Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 05:43 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Unlike you, RL, Timber is actually giving evidence to support his suggestions. The references themselves, will tell you how they came to their conclusions and the references within those books or articles will tell you how good their assumptions are.


RL's entire life is based on his bizarre fantasies, but then he's a doot gra-dor. Little else can be expected of him.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 08:00 am
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
One site referred to the 'so-called Second Isaiah', a phrase that doesn't conjure up ideas of scholarly certainty.


It should be quite obvious that the words do not reflect certainty or uncertainty regarding the idea of multiple authors. The only uncertainty illustrated in that quotation is regarding the true name of the second author. They do not know who the second author is so they called, so-called, him the Second Isaiah. Any ideas you have conjured up are, in all probability, miscontruing the ideas conveyed on that page.

real life wrote:
We consider this is possible, but there
is surely no convincing proof that there were three.


One should give particular attention to the words "possible" and "convincing." It is quite clear that the author has reservations about accepting the idea of multiple authors (convincing). It also shows, however, that the idea of multiple authors does cast a serious shadow of doubt (possible) on the idea of a single author.

real life wrote:
And I've already commented on Dr Morey's statement on John Ankerberg's website. Morey mocks the idea of three Isaiahs, but Timber quoted him as if he supported it.


You are correct here. Morey was mocking the idea. After enduring the pain of reading his slop for an hour I was not convinced that Morey is intelligent. I decided to find out what I could about him on Wikipedia. Apparently he has lied about receiving a degree from Faith Theological Seminary, when then called his degree "forged, fake, illegal" and then mailed him a copy of a cancelled degree. After reading some more material, especially regarding his debates, he has rather consistently misrepresented the positions of the other debaters. In my honest opinion, he is just as much "off the rocker" as "Dr." Hovind (the tax evading Dr. Dino), the BASE Institute, and the Discovery Institute. Regardless of the subject being discussed, I honestly think it would be better to avoid using Morey as support or defense for a claim.

real life wrote:
So, Wolf, I've got to say that I am just not very impressed with the links provided by Timber on this subject. Beyond asserting the same point (well, at least SOME of them do), they don't seem to have much in the way of evidence to offer.


Did you read the books Timber suggested?


hi megaman,

No I did not read them.

After seeing how the links that Timber claims supporting his position often are just the opposite, and how the ones supporting offered no evidence, just assertions, I decided not to waste any money or any time looking for them.

If he would like to post passages from the books (I'm assuming he's read them, but I may be assuming too much based on his claims regarding the links) that show actual EVIDENCE or reasoned argument instead of bare assertions, then we'll discuss.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 08:12 am
timberlandko wrote:
No, rl - you still don't get it, and you're just making yourself look sillier. The overwhelming consensus of objective bible sholars and historians is that Isaiah is not a single-author/single time-period work. The dissenting view is held only by a contrarian minority, comprised primarily of conservative, Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christian biblical literalists ... though to be fair, the single author/single time view is shared by most ultra-conservative Orthodox Jews, who happen to be staunchly literalist when it comes to their Bible.

Once more, by far the greatest majority of interested, qualified parties hold the multi-author/multi-century view, a fact acknowledged and accepted even by those who hold the minority, contrarian view and dispute the majority opinion. This fact is readilly evidenced in your expanded quotes of the citations I offered; you do not counter my assertion; you condemn your own argument.

Oh, and I mentioned Ankerberg only once, and that in passing, by way of jest. I trust you're a non-smoker; the straw with which you've surrounded yourself is a real fire hazzard.


Yeah right Timber.

I don't 'get it', but you are the one who posts links saying 'this shows support for my view' and when you read the link, the author actually condemns your view.

You pull one sentence out of the context to make it appear that you have support.

Really sad.

-----------------

Even the links that did show support still did not offer ANY evidence, just bare assertions, the same as you.

Bring forth your reasoned argument WHY you and others hold this position.

You don't need to convince us that you DO hold the position. You have convinced us all of that.

But do you have anything beyond wishful thinking to support your view?

That is the question that you have never dared to answer.

You have more dodges than Detroit.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 08:48 am
rl, should you persist in your current practice of posting in the manner of a laughable twit, you may expect to be regarded accordingly. Should it be the case you find yourself momentarily strapped for cash, I'd be happy to loan you enough to buy a clue.
0 Replies
 
KnowJah
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 01:23 pm
Re: Bible vs. Science
Chumly wrote:


Isaiah 40:22- It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

But anyone with a basic grasp of geometry knows what a circle is. It's a flat, two dimensional object. According to these scriptures, the earth is shaped like a CD. b]


So if you use this scripture to prove the bible talks of a flat earth...

"After this I saw the four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree."

...What would that mean for the "circle of the earh" being a CD?

Of course four corners of the earth is not literal. When it speaks in the bible the number 4, it is symbolic. (Just like #7 symbolizes perfection, #10 symbolizes completion, etc.). The #4 in the bible sometimes expressed universalness or foursquareness in symmetry and form. Its found 3 times in Revelations, such as "the four angels" and "the four winds." (4 winds is mentioned in that same scripture above)

# 4 is also often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions "to the ends of the earth." to "the four corners of the earth," in the sence of embracing all the earth. There are some scriptures you can compare. One is in Ezekiel 1:15-17:

As I kept seeing the living creatures, why, look! there was one wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, by the four faces of each. 16 As for the appearance of the wheels and their structure, it was like the glow of chrys´o·lite; and the four of them had one likeness. And their appearance and their structure were just as when a wheel proved to be in the midst of a wheel. 17 When they went they would go on their four respective sides. They would not turn another way when they went. (So there was four wheels but they were turned slightly in the middle of each, still being rounded)

Also Luke 13:29 shows what is means by "four corners:
Furthermore, people will come from eastern parts and western, and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.

