1. Post #1

    April 2012
    62 Posts
    To honor the request of the OP of the "fake science" thread I have moved this discussion to its own thread. Here are the highlights of what we've already discussed.

    Good morning.

    I left off yesterday promising I would provide evidence. Before getting started, I would like to concede that Intelligent Design is NOT something that can be proven using the scientific method. It is NOT testable nor repeatable, cannot produce empirical evidence and so in the end isn't science. Which is the actual topic of this thread.

    Having said that I also would like to remind that if God could be proven to exist scientifically, that would totally remove the necessity of faith, which is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

    Having no empirical proof for God is not the same as having NO evidence.

    Love, asthetic value, sanctity of life, equality of mankind, rational intelligibility/universal consistency of the universe, etc. etc. cannot be empirically proven either, yet most, if not all of these are universally accepted as being valid/true.

    I will provide several examples of what, at least to me, is compelling evidence that suggests a high probability for the accuracy of the Bible, which by its very nature would strongly suggest the existence of God:


    Fulfilled prophecy - There are literally hundreds of prophecies found in the Bible which have already been fulfilled. Not prophecies with Nostradamus-like vagueness which could be "fulfilled" by any number of occurences/events but very detailed prophecies.

    Scientific knowledge that was not possibly known by the authors - Job and Isaiah states the Earth is a circle, which seems to be more consistent with a round earth than a flat earth. Psalms mentions the "paths of the sea" (which we now know are currents), Different parts of The Hydrological cycle are described in different chapters, that if looked at as a whole is a fairly complete description of the cycle we know today. Fountains in the sea, thought preposterous for thousands of years were indeed discovered back in the laste 70s, etc. etc.

    Many thousands of examples of historical corroboration - There is not one verifiable historical claim in the Bible that has been found to be innacurate.

    Philosophical consistency - It is perfectly consistent with known & accepted philosophical laws.

    A consistant and seemless narrative that spans 1500+ years and 40+ authors Not only is this remarkable on its own, but these authors had no sufficient motivation to continue building upon a lie propogated by others, who they (in most cases) didn't know.

    About that Scientific Knowledge:
    Finally a person with ACTUAL rebuttals.
    MaGGiFiXXX good to meet you. You present some well written objections and I thank you for the thoughtfulness shown in your post. I will try to answer them as best I can.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Ea...ssical_world_2

    The classical World (especially the Greeks) did know the earth war round (250 BC)
    Oh and that was when it was PROVEN.

    Even conservative estimates date Isaiah to 700BC. Basically a half a milennia before it was "proven" by the Greeks or whoever.

    The Bible Passage for a round earth really do require some interpretation. I don't think it's correct to call it a source of information when it's so vaguely written down.
    I don't think so. The translation for the Hebrew word (חוג—chuwg) can be translated circle, round or sphere. I am unaware of any reference to the Earth being any of the three prior to the OT.

    "Vaguely written down" is inaccurate imo. Perhaps there are issues when we look at the many translations and differing interpretations, but "vaguely written down" doesn't fit if I understand the correct meaning of that phrase.

    And the philosophic part made me think if you are a troll actually.
    Go read Exodus to Deutoronomy about that...
    And yes even though it's the Old Testament, Jesus said that not a single word of the Old Laws shall be changed. I don't want to attack you in any form. I just disagree with your idea that the bible is philosophical consistent, as it often fails to even meet the standards of the golden rule. (Like with slavery and the murder of unruling children and homosexuals and so on and so on.) I strongly disagree with many of the ideas in this book.
    WRT slavery, this is a complicated issue. Slavery in the OT is far different than what we, in the modern age, think of (African American slavery, which ended with the US Civil War).

    Modern slavery was a system where the wealthy initiated the purchase and therefore the motivation of slavery was basically the wealthy exploiting the poor. In this system people were captured by force and sold by another.
    In the OT, that wasn't the case. In most instances the slavery was initiated by the underprivileged. They were poor and starving, in debt over their head or whatever, and offered themselves as slaves to a more wealthy person. While there were many cases of parents selling their children to reduce a burden of debt, I don't think that is comparable to what was going on in Africa with the slave trade. The biggest difference being it was done voluntarily. The parents that had to use this as a last rresort, were unable to care for their children and this was a way to A) ensure the care of their child for the next few years, and B) alleviate their own dire financial situation with a lump sum of cash.

    Additionally, in the large majority of these cases, the slave was not beaten and worked to death, but rather simply did domestic work for their owner and lived under the same roof. It was mandatory that they must be released during Jubilee (so no more than 7 years). They had some legal rights, were allowed to borrow money, partake in business, as well as buy their freedom. In still other cases people were sentenced to slavery for theft. They did not have jails, and this was considered a fair way for the thief to repay his victim.

    In summary, just because God gave rules on how to conduct this business, doesn't mean he approved of or liked it. In fact when looking at the definition of slavery that we are most familiar with God had this to say:

    Exodus 21:16 posted:
    "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"

    WRT stoning unruly children. This was a very rare thing that had many safegaurds in place. First and foremost BOTH parents had to agree with this decision. So you are talking about one REALLY bad person that gets the vote from both parents. Secondly to protect against two dirtbag parents, even if they had agreed to stone the child, they STILL had to bring the case in front of an elder.

