Is God... PG Version

[jaswa]

BLM, the Bible is one of, if not the most, validated historical texts we have today. Go to the Evidence behind NT thread. Then if the Bible is true, we must accept what it says about God's people.

I opened your link Ganonsburg and got worried for a sec - initially thought you linked Romans 9 >.>

 

[GwJ]

The bible is NOT of the the most, if not the most, validated historical texts we have today. I could very easily through a fairy tale in happening during a factual time period.

For instance, I could tell the epic story of a French boy during World War II that didn't actually happen, but everything that happened to him actually happened in real life. On top of that, I could give him the same name as someone who had similar things happen to him, but change things up to make it sound cooler.

 

[jaswa]

We have a portion of John's gospel dating back to between 98-138AD and approximately 24,000 manuscripts in total which are either Greek, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, Slavic or Armenian.

Think they're the two biggest points - the closest dating manuscript, and the amount of them. What have you got on your hypothetical French boy?

 

[GwJ]

What do the manuscripts confirm exactly?

 

[jaswa]

What do the manuscripts confirm exactly?

Umm, they're parts of books of the New Testament, some being whole books.

 

[GwJ]

Yes, that's dandy. But what do they confirm?

 

[Nicholas1024]

They confirm that the new testament has been passed down to us as originally written, which blows a giant hole in the "Catholic church made it all up" theory.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Well, it might not confirm much from your worldview. But from a Christian's worldview, it's God showing which books belong in the Bible.

Which again brings us back to the "Is the God of the Bible logical." Each person will come to each of your questions with their worldview, and answer them in a fashion that is logical according to that worldview.

 

[GwJ]

They confirm that the new testament has been passed down to us as originally written, which blows a giant hole in the "Catholic church made it all up" theory.

Yes, that's still dandy. All that confirms then is that it really was passed down. That's something few people argue against nowadays.

 

[ballin4life]

I see the parallel, but I could make a parallel to a doctor telling a patient to take his/her medication for *insert deadly illness*. Sure, you can ignore the doctor and not take the medicine, but it's in your best interest as well as the doctor's best interest for you to take the medication.

If you want to stick to the slave parallel, it's good to read these verses. God created life, and as such following him leads to life. He didn't create death. Death came as a result of sin (sin being disobedience to God/ wanting to separate from Him). It's not that God sends you to hell, but rather that you cannot be in his presence because of what you have chosen. It's exactly like light and dark. Dark cannot exist in light, just as sin cannot exist with God (both by their very definition).

@BLM: The Bible was written over about 2,000 years, by over 40 people. That's hardly "one time." And then you have ~30 years that Jesus was on earth.

How in the name of heaven could you say that God didn't create death? God could have prevented humans from ever dying, but he let them die.

I don't have as much of a problem with your explanation of hell, but it seems like hell is usually portrayed as a place for PUNISHING people.

I don't understand the doctor analogy at all. Maybe if the doctor was also poisoning the patient and told him to take medicine to counteract this poison.

BLM, the Bible is one of, if not the most, validated historical texts we have today. Go to the Evidence behind NT thread. Then if the Bible is true, we must accept what it says about God's people.

I opened your link Ganonsburg and got worried for a sec - initially thought you linked Romans 9 >.>

There is, you know, a middle ground between "Every word of the Bible is true" and "Every word of the Bible is false".

 

[Enzo]

BLM, the Bible is one of, if not the most, validated historical texts we have today. Go to the Evidence behind NT thread. Then if the Bible is true, we must accept what it says about God's people.

I opened your link Ganonsburg and got worried for a sec - initially thought you linked Romans 9 >.>

Actually it isn't. There many stories in contained in that "holy book" that refer that is relatively, obviously, untrue.

I mean cmon remember the story about Noah's arc, yeah that cannot be true. There are plenty of other ones to, but that I cannot remember off the top of my head.

