So He must have known beforehand that all of this would have happened.

If the authors were "inspired by God", does that mean it wasn't a dictation? Some say it was. But i've read that different chapters of the Torah are written in different styles. So there must have been a human factor, right?

What if the part that was human-inspired isn't flawless?

Your words about translation problems was very interesting. But i'm still not convinced about the acuracy of the Bible. Imagine how hard would it be to believe in that when, unlike you, i have no faith on the divine inspiration of that text.

You understand that, to people like me, there's no possible way to believe that the Bible is the true word of God just because it says so!

For instance, i read that the Qu'ran states that there's a copy of itself in Heaven. Quite interesting, isn't it? But it's not "evidence" in itself...

moses is simply referring to things like bats when he says, " all fowls(flying things) that creep on all four.
Moses, NOT God, right? If that's what you believe, i agree. If moses existed, and was raised as an egyptian he must have had much more knowledge than his followers.

And instead of saying "If you eat that you probably will catch something", he chose to say "Jehovah told me we shouldn't eat that". They bought it, so it worked.

not sure exactly what ur geting at, but i'm interpreting it as a bit of sarcasm.
I think it's pretty clear where he's going. And i too find your comment quite interesting. No sarcasm from me.

sure some things should not be taken literally,
THIS is where he was getting at. And so was i. It's a very important point!

You mention it, giving it for granted. But you should not. For many creationists claim that the entire Bible should be taken literally.

The big problem, once you get to this, is to establish what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are not. And only humans do that. And they don't agree between themselves. If God foresaw this predicament he didn't help to avoid it.

I think He should have said a special word when He was about to utter a metaphoric sentence.

but this does not make void the entire book.
Your statement seems to imply that it could make part of the Bible void.

the ONLY way to immortality is heaven.  any other misconception fails to grasp this fundamental principle, thus leading to confusion.  

my point:  once the fundamental principles are achieved, the things which need to be interpreted spiritually and not literally will easily become clear.
Now seriously, what fundamental principle can make me understand if the "sky" referred in the Bible to separate waters from above and below was literal or not?

1 Samuel 17 (King James Version):
 49And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.


I can't imagine a fundamental principle that could cope with this contradiction. Except if it said "Fundamental principle #83: When a slingshot is mentioned just before a sword, the first is metaphoric and the second is literal.

Or the other way around. For i still don't know what did he use to kill Goliath.

Perhaps it's due to the translation. I tried to search for a serious explanation, but all i found was mockery (i'm cool with mockery, but i was looking for something else).

Besides Goliath seems to have been killed twice. In 2SA 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath.

You said "giant" was a metaphor for "very old people". Well, then what David (twice, and later Elhanan once) did wasn't that great.


As for your little misunderstanding with dubie, it sounds like it's like i said. There are steps of creationism. You consider yourself "literal", but you're not as literal as dubie is.

You seem to need a tiny bit more metaphor than he does to be able to accept the text.

I understand you don't want to disagree with him. But you do. And i have the feeling that there will be lots of points where he will disagree with your opinion. Just as you both (i hope) would disagree with a flat-earther.

Sure, scientists disagree about some details. But the frame of evolution remains the same.

Creationists can't possibly do this, as there are people with different amount of knowledge trying to interpret the Bible.

What i have observed is this: the more knowledgeable a christian is, the more metaphor will he attribute to the Bible, if he pretends to defend it's validity/accuracy.

dubie takes literalness a step further than you, but i doubt he believes that Earth has four corners.


(Edited by wisp 10/3/2008 at 6:48 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:41 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 5:42 PM on October 3, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 4:59 PM on October 3, 2008 :


my point remains:  understanding fundamental principles comes first.  the findamental principle is this:  "the dead know nothing" (ecc. 9:5).

the wicked will certainly be burned up and experience weeping and gnashing of teeth, but once this process is finished, that's it.  their reward is everlasting, and the reward of the righteous is everlasting.

-d



When exactly does the Bible state that this process of punishment will be finished.  Consider these passages.  Matthew 18:8 ¶ "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.---Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It seems as though by the text above, that the fire is eternal and the punishment of fire is also eternal.  So when does the punishment of fire stop if it is eternal.




(Edited by dubie903 10/3/2008 at 5:44 PM).




i'll answer this simple question with another simple question:

are sodom and gomorrah still burning today?

the answer, of course, is:  NO.

u ask - "When exactly does the Bible state that this process of punishment will be finished?"

the answer is quite simple:  Malachi 4:3
"You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this,” Says the LORD of hosts"  the bible makes it clear.  

2 Thessalonians 2:8:
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

how can something be destroyed or consumed if ...well...it is NEVER destroyed or consumed.


please, don't get me wrong;  i appreciate the fact that you are passionate about scripture, and i appreciate the thought process, but frankly, i'm afraid that in debating amongst ourselves, we're only proving a point that evolutionists make frequently:  one that says that the scientific community is in harmony, and the creationists can't agree on anything.  

i wish i could just try to meet you in the middle on this issue, but frankly, i'm afraid that you are just mislead.  the simple fact of this matter is that there is absolutely nothing NOT ONE THING in scripture that tells us that we die, then go to heaven or hell, then...for some strange reason...our souls are shot back into our bodies in order to be resurrected and receive our reward (for a second time).  in this case, the wicked would be in hell burning and burning away.  then, they would be sent back to their bodies only to be resurrected, only to be killed again...only to be sent back to hell to burn and burn and burn.  
scripture is more than clear on the state of the dead as well as the chronology of what takes place at the second coming.

thank you for your thoughts, and, regarless of what happens with this discussion, i hope that we can come together in order to be productive in this forum.


-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/3/2008 at 9:49 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 9:34 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 8:34 PM on October 3, 2008 :

please, don't get me wrong;  i appreciate the fact that you are passionate about scripture, and i appreciate the thought process, but frankly, i'm afraid that in debating amongst ourselves, we're only proving a point that evolutionists make frequently:  one that says that the scientific community is in harmony, and the creationists can't agree on anything.


If you think the scientific community is in harmony, you've never been exposed to real science.  Get a guest pass for
fall AGU, and observe the it in action.  What science offers is a process for the ideas with the strongest evidence to be accepted by the community.

i wish i could just try to meet you in the middle on this issue, but frankly, i'm afraid that you are just mislead.


Both of you are fully convinced that you are led by the Holy Spirit to the Truth.

What is your process to come to agreement?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:47 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2008 :
[color=teal]
Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :
yes, the original authors were "inspired by god", and i believe this.  but it has never been proclaimed that the translators were ever "inspired by god".  
What WAS proclaimed is that He had a minute plan (which is consistent with His also proclaimed omniscience). So He must have known beforehand that all of this would have happened.


think of this:  the bible says that the earth is like the "stage" of the universe where a war of pricipalities is taking place.  what is seen here on earth by the angels, (as well as all the other beings on all the other worlds - yes...that's what i said, that's a completely different topic itself though), shows god's true nature, character, and perfection in judgment.

think on this:  let's say that god saw that satan would have become corrupt, and that man would sin.  the question that follows is:  well, why didn't he just get rid of satan or get rid of adam and eve?  the answer is this:  if god would have just destroyed lucifer in the beginning, then everything that lucifer was proclaiming in heaven to the angels would have seem quite legit.  god HAD to let lucifer "go on trial" in order to prove god's perfect judgment, and to prove that lucifer and those that followed were, in fact, in the wrong.  
it's kind of like this:  let's say that the head of a large corporation is accused by one of the members on the board that this person has been embezzling.  the ceo denies the claim, and the very next day...the accuser turns up dead.  EVERYONE'S heads would immediately turn to the ceo not only for the injustice of murder, but because it would further raise suspicion concerning the accuser's original claim of ebezzlment.  this is the same principle played out in heaven.


If the authors were "inspired by God", does that mean it wasn't a dictation? Some say it was. But i've read that different chapters of the Torah are written in different styles. So there must have been a human factor, right?

What if the part that was human-inspired isn't flawless?


sure, there will be a certain amount of the human factor in play as far as the literal articulation, (i.e. - the articulation differences among the 4 gospels) but as far as the actual words that are chosen:  christ says, "i am the word."

as christians, we must, then, believe in the validity of the words as being divine and spoken by god through man.


