About Kingy's sig: has anyone else noticed the inherent irony in it?

As Christians, we want to save non-believers so that we may spend eternity with God in Heaven, & not in Hell, where we will be punished eternally for our sins. It's only by God's loving grace that we are saved:


*bows*

But you don't have any proof God, Heaven, or Hell exist, so you're just bugging people based on something that might or might not happen.

How do you know that your religion is right and every other religion is wrong?

If there is a God, how do you know that he doesn't send Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. to Hell and athiests to Heaven? For all you know, he could send people who don't wear matching socks to Hell and everyone else to Heaven!

The only evidence you have is a book written by people who died around 2000 years ago, which has been copied and transcribed thousands of times so that there are thousands of versions existing today, and the vast majority of it has been disproved by science as being literal truth.

So, considering all that, what justification could you possibly have for trying to go around forcing your religion on other people?

By the same token, what justification could athiests possibly have for forcing their religious beliefs on people? What right do atheists have to bully others and discriminate because they hold a certain position about the supernatural and divine?

As I said before, science itself is not athiest in nature, and in fact casts doubt on the atheist's position as much as it does any other religious belief. Just because current scientific facts appear to disagree with accounts from, say, the Bible, does not automatically mean that athiesm is logical and "the natural choice." It's very much the other way around.

Furthermore, as I stated beforehand, two thirds of the world's scientists themselves are have non-atheistic religious beliefs of some kind.

I suggest you read my past replies to this topic, because while I've already gone into re-capping what I said beforehand, I'd really rather not do so.

Even if it seemed that the people it was meant to address didn't listen to it at all (that is to say, those atheists who believe science is proving them right).

I would add to that, Trog-Dork, that you obviously have done very little study of biblical text criticism. If you had, you'd know that we actually do have copies of the ancient manuscripts (I actually posted some pics of some on another thread), and what's more, that what we have today is plenty accurate enough. That despite being transcribed thousands and thousands of times, as you put it, the meaning has actually changed very little. As for the art of biblical translation, that's why the seminary I attended trained us to read Masoritic Hebrew and Koine Greek, so we don't have to rely on translations at all, but can work with the original texts.

And what "vast majority" are you talking about that has "been disproved by science"? Maybe there are things that science cannot explain, such as how the Red Sea can be parted, or the walls of Jericho destroyed, or the Lord Jesus Christ can be raised from the dead, but science is ill-equipped to prove or disprove much when it comes to the realm of God. Logic dictates that the Creator has the right to override the normal operations of the created order at will, and this is what we Christians call "miracle." Science can only address the normal patterns of the created order; it cannot dictate what a Creator God might or might not be able to do with that created order.

Can you prove they are not facts but mere stories? As I've stated several times on this thread and others, these documents present themselves as histories--not epic poems, not legends or myths, but histories. Considering that the bulk of manuscript and archaeological evidence supports their truth, I find it hard to believe that you expect me to just simply accept your word that they are mere legends. That is an unreasonable expectation on your part.

And as for whether mere legends can testify to a real God, I will refer you to St. Paul, who states very clearly that if Jesus Christ is not truly raised from the dead (i.e., if the resurrection is not a historical fact, and is no more than a legend), then faith itself is worthless, and we are just wasting our time.

So, no, the Bible is not a mere collection of myths and legends. It is a collection of historical documents intended to be read as a history of God's interaction with his people, and until you can give me compelling evidence to the contrary, I can, will, and must continue to proclaim it as historical fact.

As for parts of it being disproved by science, did you know that the Bible states that the Earth rests on 4 pillars and does not move, that the Earth was created before the sun, that the Earth is flat (it doesn't state that directly but it is clearly implied in several passages), that the value of pi is 3, that hailstones are stored in warehouses in case of war, etc. There's a bunch of that stuff all over the Bible, which is obviously untrue.

What do you mean, they are presented as histories? They certainly read like myths to me. Are we supposed to take stories with talking snakes and donkeys seriously?

Even if there is some that supports some parts of the Bible, that hardly means it's all true.

Even if actual evidence and history contradicts it?

I'm no expert of Biblical criticism, but I'll try... ^^;;

I've heard that the Hebrew used can change the context of many things, and that English doesn't have really good equivalents. So when the English translation says the earth is "immovable" it probably doesn't mean it sits completely still, it's probably that there isn't a really good English equivalent for that Hebrew word...I mean like, Greek has a BUNCH of different words for "love," but English has only one.

Maybe someone who knows Hebrew can say something about that?

Also, if you are to assume a literal six day Creation for the universe, what would it matter if the Earth were made before the sun? The Earth would've only been without the sun for a mere 24 hours.

As for the value of pi being exactly 3, I can't find any verses stating that. Can you please give a verse that supports your claim, so that people don't assume you're making stuff up?

The hailstones comment, that was made in Job...he wasn't talking about A war, He was talking about THE war. And it mentions flaming hailstones. Now, could flaming hailstones be made the conventional way hail is made? Obviously not, so it's possible that there could be "warehouses" for this special hail reserved for the Apocalypse. We don't know, the Apocalypse hasn't happened yet.