    Many are going to read this and still be uncomfortable with the idea. I accept that. But the idea was to purge the community of this immoral and terrible person. It is the lesser of two evils. Stone him now, or let him keep doing vile & evil things that affect the community at large.

    I hope this gives a bit more perspective to some of the issues you have raised. I realize we probably will not agree on everything, but again I welcome any sincere inquiries as well as criticism (which I'm sure is far more likely. lol)



    Good morning GoDong-DK.

    Good to meet another poster with intelligent and well thought out rebuttals.

    Point 1) I already conceded that I didn't believe ID had any verifiable scientific evidence, and offered to begin a new thread as that is the bottom line for the OPs question. End of discussion.

    However, a court of law uses evidence that isn't "scientific", and while, imo, ID shouldn't be considered science, it should not be dismissed as having "no evidence" without serious consideration of the facts that I've listed.



    2) So feeling can be scientifically "proven"? I know there have been some brain wave type tests that seems to verify what you are saying concerning the electric signals, and how certain emotions can actually be measured by an increase or decrease of certain chemicals in the brain and so forth. While the feelings issue may fall under scientifically verifiable, I don't think that can answer for the non emotional subjects listed. Sanctity of life, equality of all mankind and the rational intelligibility/universal consistency assumption.



    3) Fulfilled Prophecy - I would point to the hundreds of Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus of Nazareth. It is ridiculous to think that someone came along and fulfilled all of these and WAS NOT the Messiah.

    A) Zechariah 11:12-13 - And I said to them, If it seems just and right to you, give me my wages; but if not, withhold them. So they weighed out for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, Cast it to the potter [as if He said, To the dogs!]—the munificently [miserable] sum at which I [and My shepherd] am priced by them! And I [Zechariah] took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

    In Zechariah 11:4-17, the prophet speaks of a payment involving 30 pieces of silver and of a good shepherd whose service is brought to an end. This foreshadows an event that happened to Jesus about 500 years later. As explained in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas told the Romans when and where they could arrest Jesus without being surrounded by a large crowd of Jesus' followers. As explained in Matthew 27:5-7, Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.

    B) Isaiah 50:6 - I gave My back to the smiters and My cheeks to those who plucked off the hair; I hid not My face from shame and spitting.

    In Isaiah 50:6, the prophet writes about a servant of God who endures abuse at the hands of sinful people. This servant offers his back to those who beat him, his face to those who rip out his beard, and himself to those who mock and taunt him. Christians historically have acknowledged this Old Testament prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who lived about 700 years after Isaiah. Jesus, as explained in the New Testament, was beaten, mocked and taunted shortly before his crucifixion by the Romans. In Matthew 26:67 (NIV translation), for example, it says: Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

    C) Isaiah 53:9 - And they assigned Him a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.

    In Isaiah 53:9, the prophet Isaiah wrote about a sinless servant being put to death with the wicked and buried with the rich. About 700 years after this was written, Jesus was put to death along with two criminals and was buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man, as explained in the New Testament. The New Testament also says that Jesus was resurrected three days later and ascended into Heaven.

    D) Psalm 69:21 - They gave me also gall [poisonous and bitter] for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar (a soured wine) to drink.

    During Jesus' time hanging on the cross, Matthew writes:"They offered Him wine mingled with gall to drink; but when He tasted it, He refused to drink it." (Matthew 27:34).

    E) Isaiah 40:1-5,9 - Comfort, comfort My people, says your God. Speak tenderly to the heart of Jerusalem, and cry to her that her time of service and her warfare are ended, that [her punishment is accepted and] her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received [punishment] from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins. A voice of one who cries: Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord [clear away the obstacles]; make straight and smooth in the desert a highway for our God! Every valley shall be lifted and filled up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked and uneven shall be made straight and level, and the rough places a plain. And the glory (majesty and splendor) of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.

    In Isaiah 40:3, the prophet writes about a person in the desert who prepares the way for the Lord. This prophecy foreshadowed the life of John the Baptist, who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus was born shortly after John the Baptist about 2000 years ago. The book of Matthew records many events of the life of Jesus and of John the Baptist. In Matthew 3:1-2, it says: "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

    F) Zechariah 9:9 -Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King comes to you; He is [uncompromisingly] just and having salvation [triumphant and victorious], patient, meek, lowly, and riding on a donkey, upon a colt, the foal of a donkey.

    In Zechariah 9:9, the prophet speaks of a future king presenting himself to Jerusalem while riding on a humble donkey. This foreshadowed something that happened about 500 years later. As explained in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented himself as the Messiah, the King.
    Alfred Edersheim, a Christian Jew who lived during the 1800s, studied ancient Rabbinical writings, and said that Zechariah 9:9 was often interpreted as being about a Messiah. In his book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Edersheim wrote: "The Messianic application of this verse in all its parts has already been repeatedly indicated. We may here add that there are many traditions about this donkey on which the Messiah is to ride; and so firm was the belief in it, that, according to the Talmud, 'if anyone saw a donkey in his dreams, he will see salvation' (Ber 56 b)."
    The name "Jesus," means "salvation" in Hebrew.

    These are some of the most plainly written and were obviously fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.



