100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is the Bible historically accurate? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 07/12/11 07:54 PM
|
|
WAIT! You said earlier that the ancient Israelites were too dumb to use metaphors in their literature, but now you insist that the Story of the Fall is full of metaphors.
SO? YOU are the person who insisted that the Bible has and uses metaphors. I accepted your claim (your premise) and I am now moving forward on THAT premise. If you want to go back and recount your claim and change it and say that the Bible does NOT use metaphors, then we can start all over. I am attempting to proceed with the discussion according to what you believe about metaphors; but you need to make up your mind. If we are not going to agree or assume the same premise about metaphors, the debate is pointless and will only degenerate into insults. You decide. Metaphors or no metaphors? Otherwise, I will discontinue my thoughts on the subject. So you are admitting that I'm right. I accept your apology. 
Of course the Bible has metaphors, those who say it doesn't a) Don't know what a metaphor is or b) Have never read the Bible or c) Are trying to sell you something (probably a load of crap) or d) Any combination of the above. Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, (temporarily) does not mean that I think you are right, nor does it constitute an apology. It was done in order to continue the discussion. I merely accepted that YOU Believe that the Bible has metaphors. That is all. It does not mean I agree with that. If the reason you want to debate is because you want to feel like you are "right" then I don't care to continue this discussion. Goodby. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, (temporarily) does not mean that I think you are right, nor does it constitute an apology. It was done in order to continue the discussion. I merely accepted that YOU Believe that the Bible has metaphors. That is all. It does not mean I agree with that. If the reason you want to debate is because you want to feel like you are "right" then I don't care to continue this discussion. Goodby. Jeannie, I don't want to feel like I'm right, I already KNOW I'm right. I want you to know I'm right too. Regards, Me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accepting your premise for the sake of argument, (temporarily) does not mean that I think you are right, nor does it constitute an apology. It was done in order to continue the discussion. I merely accepted that YOU Believe that the Bible has metaphors. That is all. It does not mean I agree with that. If the reason you want to debate is because you want to feel like you are "right" then I don't care to continue this discussion. Goodby. Jeannie, I don't want to feel like I'm right, I already KNOW I'm right. I want you to know I'm right too. Regards, Me
Sorry. Not possible. Just be grateful that you think you are right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at this planet and all that we find here, there is no way this planet is only 6000 years old. You can feel the age on it. When you go to the mountains and look at the formations and erosion and stuff. No way is this planet that young. and the bible never says it is,, 'scientists' claim their calculations from biblical references would make it that age,,, but there is no such actual claim in the bible Actually, scientist had nothing to do with this calculation. The history of how "creationists" developed their young Earth theory is easy to find on line. Basically, some creationists reviewed scriptures to determine the number of generations that have existed since Adam and Eve - I'm sure there would be some here who might ask "Don't you read the bible? Don't you know that it contains generational history?" But I won't do that because, quite frankly, I can't figure out how anyone could have determined what lineage existed from scripture either. Anyway, some rather learned believers came up with the figure and no how it's adjusted, from 18 years to 35 years there havn't been that many generations to make the 6,000 year figure much more or less, so it has stood and is still upheld by "creation scientists". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im no biblical scholar It speaks to me that genealogy is mentioned in several places in the bible but not always through the same genaological line (it would be like if I wrote a book about my ancestors on my moms side, and my brother wrote one about the ancestors on my dads side,, they would appear different genealogical lines because our geneology branches out so much over time) I think this type of mention was as a record of ancestry but also an attempt to tie in that ancestry with the culture of the one writing the book(greek, or hebrew, or jewish,,,etc,,,) It would be like me writing about all my family members as they relate to my daughter to show her connection to being 'black' and my husband writing about all his family members as it relates to my daughter to show her connection to being 'white' ,,,,,in short, it served as historical refrence AND a way to lay claim,,,, Yea, I think it's confusing too but somehow creation scientists seem to buy it. One of the thinks that's confusing is that some many people attempt to follow a generational pattern through the males - but oddly the Jewish heritage is supposed to be linked through the woman??? Just another one of those things that seemed to have changed with Christianity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im no biblical scholar It speaks to me that genealogy is mentioned in several places in