Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

presluc · Nov 19, 2009

Lightdemon said:
The "purpose" of proof. I don't think he meant to say that belief needed proof. Or have I misread?

First of all you got something to ask about my post ask me not another poster.

Second of all the point I was making whch apparently missed it's mark,and I will take the blame for that,

Is that belefs or faiths should not be critisised solely on the absence of proof.

Examples .

1 there is no God because there is no proof that God exist only faith from the people that do and some writing that may be questionable.
However people still beleive that God exist.

2 God exist he talks with me I know for certain how a where and when he created everything I know his plans for the future of all living things

Well no although I have faith in God I do not beleive nor have faith in this tyoe of beleif, fact is I don't know exactly how God works I have faitrh God does though.
Now for the flip side.

The universe and everything started with a BIG BANG in space, some have even documented the time.

Well no cause according to natural law to have an explosion you need energy and matter.
In the nothing of space there is no matter although I beleive in the process of evolution I do not beleive it started by an accidental explosion without the needed ingredients

Goobieman · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Flat earth:

In Daniel 4:10-11:"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Geocentric universe:

The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. -- Ecclesiastes 1:5

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. -- Joshua 10:13

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. -- Psalm 75:3

These might support your position, so long as you are very very loose with their interpretation.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Goobieman said:
These might support your position, so long as you are very very loose with their interpretation.

I'm not being loose with the interpretation I am interpreting it literally, the bible literally depicts a geocentric universe and a flat earth. It is you people who now want to extrapolate non-literal interpretations from plain English. Well then that's fine by me, so long as you admit that it is a work of fiction. Bad fiction.

scourge99 · Nov 19, 2009

Jerry said:
No one was ever claiming it didn't happen.

likewise, is no one claiming it did happen and is not myth?

Only that certain parts may be mythical.

how did you come to that conclusion? How do you determine which parts are mythical and which aren't?
Intuition?

Goobieman · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
I'm not being loose with the interpretation I am interpreting it literally

Well, if you want to take the -literal- interpretation of those verses, your assertion is unsupported.

Tucker Case · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

What if that mountain was Mons Huygens?

I'm just pointing out that just because certain verbiage is used doesn't mean that only one possible explanation of meaning can exist.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Goobieman said:
Well, if you want to take the -literal- interpretation of those verses, your assertion is unsupported.

Um no. Here I'll break it down for you.

In Daniel 4:10-11:"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Now first of all the center of the earth is the median distance between 3160 and 3954 miles under ground. Try and get a tree to grow there. And second of all it would be completely impossible to see this tree from "the farthest bounds" unless you were living on a flat earth.

Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

On a spherical earth it is completely impossible to get to a high enough vantage point to see the entirety of the earth, I don't care how high you get there will always be one side of the earth that is opposite from your vantage point.

The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. -- Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun doesn't go down, and it doesn't rise, the earth rotates and spins around the sun.

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. -- Joshua 10:13

The sun doesn't move in the first place.

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5

This ones pretty self explanatory THE EARTH DOES MOVE!

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. -- Psalm 75:3

So the earth is steady? No the earth rotates and circles the sun.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Tucker Case said:
What if that mountain was Mons Huygens?

I'm just pointing out that just because certain verbiage is used doesn't mean that only one possible explanation of meaning can exist.

I don't care how high you get, no matter what you can't get to a high enough vantage point to see the entirety of the earth, because the earth is a sphere thus one side will ALWAYS be unseen from the point which you are standing.

presluc · Nov 19, 2009

scourge99 said:
Why is that? I am not following?

Are you saying that someone must believe a theory is true or false? For example, they can't be agnostic about it until it is supported to a degree they find reasonable for belief?

All possibilties have to be believed as true?

My opoligies sir, you are right and I am wrong.

I never was one to back from a mistake I made.

Perhaps it is because I have faith in God and get a little frustrated by some of the athiest and intellectuals queestioning my faith .
While some so called theories are often blured into fact although in fact there are still a theory, or speculation a beleif with no proof.
Should my faith in God be concidered that much differant?