    4a) Scientific knowledge - The translation for the Hebrew word (חוג—chuwg) can be translated circle, round or sphere. There was absolutely no specific word for "sphere" in ancient Hebrew, so they would have had to use a word which conveys the idea as best they could. I am unaware of any reference to the Earth being any of the three prior to the OT.


    4b) Scientific knowledge - Unlikely, but for the sake of argument let's assume sailors were aware of currents in 1000 BC. David was no sailor, and it is very unlikely that he would be aware of this through 1st hand information, which again is unlikely that anyone else even had 1st hand knowledge of such a phenomenon.


    4c) Scientific knowledge - "Hydrologic Cycle":

    Job 26:8 - He holds the waters bound in His clouds [which otherwise would spill on earth all at once], and the cloud is not rent under them.

    Job 36:27-28 - For He draws up the drops of water, which distil as rain from His vapor, Which the skies pour down and drop abundantly upon [the multitudes of] mankind.

    Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 - The wind goes to the south and circles about to the north; it circles and circles about continually, and on its circuit the wind returns again. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.

    Job 28:25-26 - When He gave to the wind weight or pressure and allotted the waters by measure,
    When He made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder.

    Lightning and thunder in most ancient religions were thought to be cast down from angry gods. The Bible asserts no such superstition, but rather states rather plainly that there were rules and laws governing these phenomenons.



    5) Historical corroboration - I didn't claim that everything had been pinpointed precisely. What I said was there has been no verifiable historical claim that has been found to be innacurate. DId the Bible claim a date and it isn't accurate? No. Are you saying that the "general timeframe" is somehow impossible due to some facts? I just am not sure I understand the objection made here.



    6) Philosophical consistency - I may not have used the correct terminology. Is there such a thing as "Philosophical Law"? What I am trying to convey is ideas such as:

    Two contradictory claims to absolute truth cannot both be true, cause and effect, epistemology, etc.,etc.



    7) There were entire classes of Ancient Hebrews whose sole purpose was keeping the oral tradition of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) alive and accurate. At some point these oral traditions were written down. The timeframe is between 1446 BC and 1406 BC, with the remaining books of the OT composed between 1400 BC to 400 BC.



    I hope this has satisfactorily answered the questions you have posed and will do my best to clarify those that are still a source of contention.

    Edited:

    3A: Is it possible that Matthew had seen the earlier writings in the Bible and adapted a coincidentally similar story to create such a connection?
    If we just assume that any Biblical writing is simply a lie, then there isn't much I can offer to defend it.
    I will say that all of the apostles knew what Matthew wrote and none ever challenged this claim. In addition to the apostles (who, one could argue, were all in kahoots) the Sanhedrin were also present and they would certainly have leapt at the chance to discredit the claims of these apostles. Luke also records in Acts how the Potter's field was bought with the money, which was also mentioned in that prophecy I quoted. Again I suppose if they all were in kahoots, the point you raise still holds true.

    I guess the strongest (IMO) evidence against the whole "They all propogated the same lie" theory, at least concerning the apostles, would be the fact that none of them recanted, even though most suffered horrible deaths for not doing so.

    Original Twelve picked by Jesus:

    Peter, crucified upside-down in Rome c. AD 64.

    James, son of Zebedee was beheaded in AD 44, first of the Twelve to die (since the addition of Matthias)

    John, son of Zebedee, no biblical record of death, he is believed to have died of natural causes due to old age. Members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that John was immortalized and he will live to see the Second Coming of Christ.[22][23]

    Andrew, Peter's brother, was crucified upon a diagonal or X-shaped cross.

    Philip was crucified in AD 54.

    Bartholomew (also known as Nathaniel) was flayed alive (skinned) and then beheaded; some sources locate his death at Derbend on the Caspian Sea.[24]

    Matthew killed by an axe in AD 60.

    Thomas was killed by a spear in Mylapore, Madras, India in AD 72.

    James, son of Alphaeus, stoned at age 90 then clubbed to death.

    Jude was crucified.

    Simon the Zealot was crucified in AD 74.

    Not one said "Alright, alright, we were just kidding"?

    Surely ONE of these men would have fessed up and prevented his own gruesome death, as THEY would have known whether or not they had indeed perpetrated a lie.


    3B: ""Jesus had seen the earlier writings, saw them as reasonable, and adapted the nonviolet defensive strategy, also sucessfully used by blacks during the civil rights era?
    Possibly. But there also is this prophecy:
    Psalm 22:18 - They part my clothing among them and cast lots for my raiment (a long, shirtlike garment, a seamless undertunic).

    In Matthew 27:35 - And when they had crucified Him, they divided and distributed His garments [among them] by casting lots.

    This is something Jesus could not have "faked" He wasn't the one casting lots. Again I suppose you could stick to the "they made it all up" theory, but otherwise, it is pretty strong evidence imo.


    3C: This one sounds fairly vague, although the consistency of Isaiah is impressive.
    Fairly vague? There are 4 conditions met in this one sentence. If He had only met one or two or three, and was still supposedly the fulfillment, then perhaps vagueness may be applicable, but he met all 4. That is pretty decent detail imo.