And concerning "the circle of the earth," the hebrew word is chugh, which could also mean "sphere," as certain translations put.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 07:51 pm
Good work, KJ.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 08:40 pm
hi timber,

Sorry your argument for 'three Isaiahs' fell apart so soon.

Maybe if you had lent it support by posting the REASONS you believe it, instead of simply asserting that lots of liberal scholars believe it...........

.......... or maybe that's all there is to it. You may simply believe it because liberal scholars do. Could be.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 11:17 pm
neologist wrote:
Which Isaiah correctly predicted the complete abandonment and desolation of Babylon?


The one and only.
0 Replies
 
AnswerMan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 03:54 pm
@xingu,
First the shape of the earth!
The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched"not something that is flat or square.


Second the stars and earth etc.
* The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars"which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
* The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
* The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.


There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Enough that we have a separate page to discuss this proof alone.

And than there is the proof of prophecy!
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

If you want answers the bible backs its self up!
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Apr, 2009 08:34 pm
@AnswerMan,
Quote:
If you want answers the bible backs its self up!
Except that theres no evidence for a worldwide flood. Also theres no evidence that all life was created in a very short time. By the process of falsifiction, if Creation were true, then we should see mammoth fossils with dinosaurs, and we should see human footprints with dinosaur footprints. Adam should have enjoyed trilobites and eurypterids for seafood meals.
The bible does not back itself up, you only wish that to be true.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 12:54 am
@farmerman,
FM,

Holy Book quoters of all faiths are like those who see visions of Jesus in a cloud formation. Their perceptual set ignores the bits which are extraneous to the template. Unlike scientists, they do not need to deal with counter-examples where "ultimate truth" is concerned. Those who operate on the English version of scriptures are intellectually less sophisticated than the ones who work on original texts written in consonant form only. With these the reader can alter the interpretation by the selection of vowels. Kabbalists go even further revealing levels of "mystical truth" by interpreting the numerical values of consonants. (Gematria).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 01:02 am
@fresco,
Re my last point, this is an example of what scientists are up against.
http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 04:49 am
@fresco,
It was my understanding that Kabbalist study has attempted to better unify Torah and science. Im no expert but I have lunch with a few and Ive never had it out for the kabbalists since I learned of tzimtzum
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 05:20 am
@farmerman,
I think you will find that Kabbalah has jumped on the bandwagon of the paradoxes of QM which tend imply to the philosophical position of non-duality. Such coat-tailing is well known for Taoism (as in Capra's "Tao of Physics"). Whatever...this is a long way from simplistic fundamentalism based on English texts. In my mind it indicates some commonalities of metalogical thinking which can be simultaneously applied to the nominal labels "Science" and "Spirituality".
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:07 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If you want answers the bible backs its self up!
Except that theres no evidence for a worldwide flood. Also theres no evidence that all life was created in a very short time. By the process of falsifiction, if Creation were true, then we should see mammoth fossils with dinosaurs, and we should see human footprints with dinosaur footprints. Adam should have enjoyed trilobites and eurypterids for seafood meals.
The bible does not back itself up, you only wish that to be true.
Howdy Farmer.
Hope you are well.
I should point out that the bible does not claim a very short period of time for creation, merely 6 days. The bible writers understood this to mean 6 time periods of indefinite length. One obvious proof of this is that nowhere does it say the 7th day has ended. Over 6000 years and we are still in it.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:14 am
@neologist,
There is also the perception of what the world was to those who wrote of the flood. If one was never to leave the area they knew, then that is the world. Those who use a worldwide flood as an argument are grasping at staws.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:14 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Hope you are well.
I should point out that the bible does not claim a very short period of time for creation, merely 6 days. The bible writers understood this to mean 6 time periods of indefinite length. One obvious proof of this is that nowhere does it say the 7th day has ended. Over 6000 years and we are still in it.

So I guess that all sciences that utilize the isotopic disintegrations of a nucleus in a defined time scale are out in your mind?

What do you measure your 6000 years with?
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 09:51 am
@farmerman,
A protractor.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 10:39 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
I should point out that the bible does not claim a very short period of time for creation, merely 6 days.

Oh boy, here we go...
neologist wrote:
The bible writers understood this to mean 6 time periods of indefinite length.

Yeh, right. Then why did they call them "days" (in whatever language they were using). Why didn't they call them weeks or months or years, or indefinite lengths of time. Or why didn't they just say they didn't have a freakin clue because nobody was around to witness it and all the physical evidence contradicts it.
neologist wrote:
One obvious proof of this is that nowhere does it say the 7th day has ended. Over 6000 years and we are still in it.

Do you even know how stupid that sounds.
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 10:43 am
@rosborne979,
Not stupid at all, if you take the time to fully absorb what he said.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bible vs. Science
  3. » Page 65
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:18:25