|
Another biblical theory…
|
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
|
http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html
Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."
It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
|
Comments
|
Page 14 of 16 pages ‹ First < 12 13 14 15 16 > |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:40 AM
Yankee: Yes, that is a possibility. I don't believe that is true, for these reasons.
The Sadducees didn't refer to these books as the Torah. They referred to them as the Five Books of Moses. The five books of moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leveticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) are identical to the books in the OT.
This leaves only the Torah as a possibility for change, but then again, it is still very unlikely, because those five books do not give a definative reference to hell (they do to heaven, though).
If you look at the possiblility of the OT changing instead of the Torah, then that would mean that today, like 2000 years past all of their lifespans, they managed to keep their changes completely secret. Copies of the original manuscripts were not found only in the Dead Sea scrolls, but also in many other groupings found all over the european/middle eastern region. After being referenced for accuracy, no changes reported. This disproves change in the OT.
Can you give me the URLs of those sites? I'd like to check them out.
As for the Ark, it had many decks and it was large. Noah would probably have to keep many of the animals in seperate pens on these decks. If he was worried about bracing, logically wouldn't he work the pens themselves into the bracing system?
I did mention the Canopy theory. It's possible. I don't remember specifically what I had said about it before, but it has no biblical evidence. After examining that fact, I don't think it is viable. In fact, the only thing the bible says is that the floodgates opened and it rained from heaven. When the flood was over, it simply drained. It implies that this happened because God willed it so.
So where did the water go? Assuming that God exists with with authority over even the rains and oceans, he could just make all that water disappear, or evaporate into the atmosphere an form clouds, or maybe a combination of the two. Maybe some of it just seeped into the ground? It took around 200 days to drain, so the only place the water could really go is unexplainable except through God. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:41 AM
Good point, Yankee! See Captain? We're fully on topic again now  |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:43 AM
Oh, and Captain, here's some math for you, supporting my stance.
(Taken from www.carm.org)
The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy
The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.
"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10^157, or 1 in
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10^79. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident." |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:50 AM
Eric, are you telling us that there ares still some bible verses that you haven't repeated yet? Please don't bore us with them. We'll just let you stew in your fairy tale beliefs.
Meanwhile, the world goes on. People are still tortured, raped, exploited and have birth defects. Oh I almost forgot. They are still being killed by tsnamis and earthquakes too. But you just go thinking that everything is okay and your loving God is looking out for everyone. You should go far in life.
"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars." |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:59 AM
Captain, I do nothing to try to insult you, so what is this all for?
Anywho, you are free to think this is a fairy tale. But, understand that this "fairy tale" happens to be my system of belief.
Why are people raped? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Tortured? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Exploitation? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Birth Defects? Sin in the world affecting even infants who are blameless.
These problems with the world are not God's fault. If you took the time to look at scripture yourself, then you would see that these problems (in my faith) are only overcome through God. They are not caused by God, they are caused by man because we have free will.
Natural disasters? These are part of life. It happens. We don't know why God makes these. There are theories as to why, all sides backed by scripture.
You have no right to insult me, just as I have no right to insult you. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, we're all still on the same earth, and as long as we're here, we might as well get along. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:01 PM
I see you were posting while I was writing mine.
Once again you have showed that you have no sense of logic. You invent a statement, declare it as fact then proceed from there. This strategy is used by scam artists everywhere. (Check out the LifeWave Energy Patch thread.) Where the fuck did 1^17 come from? You also assume Jesus, if he even existed, fulfilled some prophecies. Again you start your "proof" from an unverified statement. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:04 PM
"Birth Defects? Sin in the world affecting even infants who are blameless."
Are you telling me you think sin is responsible for birth defect? Now I know you are fucking crazy! |
Razela
in Chicago, IL
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:40 PM
Wow, I have so much to say and am not sure where to start, but I've decided that since my posts will probably be ignored, or at least not thoroughly read, I'll try to keep this short.
Eric, what part of my post explaining the differences between the OT and the Torah were misunderstood by you. Did you read Yankee Clippers post, he explained much history in more detail then I had the patience to write. Yet, you still ignored it.
I'd like you to go to Israel and see the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have. They are not in English, they are in an Aramaic form of Hebrew, which is a copy of what you will find in any synagogue in the Torah. Your translation which you so often refer to as the word of god has been changed and Christianized if you will to make it fit the New Testament, and those translations were used in the past to try to convert Jews.
Your logic is running like this:
1) The OT is the word of God and is therefore perfect
2) The OT was originally copied from the Jewish bible
2) The Jewish bible today is different from the OT
Therefore, the Jewish bible must have changed from what it originally was
The rest of your argument looks like this:
1) The OT is the word of God
2) The OT was copied originally from the Jewish bible
3) There are prophesies and beliefs in the OT that the Jews do not now believe
Therefore the Jews must have changed their beliefs.