    3D: Is it known who wrote this and how early before Jesus was crucified? I looked up Psalms 69 to see if I could find out but I could find no such "metadata" other than that it appeared to be part of a simple poem/song. Why would it be written from Jesus' perspective?
    King David is the author of that particular Psalm, as he claims authorship in the very beginning of the Psalm. The date is not known exactly, but would have been written prior to 537 BC, when the captivity ended. As to why would it be written from Jesus' perspective? That is a tougher question. Without getting too deep into it, David was the first king of a united Israel, Jesus is the last and ultimate King of all. There is a multitude of dual application when looking at the life of David and Jesus. These are the two most important kings of Israel, and they parallel each other quite often. I can certainly understand the skeptic not embracing this one, so I will just leave it here.

    3E: Is it possible that followers had been claiming such things [about an impending arrival] throughout the times and that it was included only when convienent?
    Again possibly, but this is an argument based on a hypothetical. All the evidence we do have points to the claim being true, and there is no evidence that points to this hypothetical theory of convenience being true. I can not defend a multitude of "what ifs".


    4: I am presently unable to refute your points raised here. It appears to me that these points are fairly wide open to interpretation, although these do appear to be remarkably educated individuals for the time.
    This simple statement means a lot.
    An honest critic is rare to come across, especially on an internet forum, and I once again thank you for being a person of integrity.

    5: "", the Bible certainly does contain a fair amount of relatively accurate historical documentation, though I don't think this means that everything else (particularly the miraculous parts) is necessarily true. Noah's ark comes to mind, I'd love to see evidence of a massive 40-day flood in the reigon so far away from open ocean (or much more impressively, globally) but I can't seem to find any. Wikipedia only lists some possibilities that all have their own apparent flaws.
    OK, lets not confuse the issue. The issue isn't "has everything in the Bible been proven to be correct". The issue is "has there ever been any verifiable historical claim found to be false". Again I never claimed that this "proves" that everything else is true, what I said was: When looked at in the totality of the other evidence I presented indicates a high probablility of accuracy.


    To raise my own points, I'd only like to ask if you know of any miraculous events (perhaps not Noah's ark scale, but similar) from the Bible that have been scientifically pinned down and explained? I also just looked up the crossing of the red/reed sea, and that also seems to have yet to be connected to a single identified location.
    I can't say that I know of any. I would argue that is a pretty tall order. Let's look at a few of the more commonly known miracles:

    The raising of Lazarus from the dead, the feeding of the 5000, the walking on the water, healing of the blind/sick, calming of the storm, the Israeli's defeat of the Philistines.
    What possible scientific evidence COULD there POSSIBLY be for any of these?

    The best I can offer concerning the Red Sea would be from this site.
    It shows somewhat compelling evidence, but unfortunately the Egyptian government refuses to allow further exploration and study.

    Again a pleasure conversing with you on the matter.

    2. My English is fairly good, but not fantastic - therefore I might not interpret this correctly. But anyhow - are you talking about the generally accepted concepts of equality and that human life is sacred? I would say both of those are emotional, and even then it definitely isn't a universally accpeted concept. I simply can't get my head around the last part, but I think you're talking about the laws of physics being consistent in the universe? I honestly don't know - blame it on my English.
    I think you understand pretty well. With regard to the laws of physics being consistent in the universe, that is an assumption that is not verifiable, yet accepted.


    3. These prophecies aren't incredibly vague like some other prophecies, but I'll say that they're hardly precise (B strikes as being fairly inaccurate and very vague). They don't mention any time frame (to my, admittedly, limited knowledge) and that is generally an important part of a prophecy. At least if you want to prove its truth. Anyhow, there's other problems to account for before you can accept these - coincidence, writer's bias (in this case Matthew and Luke) and symbols in the period.
    Hardly precise? I would disagree. I think they are incredibly precise. As I replied to mblunk, if we just assume there is writer's bias, and that they made it all up, well that is your right, but I cannot offer anything to change that attitude.

    4A. I didn't know it translated that way, but anyhow this is a "world map" from 600 BCE:
    I can't know whether the world view was influenced by the old testament (or wherever that's from), but the greek world view (even though they tossed the idea with a sperical earth around, they didn't stick with it) is really the one that was used by the catholic church throughout a long period of time. A flat, round earth with the 7 (or a number close to that) spheres around it.
    Even if the Catholics were using a Greek map of a flat round Earth, that in no way diminishes what the Bible says. Throughout history people have made ludacris claims supposedly supported by scripture which was later found to be untrue. I can not be expected to answer for every misgiving of every professed Christian since the crucifixion.

    4B. I can't really account for that - I can only assume stuff, and overall it's not described very clearly and we don't know what he might have learned in his life. Even then "paths of the sea" could also refer to the fate of a sailor or what not. In the end, I can't definitely say it's wrong or right, but I remain sceptical.
    That is your right, but I can assure you you will never find any evidence to suggest that King David was ever a seafarer.

    4C. While these descriptions are pretty cool, they not really anything more - they're observations for the most part. While it's true that most religions attributed the weather to the god's, it seems like they still attribute it to God, just in a different way.
    In a different way? They specifically stated how the cycle works. They say specifically how there are laws that govern these phenomena. No "angry god" mythology that is found in every other ancient religion, trying to explain these things.

