Proof the Bible is Garbage?

[MetalHeadz]

For me, science and the more we learn is not a threat to my belief in a God since I consider the Bible a tremendous guide to a person’s spirituality and leading a good, moral life. But I think it was written by man and I do not take it literally. I feel that the truths/meanings in the Bible are very real and it contains God’s words, but these words are filtered through mans thoughts and written by mans pen. As such, I look beyond what I feel are the obvious factual errors in the Bible (flood covering entire world, Adam and Eve, miracles, etc.) and look for to the moral and spiritual lessons they offer.

Lol, that's such a bullshit thing to believe. "Oh, I realise that science sounds a little more logical than religion but I really still think God exists so let's just say that it was mans misinterpretations where it falls down scientifically. Hah, look, I'm completely exempt from criticism now, how convenient" - Jesus fuck, get a grip.

Your forgetting that the biggest absurdity of religion is that a God is supposed to exists. Giving God as an answer only creates a bigger question of how God came to exist.

[HeavenSent]

There's a lot in the bible that 'denominations' misinterpret and hold on to.
Rather than coming to the realization that it's quite possible ones denomination has misinterpreted the concept, people, for the most part, either come to the conclusion that the bible's wrong or it's some kind of metaphor or analogy that's not meant to be taken literally. It seems like few ever come to the conclusion of the possibility that THEIR denomination has misinterpreted the meaning.

Imagine 'the big picture of truth'.
The bible just zooms in on a small corner of that picture and primarily speaks of that small portion of the picture. Sometimes, clues of the rest of the picture are only given with a couple words that for most people goes without thought or recognition.

The way I was taught to understand the bible harmonizes perfectly with common sense and our scientific understanding of this planet and the universe.

The earth was around for billions of years before God decided to use it to stage the chastisement his heavenly children. Not only that, but for 1000s of years before Adam & Eve, people, albeit primitive, already occupied the planet. And of course God being the Creator of the universe put them here long ago... And before them were the dinosaurs... etc.

After God is done with this planet, it'll go back to the way it was and continue where it left off. Meanwhile, the heavenly children will have learned their lesson; never again to repeat their error.

[HeavenSent]

The bible is really telling the same story over and over and over again. Each time on a larger scale with more detail.

It starts with the story of a couple.
It tells the same story again as a family.
The same story again with a nation.
Again the same story with the world.

It's meant for his heavenly children to understand. To everyone else, it's a mystery; a religion.

[SEAL]

For me, science and the more we learn is not a threat to my belief in a God since I consider the Bible a tremendous guide to a person’s spirituality and leading a good, moral life. But I think it was written by man and I do not take it literally. I feel that the truths/meanings in the Bible are very real and it contains God’s words, but these words are filtered through mans thoughts and written by mans pen. As such, I look beyond what I feel are the obvious factual errors in the Bible (flood covering entire world, Adam and Eve, miracles, etc.) and look for to the moral and spiritual lessons they offer.

That's very well put. Exacly what I tried to say and believe

[Mythrandir]

For me, science and the more we learn is not a threat to my belief in a God since I consider the Bible a tremendous guide to a person’s spirituality and leading a good, moral life.

Hi Ephemeral, I don't know if you're willing to engage in a discussion... but this one sentence really stood out for me. I really don't see how one follows from the other. In other words, this seems to me as a non sequitur.

[Ephemeral]

Hi Ephemeral, I don't know if you're willing to engage in a discussion... but this one sentence really stood out for me. I really don't see how one follows from the other. In other words, this seems to me as a non sequitur.

I believe that while Science addresses our physical world, it does not speak to the meaning of our lives. For me, the Bible is a good story book that can be used to learn how to live a better moral life and is fodder for hope. And when I consider human's spiritual and ethical evolution, the Bible seems to fit in with many other Monotheistic and non-Monotheistic beliefs (great flood being a common element, for example). I place my emphasis on the meaning of these beliefs/ethics and not on the literal details. In this context, I have no conflicts when science dispels or disproves any of the details.

