 |
| |
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Couple quick points to rebut:
1. You may have killed Christ, but Christ defeated death by rising from the dead.
So what have you accomplished, except for establishing the righteousness of all those who believe in Christ? 
|
Obi, i consider myself a (ok, maybe not-so-)good christian, and my post was a simple joke, no need to rebut it; 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Perhaps Angelo was saying that we killed God in the same sense that Nietzche said "God is Dead." Human knowledge has rendered the need for belief in a deity unneccessary, etc.
|
Ehm, no, honestly i wasn't saying that  ...
anyway, your interpretation makes me seem very bright and acculturated  so...
Yes, that was exactly the meaning of my post! 
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Oh, now I understand. Mechanicism, as I understand it, is more like a philosophy instead of physics.
|
i don't see your point, philosopy and science are continously influencing each other: mechanicism was inspired by Newton's physics and, in turn, it influenced several science areas such as mathematics and neurobiology.
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
However, the random elements which quantum mechanics offer do not constitute as free will. They are just random events.
|
Reducing quantum mechanics to "random events" is too simplistic, don't you think?
The interesting things about quantum mechanics are others such as (for example) holism and non-locality, states superposition (  )
Anyway i never said it explains or even has something to do with free will, i really don't know, but what i know, is that the mechanical (algorithmical if you prefer) way to describe the brain seems to be both old and wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Also, such scientists as Wolfram and Barabási are currently developing theories which could make even quantum mechanics predictable.
|
Turing itself tried to reformulate quantum mechanics as a predictable theory without success, Einstein too tried, and he too failed, maybe one day someone will succeed, but the illustrious people who failed on this task make me think that quantum mechanics is simply inherently unpredictable.
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
That is not the entire truth. Have you heard about "hazed logic"? (that's the name for it in Finnish, don't know the English name and my dictionary doesn't either) The difference between computer logics and "hazed logic" is that when computers use 1 and 0 to describe information, "hazed logic" uses any numbers between 1 and 0, usually excluding 1 and 0 themselves. "Hazed logic" is a somewhat new branch of logics, but it has proven extremely useful in, for example, developing artifical intelligence.
Of course applications that run according to "hazed logic" are still running on ordinary computers, and are thus only illusions of "hazed logic" taking place. The point is, that binary logics are not the only forms of logic in the universe.
This, however, is not my area of expertise. Please correct me if I'm wrong. |
The point here is not the kind of logic you've in mind: fuzzy logic, binary logic, ternary logic, all can be implemented on a TM since they're "algorithmical".
Logic itself was invented exactly with this goal.
Let me search some info to better explain what i mean:
Around the '30s mathematics discovered that there are classes of problems whose solutions cannot be discovered by a mathematician working 'mechanically'; fortunately (or unfortunately...) we needed something else (we can call it 'intuition' or 'initiative' if you want).
Turing was, obviously, aware of these discoveries when he started his work on TMs and therefore limited his machines (and every other pure algorithmical machine) saying that it was "able to execute any procedure that can be carried out by an idealised human clerk working mechanically with paper and pencil."
He went ahead defining an 'oracle': this 'oracle' was a mathematically defined object able to execute uncomputable functions, he added that "We shall not go any further into the nature of this oracle apart from saying that it cannot be a machine.", thanks to the oracle Turing was able to explain the mathematician's 'intuition' in theorem-proving.
Years later Turing said that applying the Universal Machine property to a brain is somewhat difficult because, to apply it, we need to show that brain behaviour is in principle predictable by calculation.
Obviously, as Eddington noticed, according to the indeterminacy principle in quantum mechanics no such prediction is possible, not even theoretically.
So, you see, human brain can't be a machine, i've no idea what it is, but it's not a machine in the informatic sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Vesayen
Thats why you throw in a VERY heavy helping of chemistry and particle physics
|
Look, in science history it's called classical mechanics the physics (and chemistry and particle physics, etc. etc. etc.) pre-1925, i don't know why, i presume it's to honor Newton's mechanics that started all. but it's not my fault if they called it so...