the bible but not always through the same genaological line (it would be like if I wrote a book about my ancestors on my moms side, and my brother wrote one about the ancestors on my dads side,, they would appear different genealogical lines because our geneology branches out so much over time) I think this type of mention was as a record of ancestry but also an attempt to tie in that ancestry with the culture of the one writing the book(greek, or hebrew, or jewish,,,etc,,,) It would be like me writing about all my family members as they relate to my daughter to show her connection to being 'black' and my husband writing about all his family members as it relates to my daughter to show her connection to being 'white' ,,,,,in short, it served as historical refrence AND a way to lay claim,,,, Yea, I think it's confusing too but somehow creation scientists seem to buy it. One of the thinks that's confusing is that some many people attempt to follow a generational pattern through the males - but oddly the Jewish heritage is supposed to be linked through the woman??? Just another one of those things that seemed to have changed with Christianity. The Hebrews always listed genealogy from father to son, but being Jewish only required a Jewish mother. Nothing changed with Christianity, except the inclusion of mother's in the genealogy and having a Christian mother doesn't make a child Christian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at this planet and all that we find here, there is no way this planet is only 6000 years old. You can feel the age on it. When you go to the mountains and look at the formations and erosion and stuff. No way is this planet that young. and the bible never says it is,, 'scientists' claim their calculations from biblical references would make it that age,,, but there is no such actual claim in the bible Actually, scientist had nothing to do with this calculation. The history of how "creationists" developed their young Earth theory is easy to find on line. Basically, some creationists reviewed scriptures to determine the number of generations that have existed since Adam and Eve - I'm sure there would be some here who might ask "Don't you read the bible? Don't you know that it contains generational history?" But I won't do that because, quite frankly, I can't figure out how anyone could have determined what lineage existed from scripture either. Anyway, some rather learned believers came up with the figure and no how it's adjusted, from 18 years to 35 years there havn't been that many generations to make the 6,000 year figure much more or less, so it has stood and is still upheld by "creation scientists". Well, the human genome project has blown that clear out of the water anyway. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the biblical account of human history is false. Trying to figure out the age of the earth from Hebrew Mythology has no more merit than trying to figure out the ages of the earth from Greek Mythology. Geologists, geneticists, physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, and biologists all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. The so-called "creationists" should truly be called "mythologists" or "superstitionists" they have no scientific evidence to back up their calculations that are based on myths. The "creationists" are trying to use mythology to dismiss science. And that's just silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the human genome project has blown that clear out of the water anyway. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the biblical account of human history is false. Trying to figure out the age of the earth from Hebrew Mythology has no more merit than trying to figure out the ages of the earth from Greek Mythology. Geologists, geneticists, physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, and biologists all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. The so-called "creationists" should truly be called "mythologists" or "superstitionists" they have no scientific evidence to back up their calculations that are based on myths. The "creationists" are trying to use mythology to dismiss science. And that's just silly. Abracadabra, I hereby award thee with this trophy for being the most sensible, clear speaking, person on this club. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the human genome project has blown that clear out of the water anyway. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the biblical account of human history is false. Trying to figure out the age of the earth from Hebrew Mythology has no more merit than trying to figure out the ages of the earth from Greek Mythology. Geologists, geneticists, physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, and biologists all agree that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. The so-called "creationists" should truly be called "mythologists" or "superstitionists" they have no scientific evidence to back up their calculations that are based on myths. The "creationists" are trying to use mythology to dismiss science. And that's just silly. The below excerpt is part of an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project. http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-03/us/collins.commentary_1_god-dna-revelation?_s=PM:US I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider said:
The Hebrews always listed genealogy from father to son, but being Jewish only required a Jewish mother. Nothing changed with Christianity, except the inclusion of mother's in the genealogy and having a Christian mother doesn't make a child Christian.
