niftydrifty

what do you mean by "true?" the scientific version of "true?" or the religious meaning of "true?"

the story isn't ridiculous at all. it's a cool story. it's a religious story. religion speaks to matters of the spirit. not history. there is accountability. what's convenient is for you to try to force a square peg into a round hole and then to say, "see? it's a lie."

Lachean

You want me to define the word "is" Mr. Clinton?

True means true, if any amount of mysticism allows something that does not logically follow from true premises to be regarded as without contradiction, then said claim is not true. For contradictions do not exist, and logical fallacies cannot be excused away.

A fable containing allegorical value is not by true by any valid standards. The messages, parables and morals may be true regarding the human condition, but one must never overstate that case.

If we do agree on what can be regarded as true, by correlation we can never agree on what can be regarded as logically valid.

Either way, stop being obtuse, you know what he meant by "true story." Its certainly true, that its a story...

I think it sucks, you should read the Golden Compass. Thats a pretty cool story!

Tell me, how long in the history of biblical theology has said story been considered allegorical? How long has this peg been square? Did the forces of modernization not file away a significant number of pegs that were originally round over the centuries?

Are there not in fact Christians alive in this modern day who profess that this peg is in fact round?

EDIT: Speak of the devil... see next post.[/EDIT]

The fact is, there are many pegs, they all came from the same factory: you've simply cherry picked the one that suits your world view. Thankfully you're one of the few in said factory's customer base that does not deny science.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

justone

You are quite correct in my view. That’s why I stay as Bible literalis (though some allegories are quite obviously are a part the Bible)


We literalists were made fan of many times.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Q:For how long we were made fun of, because G-d created the light before he created the sun and the moon and even stars?

A:Until the very recent time when it became the common scientific consensus – that after the Big Bang it was all light, and then stars started to form.

Please explain me how in the world the “’uneducated” and ignorant ‘’ authors’’ of the Bible knew that?

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.

It was really funny because everyone could see that the moon was bigger (grreater) than the Sun.

Only very advanced observations equipped with advanced telescopes and math could confirm the opposite.

Please explain me how in the world the “’uneducated” and ignorant ‘’ authors’’ of the Bible knew that the moon was smaller/lesser than the sun?




There is absolutely no reason to think that flood could not happen exactly as it was described in the Bible. A whole # of scenarios/hypothesis has been made, and they include hypotheses made by atheists. So far I have not seen any valuable objections here on DP.

scourge99

Are you saying this is in reference to the Big Bang? You do know that the Big Bang does not claim to be the starting point of the universe. It only claims that there was a bang... not that nothing could have preceded the bang.

The moon glows with less intensity than the sun at night therefore it has LESS LIGHT; it is a lesser light that rules that night. It has NOTHING to do with size.

So worldwide there was a flood? Funny how many other civilizations don't mention such a thing. Same with the archeology and the geology.

Your attempts to attribute predictions from the Bible are stretches to say the least. Its equivalent to Bible codes. If you look hard enough and are loose enough in interpretations you can claim the Bible predicts nearly anything.

__________________
"Either you create your future or you become the victim of the future someone creates for you."
- Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski

Cephus

Great, that pretty much does away with any validity in the Bible though, doesn't it? So now you've got some idiot goat herder who took his flock on a raft and it gets turned into a "God wiped out the world" story over time, mostly because the people heard the story from their neighbors, the Babylonians and thought it sounded pretty cool.

So now that you've completely blown away any reason to take the Bible seriously, what else do you have?

__________________
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

Blog me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

justone

That is quite funny. I said “ after the Big bang”, didn’t I? Please explain to me what is your problem?

Some literalists tried to spin it in the same way when they were laughed at, but they were accused by atheists that it was only a spin. I would not detail how atheists argued such a spin, it is quite easy, there is no need for repeating centuries old debates. I can only mention that this kind of spin may have a place in English, but for instance, in my native language which in its alphabet originated from the alphabet of NT such spin was impossible.