Unfortunately, your basic assumptions are grossly off. (1) is a matter of opinion (though it takes a lot for me to just say that and many others on this board as well as I have shown you proof that the OT is not the word of God, however I |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:13 PM
Captain: 10^17 refers to an exponent. It should be read "10 raised to the 17th". This textbox does not let me do superscript, so that will have to do.
Razela:
1) That is not my logic/argument. That is what I am assuming hypothetically. I believe it as fact, but for sake of discussion I present it as hypothesis.
2) For all we know, my knowledge of this history is not flawed and yours is. Can we agree to disagree?
3) I present biblical verses because they are historically correct. The New Testament alone is 99.5% accurate historically with around 5600 copies of the original manuscript produced within 100 years of the original to prove that. The last 0.5% are simple, nonimportant things such as saying "Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus" or minor spelling/punctuation errors, which they are very good about fixing. Homer's Iliad has only around 643 copies of the original manuscript produced approximately 500 years after the original with only a 95% historical accuracy. This is fact, whether you choose to accept that is up to you, and I invite you to research that yourself.
4) The OT was also historically accurate. The jewish faith described in it believed everything in the OT. This was until the roman times when that division occurred. This is also historical fact, and again, I invite you to do research yourself and show me specific historical documents where this is not the case.
5) Jews of today proclaim that their faith has always been the way it is. This is a direct contradiction of historical fact, which was given even in my 10th grade world history textbook. Again, if you wish to provide me with specific documentation as to why this is not true, feel free. I'll again provide my own. And in this case, I'll even do it without the Bible.
6) I am not Judging anyone. A Christian, by definition courtesy of www.dictionary.com, is defined as "n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."
That's right. To be a Christian you must follow all of Jesus's teachings as described in the New Testament. One of his teachings is that he said he was God. This means the whole bible is viewed as our holy text. To be saved is to accept Jesus as savior and atonement for sin based on what he said and the sacrifice he made. To deny the validity of the bible's description of what he said he is means you do not believe it to be fact, and you cannot be saved, hence, not a Christian. This is based on DICTIONARY definitions, not a Christian website. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:25 PM
7) The essential doctrines one is required to believe to be considered Christian are described in the bible, and this is backed up by that dictionary definition I gave earlier. There are plenty that are nonessential. For example, belief in the apocalypse/rapture are not required to be Christian. Neither is moral integrity. There are many others that are nonessential, as well. The different denominations of Christianity will all have different sets of these nonessential doctrines, but they are still Christian because they include ALL of the essential doctrines without any changes or perversions made to them. Mormonism denies several of the essential doctrines, as does JW. Therefore, they are not Christian.
Any doctrine declared to be a Heresy is noted as such because it contradicts the essential doctrines. Any individual or group believing one or more of these heresies is not considered Christian. These heresies include Peter's Adoptionism and Theistic Evolution.
My point is, anyone that is considered a Christian by the above rules will be in heaven with me regardless of the difference the sets of nonessential doctrines. So I will not get lonely up there, but thanks for caring.
I don't attack you maliciously, so why do you do it to me? |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:36 PM
Oh yeah, and Captain: Jesus did exist. Everyone in the NT existed. Read this for proof. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:42 PM
The thing is, guys, at least even the bible is documentation. You guys aren't providing me any. If you can back up your claims with accepted, solid historical fact, then I will recind what I have said that is errant about judaism. If you cannot, then I'll assume that there isn't any.
The bible is historical documentation, and very accurate, as described above. You can choose not to belive this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if you think it isn't, I'm still providing more sources than you are to back up my claims. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:55 PM
I know what 10^17 means. I said the number is pulled out of thin air just to support their case. It assumes a lot.
I don't see any proof that Jesus existed in that link. All I see is people talking about Jesus but not actually meeting him. They refer to others knowing him just like you do today.
The bible is not documentation. It was written by men who made wild claims. It is up to you and them to prove it. When you do, we will believe it. Its been 2000 years and you guys still haven't done it. Our claims are backed up by evidence. Mathematical and scientific observation evidence. Your only evidence is your bible. You need some new material.
Anyway I don't have time for any more of this foolishness. I have an appointment back on earth. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:07 PM
Eric, that website doesn't really support anything. All the people who are quoted were born after the date Jesus supposedly died. I'm not aware of any document in existence where the author said, "I saw Jesus", not even in the Bible.
Nor are all of the quotations on that page saying "Jesus existed"; some are only saying that Christians worship Christ. If Pliny writing that people worshiping Christ means that Jesus existed and was indeed the Son of God, then writing about people worshipping Vishnu means that Vishnu exists and is really an aspect of Brahman. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:22 PM
The number was calculated mathematically using the modern science of probability. It gives the name of the person that calculated them, so feel free to contact him about that calculation to see how he arrived at it.