Tucker Case · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
I don't care how high you get, no matter what you can't get to a high enough vantage point to see the entirety of the earth, because the earth is a sphere thus one side will ALWAYS be unseen from the point which you are standing.

Give it 12 hours or so if you are on Mons Huygens. The biblical statement didn't say it occurred all at once.

Goobieman · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Um no. Here I'll break it down for you.

In Daniel 4:10-11:"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Now first of all the center of the earth is the median distance between 3160 and 3954 miles under ground. Try and get a tree to grow there. And second of all it would be completely impossible to see this tree from "the farthest bounds" unless you were living on a flat earth.

This only indicates that there is a flaw in your interpreation of the term "center of the earth".

Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Where does it say this mountain was on Earth and that the view was of a single moment?

The sun doesn't go down, and it doesn't rise, the earth rotates and spins around the sun.

Yes. So? A description of events from the point of view of someone on the planet necessitates nothing.

The sun doesn't move in the first place.

Yes it does.

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5
This ones pretty self explanatory THE EARTH DOES MOVE!

What is the "foundation" that the earth is "set" upon?
Does it move from that foundation?

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. -- Psalm 75:3
So the earth is steady? No the earth rotates and circles the sun.

"Steady" has several meanings, not all of which have to to with litteral immobility.

Was there anything else?

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Goobieman said:
This only indicates that there is a flaw in your interpreation of the term "center of the earth".

How is there more than one interpretation for the "center of the earth"?

Where does it say this mountain was on Earth?

Irrelevant, you still wouldn't be able to see the entirety of the earth because the earth is a sphere.

Yes. So? A description of events from the point of view of someone on the planet necessitates nothing.

And here I though it was from the perspective of the celestial dictator.

Yes it does.

Oh really now, and here I thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

What is the "foundation" that the earth is "set" upon?
Does it move from that foundation?

There is no foundation, the earth is in constant motion, it not only rotates on its own axis, but it also revolves around the sun due to a bend in space caused by the immense gravity of a star.

"Steady" has several meanins, not all of which have to to with litteral immobility.

From the context of the quote it is clearly referring to a fixed point in space.

Was there anything else?

No I think you just about covered everything, you believe that center doesn't mean center, when you can't explain away a quote in plain English you chalk it up to "somebodies perspective", you believe that the sun rises and sets rather than being at a fixed point in space relative to a planet revolving on its own axis, and that the earth is set upon a foundation.

Was there anything else?

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Give it 12 hours or so if you are on Mons Huygens. The biblical statement didn't say it occurred all at once.

Meh, don't like that one well then try explaining away Daniel 4:10-11:“...I looked and there before me I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Goobieman · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
How is there more than one interpretation for the "center of the earth"?

Beats me -- but the fact is that you have illustrated why it cannot mean the point within the core. You interpret it to mean that point.

Irrelevant, you still wouldn't be able to see the entirety of the earth because the earth is a sphere.

I said:
Where does it say this mountain was on Earth and that the view was of a single moment?
Well?

And here I though it was from the perspective of the celestial dictator.

Does the verse you cite indicate this? Or is trhat your interpretation?

Oh really now, and here I thought that the earth revolved around the sun.

It does. But the sun moves as well.

There is no foundation, the earth is in constant motion, it not only rotates on its own axis, but it also revolves around the sun due to a bend in space caused by the immense gravity of a star.

Ah. Your interpretation.
So "foundation" cannot mean "orbit"?
Why not? Isnt the earth fixed in its orbit?

From the context of the quote it is clearly referring to a fixed point in space.

Ah. Your interpretation.

No I think you just about covered everything

i did. As I said -- your interpretation.

Tucker Case · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Meh, don't like that one well then try explaining away Daniel 4:10-11:“...I looked and there before me I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Easy. If it was tall enough it could be seen at both the poles and from both edges of the equator, which would be the farthest bounds of the earth. It doesn't say "visible from everywhere on earth" only the farthest bounds.