    5. My objection was that there's some circumstances that doens't fit with the timeframe he was born in. The king's rule and any accounts of such phenomena as a bright star don't match, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not very well prepared for this discussion, as my knowledge of the bible is rather limited. This is just one historic event in the bible that I remember being a bit wonky.
    OK a specific challenge concerning the Star that the wisemen followed. I am not very familiar with the "evidence" that may or may not exist concerning this, but I will certainly look into it this evening and return tomorrow to report what I find.

    7. I'm mostly talking about the new testament. And even then, things are gonna get skewed no matter how well you try to guard something orally.
    So if I understand correctly, you are fine with the 1200-1500 years of the Old testament, but are leary of the New Testament?

  2. Post #2
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    You do understand that most of the bible contradicts accepted historical knowledge right?

    The Jews leaving Egypt for example, was more or less wholly invented.

    Along with how no historical sources mention Jesus from his time, despite being in a well recorded era of history.

    And how a lot of the bible is contradictory, and badly translated and interpreted for the past 2000 years, and parts of it were omitted from many editions.

  3. Post #3

    April 2012
    62 Posts
    You should be careful about that.
    Don't forget you're reading the Bible in 2012. So you already know some facts from our world and read the old texts with expectations.

    People back then didn't have the knowledge you have at the moment. So they concluded a flat earth from the same text you concluded a spherical earth, because ONE of the meanings of the hebrew word is spherical.

    I still think that the descriptions are very loosely. You think different, but also remember you're not reading the original text which may have been written 700 BC, but you're reading the translatation of a translation's translation. And I do expect them to have got written much later. Also the translation from hebrew is by far not lossless.

    I don't want you to agree with me, but I hope you do understand why I am critical with many of the passages.
    I mentioned this already, but ancient Hebrew did not have a specific word for spherical. To claim that the correct translation is spherical is wrong simply due to this fact. What I said was they used the word that would most closely convey the idea.

    Concerning the translation of a translation argument, While it is true that when translating into English there are numerous challenges, and sometimes the translation may not be so great. However, as the Dead Sea scrolls has shown us. There has been virtually NO loss of integrity.

    Edited:

    You do understand that most of the bible contradicts accepted historical knowledge right?

    The Jews leaving Egypt for example, was more or less wholly invented.
    This is 100% false.

    The reasoning used for your argument is what? There are no Egyptian records of this happening? Very simple. Egypt never recorded ANY military loss. EVER. Quite a well known fact.

    Along with how no historical sources mention Jesus from his time, despite being in a well recorded era of history.
    So your claim here is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

    And how a lot of the bible is contradictory, and badly translated and interpreted for the past 2000 years, and parts of it were omitted from many editions.
    I addressed much of this just above. A discussion on supposed contradictions could get tedious, but as long as you present well thought out objections I will try to answer them as best I can.

  4. Post #4
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    I mentioned this already, but ancient Hebrew did not have a specific word for spherical. To claim that the correct translation is spherical is wrong simply due to this fact. What I said was they used the word that would most closely convey the idea.

    Concerning the translation of a translation argument, While it is true that when translating into English there are numerous challenges, and sometimes the translation may not be so great. However, as the Dead Sea scrolls has shown us. There has been virtually NO loss of integrity.
    The translations have been very big. If you go back far enough, then it turns out that Judaism was originally polytheistic: http://jewishatheist.blogspot.co.uk/...ytheistic.html

    Edited:

    This is 100% false.

    The reasoning used for your argument is what? There are no Egyptian records of this happening? Very simple. Egypt never recorded ANY military loss. EVER. Quite a well known fact.
    You do realise that if the first born son of every person in the empire died, the crops all died, the rivers turned to blood, and then a massive group of people revolted and left the place, then the empire would collapse?

    Instead, that era in Egypt was one of unprecedented expansion and wealth. It was doing the best in its entire history before the Bronze Age collapse which came several centuries later.

    There is not a single record from not only the Egyptians, but even other empires about such an event at all. There is also no Archaeological evidence of this exodus.

    There's a fact also that its difficult for the Sinai desert to maintain 600,000 people for 40 years without them all starving or dehydrating.

    What evidence do you have for the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people, when there is overwhelming recorded and physical evidence to suggest that this perhaps metaphorical story never happened?

    So your claim here is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?
    Yes, there is not one reliable source from the Early to Mid Roman Empire that mentions him specifically by name.

    I addressed much of this just above. A discussion on supposed contradictions could get tedious, but as long as you present well thought out objections I will try to answer them as best I can.
    Namely the fact how there is a contradiction about where he ascended from. Is it from Mount Olivet? (Acts 1:9-12) or is it from Bethany? (Luke 24:50-51)

  5. Post #5

    June 2012
    396 Posts
    weighing in on the "jesus the man" thing, i deliberately went and spoke to some of my uni's classics faculty the other day, asking them whether there was any consensus on whether jesus of nazareth historically existed. the answer i received was a resound affirmative - one of the staff, who specialized in early church history, seemed surprised that i was asking, replying that jesus' existence fitted in fine with political history of the time, and there wasn't any significant debate amongst modern scholars regarding his physical existence.

  6. Post #6

    April 2012
    62 Posts
    You do realise that if the first born son of every person in the empire died, the crops all died, the rivers turned to blood, and then a massive group of people revolted and left the place, then the empire would collapse?
    Say 50% of the households had females as first born. Then let's account for the households that had no sons at all.