Why not? Scientists thought the platypus was a hoax when they first saw it. If you heard a story back in the 1500s about a mammal with a duck beak that laid eggs and was poisonous, it's likely you would've rejected it as a fabrication, a fairy tale. But we know that the platypus is real. So who's to say that talking snakes and donkeys aren't possible as well?


And this is the problem with history, you can't really conclusively "prove" anything. This is where faith comes in. For example, what about Julius Caesar? Have you personally seen him? There are statues of him, but did he really exist? You don't know for sure. You weren't around then. But, you accept, on the faith of historical researchers, that Caesar was a real person. So it is with us. The civilizations and people in the Bible did exist, lending truth to its words.


Again, such as...? Be specific.

Well, all I have to say is, this issue has been going on for thousands of years. I highly doubt it's going to be resolved on an internet forum.

1. What do you mean, they are presented as histories? They certainly read like myths to me. Are we supposed to take stories with talking snakes and donkeys seriously?

2. You say that the bulk of 'manuscript and archaeological evidence' supports their truth, what is the source for that? What 'manuscript' are you referring to? And what specific archaeological evidence supports the Bible? Even if there is some that supports some parts of the Bible, that hardly means it's all true. For example, we found the ruins of Troy, but that doesn't mean that all the supernatural events in the Odyssey really happened.

3. Even if actual evidence and history contradicts it?

A literal, 6 - day creation of the universe has been disproved by science and goes against the laws of physics.

6. We have multiple historical records of Julius Caesar, written by his contemporaries around the time that he lived (as opposed to Jesus and Moses, whose chronicles date to several centuries after they supposedly lived). We have written letters by Caesar, records of his military conquests, statues of him made while he was alive, and references to him all over the governments of Rome and the neighboring nations.

4. Pi in the Bible: Kings 7:23. Not directly stated, but the measurements are given.

If they read like “myth” to you, it’s only because you have done no serious reading of them. For example, St. Luke in the very first chapter of his Gospel states up front that he is writing an orderly history based on his own historical research. C. S. Lewis once made a similar response as yours in his discussions with J. R. R. Tolkien, that he believed the Bible to be merely myth, but Tolkien challenged him on it, that he ought to more closely examine the literary genre of the texts. For example, compare the Gospel of St. Luke (or for that matter, any of the Four Gospels) with, say, Homer’s Iliad or the Eddas of Scandinavian legend.

In other words, if you cannot tell that the Scriptural documents are history and not myth, then you can’t possibly have studied too much history or too much myth.




And if God can raise the dead, as I am convinced Jesus was raised, then why shouldn't I believe that a snake could talk? or a donkey?
(actually, if you half-way knew the Scriptures at all, you'd know that the snake is a direct reference to Satan, and not an ordinary snake, but oh well!).



I’m talking about Greek manuscripts dating all the way back to the early second century. I’m talking about Old Testament manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century b.c. (including a complete scroll of the Book of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves). There is a whole discipline called “textual criticism” which deals with this very issue, studying the various manuscripts discovered in archaeological digs and such. If you wish to discuss this further, all I can suggest is that you read up on it.



What “evidence” or “history” are you saying contradict it? That’s where your argumentation is very shaky. You expect us to simply take your word for it. Well as both a history scholar and a biblical scholar, I challenge you to offer this so-called “historical evidence” for my examination. Otherwise, please do not try to make such unsupportable claims with me. Put your cards on the table and don’t try to bluff me.



Only if you assume that the “laws of physics” are a constant. Even scientists who support the Big Bang will contradict that.



Yes, and we have the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, St. Luke, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude, all men who knew Jesus personally and wrote about him based on their own experience (except for St. Luke—according to him, he actually did historical research in order to produce his account, which I would presume included interviews with these other Apostles as well as other important people in Jesus’ life). What’s more, we also know from history that every single one of these men (except St. John—he was only imprisoned) suffered horrible torture and death because they refused to recant their writings. Now, if it was a hoax, I do not believe these men would have risked death, much less willingly endured it, for what they proclaimed.

The problem is that you cannot “prove” anything historical scientifically. However, with historical evidence, such as papyri manuscripts, you can follow evidence. Further, you can collaborate historical events recorded in other histories to see if events recorded in Scripture are historically accurate. My Greek professor in college once told me about a historian who never took Acts seriously because he considered it a religious document rather than a historical one. Then one day, he actually read it, and after doing so, became convinced it was historically accurate. Why? Because all the events recorded in it could be collaborated by external sources.



What the crap does pi have anything to do with it? If you’ve ever worked around craftsmen (I have—my dad was a carpenter), then you’d recognize that this was an estimated measurement.

A literal, 6 - day creation of the universe has been disproved by science and goes against the laws of physics.
.

Since when do athiests ever force their beliefs on people? Do you see athiests going up to religious people all the time trying to deconvert them?

Science and atheism are completely different, atheism is simply the belief that there is/are no god/gods, and science is a tool for helping to better understand the world around us. Science deals in objectivity, facts. Would you say someone was 'forcing their belief on you' if they were trying to convince you that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the Earth revolves around the sun?