Your words about translation problems was very interesting. But i'm still not convinced about the acuracy of the Bible. Imagine how hard would it be to believe in that when, unlike you, i have no faith on the divine inspiration of that text.

You understand that, to people like me, there's no possible way to believe that the Bible is the true word of God just because it says so!

For instance, i read that the Qu'ran states that there's a copy of itself in Heaven. Quite interesting, isn't it? But it's not "evidence" in itself...


very interesting point, my friend.  yes, i DO completely understand this point of view.  i won't use this time to just try to convince you of the book's validity.  all i will say it this:  i once felt the same way.  and up until about a year or so ago...i STILL wasn't COMPLETELY sure.  but i think that being skeptical and questioning things is a process that will eventually lead us to the truth of any matter.  furthermore, i think it's actually a trait given to man by god to be somewhat skeptical in order to keep us from being deceived by every single silly thing out there.
to sum up this thought:  what changed my mind were 2 things:  1.  the in depth study of the bibles detaild and proven prophecies.  take it from me(well...actually...discover it for yourself, then decide) i entered into my in depth study of prophecy with reeeallll skepticism.  i thought, "how do i know this isn't just coincidence or just a vague comment or two turned into something that it's really not?" but... the more i read and the more i dug into it...the more i was convinced that this book holds the answers.  2.  the birth of my son (sure...this isn't proof but - in him...i saw god).

 
Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :moses is simply referring to things like bats when he says, " all fowls(flying things) that creep on all four.


Moses, NOT God, right? If that's what you believe, i agree. If moses existed, and was raised as an egyptian he must have had much more knowledge than his followers.

And instead of saying "If you eat that you probably will catch something", he chose to say "Jehovah told me we shouldn't eat that". They bought it, so it worked.


ha ha...i've never heard this thought before.   all i can say is that the issuing of the order from god to stay away from unclean meat has actually been proven to be a significant health benefit.  doing things like staying away from pork, any type of scavanger like crustaceans,  fish that don't have scales and fins....did you know that the navy instructs it's personell that a stranded man, when faced with what is safe to eat should adhear to one rule:  if it has scales and fins...eat it; if it doesn't...don't.  this is exactly what is stated in the bible.  and further digging will reveal that the unclean meats mentioned in the bible are still contributors to poor health today.  u say moses was smart, and pulled a fast one over on the israelites because he was from egypt.  i say.  sure...probably.  but to say the egyptians adheared to the principles of good health by staying away from unclean meats is incorrect.  moses would not have accquired this knowledge from growing up in egypt.


Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :sure some things should not be taken literally,



THIS is where he was getting at. And so was i. It's a very important point!

You mention it, giving it for granted. But you should not. For many creationists claim that the entire Bible should be taken literally.

The big problem, once you get to this, is to establish what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are not. And only humans do that. And they don't agree between themselves. If God foresaw this predicament he didn't help to avoid it.

I think He should have said a special word when He was about to utter a metaphoric sentence.


all i can say to this is:  again,  once fundamental priciples are understood and applied, it is quite easy to use a little common sense in order to determine when a passage is meant to be taken spiritually and not literally.  

example:  there's a passage that speaks of a man dying and going into "abram's bosom".  are we to think that abraham is sitting in some place in space with a "bosom" as large as imaginable for people to bounce on as they enter?  i won't go into it all, but the answer, even from a nonbeliever's perspective is clearly: NO.  that would just be the silliest thing.  it usually just takes a little common sense and thoughtfulness on the reader's behalf.

Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :but this does not make void the entire book.




Quote from dijonaise at 09:26 AM on October 3, 2008 :the ONLY way to immortality is heaven.  any other misconception fails to grasp this fundamental principle, thus leading to confusion.  

my point:  once the fundamental principles are achieved, the things which need to be interpreted spiritually and not literally will easily become clear.


Now seriously, what fundamental principle can make me understand if the "sky" referred in the Bible to separate waters from above and below was literal or not?

1 Samuel 17 (King James Version):
 49And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.


I can't imagine a fundamental principle that could cope with this contradiction. Except if it said "Fundamental principle #83: When a slingshot is mentioned just before a sword, the first is metaphoric and the second is literal.

Or the other way around. For i still don't know what did he use to kill Goliath.

Perhaps it's due to the translation. I tried to search for a serious explanation, but all i found was mockery (i'm cool with mockery, but i was looking for something else).

Besides Goliath seems to have been killed twice. In 2SA 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath.

You said "giant" was a metaphor for "very old people". Well, then what David (twice, and later Elhanan once) did wasn't that great.


the story just says that david knocked him down with the stone, and then killed him (one time) with the sword.
as for elhanan killing goliath:  not so.  he killed his brother, lahmi.  this fact is plain in 1 chron. 20:5.  
this is a perfect example of what i have been talking about.  the original word is divine, but any translation or interpretation thereafter cannot be considered so.
further research shows that the sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.




Sure, scientists disagree about some details. But the frame of evolution remains the same.

Creationists can't possibly do this, as there are people with different amount of knowledge trying to interpret the Bible.

(Edited by wisp 10/3/2008 at 6:48 PM).


the same CAN be said for creationists, actually.
most, not all, but most are of a christian faith.  it can be said that we disagree on some details, but the frame remains the same as well.  we agree that the earth was created; we agree in christ as lord and saviour; we agree in the bible being the divine word of god written through man.  this "frame" as you call it is the common denominator.  sure, we may have our disagreements, but we share this common denominator.
sure, there are people with differing backgrounds and different amounts of knowledge, but christ tells us that, "to whom much is given, much is expected."  

we are to, thus, seek the truth with the amount of knowledge we have been given, but we are to still constantly "seek knowledge", and "seek wisdom",


-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:42 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:47 PM on October 3, 2008 :

If you think the scientific community is in harmony, you've never been exposed to real science.  Get a guest pass for
fall AGU, and observe the it in action.  What science offers is a process for the ideas with the strongest evidence to be accepted by the community.


no, I'M not saying this;  this is something that i have heard directly from more than one evolutionist.  i agree that not all scientists agree on everything, but it seems that most evolutionists that i run into seem to think that every single scientist in the world is in perfect harmony, and that there isn't a single argument within the scientific community.  anyone offering something different than what they already believe is simply "not performing science".


Both of you are fully convinced that you are led by the Holy Spirit to the Truth.

What is your process to come to agreement?




i never said i was being led by the Holy Spirit.  all that i said was that an understanding of fundamental principles coupled with some common sense will lead to the truth.

the process to agreement when dealing with scripture among two believers is simply doing what i just stated as well as carefully examining "precept upon precept, line upon line."
-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:56 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:56 PM on October 3, 2008 :
. . . i agree that not all scientists agree on everything, but it seems that most evolutionists that i run into seem to think that every single scientist in the world is in perfect harmony, and that there isn't a single argument within the scientific community.  anyone offering something different than what they already believe is simply "not performing science".


If you rephrased that to read "anyone offering something different that what they already believe without defensible evidence is simply "not performing science"." , it would be an accurate statement.  And no, quoting a Bible verse would not be considered defensible evidence.


Both of you are fully convinced that you are led by the Holy Spirit to the Truth.

What is your process to come to agreement?




i never said i was being led by the Holy Spirit.  all that i said was that an understanding of fundamental principles coupled with some common sense will lead to the truth.

the process to agreement when dealing with scripture among two believers is simply doing what i just stated as well as carefully examining "precept upon precept, line upon line."
-d


And how many thousand Christian sects are there?



(Edited by Apoapsis 10/4/2008 at 06:11 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 06:09 AM on October 4, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 06:09 AM on October 4, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 10:56 PM on October 3, 2008 :
. . . i agree that not all scientists agree on everything, but it seems that most evolutionists that i run into seem to think that every single scientist in the world is in perfect harmony, and that there isn't a single argument within the scientific community.  anyone offering something different than what they already believe is simply "not performing science".


If you rephrased that to read "anyone offering something different that what they already believe without defensible evidence is simply "not performing science"." , it would be an accurate statement.  And no, quoting a Bible verse would not be considered defensible evidence.