So no it isn't one of the most if not the most validated historical texts. Sure it's been around for many centuries, but that doesn't change the fact that they can easily be fake.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I mean cmon remember the story about Noah's arc, yeah that cannot be true. There are plenty of other ones to, but that I cannot remember off the top of my head.

Just because you say something that cannot be true doesn't mean it isn't. I could just as easily say, "There's no way someone with only one hand could excel at basketball. It just cannot be true." And yet there's that center or something from a college team or actually in the NBA. I'd have to look that one up.

 

[GwJ]

That's different. That one handed guy at least had a chance.

Noah's are isn't even slightly plausible.

 

[1048576]

How would you feed 2 of every animal for 40 days on a boat that size?
What would the carnivores eat when they stepped off the boat after the flood?
How was the boat temperature regulated for animals used to different climates?
How did plants flourish without insects to pollinate them for a long period of time?
Why aren't there a bunch of skeletons from that time period?
How did all those animals even fit?
Why does God have such a hard-on for incest?

Here's some ebil science for y'alls to chew on: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

 

[_Keno_]

They confirm that the new testament has been passed down to us as originally written, which blows a giant hole in the "Catholic church made it all up" theory.

the original piece found is only pieces of two verses, which CLOSELY agree with those 24k manuscripts. Even if it were a perfect match, it would only show that the Bible wasn't entirely made up by the Catholic Church.

And Tery is right, GW and BLM should provide at least some evidence or logic when trying to discuss...

 

[Terywj [태리]]

That's different. That one handed guy at least had a chance.

Noah's are isn't even slightly plausible.

Alright then. One hundred years ago. Someone says, "A black will be President someday." Everyone laughs. "I mean, it just cannot be true."

I don't care about past vs. present shenanigans. Those don't apply, since it's all a matter of belief.

 

[Nicholas1024]

the original piece found is only pieces of two verses, which CLOSELY agree with those 24k manuscripts. Even if it were a perfect match, it would only show that the Bible wasn't entirely made up by the Catholic Church.

And Tery is right, GW and BLM should provide at least some evidence or logic when trying to discuss...

We have a complete copy of the new testament dating back from the third or fourth century, before the catholic church could have been messing any of that up. Not to mention, the earlier manuscripts from all over the globe agree with this complete copy, making it extremely unlikely ANYONE could have made changes to the gospel. I suggest you research your facts more next time.

@Numbers
The ark was huge. HUGE. The size of it was equivalent to 500 or so raliroad cars, more than enough to hold 2 of every animal, enough food to last the entire trip, plus plenty of extra room for exercise and whatever else might be needed.

Also...

Not every skeleton becomes a fossil and lasts for thousands of years. Since they all died via drowning, what makes us think that they should all have been preserved as fossils? Last I checked drowning isn't exactly a great fossil-maker.

As for plants, underwater ones would have had no trouble whatsoever, and perhaps Noah took some land-based ones on his ark. Or maybe, like how plants in the desert work, the seeds lay dormant underground until the flood waters receded.

@GWjumpman
You'd be surprised at what some people will argue.

 

[Ganonsburg]

How would you feed 2 of every animal for 40 days on a boat that size?
What would the carnivores eat when they stepped off the boat after the flood?
How was the boat temperature regulated for animals used to different climates?
How did plants flourish without insects to pollinate them for a long period of time?
Why aren't there a bunch of skeletons from that time period?
How did all those animals even fit?
Why does God have such a hard-on for incest?

Here's some ebil science for y'alls to chew on: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

6) Well, the Bible says that Noah took 2 of every kind of animal. Biblical scholars take this to mean two cats, two dogs, etc. rather than two orange tabbies, two persians, two lions, two dingos, two wolves, etc. Microevolution accounts for the variation we see today. [source]

1) With that out of the way, we now have a much smaller (though still large) number of animals on the ark. Most animals are very small, and wouldn't need to eat so much to begin with. And since they're on a boat, they're not moving around so much, and thus not using so much energy and don't need to eat as much food as they normally would. I can't find an article currently, but if you want one I can get back to you on that.

