Boro Nut

Thats what the original bible printers said, and look what a piclkle they've caused.

Boro Nut

Exactly one AU? That can't be just an amazing coincidence. This is sure-fire evidence of intelligent design.

Boro Nut

Yeah. Uncontradict that one. And don't think we've forgotten about your fisherman being found alive inside the big fishes belly either, you badly disguised old bluffer you.

Muad'Dib

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

(Yes, this is a not-so-subtle attempt to get you to stick around and discuss things.)

Okay...so if that's true, and you are a true believer (which out of courtesy I must assume), then you won't mind arguing against a few more apparent discrepancies? Clearly, you have in your own mind considered each of them and resolved them to your satisfaction, so you have only to share why each discrepancy does in fact make sense.

Or am I mistaken? Are you instead making a categorical generalization without having deeply studied the text yourself?

Grammar? English grammar? How is that at all useful? What you really need to understand the text properly is Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and you need to know far more about just grammar: you need to know about the culture in which the various Biblical documents were written; who the people were, how they thought, what concerned them; and you also need to know about the cultures that transmitted the texts, to see how they changed them (and with hand-copying, change is inevitable, whether it's intentional or not). Grammar alone will not give you the complete meaning of texts, and if you have been told otherwise you have been misled.

LOL! There are atheists with doctorates in theology, philosophy, NT studies, OT studies, Greek, Hebrew, etc., etc., not to mention the tens of thousands of unbelieving practicing scientists.

I notice that you have conveniently left my question of your credentials unanswered. Tell me this: if you yourself have not deeply studied theology or the Biblical languages, how do you know what we will find when we study them? Many of us have studied these things extensively: even I (though in this subject my background is far less in-depth than others) am in the middle of second-year Greek, and I have taken several theology courses and read two distinct volumes of systematic theology, and yet I remain unconvinced.

Just to clear up a potential ambiguity in your comment, no one here accepts opinions from anyone as truth; arguments using evidence are what convince people. This is why we are skeptical at best when you say there are no contradictions in the Bible: you haven't addressed all the potential textual difficulties.

Nor is there any of that here, thanks to a lovely data transport protocol called TCP (RFC 793), which ensures reliable transfer of information even over unreliable channels.

If you would like a one-on-one discussion where only you and one other person are permitted to post, that can probably be arranged here in the Formal Debates & Discussions area. Just let me know if you're interested, and I'll consult the moderator of that forum and we'll see what we can do to get that set up.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Amos

Jasin, I think that this light was life itself. Just life, yes, and if God is life and we are God it is the light of God that makes the sun shine because us humans are estranged from God and have just a glimpse of Gods illumination to arrest this light we extract from the sky. Of course when and if evening follows the day we see less, but then again, if we live in the seventh day of creation which is the day on which evening did not follow the day we live by this everlasting light and darkness will therefore not follow the day . . . ever.

So would it be right to suggest that because we have life in us we can extract light from the sun and in fact is why some of our days are brighter than others? Where else would illunination come from? Not from the sun, I hope.

Amos

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]

Amos

To make clear that on the seventh day of creation evening did not follow the day I should add that this is inferred by omission because on the first six days of creation "evening followed the day" (NAB).

Amos

I should also point out that heaven is not above nor is hell below. Heaven is life to the fullest which is on the seventh day of creation when we are God once again.

The rapture parable proves this very nicely if we read it just the other way around: when our ego raptures that which remains is in heaven (those damn dark days of summer).

Amos

QuadWhore

I made no statement about my position on anything. My only point was that the story does not contradict with itself. It is certainly vague, which only makes it more futile to try and argue that it is false. The main character in the story is an all powerfull god that can do anytying he wants. People who waste their time trying to discredit the specifics of the story are no better than the people who take the story literally.

brighid

Quad Whore,

But I am not arguing the facts of the story, rather the position Jason has taken in regards to this story. I certainly don't consider anything in Genesis to be factual, just as I don't consider anything in Harry Potter to be factual. The difference with a work designated as fiction and that of a Holy Text is substantial speficially because this particular book claims divine authority and accuracy. And if someone came here claiming Harry Potter was the way, the truth and the light, etc. I would challenge them in the same manner. Jasin has "faith" and does not need "knowledge" because of what this book says. Therefore, it is proper to challenge that faith with knowledge, especially when said theist comes knocking on our door making ridiculous claims of truth about the Universe from a nonesensical work of fiction. I wasn't the one who began this discussion. I am simply answering and challenging his "evidence" and debating as best I can.

Personally, I love stories about gods and goddesses and all the "miraculous" things attributed to them. However, I don't delude myself into believing they are real and that I should devote my life and "faith" to some imaginary fantasy idol because of it. Nor would I waste my time arguing the finer points of their stories in a poor attempt to convince others that Zeus indeed sends lightening bolts from Mount Olympus to punish the sins of mortal men, or that he impregnantes human females thereby creating demi-gods such as Hercules.

So, I am afraid that I have an almost uncontrollable need to point out to theists how absolutely ridiculous there position is and I could care less about the damned fiction of the Bible, or the Homeric Epics or of the Mists of Avalon. Just please, don't insult my intelligence and tell me that there is an actual god who can do whatever he wants and pass it off as fact!

Brighid

QuadWhore

Sure you are. You just got done arguing that the bible is false based on the fact that there was a day and night cycle before the creation of the sun.

<STRONG> Actually the bible makes no such claim. people foolishly accept it as fact.