Bible vs. Science: Both Sides Are Wrong

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interestingly both sides are usually wrong when it comes arguing the Bible's creation "facts".

    Let me explain and perhaps save yourself some unnecessary arguments about who is right. Firstly, I recommend that you listen to Karen Armstrong, her work has helped me understand the perspective the Bible should represent opposed to a perceived need to make it the absolute word. The age of reason has brought two things to the table (in this regard), significant scientific developments and the challenge to religious convention. However, in a post- age of reason world we are still sitting in two positions, neither one has fully won out. Seemingly they are in conflict, how can one believe in Genesis and Big Bang Theory?

    The problem stems from the developments in science being taken erroniously by theists. From the age of reason on - it has fostered a more rigid form of belief in scripture and reasserting that the bible is absolute. It has become a knowledge arms race which was doomed from the start for theists. For example, this has pushed many Americans in particular into a very unhealthy form of their religion. Protectionism. Even worse is that it is actually reducing the number who can believe in Christainity when there is forced "belief" in such things as a 6,000 year old earth. Those who are cognizant of these differences are naturally siding with Science and diminishing scripture to an irrelevant text.

    The problem is that both sides are wrong, those mocking religion simply for it's inaccuracies within this regard are missing the fact that the creation myths and so forth are maluable and actually could/should be changed with time, and were actually meant to. The religious right who continue to harden their absolutes with regard to the Bible are appearing to be hypocrites and or naive. Moreover, they are adopting a very unhealthy form of their religion directly causing less followers.

    The scientific community may have ways to counter scripture, but tearing down creation myths should not be one of them. Hence, both sides commonly have it out over this topic, both continually exhibiting a level of ignorance which renders the debate rather pointless. I suggest that we try not to win over such simplicities since they are not truly the meaning of religion to begin with, nor are the creation myths supposed to be taken as absolute fact.
     
  2. samiam5211

    samiam5211 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The difference is that science knows it's wrong, so it gets better.
     
  3. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is wrong ? The point is that you (assuming you) on the side of science are arguing a non starter.
     
  4. sjp

    sjp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    oh ok, who can change them? you? or maybe someone powerful with an agenda? silly believers :roll:

    Don't forget to read your book...

    Revelation 22:18-19
    King James Version (KJV)
    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


    Psalm 12:6-7
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
     
  5. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why? If the bible is the word of god, divinely inspired, what right do we mere humans have to change it? And if it isn't, why are we still paying attention to any of it? There's not a lot of middle ground for a book that claims to be divinely inspired, holy, and completely accurate - it either is, or it isn't. We can't rewrite it without admitting that it has flaws, and if we admit it has flaws, we're admitting that the entire basis of the christian faith is flawed. You don't see the logical issues here, given the content of the bible?

    Meanwhile, "bible-bashing" with Genesis makes perfect sense - to demonstrate a book to not be divinely inspired, all one must do is show that it's not perfect. And seeing as many christians still believe the bible to be the divinely-inspired, perfect work of god, this is indeed a noble correction to be made.
     
  6. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48


    You MUST be kidding or you did not put on your thinking cap...

    Can you tell me exactly what is the difference between "In the beginning"... and the Big Bang transforming pure Energy into the Matter and Space time we call the Heavens?



    [​IMG]



    Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

    Seven Stages:
    1) The Inflation Era
    2) The Quark Era
    3) Hadron Era
    4) Lepton Era
    5) Nucleosynthesis Era
    6) Opaque Era
    7) Matter Era,...
    in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
    ... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which was yet to congeal into a spherical planet) earth.


    (Gen 1:1)
    http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

    http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang/
     
  7. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Since it is divinely inspired, we ought have tghe sense to read it comprehensively, and see that it is our choice, to interpret it against Science or complement and support it with Science.

    The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:

    [​IMG]

    Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
    And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])
     
  8. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wouldn't you prefer a legitimate argument against religion opposed to arguing over misinformation? This thread is about the fundamentalist movement, not an argument for why religion is correct. I'm sorry that your mindset has been focused on such a narrow rationale for why to disbelieve in the Bible but sadly you are wrong.
     
  9. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL

    But the Bible is "perfect."

    What is imperfect is the things the church elders are trying tio tell us in this Age which they repeated to their congregations ever since that one man, Russell, Luther, Campbell, Calvin, Smith, or some other long dead guy explain Genesis his way.


    There WERE seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the geological Eras.


    [​IMG]

    1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day

    2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day

    3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

    4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

    5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

    6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

    7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day
     
  10. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Wouldn't you prefer a legitimate argument FOR the Bible as opposed to arguing over archaic medieval interpretations by mean who had no education in the real Facts-of-Life that Modern Science reveals and can be used in support of Genesis?????



    There was no visible light in the Universe at first.

    A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede that advent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to flood the cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.



    Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).

