Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 42 of 197 (199691)
04-15-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ptolemy
04-15-2005 9:01 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
From message 1:
ptolemy writes:
The stars were in the firmament [raqiya`] that is related to the word for pounding out something dense like metal. It seems that the stars were fashioned, pounded out,
The stars were PLACED in the firmament. The firmament is what was pounded out.
The firmament was placed - IN THE WATER.
The stars were placed - IN THE FIRMAMENT.
Therefore: THE STARS ARE - IN THE WATER!!
That is what the Bible says!
Seems to me your argument is based on multiple misunderstandings of both: science and scripture.
Come away from the dark side Luke. Come into the light.
From message 24:
When something shifts as a relationship,...
Your language is confusing. You frequently talk about a thing changing as a relationship but do not say in relation to what. The word relationship suggests that two or more things are being or acting in a codependent manner. A 'thing' may change in a relationship or in relation to something else, but I have no idea what you mean by a 'thing' changing AS a relationship. Perhaps you can clarify what you are saying?
If the Bible is the absolute truth, which is what Jesus said, then there must be an answer to the struggles between scientific reasoning and the text.
The Bible is not the absolute truth; and Jesus did not say that it is.
There are answers alright but you may not like them.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ptolemy, posted 04-15-2005 9:01 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 12:41 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 47 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 4:02 AM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 48 of 197 (199738)
04-16-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
04-16-2005 12:41 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Arachnophilia writes:
misleading. everything else is in the water too.
My statement is not misleading. It is incomplete, of course, but it is leading true.
Yes, EVERYTHING IS IN THE WATER.
In fact, according to the Bronze Age concept of universe:
Everything is located in a bubble, within the primeval waters of chaos.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 12:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 5:56 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 49 of 197 (199747)
04-16-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 4:02 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Thank you for attempting to answer my question.
Now, on to my favorite part:
doctrbill writes:
The Bible is not the absolute truth; and Jesus did not say that it is.
ptolemy writes:
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
This is about "the Law," not about "the Bible." Even so, there is a hint that the Law will someday: "pass away."
John 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
As used in the scripture, the expression: "Word of God," refers to The Covenant; and/or He who fulfills the Covenant ("the Word made flesh"). The Bible never calls itself: "The word of God." In fact, the Bible shows no evidence of self-consciousness!
"Scripture" means: something written. "Scripture" does not mean: 'The Bible.' "The scripture" referred to here is a Psalm. Thus, we cannot take this statement of Jesus as if it applied to the entire collection of sacred literature. The Bible as we know it is considerably different from the Bible as Jesus knew it. If we are talking about the Bible as Jesus knew it, then we would have to debate the value of the so called "Apocrypha;" which were included in the Bible of Jesus' day. If we say that "The word of God" can only refer to the Jewish (Hebrew) scriptures then we must throw out the New Testament. [I did say you may not like the answers, didn't I?]
Neither of these verses convincingly confirms your assertion that Jesus calls the Bible absolute truth.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 4:02 AM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 12:58 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 59 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 9:16 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 52 of 197 (199765)
04-16-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
04-16-2005 12:58 PM


