Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
nephili

Can science prove or disprove "God"?

1,062 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cormac mac airt
8 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Fair enough..

I totally understand why millions of folk have been murdered, burnt, genocided, etc, etc, etc, .....

Dress it up any way you like.

The OT has been used to kill, rape, enslave..

And you’ve been promoting a lie with Biglino’s translation. How is that any better? 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

And you’ve been promoting a lie with Biglino’s translation. How is that any better? 

cormac

Please, tell me what lie I am promoting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Please, tell me what lie I am promoting?

Seriously? Are you now going to try and tell me and others that it wasn't YOU who said the following?

Quote

You can ignore this shocking, horrific, diabolical evidence from Maurio Biglino if you like - up to you..

and

If you are really interested look up the work of Mauro Biglino. He translated the OT for the Vatican before they fired him. The actual story in the OT and the theology we are given are two completely different things.

and

For anyone who is interested in what the OT does actually say, ie, anyone who doesn't want to remain mired in ignorance, then I suggest taking a look at this fascinating talk given by Biglino. A literal translation without bias or prejudice. You want the actual truth concerning the OT? Then invest an hour 14 minutes and start to get to grips with the lies and misinformation pushed by organised religion.

As seen above you've promoted Biglino's lie, as the truth, THREE times within this very thread. 

This can only mean, IMO, that either you knowingly lied or you're not a competent researcher in this area. There is no other way around it. 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Cleanup
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Seriously? Are you now going to try and tell me and others that it wasn't YOU who said the following?

As seen above you've promoted Biglino's lie, as the truth, THREE times within this very thread. 

This can only mean, IMO, that either you knowingly lied or you're not a competent researcher in this area. There is no other way around it. 

cormac

The truth needs no promotion..

It can stand on its own two feet..

All the lies, deception, corruption, these things need back-up.

Our history proves our present. Eg, war, poverty, crime, corruption.... 

Need I say more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

The truth needs no promotion..

It can stand on its own two feet..

All the lies, deception, corruption, these things need back-up.relie

Our history proves our present. Eg, war, poverty, crime, corruption.... 

Need I say more?

What truth? Biglino hasn't spoken any and apparently you've promoted his version anyway. That makes you just as bad IMO. That there has been much promoted over the last 2000+ years due to misrepresentations/misunderstandings/mistranslations of the Bible does, IN NO WAY, relieve you from the fact that you've promoted Biglino's lie as in any way factual when his translation (and I do use that word loosely) is embarrassingly, even humiliatingly wrong. Be a man and at least take responsibility for what you've promoted in his name.

To put it another way, if you want to rail against the corruption done in the name of the Judeo-Christian texts and deity then by all means do so, but STOP promoting someone who takes the least accurate and amongst the youngest known translations of Biblical texts and promoting him as some sort of expert when in fact HE IS NOT. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

For anyone following my above post it should be pointed out that Biglino translated the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia from the late 60s/early 70s which was an updated edition to the Masoretic Text from the Leningrad Codex, itself written in 1008/1009 AD. This is, in no way, contemporary to the original texts I've mentioned previously in this thread. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What truth? Biglino hasn't spoken any and apparently you've promoted his version anyway. That makes you just as bad IMO. That there has been much promoted over the last 2000+ years due to misrepresentations/misunderstandings/mistranslations of the Bible does, IN NO WAY, relieve you from the fact that you've promoted Biglino's lie as in any way factual when his translation (and I do use that word loosely) is embarrassingly, even humiliatingly wrong. Be a man and at least take responsibility for what you've promoted in his name.

To put it another way, if you want to rail against the corruption done in the name of the Judeo-Christian texts and deity then by all means do so, but STOP promoting someone who takes the least accurate and amongst the youngest known translations of Biblical texts and promoting him as some sort of expert when in fact HE IS NOT. 

cormac

Biglino, like myself, do not claim to know what actually happened back on the days of Mosses, Abraham, the Ellohim etc..

But, what he, Biglione, and I are claiming is, "that what ever was put in the OT, wasnt, isn't, what has been told to the general public.

Please Cormac, if you have a question, idea, a realisation concerning this diabolical situation, then please do tell everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

For anyone following my above post it should be pointed out that Biglino translated the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia from the late 60s/early 70s which was an updated edition to the Masoretic Text from the Leningrad Codex, itself written in 1008/1009 AD. This is, in no way, contemporary to the original texts I've mentioned previously in this thread. 

cormac

So, lets be clear..