Both of you are fully convinced that you are led by the Holy Spirit to the Truth.

What is your process to come to agreement?




i never said i was being led by the Holy Spirit.  all that i said was that an understanding of fundamental principles coupled with some common sense will lead to the truth.

the process to agreement when dealing with scripture among two believers is simply doing what i just stated as well as carefully examining "precept upon precept, line upon line."
-d


And how many thousand Christian sects are there?



(Edited by Apoapsis 10/4/2008 at 06:11 AM).



well, u can reword it however u like.  i can call a duck a cow, but it won't make it moo.

the fact is:  creation is a hypothesis, as is evolution.  using the scientific method in order to further examine each hypothesis and add validity to it is a legit thing to do in either case.

as far as the many christian denomonations that are present today...

frankly, i'm not sure what your point is by bringing this up.
please explain.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 8:46 PM on October 4, 2008 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2008 :


u ask - "When exactly does the Bible state that this process of punishment will be finished?"

the answer is quite simple:  Malachi 4:3
"You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this,” Says the LORD of hosts"  the bible makes it clear.  


To my understdanding of this passage in the book of Malachi, it is in context an old testiment prophecy concerning the coming of Christ and the destruction of Israel, for their unrepentance.  The book of Malachi also fortells the coming of John the Baptist who came in the spirit of Elijah.  This is not a point of doctrine concerning a limited torment in hell.  The passages I showed you in the earlier post obviously call the punishment of hell, a punishment of eternal fire.  The punishment is eternal.


Quote from dijonaise at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2008 :
2 Thessalonians 2:8:
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

how can something be destroyed or consumed if ...well...it is NEVER destroyed or consumed.



As far as your choice of this scripture to use to support your doctrine of a limited punisment in hell, really surprises me.  You have grossly taken this scripture out of context.  You just recently in one of your other post, argued on the side of context, but by your usage of scripture have shown a poor understanding of how to use the truth of God's word.  2 Thessalonians 2:8 is not about hell.  It is a scripture that in context is about the Second Coming of Christ, and the Anti-Christ.  Jesus Christ will consume the Anti-Christ, his government, worldly institution and self-proclamatioion to be God with the breath of His mouth, which was also the same breath that brought the Truth of Scripture.  Jesus Christ at His Second coming will also just totally destroy the Anti-Christ just by showing up with the brightness of His coming.  It is not about Christ making those in Hell gone or no more, because the punishment of Hell is eternal.  

(Here is the definition of punish according to Webster's 1828 Dictionary)
Punish
PUN'ISH, v.t. [L. punio, from the root of poena,pain. The primary sense is to press or strain.]

1. To pain; to afflict with pain, loss or calamity for a crime or fault; primarily, to afflict with bodily pain, as to punish a thief with pillory or stripes; but the word is applied also to affliction by loss of property, by transportation, banishment, seclusion from society, &c. The laws require murderers to be punished with death. Other offenders are to be punished with fines, imprisonment, hard labor,&c. God punishes men for their sins with calamities personal and national.

2. To chastise; as, a father punishes his child for disobedience.

3. To regard with pain or suffering inflicted on the offender; applied to the crime; as, to punish murder or theft.



(Edited by dubie903 10/5/2008 at 12:18 AM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 12:14 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 7:46 PM on October 4, 2008 :
well, u can reword it however u like.  i can call a duck a cow, but it won't make it moo.


OK, explain where I changed the meaning.  I'm pointing out that you need to produce the evidence to defend your position.

the fact is:  creation is a hypothesis, as is evolution.  using the scientific method in order to further examine each hypothesis and add validity to it is a legit thing to do in either case.


Creation may be a hypothesis, but evolution is a well supported theory.  If you want to support your hypothesis, do what I have to go through.  Do the research, take it to a scientific meeting, convince them that you have not made any mistakes, and they will agree with you.  Know what??  It's HARD.  So you'd better get to work, rather than arguing endlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

as far as the many christian denomonations that are present today...

frankly, i'm not sure what your point is by bringing this up.
please explain.

-d


Frankly, it's my observation that human pride results in endless, fruitless religious arguments about patching together fragments of scripture here and there to support a position.  Meanwhile ignoring Christ's prayer for the believer:

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:20-23

By the way, I've seen estimates as to the number of different denominations between 25,000 and 38,000.

Science is showing you His invisible attributes, but you ignore them due to your pride.  You are without excuse.

(Edited by Apoapsis 10/5/2008 at 04:16 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 04:12 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 2:21 PM on October 2, 2008 :
the bible has NOT ONE inconsistency.


A) Who exactly went to Jesus’ tomb first?

1 woman: Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)

2 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James and Joses (Matthew 28:1)

3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Salome (Mark 16:1)

More than 3 women: Mary Magdalene & Mary mother of James & Joanna & others (Luke 24:9-10)



B) Was the stone at Jesus’ tomb already rolled away when they got there?

No, an angel rolled it away in front of them.  (Matthew 28:2-3)

Yes. (Mark 16:2-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)



C) Was it men or angels that were seen at Jesus’ tomb, and how many and where were they?

1 angel, outside the tomb sitting on the rolled-away stone (Matthew 28:2-3, 5-7)

1 man, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-7)

2 angels, inside the tomb (Luke 24:2-7; John 20:10-13)



D) Where did Mary and Joseph live before Jesus was born?

Nazareth. (Luke 2:1-5, 39)

Bethlehem. (Matthew 1:25-2:1; 2:19-23)



E) After Jesus was born, did the family head south to Egypt to hide from King Herod until his death, or north to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod?

South to Egypt to hide from Herod until his death. (Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23)

North to Jerusalem and Nazareth with no fear of Herod (Luke 2:21-24, 39)



F) On what day, relative to the Passover Meal, was Jesus crucified?

morning after the Passover Meal was eaten (3 synoptic gospels)

day before the Passover Meal was eaten (gospel of "John")

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/5/2008 at 08:02 AM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 08:01 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first from  John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"(Lev 11:20  All fowls that creep,).... Or rather 'every creeping thing that flies'; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts, &c. so the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, Ben Gersom, and Maimonides...


So you and the bible are saying that flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts go about on all four feet?  Sorry, insects have six legs, and therefore, six feet, the bible is still inaccurate here.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:09 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 12:14 AM on October 5, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2008 :


u ask - "When exactly does the Bible state that this process of punishment will be finished?"

the answer is quite simple:  Malachi 4:3
"You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this,” Says the LORD of hosts"  the bible makes it clear.  


To my understdanding of this passage in the book of Malachi, it is in context an old testiment prophecy concerning the coming of Christ and the destruction of Israel, for their unrepentance.  The book of Malachi also fortells the coming of John the Baptist who came in the spirit of Elijah.  This is not a point of doctrine concerning a limited torment in hell.  The passages I showed you in the earlier post obviously call the punishment of hell, a punishment of eternal fire.  The punishment is eternal.


Quote from dijonaise at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2008 :
2 Thessalonians 2:8:
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

how can something be destroyed or consumed if ...well...it is NEVER destroyed or consumed.



As far as your choice of this scripture to use to support your doctrine of a limited punisment in hell, really surprises me.  You have grossly taken this scripture out of context.  You just recently in one of your other post, argued on the side of context, but by your usage of scripture have shown a poor understanding of how to use the truth of God's word.  2 Thessalonians 2:8 is not about hell.  It is a scripture that in context is about the Second Coming of Christ, and the Anti-Christ.  Jesus Christ will consume the Anti-Christ, his government, worldly institution and self-proclamatioion to be God with the breath of His mouth, which was also the same breath that brought the Truth of Scripture.  Jesus Christ at His Second coming will also just totally destroy the Anti-Christ just by showing up with the brightness of His coming.  It is not about Christ making those in Hell gone or no more, because the punishment of Hell is eternal.  

(Here is the definition of punish according to Webster's 1828 Dictionary)
Punish
PUN'ISH, v.t. [L. punio, from the root of poena,pain. The primary sense is to press or strain.]

1. To pain; to afflict with pain, loss or calamity for a crime or fault; primarily, to afflict with bodily pain, as to punish a thief with pillory or stripes; but the word is applied also to affliction by loss of property, by transportation, banishment, seclusion from society, &c. The laws require murderers to be punished with death. Other offenders are to be punished with fines, imprisonment, hard labor,&c. God punishes men for their sins with calamities personal and national.

