Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Col. Hstar]

Ah yes because the best way to seriously debate the bible is to "Google" it.

If you don't want to put the time in to post an argument why should I take it seriously. I failed to see any argument you made that I didn't "address." Typing something into Google and pasting links is not proof or evidence, I know that "everything" found on the internet "seems" trustworthy, but I like to get my information from someone who is not also making videos while in his underwear. (Look at the guy who uploaded the videos Yanoda posted)

@ the MVP - Anyone engaged in a debate, who offers proof but prefaces it saying they didn't look that close at it, they don't know how reliable it is, and it even sound biased to them, should be laughed at mercilessly. Just stop and think for one second if I had posted links and started my post with those same words. Honestly what do you think they would have said.....

[Darth Crater]

Just trying to be honest about my sources. I'll find higher-reliability stuff when I find a partner worth the effort. Feel free to stop deflecting and defend any or all of the segments of that statement I quoted. That, or stop admitting the Bible as evidence.

[Col. Hstar]

Just trying to be honest about my sources. I'll find higher-reliability stuff when I find a partner worth the effort. Feel free to stop deflecting and defend any or all of the segments of that statement I quoted. That, or stop admitting the Bible as evidence.

If you didn't feel it was worth the effort then why post in the first place. My post was directed at Yanoda's post.(hence all the quotes by him)

I've already told you that I felt your arguments have become more about petty word games and splitting hairs, then anything else. Now I'm supposed to respond to your Google links?
Fine there you go.

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+the+ ... =firefox-a

Please tell me what this argument of yours is that I haven't addressed.

[Yanoda]

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.

Exactly, that is why I'm skeptical on the validity of the Bible or any other religious texts as absolute truth. Note that the argument for the validity of the religious texts is that they are old and have been preserved (both texts and teachings) for centuries. Science (the process) is inherently different, it constantly changes to add/correct/adjust our understanding based on many studies conducted my many scientists.

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)

The bible or any other religious text is very broad in their terms and meanings. Why is it that there are so many sub-religions on one major religion? It is because they interpret the Text differently. The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible. Though I doubt you'd have the same religious views as Judaism. I would also recommend doing some research on the fundamentals of each scientific subject to fully understand the reasons for why the Bible can't be considered as a primary source in these subjects.

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

She's mentioned many times, even in the dead sea scrolls. Many scholars agree that it does not reference Lilith to a Night Owl. She is depicted as a demon, though if you read the story, you'll understand why and her origin.

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????

You dismiss this story because it is "unreliable and untrue"? Crater and I have given points on the Bible for those same points, yet you consider the Bible as True and flawless. Thank you for showing your double standard.

- 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!

How so? The Bible is interpreted in different ways, there are several denominations within a religion, each having different stories/views.
Homestar, making such claims "illogical & unfounded" without giving an argument is disrespectful. Until you provide an argument, your claim is dismissed.

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.

No, I dismiss the Bible because there are aspects that do not correlate, research has found that several events in the Bible were erroneous, many Scholars (study religious texts) agree that the monotheistic religions originated from a polytheistic religion and, that the books are based on the Enuma Elish and other stories from different religions.
So based on what Jesus says, only the uneducated can believe in God? Seems to coincide with those that do not understand science, the processes and research.

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.

Crater already addressed it so I have nothing much else to add.

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.

It is relevant to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is based on several ancient texts and stories put into one book. Regarding the bible as truth would mean that the other religious texts are also true (such as the Enuma Elish, which the creation story of the Bible originates from). Each religion/religious text claims it is true and the one true religion. This is the problem with the argument validating one's own religion, others use the same arguments to validate theirs.

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

In your own personal opinion

No. It is based on the available evidence, and erroneous points of the Bible, that I have come to the conclusion.