Re: ... definitions ....
Phatboy writes:
Jesus ... surely would not be swayed by the Apocrypha.
Would not be swayed? What do you mean by that?
You mean he wouldn't read them?
Wouldn't understand them?
Wouldn't utilize them in his ministry?
And why not? Where do you suppose he got the idea for the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man?
I would much rather trust inspiration from scripture..(written by the Holy Spirit using inspired people) and the other books included in the Canon ...
Are you saying that the canon contains books which are not inspired?
If so, then which books are they?
Are you saying that some of the books in the canon are not scripture?
If so, then what do you think the word scripture means?
Are you saying that only the canon is inspired?
If so, then which canon is it?
The Jewish canon? (the only one which existed in Jesus' day)
The Catholic canon? (which includes all the books of the popular Bible in Jesus day)
Or, the Protestant canon? (what remains after butchering the Bible of Jesus day)
apostolic succession and other human inventions of organized religion.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you calling the 'apocrypha' human inventions of organized religion?
Don't you realize that including the New Testament alongside the Law and the Prophets is all about maintaining an apostolic succession?
What other justification would you give for treating the writings of the apostles as if they were absolute truth?
I suspect that you are of the Roman Catholic persuasion, Doc. When are you guys EVER gonna get it right?
I am of the scientific persuasion Phatboy; and it may not yet appear who has currently got it right. Even so, I expect that no one person has ever got it all right.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 12:58 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 2:45 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 57 of 197 (199788)
04-16-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
04-16-2005 5:56 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
... this is what we should be discussing. because this is the way the bible describes the universe.
Quite right.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2005 5:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 60 of 197 (199815)
04-16-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ptolemy
04-16-2005 9:16 PM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Ptolemy writes:
... my fundamental faith that it is what it claims to be - is never set aside.
People make claims for the Bible, but The Bible doesn't claim anything for itself.
The Bible doesn't know that the Bible exists.
Since you state that it is not God’s word, it is natural for you to look for, and find many reasons why it is not the TRUTH.
I believe what I said is that the Bible does not claim to be the word of God,
And no one who wrote for the Bible claims the Bible to be the word of God.
I have not set out to prove the Bible wrong. I have set out to detect bullshit; and when I read your posts, my bullshit detector buzzes loudly.
if God breathed it, why would He put myths in His Word?
That's a BIG IF.
But the bit about a solid sky holding back the upper water was not considered myth in those days. It actually passed for science. But the idea that earth is one of the planets was, at that time, considered to be pure fantasy. Note that the Bible never makes that connection for us. I guess God left that little detail to be spelled out by heathens and heretics while God-fearing, Bible believing Christians burned them at the stake.
Your explanations may appeal to you, but they do not fit the whole text which claims to be the truth.
Your explanations clearly appeal to you but do not fit any of the text as far as I can tell. And ... once again ... the Bible makes no claims for itself. Where does the text claim to be truth?
2000 years ago the Bible predicted the first principle of the last days - the very way you think. Isn’t that evidence that it really is God’s Word.
So far, I can't figure out what you are talking about. What is this first principle you are talking about? Try some plain English for a change. What is it that you think I believe?
If He calls it a firmament, would He be referring to something invisible but hard, a glass ceiling or invisible cosmic ocean, or would He intend for it to be understood simply.
A. The invisible dome and primeval sea are simple concepts which seem to fit the evidence.
B. Your projection is complex and unintelligible, like someone describing an Acid trip.
C. If God intended for it to be understood simply, then why do we need the Hubble Telescope to make sense of it?
Elihu, who lived in the age of dinosaurs, according to the text, seems to think something dense like molten bronze is continuously being hammered into ...
My friend, you appear to be lost in space.
db
Edited for spelling
This message has been edited by doctrbill, 04-16-2005 10:27 PM

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ptolemy, posted 04-16-2005 9:16 PM ptolemy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 04-17-2005 5:48 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 04-17-2005 7:29 AM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 67 of 197 (199863)
04-17-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
04-17-2005 5:48 AM


Re: opaque arche is now transparent
Arachnophilia writes:
books in the bible do reference other books in bible. quite frequently, in fact.
they also reference books that are not in the bible, curiously.
Some time ago, someone here (was it Bryan?) started a thread with the assertion that "There is no such thing as 'The Bible.'" The point being that The Bible is not "a book" but a collection of books (anthology). It is not internally consistent or coherent, and clearly not designed by God to be "His Word."
That is why I say: The Bible does not know that the Bible exists. Because people treat the Bible as if it is an entity, has intelligence, and contains God. How convenient is that?
God in a box!
In fact, a lot of holy scripture has been removed from 'the Bible' and another lot has been added to 'The Bible,' until Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize what we call 'The Bible' today.
... paul. he claims the "scripture" to be "given by inspiration" whatever that actually means.
Paul's claim is not all it's cracked up to be; and its a whole lot more. See my brief article on the subject: Inspiration
Thank you for the gif. I am sure to have fun with it.
not even considered in the slightest. i doubt anybody thought of it that way at all. the planets were just stars that moved a little differently.
Depends on how far back you go, of course. By the time Genesis was committed to writing (circa 500BC), the heliocentric concept was being kicked around at the frontiers of 'science,' especially by the Greeks. In light of that, Genesis appears to be a reactionary response to the emergence of that 'godless theory.' As you know, heliocentric theory did not re-emerge and become widely accepted until the sixteenth century, approximately 2000 years after it was first published.
You see the difficulty of advancing science in a world dominated by religious conservatives.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 04-17-2005 5:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 04-17-2005 6:02 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 69 of 197 (199874)
04-17-2005 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Phat
04-17-2005 7:29 AM