You think that the KJV of the Bible is a more sound, a more moral, more ethical rendition of the Original Sumarian Texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

Biglino, like myself, do not claim to know what actually happened back on the days of Mosses, Abraham, the Ellohim etc..

But, what he, Biglione, and I are claiming is, "that what ever was put in the OT, wasnt, isn't, what has been told to the general public.

Please Cormac, if you have a question, idea, a realisation concerning this diabolical situation, then please do tell everyone.

While that may be what YOU are doing that most certainly IS NOT what Biglino is doing. He's purposely misinterpreted and mistranslated the Masoretic text, which again IS NOT the oldest nor even remotely contemporary text to early Christianity to say something it most certainly does not. Continuing to try to defend him just destroys your credibility IMO. Leave him where he belongs, the trash bin. 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

So, lets be clear..

You think that the KJV of the Bible is a more sound, a more moral, more ethical rendition of the Original Sumarian Texts.

Hell no, and that should be obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention. Newer translations such as the KJV and the Masoretic text are GREATLY REMOVED from what the earliest texts say. That's not to say there there isn't anything wrong written within the earlier texts, there most certainly is, but for once CH be honest with yourself and quit promoting Biglino as anything more than a charlatan out to make a name for himself because that's all that's happening. He's already ruined his credibility as a translator, with his specific interpretations of what's written in the texts I just mentioned, for anyone who's actually knowledgeable of Early Judeo-Christian texts.

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

While that may be what YOU are doing that most certainly IS NOT what Biglino is doing. He's purposely misinterpreted and mistranslated the Masoretic text, which again IS NOT the oldest nor even remotely contemporary text to early Christianity to say something it most certainly does not. Continuing to try to defend him just destroys your credibility IMO. Leave him where he belongs, the trash bin. 

cormac

Fair enough, if thats what you say is happening?

But, perhaps you could explain, exactly, how, and why, and where, Bilino is purposely misinterpreting and mistretranslating the Masoretic text.

Take your time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Hell no, and that should be obvious to anyone who's actually paying attention. Newer translations such as the KJV and the Masoretic text are GREATLY REMOVED from what the earliest texts say. That's not to say there there isn't anything wrong written within the earlier texts, there most certainly is, but for once CH be honest with yourself and quit promoting Biglino as anything more than a charlatan out to make a name for himself because that's all that's happening. He's already ruined his credibility as a translator, with his specific interpretations of what's written in the texts I just mentioned, for anyone who's actually knowledgeable of Early Judeo-Christian texts.

cormac

Again, quit with the hand waving.....

But please tell me, how exactly did MB ruinin his credibility?

The more detail you have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)

 I'm not inclined to detail every incorrect line or idea that Biglino has stated, particularly as it's not within the perview of this thread, but of examples I will give a few. 

In Biglino's book The Book That Will Forever Change Our Ideas About The Bible he starts out by restating an idea as fact that originates with Zechariah Sitchin who, although now deceased, claimed to be able to translate Sumerian even though when asked to do so by professional linguists in that field he refused to show such an ability and mistranslated words to mean/say things that they did not. Among those was Nibru, which he claimed as Nibiru, an alleged 10th planet with a 3600 year elliptical orbit around the sun. In actual Sumerian texts Nibru is actually known to be both the name of the city of Nippur, in Iraq, as well as sometimes used as the name for the planet Jupiter. He, Sitchin, and Biglino in promoting him both claim that the inhabitants of this alleged planet were known as Annunaki, which is actually a corruption of the word Annuna-ge, which means 'Annuna deities', who were deities of the Mesopotamian underworld AND NOT sky gods. It just gets worse from there and I'm not wasting my time on further examples of the gross incompetence both Sitchin and Biglino have promoted. 

If you'd like to read early Mesopotamian texts for yourself, in English, then I'd encourage you to do so at the following:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
47 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Again, quit with the hand waving.....

But please tell me, how exactly did MB ruinin his credibility?

The more detail you have....

Promoting Sitchin's fantasy for starters as it's been shown via actual Sumerian and Mesopotamian texts that no such belief ever existed in that area nor do the words "translated" mean what they are claimed to mean by either. In Biglino's case that extends to much of his Biblical translation. Nor is Biglino relevant to the origins of Judeo-Christian belief as he's purposely taken one of the youngest texts and claimed that Christianity started from that when textually such other writings had already existed for more than 1000 years before the texts he used for his translation. That's a rather HUGE omission of the facts on his part IMO.