7. It clearly states the ratio as 1:3, yet even for that task, that would be an insufficient estimate to fully encompass the circle. Besides, if you have no trouble proclaiming that this part of the Bible is not literal, then why not accept Genesis as allegory?

1. So let me get this straight: You're saying that they are not myth because the writer says they are not? Wow, that's brilliant.

2. Provide evidence that God actually did raise the dead (I mean evidence, not Bible quotes)

3. Don't just cite obscure references and tell me to 'read up on it'. That's intellectual laziness. Show me these manuscripts and the research done on them.
And your sarcasm isn’t?

4. Actual history? If you want to take creation stories as history, then there are plenty that tell it differently than Genesis. The Egyptians and Sumerians had written records before the flood supposedly happened, and make no mention of such an even in their actual history (although there are mythological references, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, but we can tell those are myth since their civilizations survived throughout the supposed time of the flood).

5. So you should just randomly assume that the laws of physics are changing, even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this? Try reading this article: http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article18

6. Right, except all of that can't be independently verified outside of the Bible, and most historians agree that they were written several hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. If you have these external sources, please produce them.

7. It clearly states the ratio as 1:3, yet even for that task, that would be an insufficient estimate to fully encompass the circle. Besides, if you have no trouble proclaiming that this part of the Bible is not literal, then why not accept Genesis as allegory?

an approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth; "an estimate of what it would cost"; "a rough idea how long it would take"

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.


The Bible is plenty evidence enough. Just because you’re too hard-headed to accept it does not invalidate it.




Supposedly. Since there does not appear to be an actual verifiable date for the flood, that pretty much shoots down your dating system.


You might want to study up on actual Big Bang theoretical physics then. In order for the Big Bang to even happen, there had to have been a point in time when the physical laws as we know them now did not exist. According to the theories I’ve read, there was a time in the beginning when matter did in fact travel faster than the speed of light, and light itself traveled at near infinite speed. And this isn’t “creation science;” this is part of an actual explanation given by proponents of the Big Bang theory. However, whenever you start talking to me about physical laws not being constant, as these scientists do, then the word “miracle” comes to my mind.


The problem with that “several hundred years later” theory is that we have actual papyri that date back to the second century. Now who’s being intellectually lazy? Or didn't you at least bother to read what I posted before about that?


E-s-t-i-m-a-t-e. Here’s a freaking definition in case you don’t know what that means:


You know what really cracks me up about you village atheist types? You always come on our forum and start trying to talk like you know everything. You don't even know me. You don't even take the time to find out who I am or what makes me tick. All you do is come on our forum and try to prove how much you know, which, as it always ends up in my estimation, isn't worth very much. I have only met one atheist on this forum who actually acted like he cared about people, and he hasn't been on here in months. The rest of you, in my opinion, are just trolls looking for an argument. Why should I give more credence to your arguments than I ever gave to Dr. Zaius? Or Fossilized Apostle? Or even King Nintendoid (who may or may not be still around). But I will pose the exact same question to you that I posed to them: why should I give a crap what you have to say, when you obviously don't care about me or what I have to say?

Here's a hint: change your freaking attitude or go someplace else.

1 thing, dork, dont try to go against what diddymus says, he knows this stuff more than you, and he will always win theese kind of arguments

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

The Bible is plenty evidence enough. Just because you’re too hard-headed to accept it does not invalidate it.

The problem with that “several hundred years later” theory is that we have actual papyri that date back to the second century. Now who’s being intellectually lazy? Or didn't you at least bother to read what I posted before about that?

You know what really cracks me up about you village atheist types? You always come on our forum and start trying to talk like you know everything. You don't even know me. You don't even take the time to find out who I am or what makes me tick. All you do is come on our forum and try to prove how much you know, which, as it always ends up in my estimation, isn't worth very much. I have only met one atheist on this forum who actually acted like he cared about people, and he hasn't been on here in months. The rest of you, in my opinion, are just trolls looking for an argument. Why should I give more credence to your arguments than I ever gave to Dr. Zaius? Or Fossilized Apostle? Or even King Nintendoid (who may or may not be still around). But I will pose the exact same question to you that I posed to them: why should I give a crap what you have to say, when you obviously don't care about me or what I have to say?

Here's a hint: change your freaking attitude or go someplace else.

kI would like to state, as an opinion, not as an argument, that Didymus should not even participate in such debates because it’s his JOB to defend his religion and convert people.

......*bangs head on table*. By the same logic Gene Ray would be right about the Time Cube simply because he says that he’s right and that it’s the only, undeniable truth A BILLION TIMES.

ANd hard-headed christians do not exist, I presume?

I have seen documents dated over 4000 years ago speaking of many, many gods and religion which are completely different from yours. I suppose due to your ‘proven by age’ theory, it would all be true.

Branding people you disagree with as trolls is a very nice tactic. Also, don’t YOU talk like you know everything? Also, Didy, to have a debate with someone, you don’t necessarily have to dive into their mind and get a fair understanding of how they think before you can start said debate.

What i find interesting is how Seamuzs noted that a friend of his travelled to the Netherlands to convert people. ....WHAT possesses people to travel halfway across the world to convert people when there are christians there to do the job for them?