Is The Bible Accurate?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]I resent the bible because it teaches people to have the attitude that we can and should tolerate bad things happening in the world because it's 'god's way'.

Where do you get this? I can think of maybe a dozen verses that directly contradict this.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
bt r and just followed this one little passage, the world would be a much better place.

Okay, you claim science and religion can mix pretty well.. Best buddies by your reckoning.

Want to explain why it took the RCC 150 years to accept evolution? Or for that matter, what about heliocentric theory?

[EDIT; Oh, and the robotwisdom.com site is using second hand historical sources, there is nothing that old currently extant. i.e. the oldest material says it was written 285BC, but who knows if that's true? We simply have no evidence to back that claim up.]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I was brought up by parents that taught me the differences between right and wrong. I can feel guilt, but I don't feel it every time I break some commandment. I feel it when I realise that my actions have hurt another person. Roman children would have been brought up with a different set of morals of right and wrong, the same way that Japanese ch ...[text shortened]... aving them spelled out with the threat of eternal damnation if I break them. I do morals for me.

Roman children would have been brought up with a different set of morals of right and wrong, the same way that Japanese children are brought up with different values. None of which makes them, or me, any more or less moralistic. We just follow different rules.

So do you claim that cultural relativity justifies anything? That is, if the laws of a society say that it’s ok, then it must be by default.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, you claim science and religion can mix pretty well.. Best buddies by your reckoning.

Want to explain why it took the RCC 150 years to accept evolution? Or for that matter, what about heliocentric theory?

[EDIT; Oh, and the robotwisdom.com site is using second hand historical sources, there is nothing that old currently extant. i.e. th ...[text shortened]... ol ritten 285BC, but who knows if that's true? We simply have no evidence to back that claim up.]

Want to explain why it took the RCC 150 years to accept evolution? Or for that matter, what about heliocentric theory?

Maybe for the same reason it took scientists until 1932 to stop counting the stars.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Roman children would have been brought up with a different set of morals of right and wrong, the same way that Japanese children are brought up with different values. None of which makes them, or me, any more or less moralistic. We just follow different rules.

So do you claim that cultural relativity justifies anything? That is, if the laws of a society say that it’s ok, then it must be by default.[/b]

Within that society yes. For example, the romans felt it was fine to have slaves (I'm not saying that being a slave would be nice - just that the romans were not doing anything 'morally' wrong because that was part of their accepted culture). The japanese never talk man-to-man, always through an intermediary. It is only when we compare those systems with what we believe to be right and wrong that we find problems. Let's not forget many early US settlers kept slaves and yet were devoutly Christian. Likewise, black people had less rights than whites in the US up until the 1960's. How could a 1950's Christian think that was morally acceptable, but one now does not? Has god's word (and therefore Christian morallity) changed in the last 50 years?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Want to explain why it took the RCC 150 years to accept evolution? Or for that matter, what about heliocentric theory?

Maybe for the same reason it took scientists until 1932 to stop counting the stars.[/b]

Where DID you get the 1932 figure from??? Just curious!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Now, you're perhaps misunderstanding me. I am not talking about Jesus or god or anything of that ilk. The assertion from CHess Express is that the bible (he claims written pre-500 BC, and hence pre-roman empire) contained knowledge and ideas that would prevent disease, and give the reader a knowledge of the world and wider universe greater than any ot ...[text shortened]... people, allegedly wiser and more knowledgeable get conquered by the 'savages' (i.e. romans)?

Before the children of Israel entered the promise land, Moses read them a prophesy. In Deuteronomy chapter 30, Moses lays out the law. He says choose blessing or cursing. Serve me and choose blessing or serve other gods and choose cursing. If they choose cursing they will be led away captive out of the promised land. If they choose blessing they will be gathered up again and be placed back. This can be seen wtih both the Assyrain and Babylonian captivities. After the Roman occupation it was prophesied that Israel would form a nation for the final time in the end of days. This happend in the 1940's. They were no better or intelligent from other people of that time. They simply had a better source of knowledge and wisdom.

Originally posted by whodey
Most of the other ones in the old testament are about the failed prophetic fulfillments of the Israeli occupation of the promised land. That is because it is yet to come.

I'm a prophet because I predicted that you would say this.

🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm a prophet because I predicted that you would say this.

🙄🙄🙄

Wearing a hat like that whilst waving your hands about in such an erratic manner you must be a prophet! Ever seen 'Life of Brian'?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ever seen 'Life of Brian'?

I sorta watched 'Holy Grail' and didn't find much humor in it.
But, as I said, British humor seems to elude me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Where DID you get the 1932 figure from??? Just curious!

Well, after doing some additional research I’m forced to revise my original statement. It seems that astronomers are still counting stars today! 😵

“The latest and greatest star list is the Hubble Space Telescope Guide Star Catalog. It is too big ever to print; instead it's distributed on two CD-ROMs. The GSC lists positions generally good to nearly 1 arcsecond and magnitudes accurate to a few tenths for 18,819,291 objects from 9th to usually about 13th or 14th magnitude, sometimes as faint as 15th. Of this total, 15,169,873 are listed as being stars; most of the remaining 3.6 million objects are small, faint galaxies. Most have never been examined by human eyes; they were measured automatically from photographic plates.”

http://www.mclink.it/mclink/astro/news/backyard/starname.html

There is probably some sort of scientific application for it otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it, but it makes no difference in regards to the validity of my original statement.