2. To chastise; as, a father punishes his child for disobedience.

3. To regard with pain or suffering inflicted on the offender; applied to the crime; as, to punish murder or theft.



(Edited by dubie903 10/5/2008 at 12:18 AM).


Yes – u r right;  the punishment lasts forever.  The process of the punishment does NOT.  Remember…it is everlasting punishMENT; not everlasting punishING.


I’m surprised that u fail to acknowledge the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were also burned with “eternal fire”, but, in fact, are NOT still burning today.  Jude 1:7:  
”Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

I am sorry, but u r just wrong in saying that I have taken anything out of context.  As a matter of fact, I have studied the context of these passages with GREAT diligence.

Jesus makes it as clear as it can be by telling us what happens to ALL the wicked (the antichrist, Lucifer, the fallen angels, and the unrighteous man (ALL the wicked) ) when the bible tells us:  “Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
It is obvious that the fate of satan, the fate of the antichrist, the fate of the fallen angels, the fate of ALL who failed to turn to Christ, will be the same:  they will all be “consumed with the breath of His mouth and destroyed with the brightness of His coming.”
To fail to acknowledge this is to deny the truth.


"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire," Jesus said, "so shall it be in the end of this world" (Matthew 13:40). The point is repeated just nine verses later in the parable of the net. The implications of such a position are obvious.

contrary to the other commonly held views on the subject, nobody has gone there yet.

(It is worth noting that for the majority of times the word translated "hell" is used in Scripture, it literally means "the grave." In only 12 of the 54 times we read the word "hell" does the original word mean "a place of burning."  I suggest to keep this in mind as u pursue the truth.)
Revelation 20:9 (when read in context in mind) tells us that the lost are burned up “on the breadth of the earth”.  logic alone tells us that if hell burns forever "on the breadth of the earth," it would be impossible for God to create a new earth. and if God kept sinners alive to endure an eternal burning, He would fail in His mission to rid the world of sin. Instead, He would perpetuate it!
just as God cleansed the earth in the days of noah, he will cleanse the earth again at the end of the world, this time with fire. as in noah's day, sinners will again receive their recompense, and once more it will happen "on the breadth of the earth." God's plan is to recreate this sin-marred earth and return it to its original splendor. The earth will be transformed into what the bible calls a "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10). Every last vestige of sin will be burned up, and the cursed will be obliterated.

The Bible tells us that "the wages of sin is" not eternal life in hellfire, but "death" (Romans 6:23), the same penalty God assured adam and rve would be theirs if they ate the forbidden fruit.
Ezekiel states clearly that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4), and a plethora of other Bible verses and passages endorse this position.
To deny this is to agree with those that say that the bible is full of inconsistencies.  The fact is that it is NOT.  And to say that the wicked will live forever some place in torment is to say that the bible is wrong about sin.
We r to evaluate our position “precept upon precept, line upon line”.  This is what ensures that there are no inconsistencies.  
Friend, you do seem passionate in your pursuit of truth, and I am sure that you are not intentionally trying to mislead or misrepresent.  I don’t get that from u.  so, I am sure that if u simply spend a little more time studying this subject, u will realize that believing that when we die, we immediately go to heaven or hell, and then, our souls are put back into our bodies in order to experience the ressurection, in order to receive our reward (AGAIN) is plain wrong.
The facts are simple, and plainly pointed out to us in scripture:
Death=sleep until Christ returns to resurrect the dead in order to receive their just reward – the effects of which will last forever.  The righteous will live forever, and the wicked will be consumed and BE DEAD forever.  




 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:30 PM on October 5, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 09:09 AM on October 5, 2008 :
first from  John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"(Lev 11:20  All fowls that creep,).... Or rather 'every creeping thing that flies'; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts, &c. so the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, Ben Gersom, and Maimonides...


So you and the bible are saying that flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts go about on all four feet?  Sorry, insects have six legs, and therefore, six feet, the bible is still inaccurate here.


i'll simply post on this what i posted above:



it is important to keep in mind that the bible has been translated over many many centuries.  this ends up being a factor when interpreting now.  this is why i always like to go as far back to the original writing as possible.  we need to look at what hebrew words were used in the original context.  yes, the original authors were "inspired by god", and i believe this.  but it has never been proclaimed that the translators were ever "inspired by god".  god ensured that the scriptures would survive time, and that the message of the gospel would reach the "four corners" of the earth.  translation of the bible is one method of doing this.  however, what's important to remember is that the translations were a best effort approach by the translators going through quite tedious processes.  in other words, the scripture in its original form is holy and without flaw.  any translation thereafter should be considered with care and thought and study compared to the original.

the word used for "fowls", and sometimes "insects"in this instance is the hebrew word: owph - literally meaning:   "flying creatures." this would include anything from birds to bats to insects.  moses is simply referring to things like bats when he says, " all fowls(flying things) that creep on all four.  

The other word in verse 21 that is commonly mistranslated into "insects" or "fowl" is the hebrew word "sherets".  in the king james version, this is translated "flying, creeping thing".  this actually refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. it can refer to a number of things as well.  in Genesis, the word refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account, specifically, sherets refers to rodents.  in leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it always specifically refers to "insects" is misleading.

the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs.  this can be a number of creatures as well.  so... to be clear as to which specific creatures were being discussed, there is a little something thrown in about the legs of these creatures.

if you look closely to lev. 11:21, it's evident that it was aware at the time that there were certain creatures that did, in fact, have six legs.  and of them, only certain ones were ok to eat.

this is a common translation:
"'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth.

this is the king james translation:
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four which have legs above their feet to leap withal upon the earth"

(it is also important to note that in the original hebrew did not contain punctuation.)

the phrase that is of importance here is "which have legs above their feet to leap"

it seems strange at first.  i mean don't all feet have legs above them?  

the key again is what words are actually used in the original hebrew to describe these legs and feet.  hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kara).

the word "kara" is exclusively used in hebrew for describing the large, propelling, hind legs of a locust or grasshopper.  the word "regel" is used to describe the four other "feet" which the insect uses for walking

what this verse is saying is that these creatures walk on there anterior four feet(regel) and use their legs(kera) for jumping / propulsion.  thus all six appendages are mentioned.

all this passage is saying is that of ALL flying things that have four legs and crawl close to the ground, but don't have the large hind jumping legs - don't eat these...they'r not good for you.

bats crawl around on four close to the ground.  and there are some insects that also crawl around "on fours" but don't have the large hind legs used for jumping.   so the differentiating factor among the crawling / flying creatures is whether or not they're hindmost legs are the large legs used for jumping(i.e. the locust, cricket, and grasshopper).


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:40 PM on October 5, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 04:12 AM on October 5, 2008 :

OK, explain where I changed the meaning.  I'm pointing out that you need to produce the evidence to defend your position.


fair enough.


Creation may be a hypothesis, but evolution is a well supported theory.  If you want to support your hypothesis, do what I have to go through.  Do the research, take it to a scientific meeting, convince them that you have not made any mistakes, and they will agree with you.  Know what??  It's HARD.  So you'd better get to work, rather than arguing endlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

it could be said that both r well supported theories.
so...r u actually a scientist?  it sounds like it here.  just curious.

So you'd better get to work, rather than arguing endlessly about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


i have to say that i actually agree with u.  the validity of this point is evident in the discussion between dubie and i.  but...well...i don't know...just...but...





Frankly, it's my observation that human pride results in endless, fruitless religious arguments about patching together fragments of scripture here and there to support a position.  Meanwhile ignoring Christ's prayer for the believer:

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. John 17:20-23

By the way, I've seen estimates as to the number of different denominations between 25,000 and 38,000.

Science is showing you His invisible attributes, but you ignore them due to your pride.  You are without excuse.

(Edited by Apoapsis 10/5/2008 at 04:16 AM).


again...i agree (somewhat).  but - i have to say:  the same can be said about your point of view...anyone's, really. so...i'm just taking this with a grain of salt.


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:53 PM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 9:53 PM on October 5, 2008 :
it could be said that both r well supported theories.


