[Beckys_Mom]

markdohle, on 07 November 2009 - 03:32 AM, said:

It is if the one asking the questions don't seek out answeres themselves. If not it is just silly nonsense.
Sterotypical thinking is the norm.

No its NOT...........for if no one doesnt question it.how else are they supposed to learn?


I was raised a christian for many years......and I questioned it.......thats why I no longer believe in it...for my questions were not answered..and I saw for myself what was not real TO ME <---key words to me


If I told you the same about another religion and its holy book you too would think I was WRONG....

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 07 November 2009 - 04:05 AM

[Perdition]

It is OK to use the bible for moral teachings but its is NOT OK to use it as historic facts. Arguing against scientific facts is beyond me. If it was truly history then it would have been taught in schools by now.

If there was 100% proof that any of the events happened then I will believe what happened in the bible. But there isn't and I like to live in reality where there is actual proof that science did debunk most events in the bible.

[Beckys_Mom]

Perdition, on 07 November 2009 - 04:31 AM, said:

. Arguing against scientific facts is beyond me. If it was truly history then it would have been taught in schools by now.

That is why they teach both seperate - Bible teaching - Religious studies .........Historical events - History Class

[Drj312]

PixelPerfect, on 02 November 2009 - 08:40 PM, said:

These days "new age", and non-traditional christians share a large majority of what we call "christianity." So, to avoid confusion; I'll define christian as a belief in God(Yaweh, ancient jewish god), aswell as Jesus(the son of, or the earthly form of, God/Yaweh.) aaaaand that a belief in and acceptence of Jesus results in everlasting life/heavely promise, or other goodies.


Right, first question: why is the Bible so historically inaccurate? I'm sure the historical innacuracies have been pointed out to you. In case they haven't; tell me, I'll dredge some up for you.
Wouldn't a perfect God make no mistakes in his record keeping? Especially considering that some of the records were not supposed to be documentable except through God

Second question:
Hundreds of bible prophecies have failed to come true, why?
The bible is ripe with prophecies that never got fullfilled.
Again, I'll get some for you, if you want.

Final question:
What's with the bibles' constant obsesion with animals that never existed?
The bible like unicorns, even says God was stronger than one.
And dragons...



Please, answer these questions for me.

first of all, which christians are you asking? catholics? fundamentalist? big differences.
my answers are based on scholarly research. im an attending a catholic jesuit university. i have gone to catholic school my entire life. im taking a new testament course. my teacher has been studying the bible his entire adult life. he has a doctorate.
1. the bible was never meant to be a book of history. it is a book of faith. the old testament especially. the people of that time did not have much scientific knowledge. they wrote about what they thought in order to give the message of God. they did the best they could. the new testament is similar. there is a little history, that is there are stories of what jesus said and did. the history goes that far. once again the most important thing was the message, that is love your God, yourself, and everybody else. god did not write the bible. people did. of course there will be mistakes. the authors of the gospels, for example, purposely changed the order of events in order to better address their audience.
2. the prophecies in the bible are not what most people think they are. they were not meant to tell the future. the prophets were speaking out about the current state of society. in fact, the prophets spoke mostly of the past. they did not try to tell the future. revelations is the most misunderstood book. it is not telling the future! it is a message to christians who were being persecuted. the message was to never give up hope because god will protect them from evil. no future telling!
3. the animals were symbols of people or nations. the animals were meant to display the characteristics. for example, greece was represented as a powerful, terrifying beast. this is because greece had just conquered the known world.
faith, not fact is the main message of the bible

[Beckys_Mom]

Drj312, on 07 November 2009 - 04:41 AM, said:

first of all, which christians are you asking? catholics? fundamentalist? big differences.
my answers are based on scholarly research. im an attending a catholic jesuit university. i have gone to catholic school my entire life. im taking a new testament course. my teacher has been studying the bible his entire adult life. he has a doctorate.
1. the bible was never meant to be a book of history. it is a book of faith. the old testament especially. the people of that time did not have much scientific knowledge. they wrote about what they thought in order to give the message of God. they did the best they could. the new testament is similar. there is a little history, that is there are stories of what jesus said and did. the history goes that far. once again the most important thing was the message, that is love your God, yourself, and everybody else. god did not write the bible. people did. of course there will be mistakes. the authors of the gospels, for example, purposely changed the order of events in order to better address their audience.

You are correct..and back then they were not as advanced as man is today with science..so they wrote what they thought was right


Anyhoo WELCOME TO UM...

[Drj312]

Beckys_Mom, on 06 November 2009 - 10:46 PM, said:

You are correct..and back then they were not as advanced as man is today with science..so they wrote what they thought was right


Anyhoo WELCOME TO UM...

thank you very much

[IamsSon]

Perdition, on 06 November 2009 - 06:48 PM, said:

Scholarly?

The bible states that the earth was created 10000 years ago. Scientist have said the earth is well over 4 billion years ago. Not to mention that the first homo sapiens fossils were found to be over 100 thousand years old.

What other written text are there about events that happened in the bible? As far as I know the bible is the only test with those events. There isn't even scientific evidence that either of these events ever happened.

Yes, scholarly, so that you can eliminate incorrect information like what you just spouted. The Bible does not state anywhere that the earth was created 10,000 years ago.

[Chauncy]

IamsSon, on 07 November 2009 - 04:53 AM, said:

Yes, scholarly, so that you can eliminate incorrect information like what you just spouted. The Bible does not state anywhere that the earth was created 10,000 years ago.

