If you make a full examination you will find that what is written in the Bible is not in opposition to or discredited by science.

Unproven scientific theories...On the other hand:rolleyes:


KT

Nope... No one is saying that.


KT

Not at all. Keeping the commandments will not let you attain salvation, rather it is evidence of a person seeking the Lord. In other words keeping the commandments (or attempting to) are a by-product of salvation, not the other way around.

No, I was answering a question and a statement from someone.

Like Jonah!!

From monkeys silly...

It has evolved Trek from a musing (early on) to discovering how different, fervently religious folks view the Bible. I think it's very interesting that a day becomes more than a day, and how and why it becomes more than a day.

As I said earlier, I'm a Gospels man. The OT is fascinating in how people cherry pick from it. The greatest of the greats are evil in the OT, yet they are lauded as demi-gods. From Jacob stealing Esau's birthright to David sleeping with Bathsheba and then having her husband killed in battle to Lot offering his virgin daughters to the angry mob, I am both fascinated and disgusted by the Bible and why it is what it is.

Yes, would you let your child read ' The Ravaged Rectum'? No, me neither. Yet we let our kids read something that is just as debaucherous.

The things today that are viewed as entertainment might get the same answer.


KT

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209439274.jpg

:D


KT

Was the Bible ever viewed as entertainment? should it be?

Its been pretty well established that there no evidence to support this. Therefore, this is your belief, based on a position in faith. There is no basis in reality for this claim.

I believe in faeries. They talk to me. My position is as valid as yours.

A Bible that is open to interpretation is open to anything. Anyone with enough time and charisma can warp it into whatever they want with incredible ramifications. History has born out this premise. The Bible has to stand for something. The 10 Commandments aren't open to interpretation, neither should the rest of the book be. Without clarity and conviction of its message, the Bible is just another collection of stories. May as well include The Epic of Gilgamesh.

Same as the Constitution. It does not mean something new because we are in a different time than the Framers. Want to change it to meet the times, fine, create an Amendment and pass it. Want to change what the Bible means? Fine, get some new chapter and verse from God and add it on.

No and no.

The awful things that people did are outstanding warning examples for us today.

The good and merciful as well.


KT

So, Shaun, if we go by what's in the gospels, we're good?
You believe them, right?


KT

One thing I would never do is tell you that if you go by the gospels, you're good.

I try, and too often fail, to live by them.

Faith does not need proof nor rationalization. Debating articles of faith is an exercise in futility.
The bottom line seems to me that a position is taken and then the facts are considered.
When the facts don't seem to always fit... well, we can 'interpret' them.

That's not what I meant, Shaun.

Will a discussion based only on the gospels carry more weight with you?


KT

In about 1 week, yes. But it's not a discussion that will satisfy you. I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, I believe it was wholly manufactured by Man. In my book (pun intended), that God did or did not write the Bible is irrelevant. Only the message is important. Because the OT is fraught with evil men deified, and because I believe Saul/Paul is also, I am only left with the Gospels, and the many personalities ascribed to Jesus. But of the entire book, they ring the most true from an intellectual standpoint, and when put into practice, prove their worth from an emotional/conscious standpoint. The Gospels, to me, can be tested and proven experientially.

Of course, I suppose, the story of Jacob and Esau could find merit in a book on Marketing, or perhaps Corporate Takeovers and provide value to the reader in some other way.

You don't see the correlation here........;)

REALLY would like to hear your notes on this. It is a fascinating concept and the fact that you came to it via your own reading and thought (vs. reading someone elses musings) makes it all the more worth reviewing to me.

It is a bit odd though that you managed to come up with this idea yet were just introduced to the story of Babel.

Excellent Q&A though.

Hooray for you! If you want to believe in fairies then so be it...

Did you have a point?

Shaun:
If the only way you can look at the Bible is as a literal work which is not open to any interpretation, then I guess I can't help you. As Nostatic said, for you to expect that ANY literary work, especially one that is thousands of years old, is not open to interpretation...well, that's honestly just silly. I still maintain you started this thread with a preconceived idea of what you wanted the outcome to be and have set up the discussion within your own framework simply to steer it to your own conclusion. If you aren't interested in hearing other people's opinions and are going to simply cling to your own preconceived notion, why start the thread at all? You might as well stand in the shower and tell yourself how right you are...

There you have it.
Any reference to the Bible, not just the Greek scriptures, carry no weight with you.
So you like the Gospels better. What does that mean?


KT

Why does it matter that the Gospels are the Word of God or not.

Why would you assume that because I don't believe they are the Word of God, that they would carry no weight with me?

What is more important? The author or the message? Which would Jesus would think is more important?

Please explain.

My question gets FOUR questions in return?


If it's 'just the word of man', then you can look at the track record of man and determine it has no real value.

What other ancient works are in near *everyones* home and cited so frequently?