Anyway we've threadjacked enough, like juhani_kahvi said, if we want to discuss further about this topic i suggest to open another thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Human knowledge has rendered the need for belief in a deity unneccessary, etc.
|
Boris:
Let's compare claims. Assuming that both human knowledge and divine knowledge fulfill their promises, how does human knowledge stack up? Does human knowledge allow us to raise the dead, so that those raised shall not die or decay?
As a Christian, I consider this to be a necessary part of my life, this promise of everlasting life. It helps me to get out of bed in the morning.
1 Cor 13:8
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."
Human knowledge cannot permanently survive. As a historian there are huge gaps between what has happened, and what we know has happened simply because time erodes knowledge.
Even if we do accomplish everything through human knowledge, the knowledge may not pass on to the next generation.
Why do I need God? Look at it this way, if you were given wings to fly, would you strap on your rocket belt for old time's sake?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Human knowledge has rendered the need for belief in a deity unneccessary, etc.
Boris:
Let's compare claims. Assuming that both human knowledge and divine knowledge fulfill their promises, how does human knowledge stack up? Does human knowledge allow us to raise the dead, so that those raised shall not die or decay? |
What use is comparing claims, if those claims cannot be supported?
Going back a bit...
quote:
Good question. One argument for the defense of scripture are the prophecies fulfilled, both in the OT and the NT. Another would be the accounts of things that could only be revealed by God, such as the testing of Job. |
I don't understand what you're getting at with the Job reference. What is there in the Book of Job that indicates the truth of the Bible? If anything, Job indicates the falsehood of the "omnimax" concept of God.
As for prophecies: in a book the size of the Bible, it's reasonable to expect some successful prophecies. But in a recent discussion on this topic over at www.infidels.org, none remained, once the following examples of non-prophecy were eliminated:
1. Unsubstantiated claims of fulfilment, such as Jesus performing various acts "that it may be fulfilled which was spoken of by the prophets...".
2. Misapplied, out-of-context passages, such as the erroneous claim in Matthew that Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel". This was fulfilled by the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8:3. Another popular example: the "prophecy" of the re-formation of Israel in 1948 (which actually refers to the re-emergence of Israel from the Babylonian captivity).
3. Prophecies too imminent or too vague to be considered significant: e.g. towns propesied to be destroyed when they're about to be attacked, or at some unspecified time in the future.
4. Prophecies apparently written after the events they claim to prophecy. Examples: Book of Daniel, NT references to the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70.
When weighed against the many failed propecies, this appears to indicate that the Bible is supernaturally inaccurate...
(edit: oops, forgot category 4)
Last edited by Jack the Bodiless on 09-06-2003 at 15:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Boris:
quote:
1. Creation
2. Flood
3. Tower of Babel
There's a start.
|
These critiques assume that scientific knowledge conflicts with biblical knowledge. Gross errors should be contradictions within the text, and not contradictions with prevaling scientific theories.
quote:
I'd love an explanation for this:
Gen.4:18
"Mehujael begat Methusael."
Gen.5:21
"And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah."
|
Gen 4:18 talks about Cain's line.
Gen 5:21 talks about Seth's line.
There's a wee bit of difference here between the persons Methusael and Methuselah.
quote:
Gen.5:3-18
"And Adam ... begat ... Seth....
And Seth ... begat Enos....
And Enos ... begat Cainan....
And Cainan .... begat Mahalaleel....
And Mahalaleel ... begat Jared....
And Jared .... begat Enoch."
Jude 14
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam.... "
|
Seventh from Adam. Seven generations, counting Adam.
quote:
Num.23:19
"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent."
Ex.32:14
"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
|
NIV:
"neither the son of man that he should change his mind."
Ex. 32:14
Quite different in the NIV:
"Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."
God threatens in order to inspire righteousness, rebukes so that the Israelites repent.
quote:
Gen.14:14
"And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive ...."
Gen.14:16
"And also brought again his brother Lot ...."
|
Again, the NIV renders Gen 14:16 as:
"He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions."