"What does the Bible say about the number of stars? Jeremiah writes: ‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant’ (Jeremiah 33:22). At that time, when men of learning were convinced that there were only about 3,000 stars, Jeremiah wrote that nobody would be able to count the stars.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stars.asp

The point is that what Jeremiah wrote directly contradicted what the scientists of the day thought.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Within that society yes. For example, the romans felt it was fine to have slaves (I'm not saying that being a slave would be nice - just that the romans were not doing anything 'morally' wrong because that was part of their accepted culture). The japanese never talk man-to-man, always through an intermediary. It is only when we compare those syst ...[text shortened]... w does not? Has god's word (and therefore Christian morallity) changed in the last 50 years?

Within that society yes. For example, the romans felt it was fine to have slaves (I'm not saying that being a slave would be nice - just that the romans were not doing anything 'morally' wrong because that was part of their accepted culture). The japanese never talk man-to-man, always through an intermediary.

Ok, so you’re a strong relativist.

It is only when we compare those systems with what we believe to be right and wrong that we find problems.

This is the problem with absolute relativity. It can be used to justify anything, and it leads no room for the moral advancement of society.

Let's not forget many early US settlers kept slaves and yet were devoutly Christian. Likewise, black people had less rights than whites in the US up until the 1960's.

Yes, this highlights the problem. The English used to rape the brides of Scottish men. If I recall right the law was called “First Rights”, or something like that. Would you like it if somebody got first crack at your wife? Do you think that the blacks liked it when they were made into slaves?

How could a 1950's Christian think that was morally acceptable, but one now does not? Has god's word (and therefore Christian morallity) changed in the last 50 years?

Again, there are many places in scripture (to many to cite) that tell us not to do those kinds of things. Back then the church had greater power than it does now, and as always power corrupts.

If a society is content with relativity nothing changes. I believe it was people like Lincoln for example (himself a devout Christian) who saw that such practices contradicted the scripture and made the necessary changes.

It seems that a lot of people use 'proof' that because some of the things written in the bible can be interpreted as true or backed up by our current knowledge, then this makes the rest of the bible correct, word for word (as long as they can choose the interpretation of the rest of it also!). The book 'The Da Vinci Code' also has a lot of true history, as well as some subjective suggestions to help the story form, but it doesn't make these suggestions true...

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I believe it was people like Lincoln for example (himself a devout Christian) who saw that such practices contradicted the scripture and made the necessary changes.

Abraham Lincoln was not a devout Christian by any meaningful
application of the term. He did not go to Church and reports of his
behavior agree that he felt disdain towards organized religion. He
was familiar with his Bible and was clearly a spiritual individual, but
a 'devout Christian,' he most certainly was not.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html

IN the prosecution of this inquiry, the testimony of one hundred and twenty witnesses has been presented. The testimony of twenty of these witnesses is to the effect that Lincoln was a Christian; the testimony of one hundred is to the effect that he was not.

Of those who have testified in support of the claim that Lincoln was a Christian, ten admit that during a part of his life he was a disbeliever in Christianity, while not one of the remaining ten disputes the fact. If he never changed his belief then he died an unbeliever. Did he change his belief and become a convert to Christianity? It devolves upon those who affirm that he did to prove it. Have they done this? They have not. Their attempts have been in every instance pitiable failures. The unreasonable and conflicting character of the testimony adduced refutes itself. When was he converted? No less than five different dates have been assigned. One witness states that it was in 1848; one, that it was in 1858; another, that it was in 1862; another, that it was in July, 1863; and still another, that it was in November, 1863.


Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Ok, so you’re a strong relativist.

What do you mean by this term? How are you applying it to
Scott?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Abraham Lincoln was [b]not a devout Christian by any meaningful
application of the term. He did not go to Church and reports of his
behavior agree that he felt disdain towards organized religion. He
was familiar with his Bible and was clearly a spiritual individual, but
a 'devout Christian,' he most certainly was not.

http://www.infidels.org/li ...[text shortened]... that it was in July, 1863; and still another, that it was in November, 1863.[/i]


Nemesio[/b]

For everybody who says that he was not a Christian, there is somebody who says that he was.

“He had abandoned his trust in the commandments and in his own strivings, and now he trusted in Christ. Yes, dear friend, at long length, Abraham Lincoln was a Christian.”

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4627.htm

Perhaps it’s best to hear it from Lincoln himself.

"In regards to this great Book (the Bible),
I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man.
All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.
All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it." -- Abraham Lincoln

"I believe I am an humble servant in the hands of our Heavenly Father; I desire that all my words and acts may be according to His will." -- Abraham Lincoln

“genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.” -- Abraham Lincoln

“But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us…” -- Abraham Lincoln

“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!” -- Abraham Lincoln

http://www.eadshome.com/Lincoln.htm

It is clear that Abraham Lincoln devoted his life to God and the Bible. It is also clear that the Bible influenced his decision to end slavery. I frankly couldn’t care less whether or not these things are enough to meet your definition of a Christian.