Jesus was interested in directing attention to his God and his name, not himself.
With the Bible, the author is God and the message is from God.

The men that put the words on paper are like a secretary of a powerful company's leader.
The leader takes the credit, never the secretary.

There is no distinction between the 'gospels' or any other book.
All is the word of God.

For example, Genesis mentions the flood. Jesus mentions the flood as a real event in the Gospels.

Which do you believe?


KT

People often say that the Bible was written by man, as if some old government assigned a single individual to write it. As I said before the bible is made up of 66 books, 40 different authors, over a 1500 year period, yet they all flow in together in a way that is just not possible by human convection. The underlying theme of the Bible is salvation. If one studies the Bible in any detail, you will very quickly realize that the Old Testament is actually the New Testament concealed, whereas the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Jonah died and was in the belly a great fish 3 days, Jesus died and was resurrected in 3 days. God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, telling him his name was "I Am" Jesus said his name was "I AM" The blood of a lamb (saving those who accepted the blood) during the final plague on Egypt. Jesus is the "lamb of God" who's shed his blood saves all who accept him. ect,ect,ect. Now here is a trivia question for all you Bible readers. Although there were over 40 authors, a few of them wrote the majority of it. They are, Moses, King David, Paul and they all have one thing in common. What is it?
Hint; this is an example of the underlying theme.

That's easy! Neither! There was no flood. :D

Well, now we know what Karl Rove is doing in retirement. How much does he charge? by the hour or does he have tapes? What chapter is "Attack the Messenger" anyway?

Rick, your persistent and urgent need to make this about Me rather than the issue at hand says only one thing.

It's not my persistent nature. I simply question why you would start a thread that you already have a set in stone answer to. You seem unwilling to consider any debate outside the pre-defined rules you have in your own mind, i.e. that that Bible is a literal work and is not subject to any interpretation except for how YOU happen to see it.

Again, I just wonder why you would start a thread on a topic you have an inflexible preconceived answer for...maybe you just like to hear yourself talk, I don't know.

because you are in Yankee country, I could send you some KILLER recipes for salsa
now that is funny
You are mistaken, it is slowing down. You could look it up or take my word for it
It was taken down by men, who are not infallible. What about the stuff that was not included, there is plenty of it?

I sort of doubt that Methuselah lived over 900 years, he would have died of renal failure by 125(that is the upper limit to human life, according to all the nephrologists I have spoken to about it). I do not think that you can take the entire Bible literally, and have studied a fair amount of theology.

PM away. :)

OK, a few cm's per year isn't exactly changing the nature of the argument, but I give you points for being up on your physics.

So that begs the question, is any of it an honest account of God's Word? Is all the lying, deceit and treachery part of God's Word? Or is it a not-so-subtle manual for control?

Isn't experiential proof great?

LOL, even the evolutionist scientists are saying that all modern men are decendent from one female, who they call EVE. Gotta love that, even though i don't agree with evolutionists some of you do and are gonna be eating words.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.


Geneticist Spencer Wells, here meeting an African village elder, says the study tells "truly an epic drama."
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.

"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence.

"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."

Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.

The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations before the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.

Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"

Today, more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.

Yeh well 200,000 years is a far cry from the 6000 years some bible proponents claim

It sure is, you'd think they could come up with a more accurate way to measure time by now.

all written language we have found occured in the past 6000 years. all remnants of building happened within the last 6000 years. All signs of intelligence and social behavior occured within the last 6000 years.

Sooooo, people walked around for 194,000 years and didn't leave a trace. No writing, no building, nothing, but they were there. Then all the sudden about 5600 years ago, people all over the world started developing languages and writing all kinds of stuff stuff down and building great big things like pyramids and cities and monuments and temples, all the sudden. Overnight. That makes perfect sense.

Australian Aboriginals history is recorded on cave walls etc and they have traced them back over 40,000 years. They themselves tell of their history. Just because it's not in a paperback or on parchment does'nt make it any less credible.

Their dating method is flawed.
How are they verifying their results? They can't!


KT

Ok, so your calling an entire nation of people liars. How can you prove their dating method is flawed. Lets hear it! I actually take great insult to that. The Australian Aboriginals are a great race of people. Your statement is an insult to them. They lived in this country for thousands of years before white man and his god came and f@#ked them up.

Lets hear you verify all your bible nonsense, not with some contrived garbage answers, or answering questions with questions. You have nothing. Never have, never will. Lets start with how Jonah survived inside a whale shall we.

Forum rage! :D

Cave paintings are not reliable history. Sorry.
There's a reason why we don't paint on the walls of caves anymore.

My comments are not against anyone. You should know that by now.
Tell me why you believe the paintings are 40,000 years old.



KT

Now your being a jerk.

No, why don;t you tell me why they aren't reliable. Their history is also spoken and passed down through the generations.
Your such an expert on everything, lets hear your answers.
Where's your answer for Jonah?