I just gave you a source from the dictionary. That is most certainly diffent material than the Bible. The link I gave you gave historical accounts or these people (John the baptist, Jesus) existing. By saying that, then you either didn't read it or you skimmed over it.
Written by men that made wild claims? This implies that they were lunatics. Do lunatics have very much credibility? No. So explain how these "lunatics" managed to convince so many people into believing this, that what they wrote would spawn the world's largest organized religion?
Here's some more nonbiblical accounts of Jesus.
-Islam recognizes that Jesus existed. Muhammad called him a prophet.
-Buddhism acknowledges that Jesus existed. Buddha called him a great man.
So let's see. Were the gospel writers lunatics? If they were, then how did their writings spawn the largest organized religion? Wouldn't people have seen through the lunacy?
Were they liars? If they were, then why did they not recant even after being threatened with being put to death for their belief? No one would die for a lie.
Jesus did exist. The Gospels were written as an eyewitness account of Jesus' life and crucifixion. This means that they cannot be lunatics. People saw what Jesus could do. They heard him speak. They saw him die a horrible death, and even while he was being crucified showed nothing but love to everyone. If jesus did not exist, than these claims would have never been credible, even back then, and Christianity would have died out in minutes. This is proof within itself that Jesus existed.
But what if Jesus was a liar? If he was a liar, he never recanted once, even when he was told he would be put to death if he did not. Then, they scourged and crucified him, and he never once recanted. After that, his followers spread his teachings and were in turn put to death. As I said, a liar would never die for his lie, and his followers wouldnt die for that lie, either, if they knew it was a lie.
So what does that make Jesus? You tell me. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:22 PM
I'm willing to accept the possibility of there having been a major flood, although I have rather serious doubts that it would have covered all land over the entire Earth. Many of the ancient cultures from around that region (Hebrews, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hellenes) have stories of a flood in ancient times that wiped out most of the population. That can be the result of either coincidence, of one culture borrowing stories from another culture, or else of an actual flood. I find coincidence to be unlikely, so I tend more towards the latter two possibilities. If there was a major flood in the region that covered large areas (e.g.: the idea that the Mediterranean was once a large valley that was cataclysmically flooded when the Atlantic broke through at the current Strait of Gibraltar), then the locals, given their limited geographical point of view, might very well have considered the "entire world" to have been covered in water. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:24 PM
Eric, where in the Gospels does it say that they are eyewitness accounts? |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:33 PM
Accipiter: Your statement doesn't make any sense. That link I gave was the only one I could find in five minutes, and it wasn't even the one I intended to give that lists manuscripts written while Jesus WAS alive by people who did see the events take place.
Either way, it still doesn't make sense and doesn't hold up. What I gave you were writings that said Jesus existed and people worshipped him. They said that along with accounts of what he did. They are somewhat backed up (though I admit not a lot) in their claims, and there are many more documents out there not in that list that have much, much more credibility based on evidence than those in that list. And they still say the same facts, that Jesus people worshipped him.
Your statement that you could write a manuscript that said Vishnu was worshipped by the people and that he is really an aspect of Brahman. Okay. Fine. Now back it up. Provide even a little historical reference supporting that claim. It's not easy. The most you are probably going to get are documents describing the hindu faith. This is not historical evidence that Vishnu, or even Brahman, even existed, just statements that he is part of the Hindu faith.
My point is the link I gave claims that Jesus really existed and provides at least some evidence that can back it up. Can you do this with Vishnu? Probably not. Good luck trying, though. |
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 03:00 PM
Accipiter: Not every one of the gospels is an eyewitness account. The two that are direct eyewitness accounts are Matthew and John.
***Even though Mark and Luke were not eyewitness accounts, notice the similarities between Mark, Luke and Matthew.***
Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle. Matthew was personally with Jesus though most of his later life, and claimed to have seen him resurrected. This is an eyewitness account.
Mark is actually not an eyewitness account. Mark was written by John Mark, who recorded this from the teachings of Peter the Apostle, who WAS an eyewitness account.
Luke is also not an eyewitness account. It was written by Luke, who was a compainion of Paul. They learned of the account from the Apostles and other non-apostolic eyewitnesses. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was only concerned with the facts. He consulted with eyewitnesses in writing Luke and also when writing Acts.
John was written by John the Apostle (not John the Baptist). It is an eyewitness account because John accompanied Jesus for much of his life. Also, he speaks in this book from a perspective of having been there.
All of the gospels were written before the end of the first century A.D. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 03:16 PM
Many Biblical scholars, even those who are Christian, do not believe that the books Matthew and John were written by the apostles. Nor does either Gospel actually say that they were written by Matthew or John; that was decided much later at some religious council. There is also good evidence that the authors of Matthew and John were basing a lot of their works upon that of Mark. |
|
Page 14 of 16 pages ‹ First < 12 13 14 15 16 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