The funny thing is that even atheists here point that many other civilizations Do mention the Flood, and atheists try to spin it as an evidence against the Bible. Then you point to archeology and geology, when you have no clue about such, and you have not done any real research on the subject. I would not try to educate you about some atheistic hypothesis of geology and other sciences that for some reason are OK to refer to in attempts to patch some holes in some theories of evolution but for some reason are not OK to use for the flood. Internet and libraries are readily available for you.



I did not say anything about Bible codes, did I? Why do you always have to talk about something that has not been said by me and you have no clue about my position?

Again it is quite a jump from the particular discussion of the Flood and Genesis to the whole Bible. As NP would say ‘’please stay on the subject… thank you…”

scourge99

So now you are saying that when God said "let there be light" he was referring to a specific point after the bang in which you claim everything was light? How convenient. Why was this point in history so important as opposed to the very beginning or other points in history.

Perhaps the passage is referring to the invention of light bulbs or fireworks or the northern lights or the sun or or ...
I don't believe you. Prove it with more than opinion.

Unless the words are being translated into English inaccurately my interpretation is straightforward.
How convenient.

Everyone is wrong but justone because he has sources that are available somewhere. If you disagree then you must be ignorant and if you have any counter sources then its because its evil atheist spins.

You are ridiculous.!!
It was a comparison. I did not claim you were using Bible codes. I claimed that the same bias and logic that is used to find Bible codes is the same logic and bias being used by you in an attempt to validate passages in the Bible as prophetic..

I am on subject. The Bible uses ambiguous language. Then, people such as yourself cherry-pick passages and say "see! Right here its talking about the Big Bang and here its talking about the size of the moon and sun". Its quite absurd given that if current knowledge changes you will not acknowledge your error. IE, if it can be proven that there wasn't all light after the BIg Bang what would your response be? That you "mis-interpreted" or that it was referencing something else? Death of the author scenarios are convenient sources to cherry-pick.

Lachean

Please don't feed the trolls Scourge99...

justone

I am not saying ‘’now’’ and I said what I said, and if you wish to think that ‘’the passage is referring to the invention of light bulbs or fireworks or the northern lights or the sun or or ...’’ it is your right to exercise your childishness.

It is as straight forward as your interpretation that ‘’the passage is referring to the invention of light bulbs or fireworks or the northern lights or the sun or or ...’’

What should I prove? That you are wrong in bringing in variables that are not ever given in Genesis? That Genesis starts from giving the definition of light with NO reference to intensity, and you ignore rules of the mathematical axiomatic proof by bringing in the values that are not considered, just because you like it? You don’t understand the most simple things, how would you ever understand anything that is above kindergarten thinking?

I have never said EVERYONE, - you childish tactic of hiding beyond ‘’everyone’’ is pathetic. I said” even atheists here point that many other civilizations Do mention the Flood, and atheists try to spin it as an evidence against the Bible.” And anybody in the public who read this forum can see it is true. Thus YOU are wrong when you claim that no other civilization mentions flood. And of course you have no sources available, but then, being fair I did not ask you for any… There are most basic things people know when they do minimal research on the subjects, and one of the basic was given to you. You then are playing childish games, - putting your palms on your eyes and saying ‘’I am not here’’.

And I did not claimed that you claimed that I was using the Bible codes. Why do you always have to talk about something that has not been said by me? Your comparisons are known straw men, shifting poles and switching the subject. Thank you for another demonstration. And also thank you for the future demonstrations, if I will not have time and will to participate in your infant games.

Since your sure that the knowledge about the difference in size of the moon and the sun will change I cannot object such a reasoning.

If the present and well accepted and confirmed by observations parts of BBT are disproved then I would still have almost all other physics of the XXth century behind me. The example of BBT was the simplest one, so I would not have to deep you in more professional parts of physics addressing the nature of light.

Then if all physics is disproved, - it will be the end of times anyway.

What else I have not taken in consideration – that may be one day G-d will come to my office and explain me on the chalk board that I am wrong?

justone

It is not going to happen, you atheists will be spinning and twisting to the end, until you exhast you opponent and still you will came back to have the last word and put a long post of twists and spins and lies. This is your own nature and this is what you practice. Why do you expect anything else from scorge? I will concider him conceeding his points, if he does not answer - and that would be something impossible for an atheist to accept.