God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Guest Letereat!]

Realitive Schmelative Its all a Mind game meant to Ursurp as many as who will follow

[Steelharp]

To get to the bottom of it, I'm quite sure would require the original text, and someone who was fluent in the language it was written in. A working knowledge of the habits, customs, and patterns/manner of speech of the era and area at the time it was written would also be invaluable...

That's where I got it.

[strickj]

Neither is there any proof that any of them are false.

How about Jonah and the fish....

[Handsome Rob]

The difference being that historical accounts of battles etc... were written at the time, by observers & witnesses. The bible was written a long time after the fact (no pun intended!) History regularly discredits accounts that are later proven to be second or third hand.

[Guest Jamie]

If you believe history books...

But we already know that the history books were written by the winners of certain wars or conflicts, and are "shaded" with the personal beliefs or doctrines of the writers...

Also, there's that matter of translation and such. I mean, think about it; look how much trouble has been caused because of different "translations" of the English language of the 1700s into "modern" English. Now magnify that by about a thousand, and throw in the fact that some languages have words or terms that others have no equivalent to.

All of that leads to a possible "history" that isn't. Or wasn't.... Anyway, you get the idea.

[Guest Letereat!]

Originally Posted by Jamie

To get to the bottom of it, I'm quite sure would require the original text, and someone who was fluent in the language it was written in. A working knowledge of the habits, customs, and patterns/manner of speech of the era and area at the time it was written would also be invaluable...

There IS NO BOTTOM OF IT. Every original text known to man has been interpreted over and over and over, by Calvin,King James,Constantine, Martin Luthar, Wyclif, Tindale, Countless Monks, bishops and the like. It is an argument that will continue for eternity..........I still think its a lota fun though.......We NEED BIGGER HANDBASKITS

[Steelharp]

How about Jonah and the fish....

Give me hard proof that it's false; not just the typical "There's just no WAY that's possible" routine.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Ugh....

I'm getting tired of this thread being at the top of the list...

[Guest Jamie]

That's where I got it.

Explain, please.

You have a source you'd like to cite?

[G27]

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sandman]

But we already know that the history books were written by the winners of certain wars or conflicts, and are "shaded" with the personal beliefs or doctrines of the writers...

Also, there's that matter of translation and such. I mean, think about it; look how much trouble has been caused because of different "translations" of the English language of the 1700s into "modern" English. Now magnify that by about a thousand, and throw in the fact that some languages have words or terms that others have no equivalent to.

All of that leads to a possible "history" that isn't. Or wasn't.... Anyway, you get the idea.

I don't discredit there has been a problem with translation and I wonder what the original Bible said. Like I said previously, you have to go with whatever notion you are most connected to.

[Guest Letereat!]

But we already know that the history books were written by the winners of certain wars or conflicts, and are "shaded" with the personal beliefs or doctrines of the writers...

Also, there's that matter of translation and such. I mean, think about it; look how much trouble has been caused because of different "translations" of the English language of the 1700s into "modern" English. Now magnify that by about a thousand, and throw in the fact that some languages have words or terms that others have no equivalent

I concur

[Oh Shoot]

OS, there is a difference in the translation of "God" and "LORD." Shall we first agree that God and Satan do not coexist; that Satan cannot be in the presence of God? ....

Nah, 'fraid can't concede that...God's omnipotent, so certainly he could be in the presence of Satan, as he appears in Job.

Unless you specify some illogical rule, like "God can make a rock too big for him to lift"?

Yaweh is the Big Cheese, the only Cheese. Jews don't believe in a Duality, and they certainly didn't bite on a Trinity.

- OS

[Steelharp]

Explain, please.

You have a source you'd like to cite?

An excellent scholar friend of mine, Robin Bullock from AL. He has written a short book called "The System" that is very clear in explaining some principles. Well worth the read.

[Guest Jamie]

Give me hard proof that it's false; not just the typical "There's just no WAY that's possible" routine.

How 'bout the fact that a human won't fit down a whale's throat? At least not in one piece...

Saw a documentary on this, several years back, where a bunch of zoologists and such tried to get to the bottom of that one, and came up empty. They couldn't find a fish or a whale with the required anatomy to get the job done.

Doesn't mean there wasn't some big-throated Jonah-gobbling whale or such that used to exist but doesn't now, only that the anatomy... and digestive fluids of present-day animal's stomachs... preclude the possibility of any modern-day aquatic life form being involved.

[strickj]

Give me hard proof that it's false; not just the typical "There's just no WAY that's possible" routine.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have a fish handy that's willing to eat me to prove it to you.

If you need any more proof then all the teeth, esophagus stomach chambers (going by the later versions it was a whale and whales have 3, IIRC) and stomach acids then I don't know what to tell you.

[Guest Letereat!]

Nah, 'fraid can't concede that...God's omnipotent, so certainly he could be in the presence of Satan, as he appears in Job.

