The Old Testament

[Panthera tigris FC]

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.

The 'order' of the universe can also be explained by simple physics. Where are the laws of conservation of mass and energy violated? It is you bucking the evidence-based scientific consensus to shoehorn in your beliefs, not me.

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

So you dismiss it on the basis of the URL instead of the content? Very thorough of you. Your cover-all Google rebuttal doesn't really work. How about pointing out how the (understandable) biblical misconceptions highlighted on the site mesh with the idea of its divine and thus perfect origin?

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.

None of those are unique to the bible. Including monotheism. A very brief look at the evidence would have revealed that. So were the original concepts divinely inspired? What does the Bible bring to the table? For the only book claiming to be directly inspired by God it does appear to be lacking in originality somewhat.

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.

I don't claim that the Bible is a science text (how could it be?). My point is that it is not unreasonable to expect a divinely inspired book to provide some novel insights and be free from error and contradiction.

The fact that Christians consider it divinely inspired is not really a surprise is it? It does provide the foundation of their faith after all. That has no bearing on whether it IS divinely inspired though.

 

[jayfox]

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.

Sometimes it is in our own best interests, for the strengthening of our own faith, and also sets a fantastic example for billions of people to come, for God to put a follower through such an ordeal even though He knew what the outcome would be beforehand.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Can you please guide me to the passage of the bible you refer to about Abraham.

Genesis 22:1-24

 

[jayfox]

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.

I understand that the Bible can be quite confusing, but, in this situation, you are comparing apples with oranges. On one hand we have an example where the Bible does not give us the detail (the existence of the snakes legs) so we can only assume. On the other hand, we have all of the detail regarding Jonah's story - "But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17. This is described quite clearly so we can take this as fact.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sometimes it is in our own best interests, for the strengthening of our own faith, and also sets a fantastic example for billions of people to come, for God to put a follower through such an ordeal even though He knew what the outcome would be beforehand.

I'm sorry Jay, but I find that one of the more incredible things I have read on any of these threads. Fantastic example?

 

[jayfox]

I'm sorry Jay, but I find that one of the more incredible things I have read on any of these threads. Fantastic example?

Yeah, a fantastic example that Abraham was willing to put God before everything else in his life, even his own son. The only greater example of sacrifice that I can think of is God giving us Jesus to suffer and die for us.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yeah, a fantastic example that Abraham was willing to put God before everything else in his life, even his own son. The only greater example of sacrifice that I can think of is God giving us Jesus to suffer and die for us.

And you still can't see the ridiculous nature of an all powerful being requiring such demonstrations of faith?

 

[Rosy]

On the other hand, we have all of the detail regarding Jonah's story - "But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17. This is described quite clearly so we can take this as fact.

Seems to me you've, and others spruiking the bible have, assumed that the "great fish" was a whale going by previous comments. Claims made that aren't clearly fact at all.

 

[Djevv]

The 'order' of the universe can also be explained by simple physics. Where are the laws of conservation of mass and energy violated? It is you bucking the evidence-based scientific consensus to shoehorn in your beliefs, not me.

If everything came from nothing then that violates conservation of matter/energy - neither can be created by any natural cause - this goes for all the variants including 'multiverses' and repeating universes. Not only that but 'eternal' universes don't work either due to the second law of thermodynamics stating that they would eventually suffer heat death. Not only that but numerous lines of evidence indicate that the universe did in fact originate from nothing a while ago - just as the Bible said it did - and the universe is basically composed of light, just as the Bible also says. There is no reasonable explanation for our existance that does not include God.

So you dismiss it on the basis of the URL instead of the content? Very thorough of you. Your cover-all Google rebuttal doesn't really work. How about pointing out how the (understandable) biblical misconceptions highlighted on the site mesh with the idea of its divine and thus perfect origin?

I've done this sort of thing on the other thread. Why don't you do it? Challenge your own preconceptions. Seems like busywork to me.

None of those are unique to the bible. Including monotheism. A very brief look at the evidence would have revealed that. So were the original concepts divinely inspired? What does the Bible bring to the table? For the only book claiming to be directly inspired by God it does appear to be lacking in originality somewhat.

You'll need to be more specific. You asked for originate - of course they are not unique they were later copied. Anyway the Bible it's self IS unique, there is absolutely nothing like it in any other religion.

I don't claim that the Bible is a science text (how could it be?). My point is that it is not unreasonable to expect a divinely inspired book to provide some novel insights and be free from error and contradiction.

I think it fulfils both those criteria, although there is a human element in the Bible which may mean that it is not entirely error free.

The fact that Christians consider it divinely inspired is not really a surprise is it? It does provide the foundation of their faith after all. That has no bearing on whether it IS divinely inspired though.

