The Bible

fxashun · 10-26-2007, 05:27 PM

That's as insulting to Christians as a bible thumping evangelist is to a non-Christian. Both are out of line.

What about the human sacrificing Mayans who had a calendar more accurate than the one we are using today?

Rod · 10-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

That's as insulting to Christians as a bible thumping evangelist is to a non-Christian. Both are out of line.

More like a reminder of the words in 2 Peter.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

sgtdmski · 10-27-2007, 07:20 AM

Or how about, how all the works of scientist have yet to prove the Bible in error. Not to mention the work of historians and archeologists. Everytime they have thought to have found an error in the Bible, lo and behold, the Bible is correct and the scientist, historian and archeologist was wrong.

For instance the Kingdom of Edom is mentioned throughout the Old Testament. Most scholars believed that Edom did not come into existence until around the 8th Century BC. The Bible claims that David conquered the Edomites and placed a garrison in in Edom (2 Samuel 8:14). Well scholars believe that if David truly existed it was during the period of 1010 - 970 BC. Since Edom did not exist until the 8th Century BC, the Bible must be wrong. Score one for science.

Problem. A team of archeologists led by Russell Adams recently excavated a site in Edom (Jordan today) that dates to a mining operation from the 11th Century, and further found that a protective fortress was built around it dating to the 10th Century. There dating came from using radiocarbon methods. So it would seem that the historians and scientists were initially wrong, the Bible was correct in its assertion that Edom existed during the time of David. Opps, so much for science.

Recently discoveries in Egypt have added to the proof of the accuracy of the Bible. Proof of the existence of Dibon and Hebron only further add to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Consider the fact that the New Testament is roughly 2000 years old, and the Old Testament is around 3500 years old, the accuracy in science and medicine is astonishing.

For far too long science has used the absence of evidence as evidence of absence in disproving the Bible. So by this standard then one must question, if there is an absence of evidence in the fossil record concerning evolution, then there is evidence that evolution is absent. But science does not do that, instead they hold the Bible to one Standard and their theories to a lesser.

dmk

fxashun · 10-27-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Or how about, how all the works of scientist have yet to prove the Bible in error. Not to mention the work of historians and archeologists. Everytime they have thought to have found an error in the Bible, lo and behold, the Bible is correct and the scientist, historian and archeologist was wrong.

For instance the Kingdom of Edom is mentioned throughout the Old Testament. Most scholars believed that Edom did not come into existence until around the 8th Century BC. The Bible claims that David conquered the Edomites and placed a garrison in in Edom (2 Samuel 8:14). Well scholars believe that if David truly existed it was during the period of 1010 - 970 BC. Since Edom did not exist until the 8th Century BC, the Bible must be wrong. Score one for science.

Problem. A team of archeologists led by Russell Adams recently excavated a site in Edom (Jordan today) that dates to a mining operation from the 11th Century, and further found that a protective fortress was built around it dating to the 10th Century. There dating came from using radiocarbon methods. So it would seem that the historians and scientists were initially wrong, the Bible was correct in its assertion that Edom existed during the time of David. Opps, so much for science.

Recently discoveries in Egypt have added to the proof of the accuracy of the Bible. Proof of the existence of Dibon and Hebron only further add to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Consider the fact that the New Testament is roughly 2000 years old, and the Old Testament is around 3500 years old, the accuracy in science and medicine is astonishing.

For far too long science has used the absence of evidence as evidence of absence in disproving the Bible. So by this standard then one must question, if there is an absence of evidence in the fossil record concerning evolution, then there is evidence that evolution is absent. But science does not do that, instead they hold the Bible to one Standard and their theories to a lesser.

dmk

I believe the creators of the bible may have had a little "help" too. If you believe the Bible to be the all of universal knowledge, I think that is very small thinking. Compared to the universe, the earth and therefore human existence is less significant than an ant on Jupiter. This planet was here before us, there have been other ecosystems before us, and when we're gone, there will rise another. We're pretty much rectally boning this one to oblivion.

Rod · 10-27-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

If you believe the Bible to be the all of universal knowledge, I think that is very small thinking.

If one believes the Bible then one believes the words thereof contained in it and this is what is said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

fxashun · 10-27-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rod

If one believes the Bible then one believes the words thereof contained in it and this is what is said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

I would never try to dissuade you from your Bible. I think religious texts DO have significance as it relates to known human existence. But I don't think human existence is all that significant as it relates to the planet.
Matter only changes form, it never disappears, so a few hundred years without us and this planet will only have fossil remains of our presence and will pretty much be no worse for wear.

Rod · 10-27-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Matter only changes form, it never disappears, so a few hundred years without us and this planet will only have fossil remains of our presence and will pretty much be no worse for wear.

Us as in a flesh sense or us as in a spiritual being sense?

fxashun · 10-27-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rod

Us as in a flesh sense or us as in a spiritual being sense?

Both. Spiritually, that's a whole different deal. But "spirit" isn't a tangible object so even if we are "here" spritually, where were we when the Earth was as dead as Mars or Venus. Or maybe those planets are only physically dead but spiritually teeming with "life".

pensacola_niceman · 10-27-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Matter only changes form, it never disappears, so a few hundred years without us and this planet will only have fossil remains of our presence and will pretty much be no worse for wear.

But the divine question is: What does it matter?