So I fail to see the contradiction that Abraham finds his brother captured and then rescues Lot in the immediately following passages.
quote:
Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jg.1:19
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
|
NIV renders Judges 1:19 as:
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots."
They = Israelites.
Israelites are cowards against iron chariots. 
quote:
Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."
Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
|
Ezekial 14:9 should not be seperated from it's context, 14:7-10, in the NIV.
" 'When any Israelite or any alien living in Israel separates himself from me and sets up idols in his heart and puts a wicked stumbling block before his face and then goes to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer him myself. I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD .
" 'And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. They will bear their guilt-the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him."
The situation here is that a true prophet will not prophesy for an idol as he would for the LORD. Rather than preventing the prophesy, God allows the prophet to condemn himself.
quote:
Gen.26:34
"And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite."
Gen.36:2-3
"Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and ... Bashemath Ishmael's daughter."
|
Points for this one.
Women often received new names when they married. The change in the geneology reflects the different sources for the names. One might use maiden names, and the other married names.
quote:
1 Cor.12:31
"Covet earnestly the best gifts."
Rom.13:9
"Thou shalt not covet."
|
Ahem. 1 Cor 12:30, "Do all have gifts of healing?" Do all speak in tongues.."
Clearly, Paul refers to spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:31. Following his argument in 1 Cor 12, what are the best gifts? Clearly, none are to be valued over the others.
quote:
Jas.1:13
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Mal.3:15
"And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered."
|
Malachi 3:15 in the NIV:
"But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly the evildoers prosper, and even those who challenge God escape."
Seems that 'tempt' vanishes.
quote:
1 Sam.8:2
"Now the name of his [Samuel's] firstborn son was Joel."
1 Chr.6:28
"And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni."
|
In the NIV: 1 Chr 6:28
"The sons of Samuel;
Joel, the firstborn."
That's an odd contradiction. 
quote:
1 Sam.17:49-50
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. 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.
1 Sam.17:51
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.
(So Goliath was slewn twice?)
|
Good question, however, look at it this way.
"The stone that hit Goliath in the forehead may have only knocked him out. David then approached the fallen giant, slew him with his own sword, and cut off his head.188
Verse 50 seems to be a summary of the whole encounter. Verses 49 and 51 apparently describe
what happened blow by blow. By cutting off Goliath's head David completed the execution of the giant and demonstrated to everyone present that he really was dead.
Like the image of Dagon, that had previously fallen before the ark and had its head broken off (5:4), so Dagon's champion now suffered the same fate."
-Dr. Constable
quote:
1 Kg.8:9
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt."
Heb.9:4
"The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant."
|
First passage applies to Solomon's time.
The passage in Hebrews applies to the early temple, built by Moses.
Stuff falls out in between.
quote:
BTW, was Jesus the first to be resurrected?
|
Lazarus was revived, though he died later after being revived.
Jesus is the first to be resurrected.
The biggest difference between Lazarus and Jesus is the resurrection body. Jesus not only revived, but took upon an entirely different body, one that does not decay.
Is that more clear, Dinodoc?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Jack:
quote:
What is there in the Book of Job that indicates the truth of the Bible.
|
"He looks down on the haughty, and he is king over all the proud"
"Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
Suffering can serve spiritual purposes, stimulating spiritual growth.
However, the specific allusion is to the entire testing of Job, that God offered Satan the chance to tempt an upright Job, knowledge unavailable without divine revelation.
Job 1:6-12
quote:
none remained, once the following examples of non-prophecy were eliminated:
|
Okay. That's a fine thesis. If I can show one prophecy that works, I can defeat this arguement.
To start, what about Joseph?
Gen 41:39, 49, 54
"Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Eypt, but seven years of famine will follow them."
"Joseph stored up huge quantiteies of grain, like the sand of the sea; it was so much that he stopped keeping records because it was beyond measure."
"There was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
These critiques assume that scientific knowledge conflicts with biblical knowledge. Gross errors should be contradictions within the text, and not contradictions with prevaling scientific theories. |
So Biblical verse exists in a vacuum? No, sorry, if it conflicts with established scientific and historical knowledge, I think it's fair to call it a gross error.
quote:
Gen 4:18 talks about Cain's line.
