The Old Testament

[jayfox]

as i have stated itsd been good to sit back and watch this debate.

but foxy loxy glib non answers like the above have me wanting to turn of.why not just say you dont know the answer.

i think you have done a very good job defending something that imo is indefensible.in a way youb have done better than the others even though you have lost if that makes sense.
ive looked into all sorts of pros and cons for their to be a god. ive looked into pros and cons on the veracity of the bible and most religions,

personally i believe theres a possibility that there could well be a higher being but one thing for sure noone has proved it or disproved it. based on fact and the way our knowledge is expanding i would say its unlikely there is a higher being. again in saying this i believe there is a possibility that a higher being could exist.

when it comes to the bible well imo its the greatest hoax to have ever been played on man. as for creation v evolution again i dont think either can proved. logic and common sense says to follow a path where facts take precedent whilst not necessarily proving its factual i think evolution has more merit.its based on something tangible.

anyway i digress fight the fight by all means you have your faith no matter how silly i think to be i say good onya. but please when debating on such a good thread lets keep the glibness out i say this not just to you but all participants.

Mate, that response was a joke. A lighter moment in a heavy thread. Believe it or not it is nice to have a joke every now and again when you have spent hundreds of hours and done hundreds of posts on these threads. I'd say lighten up and focus on the 99.99% of my posts in which I attempt to answer peoples questions in a direct way.

 

[the claw]

Mate, that response was a joke. A lighter moment in a heavy thread. Believe it or not it is nice to have a joke every now and again when you have spent hundreds of hours and done hundreds of posts on these threads. I'd say lighten up and focus on the 99.99% of my posts in which I attempt to answer peoples questions in a direct way.

okay fair enough but now just for me can you answer the question we are talking about seriously. i do believe it was a serious question.

 

[Djevv]

i think you have done a very good job defending something that imo is indefensible.

I think its pretty similar to how people look at the Richmond list - some see a list brimming with potential, others a rabble full of half-full types and duds. Time will tell I guess .

Anyway everyone knows there are difficulties with the Bible. Both Christian and Non-Christian alike - no-one, least of all myself or Jay are backing away from that. But to me it's the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick and fault find. I could do a very good job myself if I tried. But instead I'd rather look at reasonable explanations and possible solutions - ILO none of the comments presented so far in this thread prevent the Bible being what it claims to be - the Word of God!!

 

[the claw]

I think its pretty similar to how people look at the Richmond list - some see a list brimming with potential, others a rabble full of half-full types and duds. Time will tell I guess .

Anyway everyone knows there are difficulties with the Bible. Both Christian and Non-Christian alike - no-one, least of all myself or Jay are backing away from that. But to me it's the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick and fault find. I could do a very good job myself if I tried. But instead I'd rather look at reasonable explanations and possible solutions - ILO none of the comments presented so far in this thread prevent the Bible being what it claims to be - the Word of God!!

and thats down totally to faith theres not one piece of evidence anywhere on this thread or elsewhere to suggest the bible is nothing more than a figment of other mens imagination.

good onya for your faith i suppose you have something to believe in that makes you think theres something after death but for sure and certain there is not one scerrick of proof to say it is indeed the word of god.

i wonder how long did the ancients believe in their gods for before something came along and usurped it because of a lack of eveidence. just a matter of time before this happens with the bible.
one constant thru history has been mans need to belive theres more than just death. that history is much longer than the rubbish the bible espouses.

 

[Djevv]

and thats down totally to faith theres not one piece of evidence anywhere on this thread or elsewhere to suggest the bible is nothing more than a figment of other mens imagination.

Actually theres lots of evidence of various types to support the Bible. Here is a small sampling (post #1701) - but a little googling will bring up more answers to every objection raised to Christianity than anyone has time to read.

good onya for your faith i suppose you have something to believe in that makes you think theres something after death but for sure and certain there is not one scerrick of proof to say it is indeed the word of god.

i wonder how long did the ancients believe in their gods for before something came along and usurped it because of a lack of eveidence. just a matter of time before this happens with the bible.
one constant thru history has been mans need to belive theres more than just death. that history is much longer than the rubbish the bible espouses.