Universal "Magic"
Thank you for your observations.
I believe there is 'magic' in the universe. Understanding the 'magic' empirically has not lessened the thrill I feel when I am touched by 'the magic.'
Lightning and thunder, which the biblical poet calls the 'arrows' and the 'voice' of God, are no less intimidating for my knowledge of their mindless, inanimate reality. But I have learned that praying for protection from lightning is not an effective deterrent to the current.
The socially inappropriate urgings of my sexual instinct are no less vexing now than when I believed them to be the work of a mischevous demon. But in this case, praying about it actually helps. (distracts the mind you know, works better as one gets older )
My point is: Whether you call it God, and imagine a kindly old superman, or call it Ja, and imagine a clever warrior: the 'magic' remains the same. The 'magic' is there for everyone: Jew, Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Agnostic, and Atheist. It is natural, universal, unfailing, and eternal. It is bigger than any one person. It shows no prejudice for race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation.
If that is what you wish to call god then I would be at ease with it.
If, on the other hand, you want me to believe that there is this guy' who is actually God, or who is sent by God, or who stands in the place of God, then I would want to send you back in time, to when men were granted absolute power, and ruled by divine right, and stood in the place of God. For that was a world in which such ideas were valid and that is the world from which such ideas are drawn.
Ever heard of "President Jesus?" I don't think so.
It's King Jesus to you, boy.
On your knees, or on the stake.
Fire will purify your soul.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 04-17-2005 7:29 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 04-17-2005 2:02 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 123 of 197 (201221)
04-22-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ptolemy
04-22-2005 12:02 PM


Simple Evidence?
ptolemy writes:
My claim is that the simple evidence from astronmy fits what the BIble actaually says in the original language.
Isn't it about time to substantiate your claim?
A. The astronomical evidence to which you allude is far from simple. (gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope)
B. You apparently fail to comprehend the text whether in the original or in subsequent translation.
In fact: You focus on a single word and ignore how it is used in context. That Hebrew (Chaldean) word: raqia refers to a dome shaped object (e.g. a shield) made by hammering out a strip of metal. You believe this refers to distant galaxies?
You are ignoring the biblical text.
According to the text: The raqia is placed "in the midst of the water" (primeval water of chaos) for the purpose of separating the water into Upper and Lower regions. [Earth subsequently appears in the Lower Water (AKA Sea)]
Raqia gets translated into Latin as Firmamentum which is then transliterated to English as "firmament."
firmament n. arch of the heavens; sky. {< Latin firmamentum, ultimately < firmus firm} Thorndike Barnhart
Whether we look at the Hebrew raqia or the Latin firmamentum we are talking about something durable which holds back the primeval waters of chaos. The ancients assumed that it would take something hard and very strong to support all that water.
The heavens are placed: "in the raqia"
The raqia is placed: "in the water."
The raqia is not "naked galaxies."
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ptolemy, posted 04-22-2005 12:02 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 124 of 197 (201235)
04-22-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ptolemy
04-22-2005 3:21 AM


Re: Relationship versus Relativity
ptolemy writes:
Aristotle assumed that the matter is unchanging. Peter directly contradicts this - saying in Greek that gold is self corrupting right now.(I Peter 1:7) There is no way to harmonize these two positions.
For godsake man! Where do you come up with this rubbish? It was Aristotle who, in fact, first described how matter changes. Peter's statement that gold is corruptible denies nothing, except perhaps the common but mistaken belief that gold is incorruptible.
Christians should only have one method for interpreting the Bible - its historical grammar - not our scientific system that did not even exist when the Bible was written.
Yet, you apparently rely on a sophisticated space-based telescope to validate your opinion of the meaning of scripture. In fact, you rely on "our scientific system" to the exclusion of accepting the simple "historical grammar" of the biblical text.
you can verify the truth of the Bible in the earth and stars - but . . .
You must take what the Bible says as fundamentally true.
Why should I? You apparently don't.
For hundreds of years Christians have unknowingly taken the ideas of the Greeks as fundamental and used them to interpret what the Bible says about earth-history.
I don't know what you mean by "used them to interpret what the Bible says about earth-history." But, I do know about fundamental ideas of the Greeks like: global theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory, and atomic theory. You have a problem with any of that? Why are you putting down on the Greeks? And doing it with a computer no less! Do you complain about farmers while eating dinner?
... the simplest visible evidence in the stars and earth fit the words of the Bible.
The simplest visible evidence does not come from an orbiting deep-space telescope!
The simplest visible evidence tells us this:
Earth is flat, in the middle of the universe, and orbited by sun, moon and stars.
And THAT fits the words of the Bible!
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ptolemy, posted 04-22-2005 3:21 AM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 125 of 197 (201245)
04-22-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ptolemy
04-21-2005 8:00 PM