Gen 5:21 talks about Seth's line.
There's a wee bit of difference here between the persons Methusael and Methuselah. |
I'm going to stop here with this one before proceeding to the others.
Here is the translation from the original Hebrew--not your sanitizes NIV version:
Gen 4:18-19:
îŔúĺĚůŃČŕĹě, ĺĚîŔúĺĚůŃČŕĹě, éČěÇă ŕĆú-ěČîĆęŔ. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael; and Mehujael begot Methushael; and Methushael begot Lamech.
éč ĺÇéĚÄ÷ĚÇç-ěĺÉ ěĆîĆęŔ, ůŃŔúĚĹé đČůŃÄéí: ůŃĹí äČŕÇçÇú ňČăČä, ĺŔůŃĹí äÇůĚŃĹđÄéú öÄěĚČä. 19 And Lamech took unto him two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
And Gen 5
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begot Methuselah.
ëá ĺÇéĚÄúŔäÇěĚĹęŔ çÂđĺÉęŔ ŕĆú-äČŕÁěÉäÄéí, ŕÇçÂřĹé äĺÉěÄéăĺÉ ŕĆú-îŔúĺĚůŃĆěÇç, ůŃŔěÉůŃ îĹŕĺÉú, ůŃČđČä; ĺÇéĚĺÉěĆă áĚČđÄéí, ĺĚáČđĺÉú. 22 And Enoch walked with God after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
ëâ ĺÇéŔäÄé, ëĚČě-éŔîĹé çÂđĺÉęŔ, çČîĹůŃ ĺŔůŃÄůĚŃÄéí ůŃČđČä, ĺĚůŃŔěÉůŃ îĹŕĺÉú ůŃČđČä. 23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years.
ëă ĺÇéĚÄúŔäÇěĚĹęŔ çÂđĺÉęŔ, ŕĆú-äČŕÁěÉäÄéí; ĺŔŕĹéđĆđĚĺĚ, ëĚÄé-ěČ÷Çç ŕÉúĺÉ ŕÁěÉäÄéí. {ń} 24 And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him. {S}
ëä ĺÇéŔçÄé îŔúĺĚůŃĆěÇç, ůŃĆáÇň ĺĚůŃŔîÉđÄéí ůŃČđČä ĺĚîŔŕÇú ůŃČđČä; ĺÇéĚĺÉěĆă, ŕĆú-ěČîĆęŔ. 25 And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begot Lamech.
Notice how both Methuselah and Methushael begat Lamech--they are the same person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
However, the specific allusion is to the entire testing of Job, that God offered Satan the chance to tempt an upright Job, knowledge unavailable without divine revelation. |
I still don't see what you're getting at.
Are you, or are you not, arguing that the truth of the Bible is verified by the contents of the Book of Job?
If I say that God, Satan and Job are all mythical: can you point to any actual knowledge in Job that was unavailable to the authors without divine revelation? If you believe Job is literally true: yes, I can see that no human author would know the inside story without being told it by God. But nothing rules out Job being fiction.
quote:
Okay. That's a fine thesis. If I can show one prophecy that works, I can defeat this arguement.
To start, what about Joseph?
Gen 41:39, 49, 54
"Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Eypt, but seven years of famine will follow them."
"Joseph stored up huge quantiteies of grain, like the sand of the sea; it was so much that he stopped keeping records because it was beyond measure."
"There was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food." |
Where is the extra-Biblical confirmation that Egypt did indeed experience seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine, as claimed in the Bible?
I don't think you've quite got the hang of this...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
Maybe it would help if I gave a hypothetical example of a successful prophecy.
There is no doubt that all of the books of the OT were written before the (supposed) time of Jesus, and all the books of the NT were written after. So, if an OT book predicted the name of the Roman emperor, or of other political figures such as Quirinus, Pontius Pilate or Herod (bearing in mind that there was more than one king by that name), that would be a "true prophecy".
