Bible Facts Debunked by Science

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Wouldn't it be neat, if God was created from the big bang theory?"

He wouldn't be God then would He, because Somebody had to light the fuse!!!! </div></div>

You can still be in control of a series of events but not be directly involved.

[Soundbear]

In control is fine by me.

[dancingqueen]

So, is it fair to say that God could have been in control of the Big Bang?

[1337]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Name 2 major scientists from that time period what university they attended and how they got their degree."

I can name one, off the top of my head. Aristotle. He knew the earth was a sphere, and estimated its circumference within a few percent.

As to where he got his degree, and what university he came from, he STARTED that level of teaching. There wasn't anywhere else. </div></div>

Good choice, Plato and Socrates as well.

Do they go in depth on the creation of the world? Without religion influence?

[1337]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, is it fair to say that God could have been in control of the Big Bang?</div></div>

Would be fair to say, but that can't be proven, in either case.

[dancingqueen]

Do you believ everything that has happened can be prooven?

[Soundbear]

I certainly don't, but a lot of things can be proven WITHOUT science!!!

[1337]

Unfortunatley yes. This is the way I was raised. And I understand alot of people are raised differently, to believe in God and the church. I have nothing against them, because it is what they believe.

[Soundbear]

Unfortunately?? Why do you say that??

I'm not talking about faith here.

[dancingqueen]

okay, so, keeping in mind that the Big Bang Theory is just that... a theory, and the creation of the world has not been prooven one way or another. What are your beliefs of how the world was created?

[Soundbear]

For me, I'm not 100 percent sure. I DO believe God did it, putting the processes in place, though how is still a mystery.

[dancingqueen]

sorry, that was directed at T-pot /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I would say you and I are in agreeance (sp) on that regard Barry.

[dancingqueen]

I think it is just as likely something like the Big Bang theory as is a creationisim theory, both require a certain amount of le-way in thinking outside the realm of certancy (sp)

[Soundbear]

True.

[1337]

I say unfortunatley, because I admire people who have beliefs and strong faith.

As much as I try, I can not believe in God.

I don't know how the world is created, so I leave it at that. I don't NEED to know how it is. So what is the big deal?

I can live my life, I am happy, and I treat everyone as I would like to be treated. I do live by the golden rule.

I just have no faith, I have no need for hope or a beleif in a supreme creator.

I don't need to know, when I die, I'm going somewhere. I don't have a need for hope. What happens, just happens.

It may be sad, but unfortunately without proof, I CAN'T believe.

[Soundbear]

I bug people about this all the time, so I apologize if I begin to sound tedious.

What kind of proof would you accept? Have you ever considerd the different KINDS of proof??

[BlueSky]

and there's the rub. If you had PROOF, belief would not be needed.
It's a circle...
"The one that comes to God must believe that He is... " (somewhere in the Bible)

[1337]

The reason why humans have a hard time grasping the concept of the big bang theory, or a supreme creator, is that it is very unique.

Just like a black hole. I think a black hole is just as mysterious as 'god' him/herself.

It is human nature to be curious, we can analyze and explore black holes, but without faith, it is hard to analyze and explore god.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I say unfortunatley, because I admire people who have beliefs and strong faith.

As much as I try, I can not believe in God.

I don't know how the world is created, so I leave it at that. I don't NEED to know how it is. So what is the big deal?

I can live my life, I am happy, and I treat everyone as I would like to be treated. I do live by the golden rule.

I just have no faith, I have no need for hope or a beleif in a supreme creator.

I don't need to know, when I die, I'm going somewhere. I don't have a need for hope. What happens, just happens.

It may be sad, but unfortunately without proof, I CAN'T believe. </div></div>

oh, just curious. That sonds like a reasonable outlook on life.

[1337]

I would believe if I saw anything that happened in the bible, parting of the red sea, resurrection and so on.

This stuff doesn't happen anymore, when the circumstances under these still do.

[1337]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and there's the rub. If you had PROOF, belief would not be needed.
It's a circle...
"The one that comes to God must believe that He is... " (somewhere in the Bible)
</div></div>

That is not true. I believe a Ferarri Enzo exists, althought I have never seen one. I have no proof that it does.

[Soundbear]

T-pot the truth is, your attitude IS mentioned in the bible.

Read Luke 16, and not this verse:

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

[1337]

Read Luke 16

30

Then he said, No, indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.

They are saying "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets they won't believe anyway if they saw some that rose from the dead"


This does not apply to me, if I saw someone from which I knew was dead, then I would believe in resurrection only.

[Soundbear]

The point of course, is that you want proof you can touch and feel and see.

The REAL point is, none of that would be of any use.

I can't persuade you. I wonder if God will.

[GenX]

Is that insinuating if you cannot do it, there is little chance God can?

[Soundbear]

Nope.

[GenX]

Phew...

[1337]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point of course, is that you want proof you can touch and feel and see.

The REAL point is, none of that would be of any use.

