The Bible

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you read the last Chapter? It reads to me like the writer was high on something that today would be illegal.

[b]they both revolve on a central "prophet figure" but jesus is much more likeable.
Have you read the Quran, or are you basing your judgement on what you have heard about Mohamed from Christians?
Surely "The Lord of the Rings" beats both books hands down when it comes to likeable central characters?[/b]

I would much prefer a world where humans followed the Teachings of the Great God Bilbo. The Church of Hobbitism will educate all these violent Judaic/Christian/ Islamic fanatics.

I'm pretty sure the modern conception of Jesus was made up of part Gandalf/part John Wayne.....hahahahaha

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way has it 'withstood th barrages of criticism'? Do you mean it didn't dissolve into dust? If so then the Quran is its equal. Do you mean that its followers were not convinced by the criticism nor discouraged in their faith? If so then the Quran is its equal.
Do you mean that you personally feel that the criticism is unwarranted? If so, then why ...[text shortened]... n and that for you what makes the Bible unique is that its your Holy Book not somebody elses.

In what way has it 'withstood th barrages of criticism'?
Meaning that--- without failing--- each and every time some form of supposed/so-called higher learning has ambled down the road with another declaration of the Bible's error on this or that point, the declared errors are shown to be themselves wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In what way has it 'withstood th barrages of criticism'?
Meaning that--- without failing--- each and every time some form of supposed/so-called higher learning has ambled down the road with another declaration of the Bible's error on this or that point, the declared errors are shown to be themselves wrong.[/b]

like evolution? big bang theory? more than 6000 years of history? no flood?

you mean these kind of supposed high learning?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
like evolution? big bang theory? more than 6000 years of history? no flood?

you mean these kind of supposed high learning?

Really? This is the thrust of your argument?

Evolution has failed to conclusively prove its premise: that complex man came from simple organisms.

Big Bang Theory sounds suspiciously similar to the Bible's account of beginnings: life has a point-in-time creation.

Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.

No flood? Really?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? This is the thrust of your argument?

Evolution has failed to conclusively prove its premise: that complex man came from simple organisms.

Big Bang Theory sounds suspiciously similar to the Bible's account of beginnings: life has a point-in-time creation.

Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.

No flood? Really?

yes, nobody has witnessed a chimp turn into a human. because there is a certain period of time in which evolution takes place. we do have fossils, which are basically snapshots of the timeline. from there one can make reasonings. you and others like you don't make reasonings. ALL those who don't understand evolution without fail use the "has failed to conclusively prove" something or another excuse. but of course they fail to give any alternative. evolution may not be perfect but i think its slightly more sciency than "man was made for dirt" as the bible teaches.

yes, i do believe god made humans. but evolution doesn't deal with who started it, it simply states the process through wich species come to be. evolution happens and that is a fact. you just can't observe t-rexes turning into chikins during your lifetime. what you can witness is some species making minor adaptions to deal with polution and increased human activity and other factors.

Big Bang Theory sounds suspiciously similar to the Bible's account of beginnings: life has a point-in-time creation.
yes, apart from the water metaphors in genesis, the fact that the "days" don't match actual periods, plants appearing befor the sun, the sun appearing before the other stars, being day/night cycles without the sun, earth before the sun etc, the two accounts are suspiciously similar. identical in fact.

the only thing in common is the phrase "in the beginning there was nothing and then there was something"

Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.
no, aside from saying how long creation took, exactly how many years each representative dude from adam to noah lived and when he gave birth to the next, stating the same string of patriarchs until abraham, saying how many years pass until egypt and so on, it is very vague. my mistake ( end sarcasm).
if the people stated in the bible until the egypt slavery all gave birth to the next on the list on exactly the day of their deaths, all those lifespans put together still fall considerably short of the 14 point something billion years the universe is supposed to have (they fall short for about 14 billion years)

No flood? Really?
really

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, nobody has witnessed a chimp turn into a human. because there is a certain period of time in which evolution takes place. we do have fossils, which are basically snapshots of the timeline. from there one can make reasonings. you and others like you don't make reasonings. ALL those who don't understand evolution without fail use the "has failed to concl ...[text shortened]... they fall short for about 14 billion years)

[b]No flood? Really?
really[/b]

Your post simply reinforces the fact that your knowledge of what the Bible says is severely lacking. Why bother?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your post simply reinforces the fact that your knowledge of what the Bible says is severely lacking. Why bother?