Just because one interpretation means the earth is flat doesn't mean that all interpretations mean the same. And I'm actually doing this from a literal interpretation. That'd have to be one tall friggin' tree though.

presluc · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
Meh, don't like that one well then try explaining away Daniel 4:10-11:“...I looked and there before me I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

You keep coming up with quotes from the biblle

However isn't it true that renowned scientist of a certain period thought that not only the earth was flat but also the center of the universe.

The so caled theory at one time that the sun revoled arounsd the earth also comes to mind.

History is full of mistaken theories.

Somewhere on this thread I have already stated that the bible was written by man, man makes mistakes.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

presluc said:
You keep coming up with quotes from the biblle

However isn't it true that renowned scientist of a certain period thought that not only the earth was flat but also the center of the universe.

But Galileo never claimed to be the word of god.

The so caled theory at one time that the sun revoled arounsd the earth also comes to mind.

History is full of mistaken theories.

The bible doesn't claim to be a theory, it claims to be the word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god. And even if it did claim to be a theory then what good is it? Theories which are completely wrong get thrown in the dustbin, are you saying that the bible should go the way of heliocentrism and geocentrism?

Somewhere on this thread I have already stated that the bible was written by man, man makes mistakes.

So then you admit that it's a fiction book depicting a the life and times of a fictional character named God? I agree.

phattonez · Nov 19, 2009

presluc said:
Somewhere on this thread I have already stated that the bible was written by man, man makes mistakes.

So we should believe nothing that man writes? Got it! :bravo:

paris · Nov 19, 2009

Jerry said:
Since you weren't using the tooth fairy as your example in your post 326, which is what I was responding to in the post you just quoted, attempting to now redirect and change your argument is equivocation.

Please adjust your argument to account for the real history of Santa and re-dress post 325 accordingly.

Oh let me guess, you want to pull some phony Christian Saint out of your magical hat to explain me the very origin of Santa Claus; and by doing that, you will completely ignore what Christianity owes to Ancient Egypt? How typical! I guess that's what judeo-christianism is really about: plagiarism!

"There is also an interesting scene in the central niche of Wadi es-Sebua temple where two statues of Amun and Re-Horakhty which stood besides Ramesses II were hacked away by later Christian worshippers and replaced by an image of St. Peter. When the plaster coating was removed from the carved reliefs, one finds a bizarre image of Ramesses II offering flowers to...St Peter instead."

:rofl

Jerry · Nov 19, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
No actually I pointed to the verse in which it is said that one would be able to see the entirety of the earth from a high enough vantage point...

Daniel 4:10-11 is a vision, not an actual observation.

Agent Ferris said:
.....and the one where it says that there is a tree at the center of the earth, the first is impossible on a spherical earth, and as to the second, the center of the earth is a ball is the median distance between 3160 and 3954 miles under ground.

I looked back and didn't see you posting anything about a tree.

However:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 doesn't say anything about shape.

Joshua 10:13 is an exaggerated precession following a major global even such as a poler shift. A couple years ago someone brought up this same point, and a theist linked to an ancient Chinese account of the sun never coming up on the same day. I'll look for a similar link, but this does not speak of shape either.

Psalm 104:5 Foundations in this context means "orbit". The passage is correct in that man can not change earth's orbit around the sun.

Psalm 75:3: When you hear a love song on the radio reference 'mending a broken heart', do you think the artist is speaking of cardio-bypass surgery?

Both Psalm 104:5 and Psalm 75:3 are songs. This is one aria of the bible where we expect to see artistic license, not technical observation.

***
In 2000 years some literalist like yourself is going to look at a record of someone in our time saying "well I'll be a monkey's uncle", and conclude that that person thought they were literally the uncle of a monkey.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Goobieman said:
Beats me -- but the fact is that you have illustrated why it cannot mean the point within the core. You interpret it to mean that point.

No I'm not interpreting anything, I am providing you with quotes from the bible which are completely wrong. Trees don't grow at the center of the earth because the center of the earth is thousands of miles under ground, however, there would be a center of the earth on a flat earth like the bible describes.