Or an NT (or OT) prophecy that the nation of Israel would dissolve, then re-form about 2,000 years later.
Basically, anything reasonably specific and not easily guessable, written in a book known to precede the event, and confirmed by historical or other extra-Biblical sources as having actually occurred as predicted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
juhani_kahvi
|
 |
Mänttä, Finland
Mar 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
To Angelo Scotto, this has indeed become off-topic. If anyone starts a thread, inform me.
quote:
Let's compare claims. Assuming that both human knowledge and divine knowledge fulfill their promises, how does human knowledge stack up? Does human knowledge allow us to raise the dead, so that those raised shall not die or decay? |
Does divine knowledge offer us that? If it does, why aren't priests raising people from the dead at the morgue, since it is possible?
There are no reliable records of resurrections. The Great Judgement is not applicable, since it has not yet happened.
quote:
As a Christian, I consider this to be a necessary part of my life, this promise of everlasting life. It helps me to get out of bed in the morning. |
Things don't come true because you believe in them or need them. Besides, there are also some of us who do not find such a promise necessary at all. I wonder why don't they.
quote:
Even if we do accomplish everything through human knowledge, the knowledge may not pass on to the next generation. |
I have no trouble accepting that. And yet, I am not even a nihilist of any kind.
quote:
Why do I need God? Look at it this way, if you were given wings to fly, would you strap on your rocket belt for old time's sake? |
Look at it this way: I don't NEED to fly. Walking is fine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
Let's compare claims. Assuming that both human knowledge and divine knowledge fulfill their promises, how does human knowledge stack up? Does human knowledge allow us to raise the dead, so that those raised shall not die or decay? |
First, the claim was Neitzche's, not my own. I was just paraphrasing him as a possible interpretation of what Angelo was saying.
Second, as was stated, until you can raise the dead yourself, this argument doesn't have much merit, does it?
Human knowledge has created medicines that have greatly enhanced the human lifespan and people's health around the globe. Human medical knowledge has also resuscitated people who have died briefly.
quote:
As a Christian, I consider this to be a necessary part of my life, this promise of everlasting life. It helps me to get out of bed in the morning. |
If that's what drives you, so be it, that's your perrogative. Personally, I would find it rather sad if my only hope when getting up in the morning was that someday I'd be in some perfect paradise.
I get up each morning because I believe this is the only life I will have, and I have to make it count while it's here. If I don't enjoy myself here, it will be nowhere. I think this leads me to a great appreciation of life and what the world has to offer.
quote:
Human knowledge cannot permanently survive. As a historian there are huge gaps between what has happened, and what we know has happened simply because time erodes knowledge. |
Knowledge in and of itself is not useful, it's how we apply it. Even if we forget the historical antecedents for something, the surviving wisdom proves fruitful to humanity. We don't know the historical way in which many traditions that benefit us were created, but so long as we have them, we are better.
Knowledge being forgotten is inevitable (though it is greatly lessened by new technologies), but that doesn't render the pursuit of knowledge futile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
To Angelo Scotto, this has indeed become off-topic. If anyone starts a thread, inform me.
|
To quote yourself:
I W0N!!!11!!11!¤#"""!!1
Back to the topic,
about the Bible accuracy:
I don't think Bible was written to be historically and scientifically accurate (and neither church think this, i believe);
come on, at school teachers told us Newton's physics even if they know it was not accurate, they told us that electrons orbit around nucleii as planets around stars and this too is false, and i could continue.
But no one complains about it, because it's a nonsense to cover kids with hard-to-understand-but-accurate notions, they aren't able to understand the real theory, so we give them a dumbed-down version of science to make them understand central points, waiting for them to grow up and discover the real theory on their own.
Bible could be the same thing just for mankind instead of man, mankind was too young (or dumb) to understand things such as big-bang, evolution, space-time, blah, blah, blah and so God talked us in terms of genesis, etc...
I could be wrong but trying to take the Bible and start yelling "read here, it's not accurate, read there, it's a contraddiction" is like opening a school physics book and start yelling "read here, it's not true, we've QM" or opening Newton's Principia and start yelling "read there, he's wrong, we've relativity!": you can do it and no one could argue you're wrong but IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely.