6000 year creation has not had credible scientific support since 1830, decades before Darwin wrote Origin.


so...r u actually a scientist?  it sounds like it here.  just curious.


It's not my primary responsibility, but I have the privilege of having the opportunity to spend any free time I have working with several research groups who are happy to have my collaboration.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:45 PM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bats crawl around on four close to the ground.  and there are some insects that also crawl around "on fours" but don't have the large hind legs used for jumping.   so the differentiating factor among the crawling / flying creatures is whether or not they're hindmost legs are the large legs used for jumping(i.e. the locust, cricket, and grasshopper).

So a literal translation of what the bible says here is wrong...Insects all have six legs, not four, and most don't have "jumping legs" and "walking"legs, so why dont you just admit that the bible as translated here is wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:58 AM on October 6, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 08:58 AM on October 6, 2008 :
bats crawl around on four close to the ground.  and there are some insects that also crawl around "on fours" but don't have the large hind legs used for jumping.   so the differentiating factor among the crawling / flying creatures is whether or not they're hindmost legs are the large legs used for jumping(i.e. the locust, cricket, and grasshopper).

So a literal translation of what the bible says here is wrong...Insects all have six legs, not four, and most don't have "jumping legs" and "walking"legs, so why dont you just admit that the bible as translated here is wrong.



geez - did u read the entire post or not?

as i stated in great detail, nowhere has it been stated that any translation or interpretation is divine.  the original word is, though, divine.

it seems that u don't want to read ALL of what i said, so i'll give u the truncated version:

nothing in the passage is wrong in the fact that it states to the israelites what is and isn't safe to eat for them.  the hebrew idiom "on fours" refers to anything crawling close to the ground.  the word "sherets" refers to anything that swarms.  the idiom "which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth" refers to the large jumping legs of a grasshopper-type of creature.

put it all together, and it is as plain as day that what is being said here is:  

of all of the flying, swarming things that also crawl close to the ground, the ones that u can eat r the ones that have large hind legs used for jumping; like grasshoppers.


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 09:30 AM on October 6, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 8:46 PM on October 4, 2008 :the fact is:  creation is a hypothesis, as is evolution.


No, the facts are, (1) creation is anti-science religion and (2) evolution is a well-supported scientific fact.

Quote from dijonaise at 8:46 PM on October 4, 2008 :
 using the scientific method in order to further examine each hypothesis and add validity to it is a legit thing to do in either case.


Wrong.  

1) Evolution has been subjected to tests for the last almost 150 years, and has passed all of them.  Evolution will continue to be subjected to tests, but it is already well-established scientific fact.

2) Creation is religion, not science.  Let's let a couple of the leading Creationists speak for themselves.

Duane Gish


“Creation is, of course, unproven and unprovable by the methods of experimental science.  Neither can it qualify as a scientific theory.”

(Duane Gish, Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence, American Biology Teacher
35(3):132-140, 1973, as quoted in Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007, p44)



”By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation.  We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.  This is why we refer to creation as special creation.  We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative process used by the Creator.”

(italics in original, Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, 1978, p42)


Henry Morris


“The main reason for insisting on the universal flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s Word plainly teaches it!  No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.”

(Henry M. Morris, “Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science”, Craig Press, 1970, p33, as quoted in “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters”, Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007, p65)



"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis I – II is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.

(emphasis added, Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1972, p82)



“In candid moments, leading creationists will admit that the miraculous character of origin and destruction precludes a scientific understanding. Morris writes (and Judge Overton quotes):
‘God was there when it happened. We were not there.... Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word.’

(Stephen Jay Gould, "Creationism: Genesis vs. Geology", Science and Creationism, p. 130 (1984), quoted from Internet Infidels, http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-g2.htm)



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:36 PM on October 6, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as i stated in great detail, nowhere has it been stated that any translation or interpretation is divine.

OK, so you admit that the bible is NOT inerrant.
That's all you had to say.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:57 PM on October 6, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:57 PM on October 6, 2008 :
as i stated in great detail, nowhere has it been stated that any translation or interpretation is divine.

OK, so you admit that the bible is NOT inerrant.
That's all you had to say.






if all u want to do is fish for garbage - be my guest.  


in fact - what i DID say was that the bible, in its original form IS inerrant.  translations r not.

THAT is what i said.  if u want to turn what i say around in order to make it fit your opinion, then there is no point in even posting.

-d


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:05 AM on October 7, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 5:36 PM on October 6, 2008 :
No, the facts are, (1) creation is anti-science religion and (2) evolution is a well-supported scientific fact.
...
 

1) Evolution has been subjected to tests for the last almost 150 years, and has passed all of them.  Evolution will continue to be subjected to tests, but it is already well-established scientific fact.


BZZZZ! wrong. this is a lame attempt at a rebuttle, it is simply your opinion, and it is just plain wrong.  what in the world do u mean "passed all of them" ???  

the entire fossil record is debatable.  geological structures r debatable.
transitional fossils r debatable.



2) Creation is religion, not science.  Let's let a couple of the leading Creationists speak for themselves.

Duane Gish

“Creation is, of course, unproven and unprovable by the methods of experimental science.  Neither can it qualify as a scientific theory.”

(Duane Gish, Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence, American Biology Teacher
35(3):132-140, 1973, as quoted in Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007, p44)

”By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation.  We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.  This is why we refer to creation as special creation.  We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative process used by the Creator.”

(italics in original, Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, 1978, p42)

Henry Morris

“The main reason for insisting on the universal flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s Word plainly teaches it!  No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.”

(Henry M. Morris, “Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science”, Craig Press, 1970, p33, as quoted in “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters”, Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press, 2007, p65)


"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis I – II is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.

(emphasis added, Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1972, p82)


“In candid moments, leading creationists will admit that the miraculous character of origin and destruction precludes a scientific understanding. Morris writes (and Judge Overton quotes):
‘God was there when it happened. We were not there.... Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word.’

(Stephen Jay Gould, "Creationism: Genesis vs. Geology", Science and Creationism, p. 130 (1984), quoted from Internet Infidels, http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-g2.htm)


these r interesting quotes (taken out of context, nonetheless; but still interesting).
i have read gish's and morris' material, and find it facinating.
i agree with them and with u that showing how god created the earth and life isn't possible, and isn't science.

BUT(and this is how u've taken what they've stated out of context) -
using the scientific method of developing a hypothesis, creating experiments, and using observation in order to add a certain amount of validity to the hypothesis IS legit in either case.

i agree with those that say creationism should not be taught in schools. i agree with that for a number of reasons, actually.

but this should not exclude a person who believes in the creation event from enveloping themselves with scientific practices in order to see what they can prove or disprove in order to lead them closer to what they believe to be true.

look - i have always stood by the fact that "creation science" isn't science.  
but i will always stand by the fact that "evolution science" isn't science either!
SCIENCE is science.
evolution is a hypothesis (sure - u'll say that it's a well-observed hypothesis being accepted as fact, but ...)
creation IS a hypothesis as well!  we can look at something, and say:  "how does this fit in with what god has told us?"
ie -  we see the grand canyon - and we can develope the hypothesis, based upon the belief that the earth is billions of years old, that a river carved it out over a long period of time.
OR
we see the grand canyon - and we can develope the hypothesis, based upon the belief that the earth is merely thousands of years old, that a very large amount of water, such as the flood waters of the flood stated in the bible, carved out the canyon over a much shorter period of time.

keep this in mind:  "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."


(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.


science is science.  it is utilized to prove a hypothesis.
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

keep this in mind:  "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."


(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.


Uh... no. Using creativity doesn't mean it's acceptable to set out to prove something right. How does that even logically follow? You don't prove things in science. You make a hypothesis, draw conclusions from it, and attempt to disprove those conclusions, which would also disprove the hypothesis. It's all based on falsification. If the claim isn't falsifiable, it's not science. And if the people running the experiments and gathering data aren't trying to falsify their hypotheses, they aren't conducting scientific investigations.

The following is a list of conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution. They can be found in John A. Moore's book, "Science as a Way of Knowing."

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.