    Let's, for argument's sake, say this number is still as large as 25% of all households. Then it was limited to children, so those with first-born sons who were grown and had there own family would have been spared as well.

    Also let's consider family size. While it is nearly impossible to get an accurate number. From all of the sources I could find, the average amount of children is going to range between 4-7. So less than 25% of all households, and then only 25% or so of THOSE children.

    Additionally it is well known that Joseph had began a great system of food storage which kept the destuction of the crops from affecting the Egyptians as badly as it might have otherwise.

    The Exodus of hundreds of thousand, rather than cause calamity, would have made the little resources they had remaining go MUCH farther.

    So to argue that these plagues would have collapsed Egypt is false.


    What evidence do you have for the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people, when there is overwhelming recorded and physical evidence to suggest that this perhaps metaphorical story never happened?
    Overwhelming recorded evidence = what? no extra-biblical reference of it, therefore it didn't happen?
    This is a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Yes, there is not one reliable source from the Early to Mid Roman Empire that mentions him specifically by name.
    3 that I can cite off the top of my head

    Flavius Josephus
    Tacitus
    Lucian

    Namely the fact how there is a contradiction about where he ascended from. Is it from Mount Olivet? (Acts 1:9-12) or is it from Bethany? (Luke 24:50-51)
    Bethany was located on the Eastern side of Mt. Olivet.
    This is not contradictory in any way.

  7. Post #7
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    Say 50% of the households had females as first born. Then let's account for the households that had no sons at all.

    Let's, for argument's sake, say this number is still as large as 25% of all households. Then it was limited to children, so those with first-born sons who were grown and had there own family would have been spared as well.

    Also let's consider family size. While it is nearly impossible to get an accurate number. From all of the sources I could find, the average amount of children is going to range between 4-7. So less than 25% of all households, and then only 25% or so of THOSE children.
    Whilst reducing the numbers, it still doesn't detract from the fact that the death of every first born son in a country would be a huge calamity.

    Imagine today if suddenly every first born son in a country died, what do you think would occur?

    Additionally it is well known that Joseph had began a great system of food storage which kept the destuction of the crops from affecting the Egyptians as badly as it might have otherwise.
    I want a source of this outside the bible. Secondly, if it was so great, then explain how Egypt was plagued by famines that killed just as many before and after the exodus?
    The Exodus of hundreds of thousand, rather than cause calamity, would have made the little resources they had remaining go MUCH farther.
    Erm no, if you suddenly removed 600,000 people, their livestock, their seeds and foods required for a journey, then this doesn't work. Secondly, you just removed a massive labour force from a empire that is reeling from the effects of a systematic collapse due to famine, plagues of frogs, loss of authority in the nobility, priesthood and monarch, the river turning to blood (Which in itself would also be impossible, and would cause problems with aquatic life I am sure somebody else could be able to go into further) and the death of many firstborn sons.

    So to argue that these plagues would have collapsed Egypt is false.
    Other countries have broken down under less. To say Egypt could survive that is insanity.

    Overwhelming recorded evidence = what? no extra-biblical reference of it, therefore it didn't happen?
    This is a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    You aren't getting my point. The point is that the Egyptians were one of the best record takers in history. Fact is, they did not record this event. Instead, this era in history was one of prosperity for Egypt. It grew to its largest territorial extent, and there is a lot of physical evidence supporting the expansion of trade as well during this time.

    Give me physical evidence of the exodus, other than stuff like the fort at Nuweiba.

    Also do note, that Noahs Ark is a fictionalised story as well, and about as real as the exodus.

    3 that I can cite off the top of my head

    Flavius Josephus
    Tacitus
    Lucian
    1. His source is horribly inaccurate, and the content within is false. There was no tribe of Christians, and the Christian religion itself did not get going till a century after it was written.

    There's also the fact the source is absent from his other works which should have had it.

    2. Lucian does not reference Jesus by name.

    3. Neither does Tacitus.

  8. Post #8
    fox '09's Avatar
    July 2010
    1,315 Posts
    To honor the request of the OP of the "fake science" thread I have moved this discussion to its own thread. Here are the highlights of what we've already discussed.

    Good morning.

    I left off yesterday promising I would provide evidence. Before getting started, I would like to concede that Intelligent Design is NOT something that can be proven using the scientific method. It is NOT testable nor repeatable, cannot produce empirical evidence and so in the end isn't science. Which is the actual topic of this thread.
    It's easy to test evolution.. Science is a method of finding out how anything works, and I insist it is the best way to find out if any claim is true, especially claims of a "god". If it's not science, what is it, an art?

    Why should I apply a different standard of evidence to your claim?

    Having said that I also would like to remind that if God could be proven to exist scientifically, that would totally remove the necessity of faith, which is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.
    So you're defining faith as the absence of scientific evidence or what? I've never seen a debate where the person defending their view says to take something on faith. It's YOUR job to prove that these things are true, not ours.