    [​IMG]

    Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

    Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
     
  11. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, you are knocking down strawmen here so I find it surprising that you are trying to defend this notion without any consideration that there could be another side of this. Following suit with your myopic thinking, I have a thought experiment for you: Describe for me your interpritation of what a Christian God is. Or what you think people believe compared to what the Bible says. Or what it is to you? In mono-theistic religions, you will conjure up thoughts about a God that is like us, Good, Wise, but however wit-large, much like us but just in a greater form of us, that God wills our action. But if you scratch further, you will see that it's projecting a notion of a God, that he is good etc, which is far different than the history of diety thought. This is again much like my notions are about contemporary fundamentalisim, it's wrong but accepted by enough people to be perceived as true religious doctrine. It is not. You can't just cherry pick thoughts, you have to dig deeper. I am asking you to do so here. Another example, was the pope wrong in condemning Gallileo ? Of course, but does that infer that RELIGION was wrong, NO! Finally, NOBODY expected LITERAL truth from the worlds scripture, I suggest that you do your homework instead of waste your and my time. Religion was supposed touch upon the unknown, not the known.
     
  12. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,393
    Likes Received:
    7,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right because ancient antiquities man understood all of this at the same time they learned how to write things down.
    Else they knew all this without the ability to have learned how to write yet.
     
  13. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope you are kidding me? Your infantile response is unflattering and ironically illustrating exactly what is wrong with contemporary thought on both sides.

    Another way of looking at it was that Science was also considered the means for proving religion and hence when it falls short it makes religion appear retrograde. Interestingly you are doing tht just here, comparing some very basic established theory which is not the right subject to raise with regard to religion, religion is more about the unknown. Care to describe God to me for example, I would bet that this example alone, such a simple thing, would fail you and most others. Finally, NOBODY expected LITERAL truth from the worlds scripture, I suggest that you do your homework instead of waste your and my time. Religion was supposed touch upon the unknown, not the known.

    FYI, in case you think that I have a limited grasp of astronomy / cosmology, Einsteinian theory, etc. I assure you that I can hold my own and probably exceed most people's knowledge on the subject matter. I've watched and listened to over 300 programs on the subject matter and have read more than a few books of the past year alone.
     
  14. mutmekep

    mutmekep New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,225
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    text8.gif

    translation :because he knew the course of the stars and the movement of the (celestial) sphere round the earth, as this (the earth), which is round, rotates in equal time round its own axis”.

    ~14th century BC

    from here
     
  15. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48

    ?
    I did.

    What other kind of Truth is there?

    Half truths...?
    They are lies.


    John1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God (almighty for all men).

    2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of Reality is what as the Creation).

    Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence through him, (this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence.
     
  16. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    52,393
    Likes Received:
    7,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it seems you now have your own version of God. Seemingly different than the abrahamic God passed down for many millenia.
    It's ok, many have a God that fit their thoughts and experiences.
     
  17. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your process for trying to use Science to prove Religion is EXACTLY what the problem is.
     
  18. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They took dictation, the ancient Bible writers.

    I am certain they knew none of these things actually correspond to the Truth as we, in this age, are discovering.
    I am certain they did not know, but rotely recorded the divine revelations, because time and again, the Bible itself tells us it is a closed book, sealed with mysterious numbers, 3, 7, 12.
    The whole message of scripture tells us we await the messiah who explain all things to all the churches, and gather them all together into an ecumenical whole.



    8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

    9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

    - - - Updated - - -

    They took dictation, the ancient Bible writers.

    I am certain they knew none of these things actually correspond to the Truth as we, in this age, are discovering.
    I am certain they did not know, but rotely recorded the divine revelations, because time and again, the Bible itself tells us it is a closed book, sealed with mysterious numbers, 3, 7, 12.
    The whole message of scripture tells us we await the messiah who explain all things to all the churches, and gather them all together into an ecumenical whole.



    8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

    9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
     
  19. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is? Come out and say it? If you think I'm wrong why dance around it? Explain the true meaning of God then. Since I'm wrong, even though interestingly I have not described it yet. I suppose you are a mystic AND a mind reader?
     
  20. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They took dictation, the ancient Bible writers.

    I am certain they knew none of these things actually correspond to the Truth as we, in this age, are discovering.
    I am certain they did not know, but rotely recorded the divine revelations, because time and again, the Bible itself tells us it is a closed book, sealed with mysterious numbers, 3, 7, 12.
    The whole message of scripture tells us we await the messiah who explain all things to all the churches, and gather them all together into an ecumenical whole.



    8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

    9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
     
  21. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is? Come out and say it? If you think I'm wrong why dance around it? Explain the true meaning of the God figure then (I mean in the sense of how it should be practiced in religous theory) Since I'm wrong, even though interestingly I have not described it yet I ask you to explain how this meshes with my point about fundamentalism.
     
  22. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nonsesne and lame.

    I never used the word "prove."

    I am merely showing that Genesis corresponds with the facts of science if one wished to read the Bible inthe light of todays knowledge.

    If the devils, the sbortionists, the fornicators, the liars, the media, Hollywood, the Gays, the sexually promiscuous teens, Bill Maher i.e.; such comedians, and Welfare recipients, and such wish to mock the religious people who explain Genesis in medieval interpretations, fine.
    They are wrong about Genesis, imo.
     
  23. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48


    God is almighty Reality and his son is the Truth which corresponds one-to-one with the ever unfolding next frame of that Reality it images:





    Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the unfolding Universe, as a Microcosmos of his mind), in (order that) our image (might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."


    Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.
     
  24. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Describe in YOUR mind what you see God as; when you close your eyes what do YOU think of?
     
  25. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Describe in YOUR mind what you see God as; when you close your eyes what do YOU think of?
     

Share This Page