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+the+ ... =firefox-a

First link's reason why the Bible is true: http://www.therivercrc.com/library/seekers/bible.htm
1. "The Bible claims it's true"
2. "Jesus claims it's true"
Very amusing points. Sorry, but these cannot be considered valid claims. Other religious texts also claim they are true, yet you do not consider them as such. Any text or literature that claims it is true, is suspicious.
3. The Bible is a morally and ethically superior piece of literature
The argument is quite lacking and does not fully address the claim.
4. The Bible has the power to affect us
Just like any book that has captivated its readers. Like the book - Lord of the Rings, it has captivated many people, many have dedicated their time to the lore.
5. The Bible has extraordinary unity
Argument is also lacking.
6. The Bible is historically accurate
Refer to points Crater and I have mentioned.
7. Bible prophecies are fulfilled
I have yet to fully see a prophecy be fulfilled. Reading through several of them, it is easily seen that they are very broad and can be interpreted many different ways. Also, claims of prophecies that correlate to events occur only when the event already happened. Examples are claims that the Bible predicted 9/11: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread495548/pg1 amusingly the claims only occurred after the event happened and the interpretations are different for every group. There are other claims that Nostradamus also predicted the event, also in a very broad sense that can be interpreted in different ways. Seems he should be considered a prophet as well.
8. The Bible has been extraordinarily preserved
Other major texts were also much preserved (Vedas) and the Pyramid Texts even pre-date the Bible or other religious texts. Further noting that the Bible is composed of several different texts written in different time periods. The Old-Testament is actually part of the Hebrew Bible, which is where the early Christian Bible originates from. Furthermore, Christianity originated from Judaism.
9.The Bible writers endured great persecution for what they saw
Many people faced persecution for different reasons throughout history. Don't forget that people/individuals also faced prosecution from the Church that showed studies that contradicted their beliefs. Example is the contradictory view of the Earth being the center of the Universe despite studies indicating otherwise, 400 years ago. Galileo was found suspect of heresy, was under house arrest for the rest of his life and the publication of his works were forbidden.
10. The Bible changes lives
Many other things in life also change people. The argument left out the negative aspect of it, many people throughout history did horrendous actions in the name of God and their belief. Considering the positives a religion can bring, one must also include the negatives it has brought.

Ah yes because the best way to seriously debate the bible is to "Google" it.
If you don't want to put the time in to post an argument why should I take it seriously. I failed to see any argument you made that I didn't "address." Typing something into Google and pasting links is not proof or evidence, I know that "everything" found on the internet "seems" trustworthy, but I like to get my information from someone who is not also making videos while in his underwear. (Look at the guy who uploaded the videos Yanoda posted)

The best way to argue against science is to provide conflicting evidence, to which you're lacking. Sorry, but Google isn't allowed in your arguments as well then. Seems your arguments cannot be considered serious either, since you used Google.
Wonderful, now you're making insults to people you never have met. Where in any of the videos was the author of the videos in underwear? You're making outrageous claims.

@ the MVP - Anyone engaged in a debate, who offers proof but prefaces it saying they didn't look that close at it, they don't know how reliable it is, and it even sound biased to them, should be laughed at mercilessly. Just stop and think for one second if I had posted links and started my post with those same words. Honestly what do you think they would have said.....

Perfect example of the videos dubbed "Why do people laugh at creationists", it is the very point the uploader makes, where several Creationists fail to fully understand the science behind many points. He even explains the reasons why it is wrong and also provides several simple experiments to prove his position. Though you dismiss it since the title is questionable in your view.
Crater was being honest on it. Despite it being not a valid point for argument. Homestar, your sources we're less than reliable as well. Remember the analysis I made on ICR where you posted several sources on it and claimed it as a trusted source? After I have shown the bias and manipulation of it on scientific studies. There was no mention of it again from you. Coincidence? I think not.

I even offered another analysis on an ICR article, though I assume it was overlooked. I can gladly provide another, but don't expect it to come within a short time frame.

Cheers

Yanoda

[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.

Exactly, that is why I'm skeptical on the validity of the Bible or any other religious texts as absolute truth. Note that the argument for the validity of the religious texts is that they are old and have been preserved (both texts and teachings) for centuries. Science (the process) is inherently different, it constantly changes to add/correct/adjust our understanding based on many studies conducted my many scientists.

I agree. Which is why I don't consider a very large portion of the Bible to be true, I don't trust it nearly as much as the Colonel does. I constantly change my view on Christianity to adjust into my understanding of science. I believe that religion and science can exist harmoniously. I basically adhere to a couple things in the bible:

1) God exists.
2) God created the universe (I don't even know if I believe that one).
3) Jesus is his son, and died on the cross for our sins. Then was resurrected days later.

