Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

Further noting that the bible has been modified and altered throughout the course of history, the language barrier of translations should not be excluded either.

The Ancient Hebrew word sa·ʽir′ which literally means hairy, combined with the Hebrew term seʽi·rim′ which means senseless or wild goat means that this is referring to a hairy goat dancing. The context of these scriptures is talking about wild animals.....
The Hebrew words tse′phaʽ and tsiph·ʽoh·ni′ refer to poisonous snakes or vipers. The King James Version incorrectly translated these words as referring to the mythical “cockatrice." Again even with the King James version look ate the context of your scrpture. I even says vipers and snakes...
Oh boy... aside from the fact that the Hebrew term reʼem′ refers to wild oxen, or bulls, Shouldn't the fact that it says "his horns are like the horns"... Horns with an "s" indicates more then one....

Thank you for verifying my claim that translating can bring about errors in the indicated meaning of the texts.

That's why you must do research. You think it's been rewritten, but a good Bible translation, uses the real meanings of the original Hebrew words. The King James version, was translated with a slightly poetic tone.

You seem to forget the removal of several verses and texts over the course of history.

- If the Bible is supposed to be infallible, then why were several texts modified and or removed? (Lilith & Jesus' childhood for example).

- Based on the point above, doesn't it go against God's word, and indicate that the Bible has indeed been changed over the past 2000 years? Possibly altering the meanings even, lets not forget the language translation issues.

- I ask again, provide data that indicate God(s) exists, so far nothing has been given except claims from the religious texts (Bible mainly). Can you indicate a valid way to measure/observe the existence of God(s)?

- If the same argument persists "need to disprove God(s) existence" or "we can't collect data on God(s)", then I ask you this again: We cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns, Lochness Mosters and other 'mythical beings' (or even observe/research) yet the majority would say they do not exist. Then why is the concept of God(s) an exception? Also note that those mentioned creatures are also written in countless ancient texts, what makes them less valid than the religious text (the Bible)?

Many Religious Scholars agree that the the monotheistic religions (Jewdaism, Islam and Christianity) arose from polytheistic religions. The most notable indication is the Enuma Elish, that predates the Bible (other similar religious texts) and there are some similarities between them.

In turn, considering the Bible as a primary source and use for evidence is fallacious.

I wasn't talking about any judicial proceeding. What is the natural tendency we have, as humans, to do when someone makes a false claim against us? It's to refute those claims and give proof if we have it.

That is the initial reaction, but ultimately, it is the accuser that needs to provide the evidence to validate the accusation. You seem to want to avoid being in this situation.

You and Yanoda have been singing the "please provide proof" song throughout this whole thread, now when your the ones being asked to abide by the same rules it's like "oh your crazy for wanting iron clad proof" Oh The Nerve!

It is your burden to provide the evidence, we both (Crater and I) have provided several sources, links, explanations etc. supporting our position. Yet you complain about having to provide your own valid source/evidence? Very amusing.

Yes, I am attached to my belief, but you are as well. Thats because it is a BELIEF, you can't prove a belief. You would believe that no God exists no er what I say or show or prove. It is the same with me and Christianity and Creationism. (Deep down, you would really reject Creationism no er what evidence I threw at you because you reject the concept of a God. Therefore, you accept evolution because it is the competing theory.)

Also, you are making some very concrete claims that I disagree with, but I respect your beliefs. Please accord me the same respect.

Having no evidence or measurable data on the existence of God(s) and claiming it/they exist is a belief. Stating that current evidence is not sufficient (there is no measurable way to collect data/evidence on God(s)) to support the existence of God(s) and thus, there no basis to make the claim of their existence. Doing so otherwise is a Belief as you state. There is evidence (many) indicating the process on Evolution and the early moments of the Universe, basing one's views on those evidences is not a belief.
We have provided considerable information, evidence, sources. observations and data that support Evolution. Also note, that Evolution is the very foundation of Modern Biology.

Proof:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

Evidence:
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
Different? Ok your right. When you start trying to split hairs like this our discussion is a an end.
I've given my evidence/proof if you want to stick your head in the sand to ignore it, that's your decision.

They are different Homestar.
Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.

Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof because anyone else can also have that jacket.
Good explanation: http://bobsiegel.net/articles/2010/02/w ... -evidence/

On similar note, I maintain that Evolution and Creationism are both good for each other, since they force each other to improve and interpret evidence better. Competition is good.

Note that there is considerable disparity in the number of evidences for Evolution and Creationism, the former having vastly more. Therefore, they are not in direct competition.

Cheers

Yanoda

Interesting videos that I recommend watching.

[THEWULFMAN]

I'll just address one thing.

- If the Bible is supposed to be infallible, then why were several texts modified and or removed? (Lilith & Jesus' childhood for example).

Because humans are fallible. We will change historical texts to suit our own needs and goals. The bible isn't the only example of humans changing books to meet our wants.

[Col. Hstar]

Thank you for verifying my claim that translating can bring about errors in the indicated meaning of the texts.

To dismiss the bible because you read an inaccurate translation, is not a valid reason to do so. If someone was explaining your beliefs on evolution to me in an incorrect fashion, would I then be allowed to say everything you say is wrong?
This was why I said you had to do some research into the scriptures. Look for a translation that converts the original texts and meanings to our language today. It also involves common sense, (I mean really, you didn't see the reference to the horns of a unicorn)

You seem to forget the removal of several verses and texts over the course of history.

- If the Bible is supposed to be infallible, then why were several texts modified and or removed? (Lilith & Jesus' childhood for example).

Lilith - Are you referring to this Hebrew word for Night Owl? Give some context to what your saying.