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
I can't find the exact quote, but didn't Douglas Adams point out that faith is a prerequisite to God's existence and that if He were to show up one day and say "HI", thus proving He Exists, He would disappear in a puff of logic ?
|
That was an interesting point:
God (at least the biblical one) said clearly and several times (ok, if the book was correct at least on that...) that humans can reach him only with faith (and not with reason).
Now, if he simply show up one day and say "HI" this should prove his existance without the need of faith.
So, we obtain this:
if he doesn't exist he obviously can't pop-up.
but if he exists he simply won't pop-up.
So it seems that, logically speaking, he check-mated us in a single move...
hardly surprising since he, if exists, is God...
Well, one could argue that this was an invention of bible-writers to fool us but i don't think that a group of 4th century nomad (obi's copyright ) was so gifted in logic, onthology and science philosophy to trick us that way (considering that logic and philosophy were still in infancy while science was still far from being invented).
Another interesting thing to notice is that christian religion is not the only one to reject the use of reason to proof the existance of metaphysics (for example the "enlightment" concept of buddhism is all against rational reasoning) but this IMHO, far from being a proof that all these religions have "something to hide" is simply a proof that they talk about metaphysics:
As Kant said (i'm unworthy  to cite him but i'll do anyway) the point is that the traditional attempts to prove that God really exists, founded as they are on what we experience, cannot establish the reality of a being necessarily beyond all experience.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
juhani_kahvi
|
|
Mänttä, Finland
Mar 2002
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
...I could be wrong but trying to take the Bible and start yelling "read here, it's not accurate, read there, it's a contraddiction" is like opening a school physics book and start yelling "read here, it's not true, we've QM" or opening Newton's Principia and start yelling "read there, he's wrong, we've relativity!": you can do it and no one could argue you're wrong but IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely. |
However, now a great part of mankind has developed to a stage where the biblical "crude" explanations actually DON'T make any sense anymore, exactly because of their crudeness. It doesn't help people to understand Bible anymore, instead, it prevents it.
(Again, it seems like god loves only stupid people...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Where is the extra-Biblical confirmation that Egypt did indeed experience seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine, as claimed in the Bible?
|
Well, that's a whole 'nother boat.
You really should specify that when you are looking for a prophecy.
quote:
Are you, or are you not, arguing that the truth of the Bible is verified by the contents of the Book of Job?
|
I am arguing that this section of Job indicates that some parts of scripture can only be known through divine revelation. We have no way of using human methods to test these passages.
quote:
There is no doubt that all of the books of the OT were written before the (supposed) time of Jesus, and all the books of the NT were written after. So, if an OT book predicted the name of the Roman emperor, or of other political figures such as Quirinus, Pontius Pilate or Herod (bearing in mind that there was more than one king by that name), that would be a "true prophecy".
Or an NT (or OT) prophecy that the nation of Israel would dissolve, then re-form about 2,000 years later.
|
You violate your own methods when you say that the passage in Isaiah's prophesies can be successfully fulfilled later inside the book of Isaiah. My example is precisely the same as the prophecy you refer to in Isaiah.
So tough luck. Either revise your definition, or admit that you have already rejected a passage by appealing to a biblical prophecy outside of your definition of what constitutes a prophecy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Second, as was stated, until you can raise the dead yourself, this argument doesn't have much merit, does it?
|
Boris:
God's knowledge allows people to be resurrected. I do not have knowledge equivalent to God, therefore, I cannot raise the dead. Your example illustrates why divine knowledge is superior to human knowledge.
quote:
Human knowledge has created medicines that have greatly enhanced the human lifespan and people's health around the globe. Human medical knowledge has also resuscitated people who have died briefly.
|
Hardly resurrection of the body, as described in scripture. Resuscitation does not equate with resurrection.
quote:
If that's what drives you, so be it, that's your perrogative. Personally, I would find it rather sad if my only hope when getting up in the morning was that someday I'd be in some perfect paradise.