___-

When the theory of evolution had not been so well supported in the past, scientists set about trying to disprove the various conclusions that followed from evolution. As you can see above, it's not hard to fathom a way in which evolution could be false. There are at least fifteen specific ways in which we could disprove evolution.

Of course, no one has succeeded. It's difficulty to disprove evolution when the evidence refuses to help you. Instead what we have are fifteen confirmed conclusions of evolution. They don't prove evolution, but when you add up the confirmation of all of them, they certainly make it very, very, very, very, very likely that evolution works the way we understand it.

In either case, you're wrong: Scientists do not set out attempting to prove anything, unless what they're trying to prove is the falsity of a hypothesis.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/7/2008 at 11:10 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:07 AM on October 7, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2008 :
keep this in mind:  "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."


(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.


Uh... no. Using creativity doesn't mean it's acceptable to set out to prove something right. How does that even logically follow? You don't prove things in science. You make a hypothesis, draw conclusions from it, and attempt to disprove those conclusions, which would also disprove the hypothesis. It's all based on falsification. If the claim isn't falsifiable, it's not science. And if the people running the experiments and gathering data aren't trying to falsify their hypotheses, they aren't conducting scientific investigations.

The following is a list of conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution. They can be found in John A. Moore's book, "Science as a Way of Knowing."

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.


___-

When the theory of evolution had not been so well supported in the past, scientists set about trying to disprove the various conclusions that followed from evolution. As you can see above, it's not hard to fathom a way in which evolution could be false. There are at least fifteen specific ways in which we could disprove evolution.

Of course, no one has succeeded. It's difficulty to disprove evolution when the evidence refuses to help you. Instead what we have are fifteen confirmed conclusions of evolution. They don't prove evolution, but when you add up the confirmation of all of them, they certainly make it very, very, very, very, very likely that evolution works the way we understand it.

In either case, you're wrong: Scientists do not set out attempting to prove anything, unless what they're trying to prove is the falsity of a hypothesis.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/7/2008 at 11:10 AM).





and i say, "uh - NO."  to you.

look - u and i have already had this exact discussion once before, and i stand now where i did then.

to state that the only way to test a hypothesis is to test its falsity. is just plain wrong (PERIOD)


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:58 AM on October 7, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 11:58 AM on October 7, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2008 :
keep this in mind:  "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."


(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.


Uh... no. Using creativity doesn't mean it's acceptable to set out to prove something right. How does that even logically follow? You don't prove things in science. You make a hypothesis, draw conclusions from it, and attempt to disprove those conclusions, which would also disprove the hypothesis. It's all based on falsification. If the claim isn't falsifiable, it's not science. And if the people running the experiments and gathering data aren't trying to falsify their hypotheses, they aren't conducting scientific investigations.

The following is a list of conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution. They can be found in John A. Moore's book, "Science as a Way of Knowing."

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.


___-

When the theory of evolution had not been so well supported in the past, scientists set about trying to disprove the various conclusions that followed from evolution. As you can see above, it's not hard to fathom a way in which evolution could be false. There are at least fifteen specific ways in which we could disprove evolution.

Of course, no one has succeeded. It's difficulty to disprove evolution when the evidence refuses to help you. Instead what we have are fifteen confirmed conclusions of evolution. They don't prove evolution, but when you add up the confirmation of all of them, they certainly make it very, very, very, very, very likely that evolution works the way we understand it.

In either case, you're wrong: Scientists do not set out attempting to prove anything, unless what they're trying to prove is the falsity of a hypothesis.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/7/2008 at 11:10 AM).





and i say, "uh - NO."  to you.

look - u and i have already had this exact discussion once before, and i stand now where i did then.

to state that the only way to test a hypothesis is to test its falsity. is just plain wrong (PERIOD)





I think you'll understand why I'm so disappointed with your response. You have nothing to add but denial. This is unusual considering how often you've been willing to explain your perspective in the past.

But whether or not you're trying isn't the point. In debates like this we expect points to be founded on reason, and you haven't supplied any right here.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:38 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 1:38 PM on October 7, 2008 :
Quote from dijonaise at 11:58 AM on October 7, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2008 :
keep this in mind:  "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."


(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.


Uh... no. Using creativity doesn't mean it's acceptable to set out to prove something right. How does that even logically follow? You don't prove things in science. You make a hypothesis, draw conclusions from it, and attempt to disprove those conclusions, which would also disprove the hypothesis. It's all based on falsification. If the claim isn't falsifiable, it's not science. And if the people running the experiments and gathering data aren't trying to falsify their hypotheses, they aren't conducting scientific investigations.

The following is a list of conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution. They can be found in John A. Moore's book, "Science as a Way of Knowing."

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.


___-

When the theory of evolution had not been so well supported in the past, scientists set about trying to disprove the various conclusions that followed from evolution. As you can see above, it's not hard to fathom a way in which evolution could be false. There are at least fifteen specific ways in which we could disprove evolution.

Of course, no one has succeeded. It's difficulty to disprove evolution when the evidence refuses to help you. Instead what we have are fifteen confirmed conclusions of evolution. They don't prove evolution, but when you add up the confirmation of all of them, they certainly make it very, very, very, very, very likely that evolution works the way we understand it.

In either case, you're wrong: Scientists do not set out attempting to prove anything, unless what they're trying to prove is the falsity of a hypothesis.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/7/2008 at 11:10 AM).





and i say, "uh - NO."  to you.

look - u and i have already had this exact discussion once before, and i stand now where i did then.

to state that the only way to test a hypothesis is to test its falsity. is just plain wrong (PERIOD)





I think you'll understand why I'm so disappointed with your response. You have nothing to add but denial. This is unusual considering how often you've been willing to explain your perspective in the past.

But whether or not you're trying isn't the point. In debates like this we expect points to be founded on reason, and you haven't supplied any right here.



false.

my reason is in the deffinition of hypothesis itself.


if an elementary school kid is doing a science project on which bubblegum's flavor will last the longest...
he can develope a hypothesis based upon anything.

he can basically say, "i think that bubble gum will last the longest."
when asked why, he says, "because it's bigger."

he then does a simple experiment, and chews on each piece until the flavor is gone, and writes down how long each lasted.

now, let's just say for the sake of arguing that his choice was right.
did he not just form a hypothesis, and then test to see if the hypothesis was right?

let's say that his choice was wrong.
that doesn't mean that his entire approach should be changed to, "oh, well...i was actually testing to see if i was wrong."
nobody does that.

so, his choice was wrong.  now, what he has to do is state why he thinks he was wrong.

science is developing a hypothesis, then testing to see if it is RIGHT...FOR WHATEVER REASON.

now...just because his choice was right...doesn't mean that his reasoning is.  it doesn't mean that the bigger the gum...the longer the flavor.

NOOOOWWW. he has to see if he can develope an experiment to see if he is wrong.  now he has to develope an experiment to determine if the size of the gum has anything to do with how long it lasts.

so...in that regard - i understand where u r coming from in saying that a hypothesis should be tested for its fallacy.  but what i am saying is that it should be approached at every angle to test its validity AND its fallacy.  but, still...i think its validity is tested first.

(Edited by dijonaise 10/7/2008 at 2:53 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:38 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

geez -  while going back and reading over the last few posts, i'm left wondering, "what r we even trying to get to?"

i actually agree that creationism isn't science, and i agree that it shouldn't be taught as a science in school.

so...i'll try to say something somewhat resolute:

how 'bout a question:

is it wrong that people with a preconceived notion use scientific methods to see if they can provide any solid proof?  

i mean, isn't that exactly what darwin did?  i can see how he could have first come up with the notion.  
but that's just it...did he not first come up with the notion, and then test and observe to see if there was any validity to the notion?  that's the way it seems to me.

and is that not exactly what creationists are doing as well?  we have a preconceived notion, and we want to see if there is any scientifically proven evidence to support the notion.


-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/7/2008 at 3:06 PM).

(Edited by dijonaise 10/7/2008 at 3:07 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:03 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in fact - what i DID say was that the bible, in its original form IS inerrant.  translations r not.

Well of course it's not inerrant, it describes a flat, unmoving earth covered by a metal bowl.
I hardly call that accurate.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:17 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:05 AM on October 7, 2008 :in fact - what i DID say was that the bible, in its original form IS inerrant.  translations r not.


