The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion - Page 12

Is this bet open to everyone?

Honestly?

This should be in the Off Topic Joke thread.

A fact is something that should never change or be proven wrong. How many "facts" in science change ,are proven wrongor end up being something different?

I do know what you are trying to say though.

Gen1GT

This is not a bet. I'd be more than happy to turn it into a bet if you have $5000 to spare???? I could use an extra $5k

You show me one example where the KJV of the Bible contradicts itself, taken in context, and you get $5000. I disprove it I get $5000. You wanna play?

If so we need to make arrangements on having someone trustworthy hold the money. Or better yet meet in person with maybe some of these people as eyewitnesses to be UNBIASED judges. Let me know.

Gen1GT

I couldn't agree more that Science is based on facts. That is why evolution is not science. Evolution is science falsely so called (1 Tim.6:20)

And BTW.... I've never professed to be a scientist. I'm also not an architect but I can look at the Leaning Tower of Pisa and see that it was not built on a solid foundation.

Here are some "facts" for you since you are into facts.

Nebraska Man Debunked (1922, 1928).
In 1922 a single molar tooth was found and named Hesperopithecus, or “Nebraska Man.”
An artist was told to make an “ape-man” picture based on the
tooth, which went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key
evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925. (The evolutionists had
little else to offer!). *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing
Nebraska Man, was knighted for his efforts in making known
this fabulous find. When paleontologists returned to the site in
1928, they found the rest of the skeleton,—and discovered the
tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution, 1990, p. 322). In 1972, living specimens of the same pig
were found in Paraguay.

Let's put the epeen away and do this the right way. No money needs to be involved. It should be fairly straight forward.

Exodus 7:10 - King James Version:

Let's make sure we see this in the same "context". The way I see it, we have Moses and Aaron appearing before Pharaoh. Aaron has been commanded by God to throw his staff on the ground in front of Pharaoh. He does so, and the staff "becomes" or turns into a serpent / snake.

Is that also your understanding of the meaning of this verse?

enickma

Yes Sir I'll accept that.
I'm pretty sure I know where you are going with this and I'm ok with it but just so you know. I do not have internet access at home so it will take me sometimes several days to respond to your inquiries.

I would also like to ask though. Are you willing to hold the "science" of evolution under the same level of scrutiny?

If so could you explain the following Statement:
"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.[3]
(boldfacing is mine. not to change the text but to bring attention to it)

Is he not saying that a superintellect designed the properties of the carbon atom?

Sir Fred Hoyle was an atheist (up until this time) and one of the worlds foremost authorities on astronomy. Yet he was unable to prove ONE theory supporting the "Big Bang", nor his own theories as to how the universe evolved. He actually coined the phrase The Big Bang.

3: Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12

And I believe, as does Gen1GT, that science is based on facts. Do you believe all of these following ten statements to be true pertaining to known science and can be corroborated using secular sources?

(1) Both man and woman possess the seed of life
(2) There is a place void of stars in the North
(3) Earth is held in place by invisible forces
(4) Taxonomic classification of matter
(5) The Earth is round
(6) Day and night occur simultaneously on Earth
(7) Certain animals carry diseases harmful to man
(8) Early diagnosis of leprosy
(9) Quarantine for disease control
(10) Blood of animals carries diseases

If you answered yes to these, any honest person has no choice, then you are admitting that the Bible is a science book as everyone of these are declared to be scientific facts in the Bible that was written 3500-4000 years before any of these were proven.

here are the references:

(1) Gen. 3:15
(2) Job 26:7
(3) Job 26:7
(4) Gen 1
(5) Isa. 40:22
(6) Luke 17:34
(7) Lev.11
(8) Lev 13
(9) Lev 13
(10) Lev 17

The difference between evolution and The Bible:

The Bible tell you what is going to happen and gets it right. Evolution tells you what did happen and gets it wrong!

"My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand."

Holy sh!t...We've got a crazy Christian on our hands

I have some problems with the KJV so I don't use it, particularly with the purposeful mistranslation of the word Sabbath to Easter, although maybe the new KJV doesn't do that.

Regardless, I have a small quibble with your understanding of the verse.

God commanded Moses, Moses commanded Aaron. Now you can say ultimately that God commanded Aaron, I guess, which is why I say it's a small quibble.

I'll bite. See this site, under the heading "Internal Discrepancies".

In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized.

Two problems with this.

1) It makes a person spend weeks, if not months, doing research for just any claim that is put out there, basically becoming a Biblical scholar in the process.