The Bible and Christianity have stood the test of time. The Bible has been around for nearly 4000 years - and was being written for around 2000 of those. It has been believed to be the Word of God for as long as it has been around!! Can any other faith match that?

Moreover Christianity has been attacked by the finest thinkers of each generation for the last 2000 years and is still going strong today. Now none of this proves that the Bible is what it claims to be, but if anything actually could possibly be that Word then the Bible must be a good candidate.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Actually theres lots of evidence of various types to support the Bible. Here is a small sampling (post #1701) - but a little googling will bring up more answers to every objection raised to Christianity than anyone has time to read.

Defence attorney approach. Look at the sum of the evidence and decide what is the simplest and most likely explanation. This also requires that you recognise your preconceptions and discard them (ie. belief that god exists as an axiom will undoubtedly colour your view of the evidence. Better to look at the evidence and decide whether God exists based on that).

The Bible and Christianity have stood the test of time. The Bible has been around for nearly 4000 years - and was being written for around 2000 of those. It has been believed to be the Word of God for as long as it has been around!! Can any other faith match that?

Moreover Christianity has been attacked by the finest thinkers of each generation for the last 2000 years and is still going strong today. Now none of this proves that the Bible is what it claims to be, but if anything actually could possibly be that Word then the Bible must be a good candidate.

Why would you expect to find the Word of an individual whose existence is questionable at best? The Bible is the writing of men whose knowledge of the world and morality reflects the time in which it was written. No surprises there. You would think writing that was divinely inspired might contain one grain of information that wasn't freely available at that time (given what we know now).

 

[Djevv]

Defence attorney approach. Look at the sum of the evidence and decide what is the simplest and most likely explanation. This also requires that you recognise your preconceptions and discard them (ie. belief that god exists as an axiom will undoubtedly colour your view of the evidence. Better to look at the evidence and decide whether God exists based on that).

The way I see it you either explain everything as a result of some sort of intelligent design or it is the result of nothing becoming something then ordering it's self. I can't see any other possibilities. Scientifically I would judge the first proposition is more likely.

Why would you expect to find the Word of an individual whose existence is questionable at best? The Bible is the writing of men whose knowledge of the world and morality reflects the time in which it was written. No surprises there. You would think writing that was divinely inspired might contain one grain of information that wasn't freely available at that time (given what we know now).

As I think there is a creator God he would probably try to communicate with us. You may or may not expect the extra knowledge - but you would not expect glaring scientific errors which you don't find. You would also expect a superior moral code which I would argue you do see as well.
If I was to try to point out areas where I think the Bible has superior knowledge off the top of my head
Biblical cleanliness and sanitation laws seem very advanced
No human sacrifice
Concept of an accidental killing - ie no 'payback' type morality
Holidays
Spherical Earth that hangs in nothingness
Resting the earth after a period of agriculture
The water cycle
Ancient mountains
High view of morality and the treatment of others
Not mistreating slaves or foreigners ie they have rights.
The brotherhood of man - ie racism is fundamentally incorrect.
The rule of law.

 

[Rosy]

- ILO none of the comments presented so far in this thread prevent the Bible being what it claims to be - the Word of God!!

What is ILO? Are you Leysy? :hihi

Of course nothing in this thread prevents the bible being the word of god but the lack of answers to some simple questions, for example if the bible said that snakes had legs, indicates it's very open to personal interpretation rather than stated fact. A massive difference that has about as much true value and accuracy as Chinese whispers and puts it in the realms of fairy stories imo.

It certainly makes me wonder about interpretations of what's written in regard to sin, evil, heaven and hell etc.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The way I see it you either explain everything as a result of some sort of intelligent design or it is the result of nothing becoming something then ordering it's self. I can't see any other possibilities. Scientifically I would judge the first proposition is more likely.

This is where your beliefs muddy your thinking. Self ordering as you call it is a simple, well understood mechanism, requiring nothing but time to do its work. Your reference to this as some sort of hurdle reveals that you have completely disregarded all of our previous discussions on this issue and have fallen back on that tired creationist argument. It is true that we don't know how likely biogenesis was but we do know that organic molecules are spontaneously generated and that it would only take a single self-replicating molecule to get the ball rolling. There is a whole field of research that looks at such molecules and the likelihood of their generation. Remember of the trillions of chemical reactions going on during the first few hundreds of millions of years on this planet it would only take a single self replicating molecule to allow the simplest 'life' to get started. Natural selection easily explains the rest.