That's about it. Most of everything else is either entirely a farce, or metaphors that were made for simple men to understand. Especially the Old Testament. The New Testament is better, and I trust it a lot more. I don't know if God had a hand in creating humans, I'm more than prepared to believe all life in Earth was all chance and evolution. I'm big into paleontology. It's one of the favorite subjects. I've studied the most on the Permian Period.

This is completely unrelated, just a random thought. I think someone somewhere in this thread mentioned Moses, and how old the bible says he lived. I think someone said he lived to be 400 or so, and that was a reason brought up about how absurd the bible is at times.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/34-7.htm

He lived to be 120 years old. And before anyone says you can't live to be that old, you can. Here's a 120 year old woman. And she's not the only one.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Oh dear, after so long it's kinda "lol" in what this thread has converted itself...

[Col. Hstar]

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????

You dismiss this story because it is "unreliable and untrue"? Crater and I have given points on the Bible for those same points, yet you consider the Bible as True and flawless. Thank you for showing your double standard.

Failed to see how it's a double standard. If it was in the bible you would call it unreliable, but since it's not in the bible that also makes it unreliable????

- 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!

How so? The Bible is interpreted in different ways, there are several denominations within a religion, each having different stories/views.
Homestar, making such claims "illogical & unfounded" without giving an argument is disrespectful. Until you provide an argument, your claim is dismissed.
Yanoda claiming my arguments are dismissed because they are not to your liking is disrespectful.

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.

No, I dismiss the Bible because there are aspects that do not correlate, research has found that several events in the Bible were erroneous, many Scholars (study religious texts) agree that the monotheistic religions originated from a polytheistic religion and, that the books are based on the Enuma Elish and other stories from different religions.
So based on what Jesus says, only the uneducated can believe in God? Seems to coincide with those that do not understand science, the processes and research.

The "wise and intellectual ones" are too haughty to give up the prestige and prominence their "knowledge" gives them. It takes a humble attitude to admit that mankind doesn't have all the answers, and its the height of arrogance to exclude God from the picture completely.

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.

Crater already addressed it so I have nothing much else to add.

You mean with the "unchecked" "bias" Google links?

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.

It is relevant to the validity of the Bible. The Bible is based on several ancient texts and stories put into one book. Regarding the bible as truth would mean that the other religious texts are also true (such as the Enuma Elish, which the creation story of the Bible originates from). Each religion/religious text claims it is true and the one true religion. This is the problem with the argument validating one's own religion, others use the same arguments to validate theirs.

You can't invalidate evidence because it's misused. You invalidate the theory it was erroneously presented for.

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

In your own personal opinion

No. It is based on the available evidence, and erroneous points of the Bible, that I have come to the conclusion.

Evidence that in your opinion is valid

Ah yes because the best way to seriously debate the bible is to "Google" it.
If you don't want to put the time in to post an argument why should I take it seriously. I failed to see any argument you made that I didn't "address." Typing something into Google and pasting links is not proof or evidence, I know that "everything" found on the internet "seems" trustworthy, but I like to get my information from someone who is not also making videos while in his underwear. (Look at the guy who uploaded the videos Yanoda posted)

The best way to argue against science is to provide conflicting evidence, to which you're lacking. Sorry, but Google isn't allowed in your arguments as well then. Seems your arguments cannot be considered serious either, since you used Google.
Wonderful, now you're making insults to people you never have met. Where in any of the videos was the author of the videos in underwear? You're making outrageous claims.

Crater posted Google arguments, if you took time to read my post you would see that I was being sarcastic. The guy who upload the videos you used has other videos in his account that he posted, one looks like he is in pjs or something. Still when all of his videos are titled "Steps to leaving theism" or whatever, they seem to be just a tiny bit on the bias side, don't you think

@ the MVP - Anyone engaged in a debate, who offers proof but prefaces it saying they didn't look that close at it, they don't know how reliable it is, and it even sound biased to them, should be laughed at mercilessly. Just stop and think for one second if I had posted links and started my post with those same words. Honestly what do you think they would have said.....