I can't persuade you. I wonder if God will.</div></div>

You belief in something that you haven't felt or seen, you are only making the assumption that a sumpreme being made the earth. Your belief is someone "HAD" to make this. Why can't people just accept that untill they know for a fact, leave it alone.

What is the purpose of religion? To give hope?

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The REAL point is, none of that would be of any use.</div></div>
of course it would...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't persuade you. I wonder if God will. </div></div>

I think God showing miracles is more persuading than the word of man...

[Onlygodknowswhy]

What is the purpose of religion? To give hope?

Started out as Superstition.....once upon a time there was a god for everything.....

One cant deny that religion was also used as law - to scare individuals - to control.....To cover someone's evil deeds - "it was god's will" for how many bloody wars.....

because man has been asking why are we here since the beginning of time....hence the belief in many gods...prior to the catholic religion..

[1337]

So to say

"A creation of a character, to explain the unexplained" and
"to use this character to instill fear into persons in order to only do good?"

Sounds good to me.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I think God showing miracles is more persuading than the word of man...
</div></div>

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The reference in this verse is to Jesus rising after His crucifixion. That is the ultimate miracle, and the one on which the entire Christian religion is based.

But it was not believed by so many.

[BlueSky]

It should be pointed out that some of the same people who saw Jesus raise people from the dead were involved in executing Him.

So seeing miracles happening is not the answer for everyone. You still have to be willing to bow the knee.

[Soundbear]

"... every knee will bow..."

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. </div></div>

Well, whoever said his is wrong. If I saw someone rise from the dead I would belive it more than if someone told me they rose from the dead.

If I told you my Great grandfather rose from the dead would you belive me?
probably not...
If yo saw my great grandfather rise from the dead, would you belive it?
probably a much higher likelyhood you would.

[GenX]

DQ, remember one thing: women did not hold a place of great authority in the Palestine of Jesus' time. So if you were some new sect looking to make a name for yourself, the last group you would think of using to tell your story would be women.

Think about that. The first reports of Jesus' resurrection were by women. What a dumb way for a new sect to try and get people to believe them.

[dancingqueen]

It would be.
I don't think Jesus was dumb though /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Why didn't he make it more public? Why not continue to do so?
If God watches his children die everyday, I'm sure he can handle a begotten son once every generation or so.
(I'm not trying to be sarcastic)

[GenX]

We don't look at death like God does. We cling to this life like it is all there is. God knows this earthly existence is but a mere drop in the bucket. He sees things in terms of eternity...we see things in terms of the next day. We see death, God sees another one of His children entering into eternity with Him (if they so chose).

Again, you want Jesus to show Himself, to come down and appear on Oprah's shows every once in a while (slight sarcasm) to explain to us why we should follow Him. Kind of like a transcendent candidate for some ethereal office.

"Blessed are they who do not see, but believe".

[dancingqueen]

What do you think God wants more? for us to believe? or to love him?
Obviously he does not want both or he would have just made us into what he wants.

[GenX]

They are not separable. To Believe (in the truest sense) is to Love.

Again, He certainly could have made us into exactly what He wanted. And we were, until The Fall.

Original Sin is diminished when God's most-high creatures (humans) choose to reach for Him and love Him, even though a great separation has occurred due to mans' sinfulness.

God desires ALL to come to Him, like a child to its loving father. But we must choose to do so, He will not force us.

The Bible tells us the angels of God rejoice and celebrate in Heaven with great excitement every time one 'lost soul' comes to God.

The love a parent has for a child is like a thimble of water compared to the love God has for each one of us, which is comparable to the largest ocean.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Original Sin is diminished when God's most-high creatures (humans) choose to reach for Him and love Him, even though a great separation has occurred due to mans' sinfulness.

God desires ALL to come to Him, like a child to its loving father. But we must choose to do so, He will not force us.</div></div>

I am very confused by these statements. God's love is diminished when we reach for him and love him, yet God wants us to come to him. In my eyes reaching for him is the same as coming to him. Reaching for him is the action of coming to him.

[GenX]

Where did I say they were not?

"Original Sin is diminished when God's most-high creatures (humans) choose to reach for Him and love Him"

[dancingqueen]

oops, sorry, misread your post /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

[GenX]

Go sit in the corner, and DO NOT come back until told to do so! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

[dancingqueen]

I think there is more to love than to believe in one. If he really made us into what he wanted us to be, there would have been no fall, in my eyes that completely goes against my perseptions of a God.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Original Sin is diminished when God's most-high creatures (humans) choose to reach for Him and love Him, even though a great separation has occurred due to mans' sinfulness.
</div></div> So, why does God not give us the tools many need in order to reach for him? To love him? All we have to date are books that have been through many translations, and generations and left completely in the hands of man who are not perfect. In the past, and in the present there have been many groups of people claiming to be doing the work of God but are really far from it as far as I believe, and I am sure many other religious people here would. (Margie Phelps comes to mind) surely God would provide more than a single book to the people he loves and wants to believe.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go sit in the corner, and DO NOT come back until told to do so! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif </div></div>

*goes and sits in the corner with head down*

[GenX]

Come on back, I miss ya'...