[Ephemeral]

Lol, that's such a bullshit thing to believe. "Oh, I realise that science sounds a little more logical than religion but I really still think God exists so let's just say that it was mans misinterpretations where it falls down scientifically. Hah, look, I'm completely exempt from criticism now, how convenient" - Jesus fuck, get a grip.

Your forgetting that the biggest absurdity of religion is that a God is supposed to exists. Giving God as an answer only creates a bigger question of how God came to exist.

Not quite sure how to respond (or if it is worth responding) to a person who is arrogant enough to tell another person 'that's such a bullshit thing to believe'. Sorry that MY belief system of thinking that Science and God can co-exist does not meet with your expectations.

[HeavenSent]

Sry for posting again on this quote but there was more I wanted to say on the thought.

At least one of the two must be wrong.

Have you ever realisticly thought about this?

Of course I have. I'm a (renegade) theologian. I've studied practically every religion in the world. I have boxes of notes, graphs & charts of my work. One is full of information about the stuff Tone is pushing in his ignorance. I wrote a book (an attempt to put the divine plan in layman's terms) before I ever experienced the internet.

I personally, silly me, think it's quite, quite a coinsidence that all religions more or less started at the same time and all point out to onee thing (love, dont steal, etc). The 'dialect' (god, allah) has changed in the many years.
That is the interesting part. How did that happen? What happend?

http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...5&postcount=66

(not to sound like Tone, but fucking pyramids where build, maya's knew the universe, underground caves where build (to hide from?) and etc, etc.) I think something has happend what has been whiped of our history book. Mostlikely not as dramatic as a Tone story, but something made people believe in something bigger than themselves. A 'god'. As people moved to different parts (or it was a global thing) the dialect made it God or Allah or Prince charles for my part.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built before the biblical flood. Noah during this time was just getting into the prime of his life at the ripe young age of 300 years old. He didn’t start building the Ark until he was 500 years old. It only took about 30 years to build the Great Pyramid. This time still gives Noah 170 years to get to his home-land, get married, settle and have kids to help him build the Ark. Some people think because of the way God talks to Job in (Job.38), that he could have been the architect.

E. Raymond Capt (USC professor of Antiquities) in his book The Great Pyramid Decoded writes:

"Manetho, an Egyptian priest, explains that the temples were closed during the time of the Shepherd Kings (Cory’s Ancient Fragments,pg.68). He writes, ...there came up from the East, in a strange manner, men of an ignoble race, who had the confidence to invade our country, and easily subdued it by their power, without a battle. All this nation, continues Manetho, was styled Hycsos, the Shepherd Kings. The first syllable, Hyc, according the sacred dialect denoted a king, and the sos signifies a shepherd according to the vulgar tongue; and of these is compounded the term Hycsos.

Archbishop Ussher, the noted Church historian, in his chronology, refers to the migration of the Shepherd Kings from Arabia into Egypt. From Ussher and other authorities, it seems that some Shepherd-Prince coming from Arabia or Palestine was enabled to exert such an amount of mental control over King Cheops as to induce the king to shut up the idolatrous temples and compel his subjects to labour in the erection of the Great Pyramid. Under this shepherd-prince, Egypt’s national religion was overturned in favour of the more simple worship of the One God.

Upon completion of the Great Pyramid, ancient writings of the historians say that the foreign people withdrew and their departure was the cause of great rejoicing among the Egyptians. The restraint being removed, the people returned with fresh zest to their idolatrous practices."

Many theologians believe the Great Pyramid stands as a testimony to the bible.
The measurements of various elements are in proportion to the dates of events in the bible.

The Mayan civilization coincidently begins when king David sends out his trading ships (1Kings 10:22), which also coincides the length of time that Magellan sails around the world.

Another thing you might want to be critical about is that a few hundred years ago the church burned witches and the earth was flat.

Mix radical fundementalist Christians with the effects of LSD and you get an idea of those witch hunts. Many historians believe some of the bread during that time had Ergot poisoning. The flour was infected with the fungus which is the source of LSD.

The educated ancient world never believed the world was flat. A page in my book has an outline compiled by the extensive research of Harvard Professor, Barry Fell in his book entitled America B.C., summarizes the influx of people crossing the oceans into the Western Hemisphere.