That is because Christianity is not a "tribe" or family of people; it is a religion. So why must a person have a "Jewish" mother to be accepted as a Jew? Some who have converted to Judaism but are not Jewish by blood are not really accepted as Jewish. Have you ever asked yourself why? It has to do with genetics. "Both males and females have mitochondrial DNA because mitochondria are essential to life3, so both males and females can take an mtDNA test. Still, both genders inherit their mtDNA only from their mother, because it's transmitted in the body of the egg, not in the nucleus of the egg or sperm. Like the DNA in the Y-chromosome, the DNA in mitochondria is passed on unchanged (except for rare mutations), so mtDNA analysis can reveal ancestry on your matrilineal line." "When variations are found between your sequence and the reference sequence, these indicate how the human race branched off over the years. Through many generations, your family’s sequence variations stay intact and are passed down through maternal lines. If a female in Generation One has a specific mtDNA sequence, then all of her descendants (male or female) with a direct maternal connection to her would also have similar markers through many generations, as shown in the above illustration. This means that her sons and daughter would have the same mtDNA sequence, but only her daughter would pass this sequence on." Therefore, the whole idea of being "Jewish" has to do more with bloodlines than religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 07/13/11 10:33 AM
|
|
The below excerpt is part of an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project........... So what's your point Spider? The subject being discussed is not whether or not some sort of God exists. The subject is what will happen when the Bible is discredited, and the current topic was the age of the earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why must a person have a "Jewish" mother to be accepted as a Jew? Some who have converted to Judaism but are not Jewish by blood are not really accepted as Jewish. Have you ever asked yourself why? You don't have to have a Jewish mother to be Jewish. You have to have a Jewish mother or convert. Converts are as much Jewish as those who are born to it. It has to do with genetics. ... Therefore, the whole idea of being "Jewish" has to do more with bloodlines than religion. Nope, Converts are as much Jews as those who are born to Jewish mothers. In fact, a child born to a converted Jewish mother is just as much Jewish as any other Jew. So you are completely wrong on this and they aren't alien lizards who plan to eat Christians. That is a very stupid belief and I strongly question your sanity if you really believe that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The below excerpt is part of an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project........... So what's your point Spider? The subject being discussed is not whether or not some sort of God exists. The subject is what will happen when the Bible is discredited, and the current topic was the age of the earth. He's a Christian, not a deist. My point is that the Human Genome project doesn't bring Christianity or creationism into question. There are "Old World Creationists" who believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and they believe that God created life. Science currently has no acceptable theory on the origins of life, which makes that one of the most hotly debated topics in biology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of which none validates the bible at any level. It more discredits it as inaccurate at any level then helps it.
Fables it is and if you can learn from fables that is the best purpose the bible has to offer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why must a person have a "Jewish" mother to be accepted as a Jew? Some who have converted to Judaism but are not Jewish by blood are not really accepted as Jewish. Have you ever asked yourself why? You don't have to have a Jewish mother to be Jewish. You have to have a Jewish mother or convert. Converts are as much Jewish as those who are born to it. It has to do with genetics. ... Therefore, the whole idea of being "Jewish" has to do more with bloodlines than religion. Nope, Converts are as much Jews as those who are born to Jewish mothers. In fact, a child born to a converted Jewish mother is just as much Jewish as any other Jew. So you are completely wrong on this and they aren't alien lizards who plan to eat Christians. That is a very stupid belief and I strongly question your sanity if you really believe that. What you say logically (and legally) "should" be the case. But in some Jewish circles it simply IS NOT THE CASE. There are two kinds of Jews. When people wake up to this fact, the **** will hit the fan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The below excerpt is part of an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project........... So what's your point Spider? The subject being discussed is not whether or not some sort of God exists. The subject is what will happen when the Bible is discredited, and the current topic was the age of the earth. He's a Christian, not a deist. My point is that the Human Genome project doesn't bring Christianity or creationism into question. There are "Old World Creationists" who believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and they believe that God created life. Science currently has no acceptable theory on the origins of life, which makes that one of the most hotly debated topics in biology. If it were done right, I believe the Human Genome project will open a can of worms that will totally discredit the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you say logically (and legally) "should" be the case. But in some Jewish circles it simply IS NOT THE CASE. There are two kinds of Jews. When people wake up to this fact, the **** will hit the fan. It actually is the case. You expect everyone to believe that you have some secret knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't know? What could possibly make anyone believe that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you say logically (and legally) "should" be the case. But in some Jewish circles it simply IS NOT THE CASE. There are two kinds of Jews. When people wake up to this fact, the **** will hit the fan. It actually is the case. You expect everyone to believe that you have some secret knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't know? What could possibly make anyone believe that? I don't expect you to believe anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no great enlightenment in store
neither one where everyone will BELIEVE, or where everyone will STOP BELIEVING there is just too much there that is logical and makes sense and CAN be historically validated(in some sense) to throw out the Bible and the question is,, why should anyone be taking that much effort to even 'try'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you say logically (and legally) "should" be the case. But in some Jewish circles it simply IS NOT THE CASE. There are two kinds of Jews. When people wake up to this fact, the **** will hit the fan. It actually is the case. You expect everyone to believe that you have some secret knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't know? What could possibly make anyone believe that? Projecting, I see. You expect people to believe that of you...lol 
|
|
|
|
|