|
It gives me hope when I see the troubles of this world, to know that I will see everything eventually fade away. If I relied upon living the best life, what do I do when I constantly fail?
quote:
So in other words, you reject applying the more direct Hebrew translations in favor of the NIV, which is an obvious attempt to sanitize the Bible and correct its errors? The NIV was compiled when, confronted with all the Biblical contradictions, folks decided to eliminate some of them by hook or by crook. The basis for the translation is wishful thinking, not accuracy.
|
No. I literally mean you can't see the forest for the trees. The passages are two different lines of human ancestry entirely. If you read the hebrew properly, you would see this, and understand the mistake you made.
quote:
The NIV is not reliable. The KJV is more accurate in terms of its translation of the ancient texts.
|
Words change over time. Do you understand the KJV in the same way that someone would have when the KJV was first written?
Secondly, I am happy to continue this detailed argument that takes lots of my time, if I feel we will generate some results.
What's the point of arguing over the differences between the NIV and the KJV when you do not acknowledge the truth of the sections where they agree?
You obviously have experience with scripture, so why do you reject Christ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Angelo Scotto:
quote:
I don't think Bible was written to be historically and scientifically accurate (and neither church think this, i believe);
|
Not quite. The Bible was written as an excellent historical testimony into the workings of God on the lives of men. You can see this in the historical sections of the bible, where the historian will leave out information not relevant to understanding the nature of God, areas that God does not play a big role in someone's life.
The same can be said with Genesis. That is why you see a description in the form that we do, rather than in the way a physics textbook would describe the creation of the universe. Physics focusses on the process, while Genesis focusses on the creator.
This does not excuse me from trying to show how the two can work together. There are difficulties, but that has more to do with the different purposes than any outright contradiction between the two sources of knowledge.
quote:
Bible could be the same thing just for mankind instead of man, mankind was too young (or dumb) to understand things such as big-bang, evolution, space-time, blah, blah, blah and so God talked us in terms of genesis, etc...
|
So adults way back when were stupid and dull? That's why aliens had to have built the Pyramids, because obviously they were too stupid to have figured things out for themselves.
Today, we are incredibly arrogant, but what astonishes me is the amount of knowledge we have lost over time. How can we judge what people knew, without a full record?
quote:
IMHO doing so will make you miss the point completely.
|
Perceptive. We can spend all day on these points, but they are more useful to expose bias against scripture than for anything else.
quote:
God (at least the biblical one) said clearly and several times (ok, if the book was correct at least on that...) that humans can reach him only with faith (and not with reason).
|
Indeed, the Bible says that faith is necessary to reach God, but you must understand what faith means. Faith means that you trust God with your life based on the assurances provided by scripture. God, fortunately, does not expect us to believe in his existence through faith alone.
Looking at 1 Corinthians 15, we see that without the resurrection, we have nothing, no concrete evidence that the God that exists is the Christian God.
juhani_kavi:
quote:
It doesn't help people to understand Bible anymore, instead, it prevents it.
|
So why trust science? Scientific theories come and go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
God's knowledge allows people to be resurrected. I do not have knowledge equivalent to God, therefore, I cannot raise the dead. Your example illustrates why divine knowledge is superior to human knowledge. |
Problem is that God's knowledge in this regard is unsubstantiated, whereas medice has demonstrably been able to "bring people back." Looks like as far as evidence goes, we're one over God.
quote:
Hardly resurrection of the body, as described in scripture. Resuscitation does not equate with resurrection. |
Again, such resurrection is not substantiated. The writings of the ancient Egyptians claim that Osiris was resurrected after being hacked to pieces. So did he beat Jesus to the punch?
quote:
It gives me hope when I see the troubles of this world, to know that I will see everything eventually fade away. If I relied upon living the best life, what do I do when I constantly fail? |
I don't see why you need to believe in a mythical paradise to have hope for the world. In fact, it seems to me such a notion would inhibit many from trying to make this world a better place. "Oh, things are bad, but it will all be alright in heaven, so I don't need to do anything about it."