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
43 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

 I'm not inclined to detail every incorrect line or idea that Biglino has stated, particularly as it's not within the perview of this thread, but of examples I will give a few. 

In Biglino's book The Book That Will Forever Change Our Ideas About The Bible he starts out by restating an idea as fact that originates with Zechariah Sitchin who, although now deceased, claimed to be able to translate Sumerian even though when asked to do so by professional linguists in that field he refused to show such an ability and mistranslated words to mean/say things that they did not. Among those was Nibru, which he claimed as Nibiru, an alleged 10th planet with a 3600 year elliptical orbit around the sun. In actual Sumerian texts Nibru is actually known to be both the name of the city of Nippur, in Iraq, as well as sometimes used as the name for the planet Jupiter. He, Sitchin, and Biglino in promoting him both claim that the inhabitants of this alleged planet were known as Annunaki, which is actually a corruption of the word Annuna-ge, which means 'Annuna deities', who were deities of the Mesopotamian underworld AND NOT sky gods. It just gets worse from there and I'm not wasting my time on further examples of the gross incompetence both Sitchin and Biglino have promoted. 

If you'd like to read early Mesopotamian texts for yourself, in English, then I'd encourage you to do so at the following:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php

cormac

yeah......

You seem to be missing the main issue here.

Which is.

Whether you believe in the OT, or the Bible, it is irrelevant. What is important however, is the fact that what was actually written, and was was actually told to us, was in fact two different things - which has led us to many wars, abuse, lies, corruption etc, etc.

Are you in favour of such diabolical nonce-sense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
7 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

yeah......

You seem to be missing the main issue here.

Which is.

Whether you believe in the OT, or the Bible, it is irrelevant. What is important however, is the fact that what was actually written, and was was actually told to us, was in fact two different things - which has led us to many wars, abuse, lies, corruption etc, etc.

Are you in favour of such diabolical nonce-sense?

In other words you don't really want to know what Biglino has done wrong, you'll just promote any charlatan available. Ok then. As to what is written in the Bible I was smart enough, early on, to see that it is self-contradictory, both internally as well as with the way it is presented/preached to others. 

I'm neither in favor of the worst aspects of Judeo-Christianity nor of your incompetence as a researcher. 

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

The truth needs no promotion..

It can stand on its own two feet..

All the lies, deception, corruption, these things need back-up.

Our history proves our present. Eg, war, poverty, crime, corruption.... 

Need I say more?

Hi Crazy Horse

So are you suggesting that all of the Holy wars since Jesus have been based on the old testament? 

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
On 13/08/2017 at 3:23 AM, XenoFish said:

First we'd need a working definition of god, because there isn't one. 

The creator of the Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Crazy Horse

So are you suggesting that all of the Holy wars since Jesus have been based on the old testament? 

jmccr8

If he is, he's kinda right, no Christian can use the teachings of Jesus to justify conflict, but they can use the OT with all its smiting etc.

IMO, the OT should be removed from the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

I'm agnostic, which is a posh way of saying I don't know.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
59 minutes ago, seanjo said:

The creator of the Universe.

Then if there is a god, what created it? What created the thing that created god? And......you can see how this leads to an infinite question right?

Another mind twister if you will is.

If god created man in his image and man created god in their image, who really created who first? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Nope, science can't prove or disprove God. 

Good article as to why this is the case from Time Magazine: http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

My advice, accept the reality of this and move on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Then if there is a god, what created it? What created the thing that created god? And......you can see how this leads to an infinite question right?

Another mind twister if you will is.

If god created man in his image and man created god in their image, who really created who first? 

It all came from somewhere and must have had a start....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
5 minutes ago, seanjo said:

It all came from somewhere and must have had a start....

 

And that's where the guess work begins. Things is, we can't know.

L88mBul.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, seanjo said:

If he is, he's kinda right, no Christian can use the teachings of Jesus to justify conflict, but they can use the OT with all its smiting etc.

IMO, the OT should be removed from the Bible.

Hi Seanjo

Because I don't claim to be a follower I don't have a problem with the old testament. It's part of a story that has a descriptive purpose, and without it the purpose of the new testament is lost or lacking in significance. For me people who say they follow Jesus and reject the old testament are denying the essence of the teachings of the bible and don't really see them as Christians. That is not to say I don't think that they are good people just that they aren't Christian.

jmccr8

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.