2) In regards to "any such reading" is a pile of hogwash. Saying a thing does not make it so. Insisting upon a thing with emphasis also doesn't make it so.

As I stated earlier about the original King James Version of the Bible, there are problems with particular translations. Some dealing with grammar errors, others with the purposeful using of incorrect words (Like calling passover, easter).

Other than that, there are no such problems with the Bible.

I'll make you this deal. Instead of linking to 100+ accusations and calling it a day, as if overwhelming your opponent is all one need to do, pick your top 5 and if one can demonstrate those 5 are wrong, you can throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(Oh, and you see what I did right there at the end? That's called an Idiom. Strangely enough the Bible uses those.)

P.S. I know I quoted Rishodi in this message, but I didn't mean it to just him. I meant it to all those who might think linking to other sites with a zillion accusations was sufficient to prove a point.

WOW!

Your proving the Bible to be true as well!

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The more you guys post the more you are proving the Bible to be true. I like that:-)

Duly noted

In that case I'll defer that particular course until later... you've brought up some points to discuss, and I think we both know how the argument I was setting up plays out.

Absolutely. I don't believe evolution is "divinely inspired" or infallable. Science has not the cement boots of dogma.

I agree that's what he's saying, but I don't agree with what he's saying. As science and technology have progressed, we've been consistently amazed by the properties of the world we discover. What about the nature of the infinitely complex and amazing mandates a "God"? One certainly doesn't imply the other, unless the anecdotal musings of individual scientists are taken as "gospel".

I can only speak for myself here, but it seems to me that you misunderstand Atheists... or at least the kind of Atheist I am.

Maybe the Big Bang isn't correct. It's not as if I'm 100% certain of the big bang, or that Darwin got everything right...as a matter of fact, I'm nearly certain that there are aspects to the origin of the universe, and the origin of species that we don't understand at all. I would rather say "I don't know" than "The invisible magic man in the sky must have done it, because this book written by primitive cultures thousands of years ago says so." Disproving all or part of the big bang doesn't prove the bible any more than the wonders of the world imply the existence of a God.

Negative... the inclusion of details that are scientifically provable in no way, shape, or form makes the bible a "science book", nor does it lend credibility to the many bible passages that violate science. By that logic, "The cat in the hat" should be considered a science book because it contains references to cats and hats.... both of which have plenty of science associated with them.

The difference between science and the bible:

If the bible is proven wrong, it shatters the very foundation upon which you base your entire life. If a scientific theory is proven wrong... oh well, we learned something new. Our understanding is greater than it was before, and we move forward all the better for it. That's why religious people rigidly defend their beliefs to the bitter end, and why they're willing to accept bizarre irrational biblical claims as truth despite what common sense would dictate... because if it's not true, there are deep and heavy personal implications.

cont...

I also think the difference between science and the bible is rather well illustrated by something that OldSkoolSlacker originally posted here somewhere, and Stockjock has quoted before:

I think you and OldSkoolSlacker have been watching too much television and not out meeting enough religious people.

All of us play by the same rules of logic, whether we know those rules or not.

Sadly, most people on these forums, religious or not, are completely unaware of the rules of logic. As for myself, ive got only a rudimentary knowledge of them. And yet it seems with few exceptions, others here know much less than I.

I understand the whine, we religious folk feel the same way each time another icon of science is destroyed and it appears no one is at all shaken in their faith. Climate Change "Science" is the most recent example of that, but the longest surviving example is Darwin's Origin.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! ERROR ERROR ERROR!

Here are a few Roman Historians,
Suetonius,Cornelius Tacitus
Also people like Lucian of Samosata, Governor of Bithynia Pliny The Younger, and Tertullian, Thallus the historian and Phlegon who was a first century historian. Justin Martyr.
Then you got the Jewish Talmuds, The Babylonian Talmud.

How about the older versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica One book list (15th edition 1974)over 20,000 words to describe Jesus! Thats more than Buddah, Mohammed, Napoleon, Aristotle etc.

Noah Websters Dictionary from the 1800's.

Get yer head out the way and listen to yer heart!

Don't ferget fulfilled prophecy and the Christian experiences from people of all sects, religions, and classes. Muslims are having dreams and visions of Jesus all over the world also! I know because of the former muslims I've talked to from Iraq. There are others listed below. Go do a little research and see what God is doing in the Muslim world!

Lookup Tass Saada, a former PLO sniper.
Zakaria Botros
Hormoz Shariat ( the Billy Graham of Iran)
Georges Sada

Read the conversation that I had after that. Notice the word contemporary.