2) It's possible that God led more peaceful creatures to the ark rather than the more violent ones, or that animals were not as violent as they are today as the world had been in sin for a much shorter time.

3) Again, God probably just brought the animals that didn't live in extreme temperatures and/or were more resilient to varying climates.

4) Insects go through their life/death cycles rather quickly. It wouldn't have taken long for swarms and hives to build. Also, plants would have had to grow first (as for what animals ate in this time, they probably just continued to eat the food brought on the ark).

5) As a matter of fact, there are. They're called fossils. If you're wondering why there aren't more, I could ask why there aren't more fossils thanks to evolution. But at that time, the earth was ~1,000 to 2,000 years old. There weren't so many animals alive yet as there would be now (or as an evolution mindset would dictate).

7) Prior to the time of Moses, nothing was wrong with incest. Living bodies hadn't been corrupted by sin long enough for the problems we see today to occur. BTW, Adam and Eve's children married each other. That's where Cain got his wife.

As for your "proof," in the Biblical model the glaciers wouldn't have formed until after the flood, as the waters were receding. In this model, so much water (and other natural disasters that accompanied the flood) caused an ice age. I don't have time to find sources right now, as I've spent enough time on this post as is. But that's the viewpoint we're coming from.

 

[_Keno_]

We have a complete copy of the new testament dating back from the third or fourth century, before the catholic church could have been messing any of that up. Not to mention, the earlier manuscripts from all over the globe agree with this complete copy, making it extremely unlikely ANYONE could have made changes to the gospel. I suggest you research your facts more next time.

I was simply saying that the one piece of paper didnt prove anything (you said it proved everything), I didnt say that because the piece of paper didnt prove anything that Catholic Church must have forged the first Bible, that would've been a terrible fallacy of ignorance.

However, the earlier version of the Catholic Church did create the very bible you speak of (Council of Nicaea - Catholic Church grounds layed, first bible put together). Many decisions were made by HUMANS on what to include and what to omit. If you can really call what they decided the perfect word of God, that is your choice.

So, was Constantine a great christian or just a genius of a politician?

 

[GwJ]

Did you really just try and support with logic noah's ark...?

As for a black man being presidenrt, its still physically possible. The ark isnt.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Did you really just try and support with logic noah's ark...?

As for a black man being presidenrt, its still physically possible. The ark isnt.

So what you're saying is a man cannot build a boat?

 

[GwJ]

Im saying a man cannot possibly build a ship large enough to fit 2 of every animal on for 40 days and have enough food for them all.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Did you really just try and support with logic noah's ark...?

As for a black man being presidenrt, its still physically possible. The ark isnt.

I just showed you a small part of how it is possible. If you want to debate, debate. Don't just say stupid one-liners.

If you really don't understand how the ark could work, I suggest you wait say....four years.

You didn't read any of the sources? Well, high estimates have 16,000 animals, low estimates have around 2,000. Most of them small. Given the dimensions of the ark (~5/8ths the titanic), it's not that unreasonable. Especially when you consider how many animals we can stick in cages today. Factor in that they're trying to survive, rather than being concerned with the comfort of all the creatures and people on the ark, and you can fit a lot of animals in that space.

 

[GwJ]

What's the point of that link? Noah didn't have much help building his ship.
It's also an extreme stretch to say he fit thousands of animals on his ship, regardless of size. In forty days, we would lose most insects. Each species would have to have a lucky pair of animals that have the hots for each other to breed.

I don't understand how you could even CONSIDER this a possibility.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

What's the point of that link? Noah didn't have much help building his ship.
It's also an extreme stretch to say he fit thousands of animals on his ship, regardless of size. In forty days, we would lose most insects. Each species would have to have a lucky pair of animals that have the hots for each other to breed.

I don't understand how you could even CONSIDER this a possibility.

Noah had the help of his family just in case you though you were correct about Noah "not having much help".

Animals will breed if there are no other options. It's a natural instinct for animals to have sex and reproduce. I'm sure the lioness wouldn't really care if the lion wasn't so "hot" if there were no other lions to mate with.