Well that's a really stupid thing to say, considering that we don't have the originals.

For example, the earliest surviving document for the New Testament we have is dated to about 125 to 150 C.E..   It's not an "autograph" (original), it's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ....    And, it is only about the size of a credit card.

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/7/2008 at 10:56 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:54 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

think on this:  let's say that god saw that satan would have become corrupt, and that man would sin.  the question that follows is:  well, why didn't he just get rid of satan or get rid of adam and eve?  the answer is this:
Ok, but i'd never ask such question. My question is quite more radical. Why did he make them in the first place? If they sinned, then they're flawed. And that has nothing to do with "free will". For if they knew what was coming, they wouldn't have been so silly. If they were silly, they were made that way.

I mean, you'd say the Devil is wrong? If he is, then do you know more than him? If he isn't wrong, why don't you follow the Devil instead?

Why did God make something capable of being SO DAMN WRONG??

It's not about choice and free will. If you know right from wrong, you can't chose wrong. It makes no sense.

but i think that being skeptical and questioning things is a process that will eventually lead us to the truth of any matter.
Well, there were lots of wise men, seeking for the truth. How many of them found Jesus?

sure, there will be a certain amount of the human factor in play as far as the literal articulation, (i.e. - the articulation differences among the 4 gospels) but as far as the actual words that are chosen:  christ says, "i am the word."
You're speaking about the gospels. I'm thinking more about the prophets who spoke in His behalf.

very interesting point, my friend.  yes, i DO completely understand this point of view.  i won't use this time to just try to convince you of the book's validity.  all i will say it this:  i once felt the same way.  and up until about a year or so ago...i STILL wasn't COMPLETELY sure.  but i think that being skeptical and questioning things is a process that will eventually lead us to the truth of any matter.  furthermore, i think it's actually a trait given to man by god to be somewhat skeptical in order to keep us from being deceived by every single silly thing out there.
According to most christians the skepticism that prevents me from believing that the Bible was inspired by God any more than Alice in Wonderland was, is the very thing that will condemn me to everlasting Hell (most of them believe in an everlasting Hell, though you don't).

what changed my mind were 2 things:  1.  the in depth study of the bibles detaild and proven prophecies.  take it from me(well...actually...discover it for yourself, then decide) i entered into my in depth study of prophecy with reeeallll skepticism.  i thought, "how do i know this isn't just coincidence or just a vague comment or two turned into something that it's really not?"
Even in the unlikely (to my present understanding) case that all of those prophecies would prove to be correct, that wouldn't make me believe it has anything to do with God. No more than saying "In twenty minutes it will be five o'clock". Witchcraft and divination is far more likely to me than the biblical God.

2.  the birth of my son (sure...this isn't proof but - in him...i saw god).
I have no problem with that. But did He tell you that the Bible is His word?

ha ha...i've never heard this thought before.   all i can say is that the issuing of the order from god to stay away from unclean meat has actually been proven to be a significant health benefit.
So they could go on with slavery, rape, pillage, killing, et cetera.

You focus on the good and nice commands. I think that the bad ones are much more significant.

all i can say to this is:  again,  once fundamental priciples are understood and applied, it is quite easy to use a little common sense in order to determine when a passage is meant to be taken spiritually and not literally.  
And yet it does not happen. They tend to disagree.

I don't know if you think God forbids receiving blood or not, for instance.

the same CAN be said for creationists, actually.
most, not all, but most are of a christian faith.  it can be said that we disagree on some details, but the frame remains the same as well.  we agree that the earth was created; we agree in christ as lord and saviour; we agree in the bible being the divine word of god written through man.  this "frame" as you call it is the common denominator.  sure, we may have our disagreements, but we share this common denominator.
But that common denominator is meaningless when trying to describe the way things happened (specially when trying to oppose what science tells us).

And that's exactly the point of creationism and evolutionism. To explain how things happened.

They say "No, because according to the Bible", and that's as far as the consistency goes.

They don't agree on Adam and Eve being literal or figurative. I think that's a major one.

They don't agree on the time. From 6k to 12k... It's double, you know? And some say Earth WAS created, and God made several acts of creation through ages, since billions of years ago.

There's new creationism, quantum creationism, old school flat earthers... You name it.

Did the seven days of creation last 24 hours each? Did the creator allow new species to evolve from created ones? Can our eye come about by any process except the divine magic? Were there more humans than Adan and Eve in planet Earth? How many ribs does the adult human male have? The only relevant unity is the rejection of any scientific scheme.

You said Lucy is "just an ape". Well, i coudn't know that if you didn't tell me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Here you can find a creationist classification of hominid fossils.

They don't know which one is human and which one is ape. But they are so certain that there are no transitions there!!

Isn't that a major one also?

Thanks for your imput. You're very patient.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:56 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 :
Quote from ImaAtheistNow at 5:36 PM on October 6, 2008 :
No, the facts are, (1) creation is anti-science religion and (2) evolution is a well-supported scientific fact.
...
 

1) Evolution has been subjected to tests for the last almost 150 years, and has passed all of them.  Evolution will continue to be subjected to tests, but it is already well-established scientific fact.


BZZZZ! wrong.


I know you are, but what am I?

There are only 2 main reasons people deny that evolution is a well-established scientific fact: ignorance and religion.  You appear to suffer from both.


Quote from dijonaise at 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 :
this is a lame attempt at a rebuttle, it is simply your opinion, and it is just plain wrong.


Wrong.

Stop reading RELIGOUS books about evolution, written by lying, ignorant Creationists.  Try reading some books on evolution written by actual scientists who work in relevant fields.  Here, let me suggest a few that are targeted at the general public.

1) The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, by Sean B. Carroll

2) Your Inner Fish:  A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, by Neil Shubin

3) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Science, Kenneth R. Miller

4) Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidnence of Evolution in Human DNA, by Daniel J. Fairbanks

5) Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, by Sean B. Carroll

6) Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions Through Time, by Robert A. Martin

7) Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, by Donald R. Prothero


Quote from dijonaise at 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 :
the entire fossil record is debatable.    ...  transitional fossils r debatable.


No silly, I'm talking about real science.  You're talking about the foolishness of anti-science religious fools.




(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/7/2008 at 11:14 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:12 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 :but this should not exclude a person who believes in the creation event from enveloping themselves with scientific practices in order to see what they can prove or disprove in order to lead them closer to what they believe to be true.


There is no real science that supports (Young Earth) Creationism.  This is well known in the scientific community at large.  Which is why a study of several hundred thousand earth and life scientists found that only ~0.15% either believed in Creationism or believed it was a valid theory (even if they didn't believe in it).  0.15% ... that's it.  If there was as much science supporting Creation  - as the lying, ignorant Creation "Scientists" falsely assert - then there's no way we should expect such a miniscule percentage at 0.15%.

Creationism is religion, not science.  This too is well known in the scientific communty at large, as well as in the courts: the Supreme Court of the United States found this to be the case.

You are deluded if you really think that Creation "Scientists" use valid science to investigate the religious fable of Creation as described in the Bible.  Not the case, sorry.  What they do instead is lie, distort, tell half-truths, quote out of context, etc. in order to fool those ignorant of the real science into believing Creationism.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:24 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:46 AM on October 7, 2008 :science is science.  it is utilized to prove a hypothesis.


That you would suggest such only proves that you are ignorant about science.



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:29 PM on October 7, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:17 PM on October 7, 2008 :
in fact - what i DID say was that the bible, in its original form IS inerrant.  translations r not.

Well of course it's not inerrant, it describes a flat, unmoving earth covered by a metal bowl.
I hardly call that accurate.  



what? no it doesn't.
as a matter of fact,  the bible called the earth round long before any scientific practice was in place to suggest it.
isaiah 40: 22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
i'm not even taking u seriously anymore.  

(Edited by dijonaise 10/8/2008 at 11:03 AM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:10 AM on October 8, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from wisp:

My question is quite more radical. Why did he make them in the first place? If they sinned, then they're flawed. And that has nothing to do with "free will". For if they knew what was coming, they wouldn't have been so silly. If they were silly, they were made that way.
I mean, you'd say the Devil is wrong? If he is, then do you know more than him? If he isn't wrong, why don't you follow the Devil instead?
Why did God make something capable of being SO DAMN WRONG??