Perfect example of the videos dubbed "Why do people laugh at creationists",and you dont think thats disrespectful.... it is the very point the uploader makes, where several Creationists fail to fully understand the science behind many points. He even explains the reasons why it is wrong and also provides several simple experiments to prove his position. Though you dismiss it since the title is questionable in your view.
Crater was being honest on it. Despite it being not a valid point for argument. Homestar, your sources we're less than reliable as well. Remember the analysis I made on ICR where you posted several sources on it and claimed it as a trusted source? After I have shown the bias and manipulation of it on scientific studies. There was no mention of it again from you. Coincidence? I think not.

Not loss of confidence, but if your going to dismiss it saying it's bias why am I going to spend more time on it. We disagree. Your arguments are bias as well. You have to get over the fact that belief in God is not an irrational blind leap of faith. That's the issue I have with the post by you and Crater, you act like your theories are ironclad because you feel it's based only on what can be physically measured, but that doesn't make your argument airtight, it just narrows the conclusions you can draw.

[[m'kay]]

Right, i'm declaring myself the referee as of now. Further discussion of whether all of your arguments are biased or not is forbidden, as seriously this entire debate is just one big gangbang of biases. None of you are going to get a one-up over one another on this, you are all biased, and continuing to argue that the other person is more biased than you are is dumb and uninteresting. Please. Please, move on.

[Col. Hstar]

I know I'm double posting, but contrary to what others think, I am not trying to change anyone views, I don't think anyone would change, I know I wouldn't. I've enjoyed debating, I feel it has actually strengthen my own beliefs for me so I have no regrets, but I do think I am going to retire from all this. I'll look in now and then, but I don't have time for anymore long, long , long posts.
EDIT: Narg posted while I was typing for a long time so no double post I guess

As Wulf suggested, I'll just leave my last post with a short statement of my beliefs

Only believing what can be measured and physically tested
“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” This was a statement made by Professor Richard Dawkins (Natural History, Darwin & Evolution-The Illusion of Design pg 37). Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But experiments and direct observations do not provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support. Statistical data and facts are not enough when looking for the origin of life and our universe.

Belief in evolution is an act of “faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macro-evolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” (Materialism in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process) Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32) If you feel this is quote mining it's not. Look up the reference yourself. I just did not feel like posting all 4 pages.

It all comes to this: If you are to accept the teaching of macro-evolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex lifeforms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.
Now does all that sound as if it's based on facts, sorry I don't....

Is the Bible a Valid Source
As a reference I personally use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures It was translated as carefully as possible from the earliest original texts that can be found. Other translations of the bible are also fine. Just know the context and original meaning of what your reading.

The Bible does not contradict itself. True, there may appear to be discrepancies in certain Bible accounts. But the problem usually is lack of knowledge regarding details and circumstances of the times. If you find a verse in the bible, that you think does, I'll come out of retirement to explain it :) As far as if you feel books or texts were omitted from the Bible.... you can't have it both ways. The bible as we know it, with 66 books from Genesis - Revelation is what is at discussion here. The burden of proof falls on you and the texts you feel should be entered into the bible.

Bible Prophecy, is 100% accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls included a copy of the Book of Isaiah and the scrolls were dated about the 2nd century BCE before Christ was born, yet it had prophecies of what the lineage of the Messiah would be - Isaiah 9:7, how he would suffer - Isaiah 50:6, and his death - Isaiah 53:12. There were many more, including the rise and fall Alexander the Great - Daniel 8:5-8, 21, 22. Also the name of the conqueror of Babylon, as well as the manner of his conquering the city, given 150 years in advance - Isaiah 45:1

The historical accuracy of the Bible is well documented and while not a science text book it is scientifically sound. As far as the Flood since that was one I heard outcry over, why is it so unbelievable? Over 71% of the earth is covered by seawater, if glaciers and polar ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise to cover cities like New York and Tokyo. Also the ark was not a rounded boat as many artist drawings show. The bible says about the ark construction:

And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height.

In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume.

These are my beliefs, dispute them debate them, ultimately time will tell.
Col. signing off

[NiteRunner81]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this dogpile, but if you are not religious here is one thing that the bible can teach you that you should learn. Especially if you are the parents of a soon-to-be married ADULT:

Genesis 2-24 (KJV)

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one.

If your child/brother/sister/niece, etc is getting married support them and don't get in the middle of their marriage. You never know when your life will be cut short and think of all those years you might lose with your child if you drive them off because you didn't like (or worse despised) their spouse.