And what failures? If you aim to be perfect, that's your problem. I aim to live the best life of which I am capable, knowing I'm not perfect. Yes, I'll screw up and yes, I'll have bad times--but so what? That's part of life and doesn't mean I'm bad for my mistakes. I certainly don't need the threat of an eternal spanking or the promises of cherubim and seraphim to keep me in line/going. You're here, you're alive, you have choices--I don't think life philosophies need to get too complicated beyond that.
quote:
No. I literally mean you can't see the forest for the trees. The passages are two different lines of human ancestry entirely. If you read the hebrew properly, you would see this, and understand the mistake you made. |
I understand the bloodlines and will concede this point, but my mention of the original Hebrew--as well as the unreliability of the NIV--was more towards the later dovetailing out of the other contradictions.
quote:
Words change over time. Do you understand the KJV in the same way that someone would have when the KJV was first written? |
That's why I like to find more accurate translations of the Hebrew--after all, the KJV was assembled by people with an agenda as well. I think it is more reasonable to take the words in the Hebrew at their face value in as many instances as possible rather than relying on tortured excuses or inexplicable word changes (NIV) to sanitize what is said.
quote:
You obviously have experience with scripture, so why do you reject Christ? |
Why do you reject Osiris? Marduk? Zeus? Vishnu? Mohammed's prophecies? Buddha?
Your explanations for those might give a hint as to why I reject your religious dogma, and all religious dogma. The simple matter is that I see absolutely no reason, other than the rather venal "I don't wanna die, I wanna go to heaven!" one, to believe in an all-powerful god who created everything. I feel even less compunction to devote myself to any of the myths created by man, whether it be Christianity, Zorastrianism, Shintoism, etc., as they all are full of, to be frank, a lot of BS.
It's fine if you need such a philosophy to get you through your day, but I do not need it nor do I want it. If it turns out god exists and he's so petty as to damn me for not believing in him, no matter what my works are as a person, then I wouldn't feel remorse over it, because he will have proven himself evil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Seventh from Adam. Seven generations, counting Adam.
|
Don't buy it. Seventh from is a clear statement of seven, not counting Adam. But I doubt we'll agree.
quote:
NIV:
"neither the son of man that he should change his mind."
Ex. 32:14
Quite different in the NIV:
"Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."
God threatens in order to inspire righteousness, rebukes so that the Israelites repent. |
NIV is crap. Original Hebrew:
Num 23
19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?
Ex 32:
14 And the LORD repented of the evil which He said He would do unto His people.
However you want to translate "repent," whether as remorse or changing his mind, the text clearly says in one point God will not do it, and then that he did do it. It also, I will point out, says that God was capable of committing an evil act on his people.
quote:
Again, the NIV renders Gen 14:16 as:
"He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions."
So I fail to see the contradiction that Abraham finds his brother captured and then rescues Lot in the immediately following passages. |
You fail to see it because you're relying on the bastardized NIV rather than the original text. That much is obvious.
Gen 14:
12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.
16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
The word used is "brother."
Deal with that for now, gotta get to work!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
You violate your own methods when you say that the passage in Isaiah's prophesies can be successfully fulfilled later inside the book of Isaiah. My example is precisely the same as the prophecy you refer to in Isaiah.
So tough luck. Either revise your definition, or admit that you have already rejected a passage by appealing to a biblical prophecy outside of your definition of what constitutes a prophecy. |
Not to step on Jack's toes, but you're not making sense here, obiwan. Jack cited the Isaiah prophecy because, in the Bible the prediction is made and then, in Isaiah, it is fulfilled. And THEN, in the NT, it is said that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy. Whether or not the prophecy was successfully fulfilled in reality is not the relevant point, it's that you can't have it both ways. Either the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah, or by Jesus, but it can't be both.
Now, as a matter of history, the prophecy itself was probably invented after the fulfillment and then backed into, like many Biblical prophesies. But your saying Jack can't cite this as an example is a cop out to avoid explaining how, according to the infallible Bible, Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy that was, according to the infallible Bible, already fulfilled.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-06-2003 12:48
|