Why do people have children if they know that there is a chance that they’ll walk into a school and shoot and kill a bunch of people; or become corrupt in any fashion?
The fact is:  
Lucifer was “perfect” when he was created.  But the fact is that god gave every being the free will to have a mind of their own, and make decisions on their own.  lucifer was corrupted by pride in the fact that he was the most perfect being created; so perfect, in fact, that he decided that he was even better than his creator. “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”(ezekial 28:15)

How many kids get to a point in their lives when they look at their parents and think, “u don’t know squat!” they end up developing this attitude that they r actually better than their creators, and good parents will have to develop a plan to show not only that child that they r wrong, but also, they must create an environment that shows the parents’ wisdom to any other children.



It's not about choice and free will. If you know right from wrong, you can't chose wrong. It makes no sense.



to say that just because u know right from wrong, u can’t choose wrong is just silly.  We ALL know right from wrong, and know the consequences of making wrong choices, and still make wrong choices all the time.

According to most christians the skepticism that prevents me from believing that the Bible was inspired by God any more than Alice in Wonderland was, is the very thing that will condemn me to everlasting Hell (most of them believe in an everlasting Hell, though you don't).

The bible tells us that “whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”

If god has given u a skeptical heart, or u have developed it due to circumstance, I don’t think that u will be judged upon the fact that u r skeptical.  But if u take that skepticism and use it as an excuse for not trying to seek the truth; in other words…if u decide to simply be apathetic or complacent due to the fact that u r naturally skeptical, then I think god has the right to judge u upon your complacency – not the actual skepticism.  It’s like god giving a man a spirit of wisdom, only to find that the man used the wisdom as a mechanism for destruction the man isn’t judged upon the fact that he was wise at heart, but upon the fact that he didn’t utilize the wisdom for good.
So the issue isn’t really skepticism at all – it is how that skepticism is utilized.

The bible says, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter”

The issue isn’t whether or not u’ve found all the answers, but whether or not u even looked for them.  Furthermore, it is whether or not u denied truth once it has been found due to some predisposition.


Even in the unlikely (to my present understanding) case that all of those prophecies would prove to be correct, that wouldn't make me believe it has anything to do with God. No more than saying "In twenty minutes it will be five o'clock". Witchcraft and divination is far more likely to me than the biblical God.



I’m not really sure how to reply to this, honestly.
All I can suggest is to take your skepticism and actually put it up against the prophecies pointed out in scripture.  Then, take the same skepticism and put it up against something like “alice in wonderland”, as u mentioned.  Then, try to decide how much of your skepticism is backed into a corner.


So they could go on with slavery, rape, pillage, killing, et cetera.

You focus on the good and nice commands. I think that the bad ones are much more significant.


I’m not sure what exactly u r referring to here.  Care to give some prime examples of some of your suggestions of “slavery, rape, pillaging, and killing”?
I think what ur getting at is the difference between the god of the old test. Vs. the god of the new.
If so – we can discuss that.


I don't know if you think God forbids receiving blood or not, for instance


not at all.  I believe that the medical measures that we take to sustain life r, for the most part, christ’s will.


But that common denominator is meaningless when trying to describe the way things happened (specially when trying to oppose what science tells us).

And that's exactly the point of creationism and evolutionism. To explain how things happened.

They say "No, because according to the Bible", and that's as far as the consistency goes.

They don't agree on Adam and Eve being literal or figurative. I think that's a major one.

They don't agree on the time. From 6k to 12k... It's double, you know? And some say Earth WAS created, and God made several acts of creation through ages, since billions of years ago.

There's new creationism, quantum creationism, old school flat earthers... You name it.

frankly, I don’t know the numbers.  But, I do know that in my whole life, I have never come across a Christian who doesn’t believe that the earth was created, that adam and eve were literal beings, that the bible is historically accurate, and that we should believe as Christ believed.  Granted, there r differing opinions out there among those that believe in creation, but for the most part, the Christian base is the creationism base.
For the most part, we believe that the earth is 6-10 thousand yrs old.  I’m not sure that we can be as accurate as we’d like, but the common denominator is that it is within this timeframe.
Based only upon the fact that we believe as Christ believed, we share several common factors that keep us on the same page.  For instance, Christ spoke of noah as being a literal man.  This, in turn, leads to the literal account of the flood.  Christ spoke of adam as being a literal man…and so on.


Did the seven days of creation last 24 hours each?

now, this question (although it still doesn’t change the foundation of creationism), is a great one.  The implications attached r vast.
Most Christians will say, “I don’t know.”  Or “it doesn’t matter.”
I, for one, believe that this is of GREAT importance.
I won’t go into great detail here, but let me say this:
It, again, goes back to the actual words used in the original Hebrew text.
There r 2 words used for “day” in Hebrew.  One, suggests an indefinite matter of time. A period of time, if u will.
The other is ONLY used when describing a literal 24 hr. period of time; a literal day.
The sole word used in this instance is the word used to describe a literal 24hr day.
I agree that the scientific implications here are important.
And I agree that, in this case, all we will ever be able to do is speculate.
BUT for those who find the seventh-day Sabbath to be of great importance, in that it is a sign given to Christians to point back to the literal account of creation, the question of whether or not these were literal 24hr days does not come into play.  This leads Christians to the never-ending debate concerning the seventh-day Sabbath, but it does not change the common factors that we do share.

About ”lucy”:
Extensive research has been done concerning this, and even scientists on the side of evolution have declared it as being “just a large chimp.”

They don't know which one is human and which one is ape…


neither do all of the evolutionists.  There r plenty of disagreements on both sides.

Concerning hominids in general:
It’s funny to me how, in the case of each example found, evolutionists r quick to jump to conclusion based upon a preconceived notion.  This is an argument that I’ve made from the start.  Both sides tend to jump to conclusions based upon what they already believe to be true.  In the case of the homonids, no other possibilities r even mentioned.
When other possibilities (like a deformity caused from something like childhood rickets in the specimen) r mentioned from the creationist point of view, they r quickly “debunked” by evolutionists taking statements out of context without even considering the possibility.  I have not been convinced by any of the supposed homonids.

Thanks also for your candor.  I actually like discussing these issues with people who actually try to rationalize and reason.  Even if we disagree, the conversation is made more pleasant by the fact that we can, at least, show some amount of reasoning on either side.


-d


(Edited by dijonaise 10/8/2008 at 1:19 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 1:06 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:17 PM on October 7, 2008 :
in fact - what i DID say was that the bible, in its original form IS inerrant.  translations r not.

Well of course it's not inerrant, it describes a flat, unmoving earth covered by a metal bowl.
I hardly call that accurate.  






what? no it doesn't.
as a matter of fact,  the bible called the earth round long before any scientific practice was in place to suggest it.
isaiah 40: 22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
i'm not even taking u seriously anymore.  


Boy Demon38 - you've got another one not talking with you anymore.

isaiah 40: 22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"


Since when is a circle a sphere?  From Wikipedia:

Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kç'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground.[1] The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad.[2], e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)". Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?” In the Vulgate, the word firmamentum is used, which in Classical Latin means a strengthening or support. For Jewish and Christian astronomers familiar with Greek astronomy, the firmament was the eighth sphere carrying the fixed stars and surrounding the seven spheres of the planets in the geocentric model.

The word is mentioned in the King James Bible, in the course of the creation story of (Genesis 1:6–8):

God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.



So there was water above the firmament?  That's where the water for the Flood came from!  Wow!  You learn something every day.

Sounds just like Ptolemic astronomy.

So you see, Demon38 got that description right out of the Bible.  The Heavens were a ridgid firmament that revolved 'around' the earth.  This also suggests that the earth was the center of the universe, a geocentric model.  Straight from the Bible.

So there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:36 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 12:06 PM on October 8, 2008 :
For the most part, we believe that the earth is 6-10 thousand yrs old.  I’m not sure that we can be as accurate as we’d like, but the common denominator is that it is within this timeframe.


Well, I was in my 40's before I met someone who  was a YEC.  And that included a number of years on and president of the church council.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:42 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.