The Bible doesn't state that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. I think that the formula utilized by many a Christian to arrive at a young Earth, is that of a reverse counting of the Biblical patriarchs. Following the ages of such back to creation......I'm not sure, you yourself being a Christian , is this not the case?

[Perdition]

IamsSon, on 07 November 2009 - 04:53 AM, said:

Yes, scholarly, so that you can eliminate incorrect information like what you just spouted. The Bible does not state anywhere that the earth was created 10,000 years ago.

Well there is obviously a large amount of the christian population who believe in a young earth, and who are willing to ignore scientific facts that the earth is billions years old.

I don't study to much on the bible so forgive me if i make any mistakes as to what is really printed and what is said by believers.

[Irishman]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 November 2009 - 12:36 AM, said:

Lack of scientific evidence? ya think?


The bible incase it has escaped your notice is just a book of FAITH....it is known as a book of FAITH...most christians will say - not to be taken literally

If the bible had serious real solid proof/evidence to back up each event..........then and only then it will be a book of FACTS and be seen historical

for now.its got nothning to show these events took place andthe people exiated IE Jesus..Moses etc etc etc....nothing


So now what? ---> FAITH.....thats it

I dont believe in the bible and wont ever believe in it

FWIW i agree that no one religion flawlessly intepreted the bible, if thats your argument. My argument was Religion is based in much more fact that Atheism which it is. You see Atheism is much more a faith based religion (for lack of a better word) than any mainstream religion given that its primary argument is we are evolutionary beings who cease to exist after death, something they can spend the rest of their lives arguing and still not prove.

So yeah, lack of scientific evidence, ya think!

[IamsSon]

Chauncy, on 06 November 2009 - 11:06 PM, said:

The Bible doesn't state that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. I think that the formula utilized by many a Christian to arrive at a young Earth, is that of a reverse counting of the Biblical patriarchs. Following the ages of such back to creation......I'm not sure, you yourself being a Christian , is this not the case?

Yes, there is a belief withing Christian circles that the Bible supports the idea that the Earth is approximately 10,000 years. But given the fact that the cultures of the area where the Bible was written were known not to include every generation in their genealogies and were known to say :"So-and-so was the father of ..." when he was actually the grandfather or great-grandfather or more really puts into question the idea of using genealogies to correctly establish the age of the Earth.

There is nothing in the Bible which can be used to accurately calculate the age of the Earth.

Perdition, on 06 November 2009 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well there is obviously a large amount of the christian population who believe in a young earth, and who are willing to ignore scientific facts that the earth is billions years old.

I don't study to much on the bible so forgive me if i make any mistakes as to what is really printed and what is said by believers.

Perdition, you just supported the reason why I'm asking for bona fides from the OP. There are a lot of things that people (including those who consider themselves life-long Christians) think are written in the Bible which are not. There are things which are taken incredibly out of context, and there are parts which are poetic, parts which are allegorical, there are parables which most likely were not actual events, but just stories to make a point, etc. So, if someone is going to come in here and make the bold claims the OP did, he or she should be willing to tell us what their academic credentials are.

I think the fact that the OP has not posted since the request was made speaks volumes.

This post has been edited by IamsSon: 07 November 2009 - 02:05 PM

[Karlis]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 November 2009 - 02:46 PM, said:

You are correct..and back then they were not as advanced as man is today with science..so they wrote what they thought was right


Anyhoo WELCOME TO UM...

However, they "possibly" were far more advanced in spiritual understanding than we are today. Of course, that 'is' debatable.

[M.A.D]

Karlis, on 07 November 2009 - 02:06 PM, said:

However, they "possibly" were far more advanced in spiritual understanding than we are today. Of course, that 'is' debatable.

more of a harmonious understanding of spiritual life and even before but they still had there blind forgetfulness like today

[Homer]

IamsSon, on 07 November 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

Yes, there is a belief withing Christian circles that the Bible supports the idea that the Earth is approximately 10,000 years. But given the fact that the cultures of the area where the Bible was written were known not to include every generation in their genealogies and were known to say :"So-and-so was the father of ..." when he was actually the grandfather or great-grandfather or more really puts into question the idea of using genealogies to correctly establish the age of the Earth.

There is nothing in the Bible which can be used to accurately calculate the age of the Earth.

Correct
Genealogies were never meant to be viewed as a continuous sequence in chronological order. The bible isn’t alone in this either, as you have stated, this is part of ANE culture. The Egyptian, Sumerian and Hittites also showed ‘discrepancies’ in their genealogies with either omissions or out of sequence ‘begets’ (person A begat person B etc).
One absolutely cannot use biblical genealogies to determine the age of the planet/creation/etc.

The purpose of genealogies was not to accurately show the chronological order of lineage, but to show that the person at the end of the line is related to the person in the beginning, and displaying some names in between(usually a person(s) of significance) to reinforce the lineage.

[Beckys_Mom]

Irishman, on 07 November 2009 - 06:26 AM, said:

FWIW i agree that no one religion flawlessly intepreted the bible, if thats your argument. My argument was Religion is based in much more fact that Atheism which it is.

Pease provide actual scientific facts that religion has in fact been able to prove...go on do tll ..this should be interesting

as you seem to be under the impression that religion has facts.........go on list them ?

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 07 November 2009 - 05:45 PM