[dancingqueen]

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ya, with every shot so far... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/computer.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So, why does God not give us the tools many need in order to reach for him? To love him? All we have to date are books that have been through many translations </div></div>

Some people see God in a waterfall; in a newborn baby; in an orchestral piece; in a work of charity; in a marriage consummated; in the laughter of children at the playground; in the final moments of a grandparents life.

People see God everywhere.

A "book" is just one item. An important one, to be sure. But with my religion (RC), Tradition works in tandem with that book, and Tradition is ever-living, ever-vibrant, passed on from generation to generation with "the book".

So, perhaps our Protestant brethren can speak to only having "a book" to know God by.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A "book" is just one item. An important one, to be sure. But with my religion (RC), <u>Tradition works in tandem with that book</u>, and Tradition is ever-living, ever-vibrant, passed on from generation to generation with "the book".
</div></div>

how can something work along side something else where one changes with time (traditions) and the other remains pretty much the same (The Bible)?

[GenX]

You're mistaking "tradition" small "t" for "Tradition, big "T".

Small "t" tradition is the same as "ritual". Big "T" Tradition is not ritual, but a breathing, living expounding on Truth, passed down from those inspired from the Holy Spirit.

The Bible itself came from Tradition. Oral Tradition was passed on, and ultimately put in written form.

[The Berean]

Revelations 18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revelations 18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city </div></div>

Uh oh, Marty!

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:

...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).

Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.

LINK (http://www.cogwriter.com/luther.htm)

[Soundbear]

Over and over again. yaddadyada

The word "alone" is clearly implied in the original Greek word used at that point. Luther's use of it is quite legitimate, when translating from one language to another.

Of course, the RCC bible would ignore that, since it doesn't jibe with their "doctrine".

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're mistaking "tradition" small "t" for "Tradition, big "T".

Small "t" tradition is the same as "ritual". Big "T" Tradition is not ritual, but a breathing, living expounding on Truth, passed down from those inspired from the Holy Spirit.

The Bible itself came from Tradition. Oral Tradition was passed on, and ultimately put in written form. </div></div>

I'm not sure I completely understand this.
you had said that the Bible is used in tandem (along side) Tradition which you just described to be the Bible. You cannot use something alongside it's very self.

Also, I wonder about the idea of different meanings for the same word. Tradition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tradition) with a capital "T" still means the same thing just as we cannot cange the meaning of other words (like marriage) we cannot change the meanings of others to suit our beliefs.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, the RCC bible would ignore that, since it doesn't jibe with their "doctrine". </div></div>

The RCC Bible is the Bible used by Christians for 1,500 years...until Luther came along, and changed some words, and threw some books out that did not jibe with his political views.

THAT is the birth of your faith.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The word "alone" is clearly implied in the original Greek word used at that point </div></div>

Oh, I didn't know you were an expert to opine on this.

Tell us, how is it "clearly implied"?


And...the very guy you're supporting doesn't even go as far as you ...

" You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text"

Yikes! Even Marty doesn't agree with you!

[Soundbear]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y195/BEAR55/originsofTheBible-1.jpg

This picture clearly shows the history of the bibles in use today.

The RCC depends on a translation of a translation. This makes it easier for them to tell thier people what to believe, and restrict them in their beliefs.

Modern bibles depend on ancient copies for a direct translation to English.

[GenX]

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

That time of the month already???

Just like clockwork, "The Diagram" comes out.

It's useless to any serious scholar, and completely without reference.

[GenX]

" I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text"

-Martin Luther

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text"

-Martin Luther </div></div>

Never said it was.

[GenX]

What was the Bible written in, German?

[Soundbear]

Latin??

[GenX]

Barry, do you know, without Googling?

[Soundbear]

Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek, my dear boy.

Rhetorical leading question again???

BTW I don't google this stuff all that much. I use my study aids, you know, commentaries on the bible, and dictionaries, and almanacs, and lexicons and concordances and maps etc.

[BlueSky]

Almanacs???

[1337]

How come these people aren't plagued with plagues that mentioned in the bible?

People see god in toast, waterfalls, laughter?

If you believed in something so richly, you'd see what you want, where you want.

Just like when you really have to pee, that is when you noticed all the fountains, sprinklers, hydrants and so on.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Almanacs??? </div></div>

Check out http://www.onlinebible.net. This program is quite inexpensive and has an incredible amount of material.

[BlueSky]

That's not an almanac..

al·ma·nac
–noun
1. an annual publication containing a calendar for the coming year, the times of such events and phenomena as anniversaries, sunrises and sunsets, phases of the moon, tides, etc., and other statistical information and related topics.
2. a publication containing astronomical or meteorological information, usually including future positions of celestial objects, star magnitudes, and culmination dates of constellations.
3. an annual reference book of useful and interesting facts relating to countries of the world, sports, entertainment, etc.

[Soundbear]

Try the Bible Almanac for definition three.

Got the hard copy here somewhere, but I'm using my software for most helps.

I also have PC Study, an older bible program.

[Soundbear]

Bluesky, please change your settings to accept PM's