[Kolar]

I think I burnt my retinas after 3 minutes of reading.

[Cops]

Noah,
My posts were written in irony. My point was that I do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally. My other point was that people often 'buy into' their beliefs too strongly and then promote them as truths.

I can see clearly now, all the rain is gone. I can see all obstacles in my way.

[Cops]

I think I burnt my retinas after 3 minutes of reading.

"Excuse me miss can I use the bible as a source for my research paper?"

"No Ryan you cannot, unless of course your essay is on women's rights and you have a copy of The Koran"

[Mythrandir]

I believe that while Science addresses our physical world, it does not speak to the meaning of our lives. For me, the Bible is a good story book that can be used to learn how to live a better moral life and is fodder for hope. And when I consider human's spiritual and ethical evolution, the Bible seems to fit in with many other Monotheistic and non-Monotheistic beliefs (great flood being a common element, for example). I place my emphasis on the meaning of these beliefs/ethics and not on the literal details. In this context, I have no conflicts when science dispels or disproves any of the details.

Thanks for clarifying, I indeed did misunderstand what you were trying to say before. My take on the bible is that its specialness(?) is derived from the fact that so many people regard it as special. Concerning the ethical evolution, it really seems to me that at this point, disregarding historical context, the world would be better off if the bible would be replaced with one page outlining the simple rules of (western?) morality, with at #1 the Golden Rule.
I can't comment on human spiritual evolution because I don't really get what you mean by that. Are you talking about the concept Christianity has about God which has changed over time?

[sexy wooden spoon]

You know i really wouldnt mind a good debate on this. However its the "the big bang rulez as it is proven" really annoys me.

Anyperson with a good detail of knowledge knows that even the amazing big bang theory has huge gaping holes in it that seriously dents its feasibility.

At the moment it really is a case of beliving God created the universe or an impossible event created it. Either way if you want proof both do not provide it.

As to my scientific background - i am research scientist, working closesly with cambridge university.

Have fun.

[Mythrandir]

You know i really wouldnt mind a good debate on this. However its the "the big bang rulez as it is proven" really annoys me.

Anyperson with a good detail of knowledge knows that even the amazing big bang theory has huge gaping holes in it that seriously dents its feasibility.

I think you give the Big Bang theory both too much and too little credit at the same time. It is not the Theory of Everything, it is simply the observation that the whole observable universe can be tracked back into time to have originated from a single 'point'. This theory is verified by multiple sources and has sophisticated mathematical models. That's all the Big Bang Theory is. Like Newton's laws of gravity, it is incomplete (especially at the boundary conditions) but definitely describes something real and true inbetween.
Most importantly, just like evolution does not deal with how the first life came to be (that's abiogenesis), the big bang does not deal with how the singularity came to be - that is still a puzzle.

At the moment it really is a case of beliving God created the universe or an impossible event created it. Either way if you want proof both do not provide it.

I think this is a false dichotomy, especially since one can and does assign innumeral characteristics to the concept 'God' such that one God is not the other.

[Ephemeral]

Thanks for clarifying, I indeed did misunderstand what you were trying to say before. My take on the bible is that its specialness(?) is derived from the fact that so many people regard it as special. Concerning the ethical evolution, it really seems to me that at this point, disregarding historical context, the world would be better off if the bible would be replaced with one page outlining the simple rules of (western?) morality, with at #1 the Golden Rule.
I can't comment on human spiritual evolution because I don't really get what you mean by that. Are you talking about the concept Christianity has about God which has changed over time?

Where and how did faith develop? My belief is that early mankind (hunters and gatherers) had a very heavy survival dependencies on nature. It seems to me that early man would place great reverence on these things since it would be so obvious that these dependencies were so critical. That would seem to explain why early man worshiped animals, the sun, mother earth, etc.
At some point I assume that ethical elements become interwoven with faith as a way to support teaching and dissemination of important group survival fundamentals, such as it's not a good thing to get your sister pregnant.

If humans have this kind of our common history of faith, it would seem to indicate that we should better understand the value (and need) of faith in our lives.