Jews likewise. How do you tell if something is divinely inspired?

 

[evo]

If everything came from nothing

I've read every post he has made on this board and I don't believe Pantera has ever claimed that.

That is the classic theistic strawman.

 

[Djevv]

Seems to me you've, and others spruiking the bible have, assumed that the "great fish" was a whale going by previous comments. Claims made that aren't clearly fact at all.

Matt 12:40 in the KJV has 'For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'

 

[Djevv]

I've read every post he has made on this board and I don't believe Pantera has ever claimed that.

That is the classic theistic strawman.

Lol, I realise you mob would not be silly enough to actually say it, but is the inescapable logical conclusion to your beliefs, scientifically speaking. The classic elephant in the room.

 

[evo]

Djevv: Not only that but numerous lines of evidence indicate that the universe did in fact originate from nothing a while ago - just as the Bible said it did

That is *smile* btw, and you know it. Well hopefully you do.

The current consensus is it came from an almost infinitely dense singularity. That is not nothing.

 

[evo]

Lol, I realise you mob would not be silly enough to actually say it,

Well I can only sp[eak personally, but I don't say it because I don't believe it.

but is the inescapable logical conclusion to your beliefs, scientifically speaking.

What nonsense.

The classic elephant in the room.

Only in your mind and other peoples mind who need to special plead for God.

 

[Rosy]

Matt 12:40 in the KJV has 'For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'

Interesting that there's not only scope for individual interpretation but also different info given in different translations. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If everything came from nothing then that violates conservation of matter/energy - neither can be created by any natural cause - this goes for all the variants including 'multiverses' and repeating universes. Not only that but 'eternal' universes don't work either due to the second law of thermodynamics stating that they would eventually suffer heat death. Not only that but numerous lines of evidence indicate that the universe did in fact originate from nothing a while ago - just as the Bible said it did - and the universe is basically composed of light, just as the Bible also says. There is no reasonable explanation for our existance that does not include God.

As Evo points out this is essentially a strawman. Current evidence suggests that the universe is expanding from a singularity (not nothing). Whether it will eventually contract in a cycle is unknown. Whether this is just one universe in a multiverse of expanding and/or contracting universes is unknown. The elephant in the room is explaining how your God exists outside of this reality.

I've done this sort of thing on the other thread. Why don't you do it? Challenge your own preconceptions. Seems like busywork to me.

I do challenge my own preconceptions. I have yet to see you discard the central preconception you have (which has no explanation) and look at reality around you without that theist prism. Dismissing criticisms without addressing them is a lame retort.

You'll need to be more specific. You asked for originate - of course they are not unique they were later copied. Anyway the Bible it's self IS unique, there is absolutely nothing like it in any other religion.

There is nothing like the morality of the Bible in other religions??! You admit that the concepts aren't original....where do you think they were assimilated (to be kind) from?

I think it fulfils both those criteria, although there is a human element in the Bible which may mean that it is not entirely error free.

So how do YOU discriminate between the error-free message and the error-riddled human element?

Jews likewise. How do you tell if something is divinely inspired?

I don't think the Jews are big fans of the New Testament (speaking of the Bible as a whole from the Christian perspective). As to how to tell if something is divinely inspired, why not weigh up the evidence? I presented the reasons why I have huge doubts over its divine origins. I have yet to see a reasonable counter to those doubts.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Interesting that there's not only scope for individual interpretation but also different info given in different translations. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

It is interesting that someone can talk about the clear message from the Bible and then counter arguments using different interpretations of the same passage! We haven't discussed it much recently, but all this talk of using this translation or that is almost laughable considering the absolute importance of the message to our eternal salvation. What was actually written all those millennia ago? Why the different translations?

 

[jayfox]

Interesting that there's not only scope for individual interpretation but also different info given in different translations. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

That is not a different translation but a completely different verse from the New Testament. Yes, there are different translations of the Bible, which have been created so that anyone can understand the message contained within, but, whilst they may change a word or two in translation, these translations do not change the guts of the message which remains the same. What we are doing at the moment is majoring on absolute minors and getting caught up on things that don't matter. Whether it was a "great fish" or a "whale", it does not change the story one bit really.

 

[evo]

It is interesting that someone can talk about the clear message from the Bible and then counter arguments using different interpretations of the same passage! We haven't discussed it much recently, but all this talk of using this translation or that is almost laughable considering the absolute importance of the message to our eternal salvation. What was actually written all those millennia ago? Why the different translations?

One would think God would've considered this, him being all seeing and all, and issued every human with a

 

[Rosy]

You miss the point jayfox. It's not about the whale or the snake legs. They are only examples of how perception, interpretation and assumption could be factors in regard to other things you preach about on here. Who knows how the stories have changed as they've been passed down and translated over the years.