Unless you specify some illogical rule, like "God can make a rock too big for him to lift"? Oh Shoot

Touche

[Guest Jamie]

I don't discredit there has been a problem with translation and I wonder what the original Bible said. Like I said previously, you have to go with whatever notion you are most connected to.

One of my other big problems with the Bible is... exactly how much of it is missing? I've lost count of how many books were omitted by the Roman-Catholic church, or simply lost because somebody built a cooking fire with a bunch of scrolls that were thought to be useless or of no interest... which later on turned out to be various books of the bible. And I won't even get into the supposed "edits" that are claimed to have been made, long after the original writing.

So I guess my question is, okay, if that much is known to be missing, how much else may not be there, and how does that effect the value of what remains, without those other bits to reference back to, or cross-reference as needed?

You follow me here?

[Guest Letereat!]

One of my other big problems with the Bible is... exactly how much of it is missing? I've lost count of how many books were omitted by the Roman-Catholic church, or simply lost because somebody built a cooking fire with a bunch of scrolls that were thought to be useless or of no interest... which later on turned out to be various books of the bible. Jamie

Its called the Apocrypha,Thats the books removed by the catholics. At the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Constantine the great

called a Meeting off all the Church Scolars to decide what books would be in the Christian Cannon. It was when he decided he wanted to Unite all of Rome under one Religion mainly for peace. Any Book that did not Reflect well on the Divinity of Christ or made him appear human in any way was omited as were countlessother texts. There are the Gnostic gospels,the book of thomas and writings from all mannor of christian sects

Edited September 3, 2010 by Letereat!

[Oh Shoot]

..The battle of the alamo wasn't real. You can't prove it. You've read about it, you have the seen the fortress, but you cannot prove it.If you believe history books, then Jesus was real. He was crucified.

Bzzt. There is no contemporary historical account of Jesus. No mention at all. Nada.

First mention would be "Mark", maybe 40 years after the supposed crucifixion. First "secular" mention would be Josephus, a decade or so after Mark.

There are no writings from the time of Jesus' supposed life span.

However, there are plenty from the time of the Alamo.

- OS

[Steelharp]

One of my other big problems with the Bible is... exactly how much of it is missing? I've lost count of how many books were omitted by the Roman-Catholic church

I think there are 7 in what's called the Apocrypha? IIRC...

[Guest mosinon]

generally the onus of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one skeptical of said claim.

If I were to posit that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole you'd be skeptical (rightly so). And you might ask for evidence. If I said "prove to me he doesn't" you'd laugh and say "you're the one saying he does"

Which is kind of the same thing as the whale question. If I say it isn't possible saying "prove it isn't" doesn't advance the argument at all.

You expect more out of science than that. If I say the big bang happened and you say it isn't I better be able to back it up with some evidence. (I can)

But, really, this is just all crazy talk. Science is all about evidence, religion is all about faith. That is the way it should be. If the requirement to believe in God or Jesus is grounded in the scientific accuracy of the Bible then there isn't much room for faith, for the choice to believe in God.

There seems to be an underlying current to all of these science versus religion discussions of "If only people knew what I know they'd have to agree" that is never true. Presented with the same evidence or situation people will react differently. IT doesn't necessarily make them stupid or unable to learn (though I'll make an exception for those that buy full term life insurance) it just means they have reached a different conclusion.

[Guest Jamie]

Bzzt. There is no contemporary historical account of Jesus. No mention at all. Nada.

Um... not so sure about that one...

I heard a few years ago that there was a stone tablet that was found that mentioned Jesus, and him having a tussle with some tax collectors. It was reportedly some sort of "official" document of some kind.

But that, as far as I know, is the only record of his actual existence, or documentation of any particular action on his part. And it's been long enough ago that I can't cite you a source for the find, at the moment.

Sorry.

[Oh Shoot]

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference being that historical accounts of battles etc... were written at the time, by observers & witnesses. The bible was written a long time after the fact (no pun intended!) History regularly discredits accounts that are later proven to be second or third hand.

Exactly.

Josephus wasn't even born during Jesus' supposed lifetime, and wrote the Christ era "history" when he in his fifties. He likely got his material from the same source lore as "Matthew" and "Mark". (I use quotes on the names, as all the gospels are generally acknowledged as being written anonymously).

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

One of my other big problems with the Bible is... exactly how much of it is missing? I've lost count of how many books were omitted by the Roman-Catholic church, or simply lost because somebody built a cooking fire with a bunch of scrolls that were thought to be useless or of no interest... which later on turned out to be various books of the bible. And I won't even get into the supposed "edits" that are claimed to have been made, long after the original writing.

So I guess my question is, okay, if that much is known to be missing, how much else may not be there, and how does that effect the value of what remains, without those other bits to reference back to, or cross-reference as needed?

You follow me here?

I think if you really want to know about biblical scholarship you'd get Understanding the Bible by Stephan Harris. Warning, it is a text book and it is written in the most boring manner possible. But you'll learn a lot and if it is your wont you'll be able to lay the smack down on a ton of literalists.