🙂

is this the line you will use every time i challange you to a debate?

why bother? maybe to enlighten me. if my argument is based on flawed data point it out. did i say anything false in my previous post? did i left some information out?

or are you simply to lazy to make an effort to defend your point of view? it is simple to simply state something general like you did when you said the bible stood the test of time. i stated concrete examples that disprove your argument, what are you going to do about it?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
🙂

is this the line you will use every time i challange you to a debate?

why bother? maybe to enlighten me. if my argument is based on flawed data point it out. did i say anything false in my previous post? did i left some information out?

or are you simply to lazy to make an effort to defend your point of view? it is simple to simply state someth ...[text shortened]... time. i stated concrete examples that disprove your argument, what are you going to do about it?

if my argument is based on flawed data point it out. did i say anything false in my previous post? did i left some information out?
Well, how about this pretty simple one--- not that I have any hope that it will yield any form of conclusion for you, other than to simply move on to some other indefensible stance of opposition to the truth.

no, aside from saying how long creation took, exactly how many years each representative dude from adam to noah lived and when he gave birth to the next, stating the same string of patriarchs until abraham, saying how many years pass until egypt and so on, it is very vague. my mistake ( end sarcasm).
if the people stated in the bible until the egypt slavery all gave birth to the next on the list on exactly the day of their deaths, all those lifespans put together still fall considerably short of the 14 point something billion years the universe is supposed to have (they fall short for about 14 billion years)

Re-creation took six days.
How long prior to re-creation did creation take place? Unknown.
How long between re-creation and the fall? Unknown.
See any holes in your theory? Unknown.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]if my argument is based on flawed data point it out. did i say anything false in my previous post? did i left some information out?
Well, how about this pretty simple one--- not that I have any hope that it will yield any form of conclusion for you, other than to simply move on to some other indefensible stance of opposition to the truth.

[quote ...[text shortened]... .
How long between re-creation and the fall? Unknown.
See any holes in your theory? Unknown.[/b]

wait wait, are you saying that creation doesn't start with genesis?
that the supposed big bang didn't occure at the first verse of the bible?
that the phrase "in the beginning there was nothing" means nothing?

also what are you saying, that adam and eve spent several billions years in the garden of eve before deciding the fruits from that tree of knowledge looks yummy?


yes you are right. it doesn't say how much time passed from time of human creation to the eating of the fruit. you can assume anything. in order to accept the idea of an old earth you simply insert several billion years of naked frolicking in the garden of eden, just adam and eve. in which case you can hardly blame them for eating the forbidden fruit, the boredome must have been imense.

but to conclude:
Re-creation took six days.
what re-creation? is there a prequel to the bible we don't know about? also do you have any idea how long it takes for a single star to form?

How long prior to re-creation did creation take place? Unknown.
you mean how much time did nothing existed? who cares, there was nothing.
How long between re-creation and the fall? Unknown.
To account only for the age of rocks on the earth, more than 1 billion it seems.
we do know that from the fall to our time, there are roughly 6000 years.
See any holes in your theory? Unknown.
i do know, there aren't as many as in yours.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wait wait, are you saying that creation doesn't start with genesis?
that the supposed big bang didn't occure at the first verse of the bible?
that the phrase "in the beginning there was nothing" means nothing?

also what are you saying, that adam and eve spent several billions years in the garden of eve before deciding the fruits from that tree of knowl ...[text shortened]... s.
See any holes in your theory? Unknown.
i do know, there aren't as many as in yours.