Well?

Then explain the quote from the Book of Daniel.

Does the verse you cite indicate this? Or is trhat your interpretation?

The bible clearly states in 2 Tim. 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It does. But the sun moves as well.

It doesn't move the way the bible describes, the earth does not move relative to the earth.

Ah. Your interpretation.
So "foundation" cannot mean "orbit"?
Why not? Isnt the earth fixed in its orbit?

It clearly says "so that it should never be moved" the earth maybe in a fixed orbit but it is in constant motion. Even within its own orbit it revolves around its own axis.

Ah. Your interpretation.

So what other definition of steady would work within that context?

Jerry · Nov 19, 2009

paris said:
Oh let me guess, you want to pull some phony Christian Saint out of your magical hat to explain me the very origin of Santa Claus; and by doing that, you will completely ignore what Christianity owes to Ancient Egypt? How typical! I guess that's what judeo-christianism is really about: plagiarism!

"There is also an interesting scene in the central niche of Wadi es-Sebua temple where two statues of Amun and Re-Horakhty which stood besides Ramesses II were hacked away by later Christian worshippers and replaced by an image of St. Peter. When the plaster coating was removed from the carved reliefs, one finds a bizarre image of Ramesses II offering flowers to...St Peter instead."

:rofl

I like how you just shut down your own argument by providing a factual history of the Santa tradition :lol:

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Tucker Case said:
Easy. If it was tall enough it could be seen at both the poles and from both edges of the equator, which would be the farthest bounds of the earth. It doesn't say "visible from everywhere on earth" only the farthest bounds.

But the quote says that the tree is that the center of the earth, the center of the earth is thousands of miles underground, the quote only works if it is describing a flat earth.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Jerry said:
Daniel 4:10-11 is a vision, not an actual observation.

So in this vision created by god, god decided to show a flat earth?

I looked back and didn't see you posting anything about a tree.

That's from the Daniel quote:

"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

However:
Ecclesiastes 1:5 doesn't say anything about shape.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 is describing a geocentric universe not a flat earth.

Joshua 10:13 is an exaggerated precession following a major global even such as a poler shift. A couple years ago someone brought up this same point, and a theist linked to an ancient Chinese account of the sun never coming up on the same day. I'll look for a similar link, but this does not speak of shape either.

Huh? The sun does go up and down in the first place, it only appears so due to the rotation of the earth. Relative to the earth the sun is in a fixed position.

Psalm 104:5 Foundations in this context means "orbit". The passage is correct in that man can not change earth's orbit around the sun.

It clearly says "so that it should never be moved" the earth maybe in a fixed orbit around the sun which could be described as a foundation, however, it is still in constant motion within that orbit as it revolves around its own axis.

Moreover, Chronicles 16:30 states that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Psalm 75:3: When you hear a love song on the radio reference 'mending a broken heart', do you think the artist is speaking of cardio-bypass surgery?

Both Psalm 104:5 and Psalm 75:3 are songs. This is one aria of the bible where we expect to see artistic license, not technical observation.

So they took artistic license with the word of god?

***
In 2000 years some literalist like yourself is going to look at a record of someone in our time saying "well I'll be a monkey's uncle", and conclude that that person thought they were literally the uncle of a monkey.

If said person was describing say evolution then yes you could look at it and think that guy was an idiot and since the bible in those verses presented were describing the earth and the sun then I would likely come to the conclusion that the person writing it was an idiot and not an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipresent celestial creator.

Agent Ferris · Nov 19, 2009

Jerry said:
I like how you just shut down your own argument by providing a factual history of the Santa tradition :lol:

Actually Santa is the Christian conceptualization of the Nordic God Odin again more plagiarism of earlier tradition.

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP

Yes, because...

No, because...

Other

More options

presluc

Goobieman

Agent Ferris

scourge99

Goobieman

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

presluc

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Goobieman

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Goobieman

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

presluc

Agent Ferris

phattonez

Catholic

paris

Jerry

Agent Ferris

Jerry

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris