current us events

[Falstaf]

You make a good point. The bibles purpose is not that of a historical textbook, although it has been shown to be very accurate in that sense.

It is also not a science textbook, but here again it has been shown to be accurate, even in some areas where the author had no way of knowing the validity of what he wrote. A good example in what is found in Isaiah 40:22 states,"There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth.......". This was written close to 2000 years before scientists were capable of verifying this as a fact, that the earth is a circle or round. How did he know is the big question. The bible also speaks of there being other planets when man had no telescopes to verify this as a fact. It makes you wonder how they knew.

 

[Rumata]

Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

 

[Gallstaff]

you guys don't think discussing different religions in an open forum would offend anyone? I'm not saying it offends me, but just don't you think someone might not apreciate you contridicting their religion?

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by Rumata@June 27 2002,10:59

Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

If you want to get technical, the Old Testiment (where Isaiah is found) was written in Hebrew. So to be able to know what "circle word" he used, you would have to find out what the original Hebrew word is that was on the manuscripts and then find out what the actual meaning of that word is.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by Gallstaff@June 27 2002,10:59

you guys don't think discussing different religions in an open forum would offend anyone? I'm not saying it offends me, but just don't you think someone might not apreciate you contridicting their religion?

hehe -- it's probably be a little late for that.

But to be honest, maybe we should close this thread. We have all discussed our opinions on these 6 pages. Otherwise, it will probably never end.

 

[Falstaf]

Originally posted by Rumata@June 27 2002,10:59

Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

Actually, you are quiet incorrect here. The idea that the earth was flat as a common belief, is a fairey tale propagated by early history textbook writers who did not understand the illustrations on early maps. All mariners have recognized the fact the the earth is not flat just from the obviouse observation of seeing ships disappear slowly over the horizon, and then return later to port. And even if they didn't (which they did in fact recognize) that the earth a sphere, how did they know it was a circle?

Common guys, give me stuff thats real and not the ramblings of school boys fresh from the mind washing recieved by teachers who teach the widely accepted stories, as fact. Have you really ever looked into this stuff in depth yourselves or are you once again and again just repeating what you have "heard" or have been "taught" as fact?

No I don't have a blind adherence to the bible' but I have studied it in depth and been able, at least somewhat, to seperate what is real and what is fable.

Here is one other point for you to mull over. Mathematically and statistically speaking, evolution ( ie a goo of amino acids coming together to form life) is impossible! Science states that any number (when speaking of statistical chances or oportunities for an event to ocurre naturally with no outside unnatural manipulation) with a factor of greater then 10 ( a number followed by 10 zeros) is considered an impossability. The statistical chance that lifes origins did in fact occure in this manner is 1 in 20 followed by 200 zeros. A mathimatical impossability.

For reference work, read well known astronomer Robert Jastrows book The Enchanted Loom: Mind In The Universe pg 19, evolutionists Loren Eiseley's work The Immense Journey pg 199.

Also check out New Scientist Magazine June 25 1981 pg 828

and Physics Bulletin 1980 vol. 31 pg 138.

I will post the reference on the stitistical point above shortly. I know the book but have to find it to refernce the page#.

 

[jim993]

i have to say that if anyone takes offense then they shouldn't read anythign in here. 2nd if it goes on forever let it i mean who cares.

and to comment on something racket said, isn't it somewhere in the bible that we shoudln't try to predict what's going to happen or set times for things that are going to happen(mainly the end of world and stuff like that) and also that god can not be understood.

If i could understand why god does things and understand god then i have limited god(lol i basically just ripped off some budhist or maybe taoist or possibly shinto saying) (note how i basically state that i believe in a god but when it comes down to it i don't know if there is a god i hope there is but i can accept that there might not be a god)

 

[Myname]

Seeing as there was a request for other religions, I was raised with a lot of Buddhist thought (I am half-Burmese).. That's not to say that I'm a monk or anything, but I feel lucky to have been influenced by it and I don't really think I'd have appreciated Chrisianity or whatever the same way, but that's just me and I'm not knocking anyone else (apart from those God Channel dudes). I like the idea of 'religion' (not the best word) being more of a personal experience, trying to find some sort of understanding of things through trying to understand yourself and your current environment rather than believing things wholeheartedly which may or may not be true... but again, that's just me.

 

[Falstaf]

Originally posted by racketboy+June 27 2002,11:10--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(racketboy @ June 27 2002,11:10)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Rumata@June 27 2002,10:59

Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

If you want to get technical, the Old Testiment (where Isaiah is found) was written in Hebrew. So to be able to know what "circle word" he used, you would have to find out what the original Hebrew word is that was on the manuscripts and then find out what the actual meaning of that word is.[/b][/quote]

Actually the old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

My quote was out of a emphatic diaglot. That is a direct, word for word, translation of the old text. It shows to word in hebrew above and right below it the transliteration.

 

[jim993]

it's not just you myname there's probably a lot of others just they don't feel like sharing their views.

I'm basically the same way i mean i like to learn about all religions don't know why but i do. but i don't really adhear to any religion. I'm a drop of water in a ever flowing river simple as that i mean i am myself but i realize i'm part of a whole. i might not be significant to the person that looks at the whole but i might be the drop of water that carves stone but not because i choose to just if it happens it happens. LOL i can't but my views into words lol it's impossible but i try and most the time it comes out terribly but i don't care.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by falstaff+June 27 2002,12:00--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(falstaff @ June 27 2002,12:00)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by racketboy@June 27 2002,11:10

<!--QuoteBegin-Rumata

@June 27 2002,10:59

Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

If you want to get technical, the Old Testiment (where Isaiah is found) was written in Hebrew. So to be able to know what "circle word" he used, you would have to find out what the original Hebrew word is that was on the manuscripts and then find out what the actual meaning of that word is.

Actually the old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

My quote was out of a emphatic diaglot. That is a direct, word for word, translation of the old text. It shows to word in hebrew above and right below it the transliteration.[/b][/quote]

Yes that is true, but I tried to keep it simple -- thanks though.

Glad to see someone else knows their Bible too

 

[Rumata]

First of all about math:

Here is one other point for you to mull over. Mathematically and statistically speaking, evolution ( ie a goo of amino acids coming together to form life) is impossible! Science states that any number (when speaking of statistical chances or oportunities for an event to ocurre naturally with no outside unnatural manipulation) with a factor of greater then 10 ( a number followed by 10 zeros) is considered an impossability. The statistical chance that lifes origins did in fact occure in this manner is 1 in 20 followed by 200 zeros. A mathimatical impossability.

I agree the probability is low, but than, look at the number of extra terrestrial life forms found so far. None. Next, probabilty is the number of all the possible successful combinations divided by the number of a all possible combinations. Thinking of the amount of atoms there are, I have a great deal of trouble believing that a combination of several billions of atoms for the formation of a very simple virus or a bacterium is that unlikely.

Next statement is more interesting because it contradicts itself:

Actually, you are quiet incorrect here. The idea that the earth was flat as a common belief, is a fairey tale propagated by early history textbook writers who did not understand the illustrations on early maps. All mariners have recognized the fact the the earth is not flat just from the obviouse observation of seeing ships disappear slowly over the horizon, and then return later to port. And even if they didn't (which they did in fact recognize) that the earth a sphere, how did they know it was a circle?

If mariners of the time figured out that the Earth is curved by seeing ships obscured by the horizon, what is so extrodinary in its mention in the Bible? If the writer was not aware of the mariner's invention (a big assumption), it still is improbable that a circle means a sphere. A circle means that there is something like a city in the center of the world, a logical assumtion, but far from a prophetical one.

 

[racketboy]

I must admit, we have some pretty smart people on this board.

The only problem with that is (in my opinion) that sometimes people can depend so much on their knowledge, education, or intelect that they totally neglet the concept of faith.

I strongly agree that we should educate ourselves, but don't let that be the only thing you rely on. We will never know everything. Sometimes we must have faith in things that are unknown to our human minds.

 

[Rumata]

Faith is neccessary for life, but I like my faith to be based on my values and my experiences alone. This is why I disagree with old beliefs that contradict new knowlege and deny it.

 

[Falstaf]

Firstly ,it's the fact that science did not accept this as a fact for over 2000 years. Secondly, even the ancient budhists believed that the earth was a globe carried on the back of elephants who were standing on the back of a giant turtle roaming through the universe. Now all this shows is that ancient cultures did in fact realize the earth was a sphere. But Isaiah was written before Buddahs time between 778 and 734 bce. He was not a mariner, but spent much of his life in Jerusalem serving as a 'prophet'. He never ventured out of Jerusalem in his lifetime. Why would he? At that time the were thieves, Leopards, Lions, Bears and other dangers outside the city area. But even learned men today, recognize the import of this knowledge he showed concerning the natural world. This is only one reference. If you wish, I will give others. But that might be a waste of effort if you are going to be dogmatic in your stance instead of open to other possabilities. Many today are only because of their unwillingness to believe anything other then what has become the 'popular' belief that the bible and other ancient works are only nice stories but not to be taken seriously. An attitude seen as enlighted but really coming from a closed mind taught to suspect all things religious, not because these works have been proven fallible, but because most of the well known leaders of all forms of clergy has proven useless in even accurately teaching what the bible states or leading by example. But to me thats almost like a man who comes home one day and tells his wife," My boss yelled at me today.....so I want a divorse". One really has nothing to do with the other. Don't actually discount something until you yourself have investigated it thoroughly. There is enough deception on biblical matter as it is. Don't be a blind sheep following the flock. Of coarse this is no better then those who blindly believe what they know nothing about, as well. How can you put faith in something you have no real knowledge of?

 

[Rumata]

Come on. First of all you are not prooving anything, in fact, the first half of your post directly agrees with my reply to the "circle prophecy". Second, you are falling back onto stock excuses for not prooving arguments.

 

[jim993]

"How can you put faith in something you have no real knowledge of?" - falstaff

falstaff you know you set yourself up for an argument with that line good thing i don't care to argue it but you must see what i'm talking about.

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by Rumata@June 27 2002,12:54

Come on. First of all you are not prooving anything, in fact, the first half of your post directly agrees with my reply to the "circle prophecy". Second, you are falling back onto stock excuses for not prooving arguments.

First of all, you can't PROVE any of these theories.

Second, falstaff isn't using "stock excuses" as far as I can see. He's just trying to make some points

 

[racketboy]

Originally posted by jim993@June 27 2002,13:00

"How can you put faith in something you have no real knowledge of?" - falstaff

falstaff you know you set yourself up for an argument with that line good thing i don't care to argue it but you must see what i'm talking about.

Actually, I would think faith is something that you must have in something you don't know enough about. If you knew about it, you wouldn't need faith.

 

[jim993]

there is no such thing as real knowlege.