 

[GwJ]

Hold on, lemme get my family, I wanna make a ship over half the size of the Titanic. And while we're at it, I'm going to somehow snag 2 of most of the animal species on Earth. See you in a month.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Noah had longer than a month to build the ark. His sons had all been born soon after Noah turned 500 (soon being 5 or 6 years-ish). He didn't board the ark until he was 600. We don't know how long he had to build the ark, really, but he certainly didn't lack time. [source]

 

[GwJ]

I was exaggerating the time.

I mean honestly, if you believe in the whole divine providence and the ability for God to give people knowledge (say, super ship making abilities), then no doubt can I understand. I feel like I'm arguing a dead point, because from my perspective, it's stupid. From yours, it's fact that won't be changed no matter what anyone says.

 

[1048576]

The website's a pompuos ahole but the information it contains is valuable: http://truth-saves.com/Never_a_Flood.php

Basically, there's not enough water, there's no way the boat would float or be structurally sound, the population shows no record of a decline and subsequent explosion, and there's a bunch of side effects from a world covered in water.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

guys guys GUYS

it's God we're talking about.

there's no such thing as possible or impossible.

 

[Dre89]

From my understanding, I think biblical scholars believe it to have been a local flood with the local animals. There apparently is evidence of a flood occuring there at that time too.

 

[Ganonsburg]

The website's a pompuos ahole but the information it contains is valuable: http://truth-saves.com/Never_a_Flood.php

Basically, there's not enough water, there's no way the boat would float or be structurally sound, the population shows no record of a decline and subsequent explosion, and there's a bunch of side effects from a world covered in water.

There's reason to believe that prior to the flood, the oceans weren't as deep and the mountains weren't as high. As a result of the flood, sediment (and lots of it) was picked up and deposited.

From my understanding, I think biblical scholars believe it to have been a local flood with the local animals. There apparently is evidence of a flood occuring there at that time too.

Some may believe that, but Genesis 7:21 rules this out. God said he wouldn't destroy the earth by flood again. If it was a local flood, God's a huge liar as there are many, many local floods every year. Also, if it were a local flood, everyone could have evacuated rather than having to build a boat 3/5ths the size of the titanic.

 

[Mike]

It should be clear by now that Ganonsburg is here to argue, but not to learn. Until he understands that his idea of God isn't a priori fact, his posts about the validity of stores in the bible should be ignored.

 

[Ganonsburg]

It's not a fact, but you can't really disprove it, can you? Sometimes you need to assume something in order to debate at all. Hence my post a few pages back. For Christians, the existence of God is an axiom. For atheists, the nonexistence of God is an axiom. In this case I'm using the word axiom more in the mathematical sense.

Anyway, your accusation could be said about anyone when it comes to a debate on politics or religion.

Also, nice ad hominem.

 

[Mike]

Not being able to disprove something is not a reason to assume it to be true. The debate hall is not just a place to argue, it's also a place to learn. If your opinions and beliefs are ever going to be taken seriously, you need to accept when your arguments are insufficient rather than close your eyes to anything that contradicts your understanding of how things are.

 

[Ganonsburg]

When did I ever do any of that? I've been providing sources that show that this isn't impossible as people assume it is.

 

[Mike]

Your sources don't show that it's possible. Your sources are excerpts from the bible, which doesn't concern possibility as "everything is possible with God."

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

How would you ever be able to disprove ANYTHING under the assumption that God exists?

By definition anything is possible with God so there is no point in even arguing as everything can be justified by a little divine intervention.

 

[Dre89]

Pimp makes a very straight forward, but good point.

If you're assuming that God exists, then things become theological explanations, which are immune to the critcism of reason, for they are non rational (not irrational, which is bad logic).

Problem is, you can't prove God exists using explanations that rely on assuming He exists, because then you don't explain where the initial assumption came from.

 

[GwJ]

Then why does anyone continue to argue their point?