Okay, now you're getting somewheres.

wait wait, are you saying that creation doesn't start with genesis? No. The name of the book refers to the words of the same: "In beginning... "

that the supposed big bang didn't occure at the first verse of the bible?
No, I am saying that the beginning begins in verse one.

that the phrase "in the beginning there was nothing" means nothing?
Not sure what Bible you're reading from, but mine (transliterated) says:

"In-beginning he-created Elohim the-heavens and the-earth"

Nothing about nothing, but there is certainly a strong suggestion of the same, since the word used for 'create' means something made where nothing existed prior to.

also what are you saying, that adam and eve spent several billions years in the garden of eve before deciding the fruits from that tree of knowledge looks yummy?
If, by "tree of knowledge," you mean to say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then yes, this is a distinct possibility. However, the exact time is, as stated, unknown.

in which case you can hardly blame them for eating the forbidden fruit, the boredome must have been imense.
Boredom was not cited as one of the excuses, and, yes, I could blame them for such impudence.

what re-creation?
For a great description, look at the end of verse two forward.

is there a prequel to the bible we don't know about?
Not that I am aware of it, but I'm certain He'll be more than happy to share with you all of those fascinating details when the time is right.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Really? This is the thrust of your argument?

Evolution has failed to conclusively prove its premise: that complex man came from simple organisms.

Big Bang Theory sounds suspiciously similar to the Bible's account of beginnings: life has a point-in-time creation.

Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.

No flood? Really?

Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.

This is true, but until man conclusively proved the Earth was a lot older than 6,000yrs this view was the accepted model. Our Young Earth Christians, bless them, still hold this to be the case.

Are you of the view that man descended from Adam & Eve 6,000yrs ago? There are a few posters here, the JW's for instance who hold this view.

With regard to the supposed global flood that killed all humanity apart from 8 people who then somehow went on to repopulate the world, i'd love to read your evidence for that. We had a 700+ post debate on the flood a few months back, all that was categorically proved in my mind was that the supporters of this 'model' are borderline for needing psychiatric help. You're not jumping in with Galvo, Rob and Joseph on this are you?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Ussher's timeline notwithstanding, the Bible nowhere pegs the earth's history as 6K.

This is true, but until man conclusively proved the Earth was a lot older than 6,000yrs this view was the accepted model. Our Young Earth Christians, bless them, still hold this to be the case.

Are you of the view that man descended from Adam & Eve 6, ...[text shortened]... eding psychiatric help. You're not jumping in with Galvo, Rob and Joseph on this are you?[/b]

One of the falling off points in the debate to which you refer (at least, if my memory serves) was when it the discussion turned to the support for DNA diversity. The gathered data thus far appears to support the biblical model for the same--- or, putting more politically correct, does not negate or contradict the biblical narrative for the same.

The same ideas being formulated in that field are fitting nicely with the consensual understanding of the evolution of languages, namely, that the diversity we see around us can be traced back to one singular language. Weird, eh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One of the falling off points in the debate to which you refer (at least, if my memory serves) was when it the discussion turned to the support for DNA diversity. The gathered data thus far appears to support the biblical model for the same--- or, putting more politically correct, does not negate or contradict the biblical narrative for the same.

The s ...[text shortened]... ly, that the diversity we see around us can be traced back to one singular language. Weird, eh?

You're going to have to tell me what your version of the biblical model is. There are so many different scriptural interpretations i've lost count.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One of the falling off points in the debate to which you refer (at least, if my memory serves) was when it the discussion turned to the support for DNA diversity. The gathered data thus far appears to support the biblical model for the same--- or, putting more politically correct, does not negate or contradict the biblical narrative for the same.

The s ...[text shortened]... ly, that the diversity we see around us can be traced back to one singular language. Weird, eh?

that the diversity we see around us can be traced back to one singular language. Weird, eh?

now that is interesting, do tell.