Knowing that you are a science teacher, to hear you say that you think that an intelligent designer is a better scientific explanation is a concern. Where is the evidence for this designer? What predictions does your 'intelligent designer' hypothesis make? If such a designer existed what is the nature and cause of such a being?

As I think there is a creator God he would probably try to communicate with us. You may or may not expect the extra knowledge - but you would not expect glaring scientific errors which you don't find.

Um...in this very thread only 5 days ago Evo posted a link to a site highlighting contradictions and scientific falsehoods in the Bible.

You are being generous. Open to contradiction would seem more accurate. These are but a few examples of God's "unerring word":

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

You would also expect a superior moral code which I would argue you do see as well.

Which moral code do you consider to be unique and founded by Christianity? I can't find any morals in the Bible that aren't predated by other religions/cultures.

If I was to try to point out areas where I think the Bible has superior knowledge off the top of my head
Biblical cleanliness and sanitation laws seem very advanced
No human sacrifice
Concept of an accidental killing - ie no 'payback' type morality
Holidays
Spherical Earth that hangs in nothingness
Resting the earth after a period of agriculture
The water cycle
Ancient mountains
High view of morality and the treatment of others
Not mistreating slaves or foreigners ie they have rights.
The brotherhood of man - ie racism is fundamentally incorrect.
The rule of law.

Many of these are convenient interpretations, not a clear cut statement of unambiguous meaning. None of them contain information that was novel for the time of authorship. I would be very interested to see a biblical verse that contains a real insight that was clearly not 'of man', but divine in origin.

The one on slaves is curious to say the least....especially when you claim to have a book of divine moral authority. Seems rather contradictory to me.

 

[jayfox]

What is ILO? Are you Leysy? :hihi

Of course nothing in this thread prevents the bible being the word of god but the lack of answers to some simple questions, for example if the bible said that snakes had legs, indicates it's very open to personal interpretation rather than stated fact. A massive difference that has about as much true value and accuracy as Chinese whispers and puts it in the realms of fairy stories imo.

It certainly makes me wonder about interpretations of what's written in regard to sin, evil, heaven and hell etc.

Whether or not the snake had legs is completely irrelevant to the true message of the Bible and if you focus on such minor issues you will miss the true message contained within.

 

[Rosy]

Whether or not the snake had legs is completely irrelevant to the true message of the Bible and if you focus on such minor issues you will miss the true message contained within.

It might be completely irrelevant but I've just used it as an example. If people claim that as fact when it's not actually stated who knows what else they claim as fact based on personal interpretation.

 

[evo]

When you think about it. 1st century Christian 'morality' was likely similar to that of the current day Taliban.

You could probably quibble a bit over some of the details but the harshness was much the same.

 

[jayfox]

It might be completely irrelevant but I've just used it as an example. If people claim that as fact when it's not actually stated who knows what else they claim as fact based on personal interpretation.

I don;t think that anyone has stated that it is 'fact' that the snake had legs. I think it is reasonable to assume that he may have given that he was cursed to slide on his belly from then on but the Bible does not give us a description of what he was like prior to that. But again, it is such a minor issue and it is not as if the Bible can be proven right or wrong on this as it doesn't give us enough information anyway.

I do agree that people should be very careful in stating facts that are not contained within the Bible though. That is how varying, often incorrect, interpretations can occur.

 

[Rosy]

No human sacrifice

Providing you don't eat forbidden apples and/or don't worship god the way he wants you to. :hihi

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Providing you don't eat forbidden apples and/or don't worship god the way he wants you to. :hihi

Although the Christian God will mess with you a bit regarding human sacrifice, but only of your own children (see Abraham and Isaac). :-\

 

[jayfox]

Although the Christian God will mess with you a bit regarding human sacrifice, but only of your own children (see Abraham and Isaac). :-\

That was a test of Abraham's love for God to show that he was willing to give anything up for God, even his son. God was never going to let him do it and Abraham passed the test and showed that he put God before everything else.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

That was a test of Abraham's love for God to show that he was willing to give anything up for God, even his son. God was never going to let him do it and Abraham passed the test and showed that he put God before everything else.