Jesus' childhood - Here are you referring to the Gospel of Tomas? A work that is mostly discredited because if Jesus had been performing miracles as a child the people in his hometown of Nazareth would not have rejected him as the Messiah?
If you are I don't get you, you use a story that is unreliable, untrue, and utterly useless and you blame the Bible for NOT having it????

- Based on the point above, doesn't it go against God's word, and indicate that the Bible has indeed been changed over the past 2000 years? Possibly altering the meanings even, lets not forget the language translation issues.

Um no, because your arguments are illogical, and unfounded.....next!

- I ask again, provide data that indicate God(s) exists, so far nothing has been given except claims from the religious texts (Bible mainly). Can you indicate a valid way to measure/observe the existence of God(s)?

You are not going to get what you ask for. If you dismiss the Bible in your own mind thats up to you.
Matthew 11:25 25 - At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes.

- If the same argument persists "need to disprove God(s) existence" or "we can't collect data on God(s)", then I ask you this again: We cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns, Lochness Mosters and other 'mythical beings' (or even observe/research) yet the majority would say they do not exist. Then why is the concept of God(s) an exception? Also note that those mentioned creatures are also written in countless ancient texts, what makes them less valid than the religious text (the Bible)?

Because the Bible is not like countless ancient texts. It has a perfect record of prophecies that have come true, it's historical value is accurate, on the parts where it does touch on sconce, it is ahead of its time, despite being written by different men, in different places, at different times, it's remains harmonious, and finally it's advice is practical even for us today almost 2000 years after the last book was written.

Many Religious Scholars agree that the the monotheistic religions (Jewdaism, Islam and Christianity) arose from polytheistic religions. The most notable indication is the Enuma Elish, that predates the Bible (other similar religious texts) and there are some similarities between them.

You and I agree somewhat on the origins of most religions (see my post on page 43 post # 9) But this discussion was on the validity of the Bible, not any one particular religion. I am more then willing to stand up for and explain mine, but if we went through each and every religion on the planet this topic would go 1000 pages long.

In turn, considering the Bible as a primary source and use for evidence is fallacious.

In your own personal opinion

[11_Panama_]

This is the never ending post. I'm sorry to say this but, after the last post is posted....nothing will be gained, understood or achived. Your faiths and beliefs will remain the same as it always was. It's also absurd to keep this up just to reach 100 pages. Col., you will not make an "unbeliever" (specialy one that wants proof), to believe in any type of a deity. The same goes to Yanoda and Crater....you will not take away someones faith (which is actually easier to do than the latter). My faith has been shaken before, but never broken.

[Col. Hstar]

This is the never ending post. I'm sorry to say this but, after the last post is posted....nothing will be gained, understood or achived. Your faiths and beliefs will remain the same as it always was. It's also absurd to keep this up just to reach 100 pages. Col., you will not make an "unbeliever" (specialy one that wants proof), to believe in any type of a deity. The same goes to Yanoda and Crater....you will not take away someones faith (which is actually easier to do than the latter). My faith has been shaken before, but never broken.

I believe we each have said this as well at some point in this thread. No one comes to a game website to seek divine answers.

I'm still going to correct/explain anything I feel I need to.

And BTW Pan, thanks for adding another post on our quest to 100 pages

[11_Panama_]

imagesCANN2OSS.jpg (7.13 KiB) Viewed 1122 times

[Darth Crater]

(NOTE: many of the sites I link to here are biased against religion. Not everything on them is true, most likely. Many of the things they list are pointlessly pedantic, poor interpretations, or possibly even demonstrably false. This does not matter - if even one thing per site is true, Homestar's argument for the Bible's validity is false. Anyway, sites which appear to be about as biased the other way keep getting cited...)

Because the Bible is not like countless ancient texts.

In what way? How is it not like, say, the Tanakh? The Quran? Hindu or Buddhist texts?

It has a perfect record of prophecies that have come true

Demonstrably false.
http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

it's historical value is accurate

The ages of patriarchs, commonly listed as hundreds of years? http://bible.org/article/ages-antediluv ... -genesis-5
The worldwide flood, which I will tear to even more shreds if I ever get my response to Cypher up, but basically contradicts everything we know?
The Tower of Babel, which somehow magically changed the language people spoke (to a system where it looks remarkably like languages developed naturally, no less)?

on the parts where it does touch on sconce, it is ahead of its time

(assuming you mean science, not a light fixture)
http://www.godlesshaven.com/articles/bible-science.html

despite being written by different men, in different places, at different times, it's remains harmonious

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

and finally it's advice is practical even for us today almost 2000 years after the last book was written.

Some is good, and common sense: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Good_Bible_Advice
Some isn't. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Bad_Bible_Advice

[Col. Hstar]

(NOTE: many of the sites I link to here are biased against religion. Not everything on them is true, most likely. Many of the things they list are pointlessly pedantic, poor interpretations, or possibly even demonstrably false. This does not er - if even one thing per site is true, Homestar's argument for the Bible's validity is false.

So what you saying is, you can't argue it yourself, but here some sites, which might possibly be bogus, and biased but if just one thing is true on them my argument is wrong....

[[m'kay]]

Homestar, you're saying that the entire world was flooded because a book said so. I'm not entirely sure you get to talk [poo] about other people's sources.

[Darth Crater]

No, what I'm saying is that while those sites have plenty of information that contradicts your point, I don't agree with some of their tactics and don't feel like wading through them to pick out the better examples. They were just the first decent-sounding results on Google. If you can get someone else to back up your statement, I'll put more effort into things. Good luck - I'm pretty sure even the Pope would take issue with the statement I quoted.

Also, I notice you haven't actually addressed any of my points...