    I will provide several examples of what, at least to me, is compelling evidence that suggests a high probability for the accuracy of the Bible, which by its very nature would strongly suggest the existence of God:
    Just because you can point out the accuracy of parts of the bible which are not entirely wrong or are vague doesn't mean that there is a god. Even if you proved the bible is accurate, it doesn't mean that the god from the bible is the correct one. Humans have been making up stories for a long time, there's an awfully long page of dead religions on wikipedia. How are we supposed to know if your god is the correct one, even if the bible is proven accurate?

    I hope you can answer some of my questions, I enjoy debating this topic.

  9. Post #9
    Wet Birds
    Levithan's Avatar
    September 2005
    8,063 Posts
    Just because you can point out the accuracy of parts of the bible which are not entirely wrong or are vague doesn't mean that there is a god. Even if you proved the bible is accurate, it doesn't mean that the god from the bible is the correct one. Humans have been making up stories for a long time, there's an awfully long page of dead religions on wikipedia. How are we supposed to know if your god is the correct one, even if the bible is proven accurate?
    .
    This is a good question, what makes Christianity so special, as opposed to Islam, or the whole plethora of religions?

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    Sgt Doom's Avatar
    March 2005
    20,222 Posts
    the river turning to blood (Which in itself would also be impossible, and would cause problems with aquatic life I am sure somebody else could be able to go into further)
    Well firstly there'd be geological evidence in the sediment; blood would leave large concentrations of things like iron. There's plenty of more rational explanations for red rivers e.g. red algal blooms, or the ash from volcanic eruptions (specifically Santorini). Both would cause severe problems for life in the river.
    I have to stress there are logical explanations of some of the plagues, but they all fall within the realm of common natural disasters; the Biblical accounts are, at best, heavy exaggerations and misattributing the credit to some bearded Jew calling to God.
    Any natural disasters on the scale as what was described in the Bible would've toppled Egyptian civilization; indeed the Old Kingdom of Egypt was toppled by a drought and unruly local governors.

  11. Post #11
    the bible says that pi is 3

    Edited:

    Having no empirical proof for God is not the same as having NO evidence.

    Love, asthetic value, sanctity of life, equality of mankind, rational intelligibility/universal consistency of the universe, etc. etc. cannot be empirically proven either, yet most, if not all of these are universally accepted as being valid/true.
    i'm not going to bother reading the OP because these are patently false

    the first is false because it goes straight against the axioms of probability theory

    the second is false because not all are universally accepted as true, and some of them indeed can be empirically verified

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    KlaseR's Avatar
    December 2007
    3,834 Posts
    any thousands of examples of historical corroboration - There is not one verifiable historical claim in the Bible that has been found to be innacurate.
    Wrong. The Bible is literally full of innacurate historical claims. Creation, Noha's Ark, Moses etc. Okay, the Egyptians never recorded losses. But the jews roamed around the desert for 40 years, wouldn't you think they would have left some archeological evidence or something? Well they haven't. Nothing. You know this is impossible.

    Concearning Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inCpro8NEaw

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,042 Posts
    Even if huge parts of the bible were historically accurate, I still don't think theism would have any moral import. Ultimately faith is a necessary ingredient of theism, which makes it inherently illogical (not necessarily in the sense of being contrary to logic, but it at least undermines the project of rationality). Hence, anyone who subscribes to faith is to a huge degree irrational, and I think rationality is the least contestable ingredient of a virtuous person. This is to say that I don't think there is a conceivable virtuous person who lacks rationality. I wouldn't say theists are necessarily completely non-rational, but they're taking a huge step in that direction.

    Faith isn't itself inherently bad, but it totally undermines the most important constituent of virtue.

  14. Post #14
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    This is 100% false.

    The reasoning used for your argument is what? There are no Egyptian records of this happening? Very simple. Egypt never recorded ANY military loss. EVER. Quite a well known fact.
    Please cite this fact with a reputable source.

    Egypt, in fact, kept records of EVERYTHING, including their own military losses. The Egyptians were better record-keepers than the Romans in terms of comprehensiveness. They left nothing out, and they were not so petty as to censor their own losses.

    Edited:

    Okay, the Egyptians never recorded losses.
    This whole argument is simply false. The Egyptians kept extraordinarily detailed transactional and contractual records. If there had been an entire race of slaves in Egypt for 450 years (slaves which lived to be over 100 years old, no less), there would have been some record of their existence.

    Had the Egyptians not recorded "losses," we wouldn't know anywhere near the breadth of their military history that we do today considering their competitors did not keep such comprehensive records. The notion that they did not record losses is patently false. The only things they didn't record were things that didn't happen.

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,085 Posts
    Please cite this fact with a reputable source.

    Egypt, in fact, kept records of EVERYTHING, including their own military losses. The Egyptians were better record-keepers than the Romans in terms of comprehensiveness. They left nothing out, and they were not so petty as to censor their own losses.

    Edited:



    This whole argument is simply false. The Egyptians kept extraordinarily detailed transactional and contractual records. If there had been an entire race of slaves in Egypt for 450 years (slaves which lived to be over 100 years old, no less), there would have been some record of their existence.

    Had the Egyptians not recorded "losses," we wouldn't know anywhere near the breadth of their military history that we do today considering their competitors did not keep such comprehensive records. The notion that they did not record losses is patently false. The only things they didn't record were things that didn't happen.
    Could it have been lost in the burning of the library of alexandria?

  16. Post #16
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Could it have been lost in the burning of the library of alexandria?
    450 years of records?