Um, why would an omnipotent being require such a remarkably callous demonstration of faith?

Just drop God from that story and put in a world leader that required such a demonstration of loyalty. How would they be judged? That example doesn't even come close though. This is an all powerful being dictating that someone sacrifice their own son as a show of loyalty! Words can't adequately express how heinous that is.

 

[Rosy]

I don;t think that anyone has stated that it is 'fact' that the snake had legs. I think it is reasonable to assume

Isn't it also reasonable to assume claims made as though they actually occurred are considered to be fact/true if they are posted in a way that leads people to believe they actually happened?

For example you've posted about Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale.  Is it fair to assume you believe that to be fact although you mightn't have stated it was fact or is it just a reasonable assumption on your behalf?  

As with the snake legs, the story of the whale probably isn't that important either, but it's just an example of how misinterpretation could take place.  How do we know what are fables passed down over the years and what actually happened.  Maybe god doesn't plan to send me to hell as you claim.

Edit-Just read the last couple of posts when I went to send this.  Can you please guide me to the passage of the bible you refer to about Abraham.  I'd like to read what god's intentions were if  Abraham failed the test.  Why would god even think of Abraham giving his son up for him?  Agree with Panthera's post.  The God you portray certainly doesn't seem to have the character, or decent moral values, of anyone I'd like to befriend in my life.

 

[Djevv]

This is where your beliefs muddy your thinking. Self ordering as you call it is a simple, well understood mechanism, requiring nothing but time to do its work. Your reference to this as some sort of hurdle reveals that you have completely disregarded all of our previous discussions on this issue and have fallen back on that tired creationist argument. It is true that we don't know how likely biogenesis was but we do know that organic molecules are spontaneously generated and that it would only take a single self-replicating molecule to get the ball rolling. There is a whole field of research that looks at such molecules and the likelihood of their generation. Remember of the trillions of chemical reactions going on during the first few hundreds of millions of years on this planet it would only take a single self replicating molecule to allow the simplest 'life' to get started. Natural selection easily explains the rest.

Knowing that you are a science teacher, to hear you say that you think that an intelligent designer is a better scientific explanation is a concern. Where is the evidence for this designer? What predictions does your 'intelligent designer' hypothesis make? If such a designer existed what is the nature and cause of such a being?

I was actually referring to the creation of the universe. As a science lecturer I am a bit concerned that you violate the laws of conservation of mass and energy to make your ideas work. I guess that is where your beliefs muddy your thinking.

Um...in this very thread only 5 days ago Evo posted a link to a site highlighting contradictions and scientific falsehoods in the Bible.

Lol, as if a little googling, research and reading woudln't debunk all of these. 'Infidels.org' indeed!.

Which moral code do you consider to be unique and founded by Christianity? I can't find any morals in the Bible that aren't predated by other religions/cultures.

Many of these are convenient interpretations, not a clear cut statement of unambiguous meaning. None of them contain information that was novel for the time of authorship. I would be very interested to see a biblical verse that contains a real insight that was clearly not 'of man', but divine in origin.

The one on slaves is curious to say the least....especially when you claim to have a book of divine moral authority. Seems rather contradictory to me.

Monotheism originated in the Bible. The 10 commandments. Servant leadership. The golden rule. God as a loving father. Going the 'extra mile'. Loving your enemies. Women as being equal to men. A rest day. Forgiveness of sin as a life principle (both for yourself and directed at others). Agape love (charity). The concept of an accidental killing. Tolerance of foreigners. I'm not sure whether or not any of these were pre-dated by other similar rules, but as a whole they are definitely unique.

I still think you are pretty confused on this issue, the Bible isn't and doesn't claim to be science. I think it's longevity and the reverence with which many hold it speaks volumes about it's value.

 

[Rosy]

God as a loving father.

Yet he'd put Abraham through the trauma of even having to consider sacrificing his son merely to prove he put god above all else?  Unbelievable a truly loving father could even think that way.

I'm also surprised the concept of a loving father is considered unique to the bible.