Simple Relativity or Alexander versus that wimp: Napoleon
ptolemy writes:
All ancient people seemed to think that time was part of a dynamic relationship in which everything was changing for the worse.
People believe this more as they get older. Why? Because it's true; for old folks. Think you've got troubles now? Wait till you get old!
... he could drive suckling lambs from the Euphrates to Gilead in 10 days. When the cowboys drove mature animals to the railhead 150 years ago, 10 - 12 miles a day was considered a good days drive.
Get a grip, man! You're comparing suckling lambs to Longhorn steers!!
Alexander and Xenophon also could march an army further in a day than Napoleon. This suggests that ancient days were longer.
No! It suggests that Alexander and Xenophon weren't moving heavy artillery.
OR, It suggests that Napoleon's troops may have had more energy for fighting.
OR, It suggests that Alexander and Xenophon's men were in better shape at the outset.
OR, that Napoleon's army was was larger, moving through difficult terrain, & suffering from diarrhea (which they were).
How could days and years become smaller and worse for succeeding generations?
Inflation. Taxation. Regulation. Price Hikes. Downsizing. Layoffs. Unemployment. Rising interest rates. Poor gas mileage. Hoof and mouth disease. Daylight savings time; and - The heartbreak of psoriasis.
Need I say more?
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ptolemy, posted 04-21-2005 8:00 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 129 of 197 (201409)
04-23-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by ptolemy
04-23-2005 6:01 AM