    All traces of an entire, long-lived, rebellious and escaped slave race that had supposedly occupied the nation for four and a half centuries, just gone with the burning of one library?

    That would be like saying there was a God Emperor of Egypt for five hundred years named King Butt, and we just don't have any proof of him because all records of his entire 500 year existence were kept conveniently at the local Denny's which was condemned for rats and shit.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    KlaseR's Avatar
    December 2007
    3,834 Posts
    Even if huge parts of the bible were historically accurate, I still don't think theism would have any moral import.
    That's what theists should admit instead of trying to prove that it's accurate. It's just not.

  18. Post #18
    Bean Shoot's Avatar
    January 2011
    706 Posts
    First of all, things like love and the sanctity of life is easily explained by the natural selection of societies, though there's no way of telling the specifics of such things. The rationality and consistency of the universe doesn't hold much water either, simply because we're used to the universe as it is as opposed to some other universe with different laws and order. Having no empirical proof for God might as well be no evidence, since all that's left is pointing out the origins of things we don't understand and saying that God did it. I assume you're familiar with the God of the Gaps.

    As for the historical reliability of the Bible as well as fulfilled prophecies, you seem to write off any notion of things being made up as our own choice or bias, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we are to accept that a deity came down and violated physical laws with a wave of his hand by multiplying fish and bread, we're going to need more information than just a couple of texts with the event written down, especially since there aren't any records of these kind of things outside of the Bible.

    The prophecies listed in the Bible aren't as specific as you make them out to be when I look at them. Most of them don't even read like they are prophecies until you go to the New Testament where it says "Oh, by the way, that was a prophecy." It even says that Jesus did some things specifically in order to fulfill a prophecy, like riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. There's no point in pointing out prophecies as evidence for the Bible's reliability by using the Bible itself to prove it.

    I take issue with your remarks about slavery and stoning also. A text that sanctions the beating of slaves severe enough to make them take days to recover, as well as stoning disobedient children just to stop them from "infecting" the rest of the community is wrong no matter how you look at it. Especially when the the disobedient children are judged by the same standards that condemn homosexuality as punishable by death. I'm also pretty sure that foreign slaves did not have to be released on Jubilee, though I might be wrong on that.

    Regarding scientific knowledge that was ahead of its time, things like text that could be interpreted as the water cycle and a round earth really don't do it for me. Why should those things be taken literal while other things like the earth being supported on pillars be taken figuratively? If we do accept that this was something put in by God as evidence that he had scientific knowledge beyond our reasoning, why make a big deal out of observable, fairly simple processes that other societies figured out instead of telling us something truly out of the reach of people at the time like relativity or atomic structure? Furthermore, stories like the devil taking Jesus to a mountain so high that he could see all the kingdoms of the earth just aren't possible, yet nothing suggests that it is supposed to be taken metaphorically. That's not even touching on stuff like a global flood and a 6-day creation.

    While I do appreciate that you've taken your time to present your argument with actual reasons instead of relying on the supernatural to explain anything, don't you think that trying to make others believe in God through evidence, historical or not, is counterintuitive to your own beliefs? Doesn't Jesus say that those who believe without seeing are more blessed than those who believe because they see?

  19. Post #19
    this is how prophecies in the bible work:

    I, the Grand Prophet DainBramageStudios, do holily predict that in the next hour, the Messiah Drsalvador will declare the Old Scripture invalid, and for all to relinquish the false faith!

  20. Post #20
    if we follow the bible purely because prophecies are fullfilled in it, (thus "proving" the existence of a god), why don't we follow Star Wars or Warhammer 40k as a religion, since they have prophecies being fulfilled aswell?

  21. Post #21
    The Messiah has spoken!

  22. Post #22
    Jabberwocky's Avatar
    June 2007
    2,756 Posts
    Even if the Bible were a mostly historically accurate document (not accurate enough for my tastes), it would still serve as neither evidence for or against the existence of a supernatural entity. A book could be full of indisputable facts and have one claim that is false or unprovable. To take this exception as truth because everything around it is true is a matter of convenience. If taking that fallacy as the truth doesn't hold up when applied then it needs to be revised. The Bible cannot be used to prove the existence, let alone the nature, of a god.

  23. Post #23
    itty-bitty pretty kitty
    Dennab
    September 2008
    9,837 Posts
    there is no evidence of the Egyptians even having jewish slaves, much less them leaving Egypt.

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    KlaseR's Avatar
    December 2007
    3,834 Posts
    there is no evidence of the Egyptians even having jewish slaves, much less them leaving Egypt.
    let alone them roaming the deserts for 40 years.

  25. Post #25
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Love, asthetic value, sanctity of life, equality of mankind, rational intelligibility/universal consistency of the universe, etc. etc. cannot be empirically proven either, yet most, if not all of these are universally accepted as being valid/true.
    sorry that I'm kind of avoiding the main argument, but how do any of these have to do with evidence of God's existence? Love, aesthetic value, sanctity of life, and equality of mankind are all man made conventions, so their "existence", if that's what you want to call it, does not make it possible for god to exist. And the Universe is not necessarily intelligible or consistent.

    oh yeah, and what are these "philosophical laws" that the bible is consistent with?