Re: Biblical vs Scientific Cosmos
ptolemy writes:
"Aristotle assumed that the matter is unchanging." (message 121)
"Our first principle is that the nature or essence of matter is unchanging" ... "Upon the foundation of this first principle ==>our ancestors defined unchanging properties of matter - " (message 126)
Aristotle certainly understood material decay. Any of his comments which appear contrary to that, are made in reference to heavenly things. (emphasis mine)
quote:
"... as exempt from decay and generation, the heaven is eternal."
"... all men have some conception of the nature of the gods, and all who believe in the existence of gods at all, whether barbarian or Greek, agree in allotting the highest place to the deity, surely because they suppose that immortal is linked with immortal and regard any other supposition as inconceivable. ... The mere evidence of the senses is enough to convince us of this, at least with human certainty. For in the whole range of time past, so far as our inherited records reach, no change appears to have taken place either in the whole scheme of the outermost heaven or in any of its proper parts. The common name, too, which has been handed down from our distant ancestors even to our own day, seems to show that they conceived of it in the fashion which we have been expressing. The same ideas, one must believe, recur in men’s minds not once or twice but again and again. And so, implying that the primary body is something else beyond earth, fire, air, and water, they gave the highest place a name of its own, aither, derived from the fact that it ‘runs always’ for an eternity of time."
"For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing. "
"The body, then, which moves in a circle cannot possibly possess either heaviness or lightness. It is equally reasonable to assume that this body will be ungenerated and indestructible and exempt from increase and alteration, since everything that comes to be comes into being from its contrary and in some substrate, and passes away likewise in a substrate by the action of the contrary into the contrary, as we explained in our opening discussions. Now the motions of contraries are contrary. If then this body can have no contrary, because there can be no contrary motion to the circular, nature seems justly to have exempted from contraries the body which was to be ungenerated and indestructible. For it is in contraries that generation and decay subsist. "
"... we may infer with confidence that there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and that the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours."
Aristotle, On the Heavens book one.
Yes, Aristotle make great contributions to science. Yes, some of his idea remain valid today. And Yes, we have certainly, and do continually, reasses his ideas, and our own.
Your assertion:
Our first principle is that the nature or essence of matter is unchanging
is simply not true.
In the Biblical cosmos - it remains mysterious and unknowable - but what we see confirms what the Bible actually states in simple language with simple visible evidence.
You continue to ignore that "simple language."
Simple visible evidence is found in: "The mere evidence of the senses" (Aristotle); i.e. > in the naked eye of the common man; NOT in mysterious photos from an Orbiting Telescope!
More from Aristotle regarding the divine and indestructable nature of the heaven.
quote:
"THAT the heaven as a whole neither came into being nor admits of destruction, as some assert, but is one and eternal, with no end or beginning of its total duration, containing and embracing in itself the infinity of time, we may convince ourselves not only by the arguments already set forth but also by a consideration of the views of those who differ from us in providing for its generation. If our view is a possible one, and the manner of generation which they assert is impossible, this fact will have great weight in convincing us of the immortality and eternity of the world. Hence it is well to persuade oneself of the truth of the ancient and truly traditional theories, that there is some immortal and divine thing which possesses movement, but movement such as has no limit and is rather itself the limit of all other movement. A limit is a thing which contains; and this motion, being perfect, contains those imperfect motions which have a limit and a goal, having itself no beginning or end, but unceasing through the infinity of time, and of other movements, to some the cause of their beginning, to others offering the goal. The ancients gave to the Gods the heaven or upper place, as being alone immortal; and our present argument testifies that it is indestructible and ungenerated. Further, it is unaffected by any mortal discomfort, and, in addition, effortless; for it needs no constraining necessity to keep it to its path, and prevent it from moving with some other movement more natural to itself. Such a constrained movement would necessarily involve effort the more so, the more eternal it were-and would be inconsistent with perfection. Hence we must not believe the old tale which says that the world needs some Atlas to keep it safe-a tale composed, it would seem, by men who, like later thinkers, conceived of all the upper bodies as earthy and endowed with weight, and therefore supported it in their fabulous way upon animate necessity. We must no more believe that than follow Empedocles when he says that the world, by being whirled round, received a movement quick enough to overpower its own downward tendency, and thus has been kept from destruction all this time. Nor, again, is it conceivable that it should persist eternally by the necessitation of a soul. For a soul could not live in such conditions painlessly or happily, since the movement involves constraint, being imposed on the first body, whose natural motion is different, and imposed continuously. It must therefore be uneasy and devoid of all rational satisfaction; for it could not even, like the soul of mortal animals, take recreation in the bodily relaxation of sleep. An Ixion’s lot must needs possess it, without end or respite. If then, as we said, the view already stated of the first motion is a possible one, it is not only more appropriate so to conceive of its eternity, but also on this hypothesis alone are we able to advance a theory consistent with popular divinations of the divine nature. But of this enough for the present." Aristotle, On the Heavens, book two
Got that? And you thought St. Paul was difficult to read?
Anyhoo ... beginning with Copernicus and continuing with Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, Newton and Einstein: Aristotle's assumptions have been examined and re-examined, then retained or rejected as necessary. That activity was central to what historians call the Scientific Revolution. It was the efforts of those men, and many others, which enable us to carry on this conversation via this medium. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the history of science, and the history of the holy scripture; and then return to your 'theory' and see if it still makes sense to you. If it does, then you will at least be better prepared to explain it; because, frankly - your 'facts' appear to way off; and this statement from Aristotle seems to sum up your belief in the supernatural.
quote:
"... there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and ... the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours."
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ptolemy, posted 04-23-2005 6:01 AM ptolemy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 133 of 197 (201523)
04-23-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
04-23-2005 2:30 PM


True Bible?
Phatboy writes:
Even IF the Bible supports the science that you (or God) defines, it will never click with anyone here, because we don't understand why the Bible is true.
Speak for yourself sir.
I believe I know why the Bible is true. But then, I also know why the Bible is not true. I believe the difference between my view of 'God' and that of the 'believer' is that I get mine from ALL my life experience, NOT just from what I read in that much edited and perennially revised collection of ancient Jewish lore. The fact that I actually read it puts me way ahead of the average Bible thumper. Most merely parrot what they've been told, and while it is true that they can often quote chapter and verse, it is also true that they seldom have the slightest notion of the context from which those one line, or one word, 'proofs' are extracted.
I believe the mistake which Ptolemy and others make, and which I myself did make (once-upon-a-time), is to swallow the Christian sales pitch, hook-line-and-sinker:
"You will believe the Unbelievable."
"You will meet the Invisible Man."
"You will discover God in a Book."
"You will act foolishly and call it Wisdom."
Offer expires soon.
"God in a Box"
Get Yours Now!
Last chance!

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 2:30 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 04-23-2005 4:51 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 6:09 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 137 of 197 (201562)
04-23-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
04-23-2005 4:51 PM


Re: True Bible?
What the heck do I mean? Right?
Thank you for your concern.
In My Not-So-Humble Opinion; The Bible is both: over-rated and almost completely misunderstood by the very people who most promote it.
I will here and now discuss but one of the things which was going through my pea-brain when I wrote what I wrote:
It is clear to me that the 'religious' content of the Bible is very political in nature: having to do with the divine rights of royalty.
In English, a lord is a ruler of some kind; e.g. a landlord. A Lord is more highly placed, even as a child; e.g. Little Lord Fauntleroy. And The Lord is supreme commander of all the others. He is the Lord of lords. Quite simply: that is how it worked in England when the Standard Version of the Bible (Protestant) was produced there about 400 years ago.
If we look at how the expression: The LORD, is used in the Bible, we get a clue to the real-life meaning of the term in the ears of those who lived under that old style government in which, much as it still is in the Vatican, the King stood in the place of God. Indeed, the kings of England, like the kings of old Israel, were called "The Lord's anointed." (Gk. XRISTOS KURIOU / Lat. CHRISTUS DOMINI).
Bet you thought only Jesus was called Christ.? So did I until I discovered that the English Bible has been sanitized in that respect. I discovered this tidbit accidentally while doing a search in my concordance, then confirmed my suspiscion by reading from the Septuagint and Vulgate. It seems the Christian establishment would like everyone to forget what 'Christi'anity is all about. To put it simply it is a political agenda. It is designed to reform the masses, control the behaviour of a nation, and prepare them to meet God Almighty.
Well, that's one way to put it.
That part is true. It is so stated in an unabashed way which the ancients understood. Moderns don't seem to get it. But then the hierarchy doesn't want them to get it and actively deny that the charge is valid. If anyone here doubts the validity of my charge, let them consider this: You've heard of King Jesus. Have you ever heard of President Jesus? Both expressions are ultimately political in nature but one of them is UN AMERICAN. Do you know which?
I haven't time to polish this before heading off to the second half of my split shift. By the time I return I shall surely wish to edit something here. Meanwhile: Let the games continue.
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 04-23-2005 4:51 PM Percy has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 148 of 197 (201611)
04-23-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Phat
04-23-2005 5:19 PM


Re: True Bible?
Thank you for noticing what may seem to be an out-of-character comment.
In my response to Percy I touched on what is perhaps the most basic true message of the Bible:
The King is God on Earth.
When I say the Bible is "true" I do not necessarily mean that the Bible is factual or accurate. I mean that it is a true account of what the author(s) imagined reality to be. Genesis, for instance, was, once upon a time, good 'science.' The same science which was being taught in the best universities of the ancient world. What remains to us is a true account of what that 'science' was.
Is it factual? Yes and No. The account was actually written in the distant past. That is a fact. The 'science' it reveals was actually taught as fact in ancient time. But we can no longer consider that 'science' itself to be factual.
It it accurate? Yes and No. The text is probably as accurate as one can expect considering the difficulties inherent in transcribing and translating it numerous times over hundreds of years. Similar expositions of ancient natural science, for which we have much older hard-copy evidence, confirm that Genesis must have been considered valid at the time it was written. But the 'science' of it is, of course, incorrect.
Science evolves, and following behind, at a very skeptical distance: religion evolves. Nations which fail to keep up with the evolution of science, lose power, or become extinct. Congregations which fail to keep pace with the evolution of religion find themselves driving to work in horse-drawn carts. Individuals who think the author of Genesis knew what would be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope find themselves way out on a limb.
Does any of this make sense to you?
db

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 5:19 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024