THE BIBLE: God’s Word or Man’s?

The Hebrew 3362 years ago had only 3000 words.

The word used could mean "round," "enclosure," "circle."

 

I'm sure that the average modern adult American is more intelligent than the average adult Jew was 2,000 years ago. They just need to start acting like they are smarter.

 

You also proceeded to completely ignore the point. Again. I'm asking you to demonstrate that Isaiah 40:22 means what you say it means in the way you say it means. You claim it refers explicitly to the fact that the earth looks like a circle from above, and that this is meaningful because the earth looks like a sphere from above and that is implied. Prove it. I don't think you can. You are trying to claim that this passage is scientifically accurate, and use that to prove that the bible could not have been written by anyone other than god. In order to do that, you must demonstrate that your interpretation is correct beyond reasonable doubt. And as far as I can tell, you haven't even tried to do that.

As previously stated, another thing that looks round from above is a flat disc, and that was the prevalent belief at the time - that the earth was a flat, round circle surrounded by a circular ocean. Which would mean that the bible does indeed convey factual knowledge - incorrect factual knowledge. "He sits above the circle of the earth" could also very easily refer to the perspective from the ground - that god sits above the earth, which is a semi-flat circle; this was a very popular belief at the time.

And so long as there is this ambiguity, you cannot make any assertion of scientific validity, because there is no way to tell that you aren't reinterpreting it in after the fact. So... Prove that your interpretation is correct.

Added bonus: Job 38:12-14. I'll let you figure out why I mentioned that.

We haven't established that that is what Isaiah actually meant, so the question is entirely moot.

It would be more explicit, you're right! Just like it would have been more explicit to actually write some decent knowledge into the bible! You know, rather than hiding everything under five layers of metaphors and throwing an obscure fact into a section of massive poetry, obscuring facts with bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and making it damn sure that without prior knowledge, we would not understand the commands. I think if the bible had a few solid treatises on water purification, or electricity, or vaccination, or antibiotics, or hell, name basically anything that a pre-industrial society could use, there would be a lot more valid reason to say, "this book was divinely inspired!". But no. We have a handful of passages you have to forcibly reinterpret in a very specific way after the fact to come to the conclusion that they might have been talking about modern knowledge - passages you could not have gleaned that information from without prior knowledge. That is not evidence of divine knowledge of modern facts. That's a bunch of religious numpties trying very hard to give their holy book some relevance in the modern world by reinterpreting it. I mean, we see exactly the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with the Qur'an. Any of that sound convincing? Because the stuff in there is waaay better than the (*)(*)(*)(*) Alter2Ego has been bringing up, and I'm still pretty convinced that it's all just post-hoc rationalizations.

 

I don't need to argue that gravity is visible. I only need to say that gravity is not nothing. If you equate gravity with "nothing" because it is invisible, that would mean that God, the angels, thought, and a ninja at night are all nothing just because you can't see them. Isaiah, to communicate what you are claiming he did, could easily have said gravity, and everyone would have understood. Apart from quantifying it, modern man doesn't know what mechanism gravity uses to function any better than ancient men did, but we are capable of grasping the concept of what it does, just as they could. You are just grasping at straws. Neither verse says what you are claiming. If they did, then people from Isaiah's time on would say, "Oh sure, the Earth is held in orbit by the gravity of the sun". If you are trying to say that Isaiah was communicating some information unknown at the time, it would be necessary that the information was actually communicated. That didn't happen.

 

The problem with this lie is that you did not respond to the thing that you bolded. Try again.

 

Mostly just more of your irrelevant badmouthing that has no bearing on the issues.

Graham's use of a pseudonym is no big deal like you make it out to be. It takes more than a pseudonym to justify calling someone a fraud.

Like-minded people such as you are in no position to judge Graham as a fraud or his book as filled with tripe.

Graham's cosmology is not really his, it's the Bible's, and there's plenty of it. He just exposes it. Thus you are unknowingly badmouthing the Bible. That's typical of someone who knows a lot of what's in the Bible without knowing much about the Bible.

Graham recognized symbolism in the Bible's feature of having some key characters spend time wandering in the wilderness. He cites this as infering the wandering in space that tends to occur when a dead sun becomes a young planet. Only in recent times has science recognized and acknowledged that a significant number of planets are loose and not in any solar system.

Graham's planetary genesis might be proven wrong someday, but Astronomists don't yet have enough detailed evidence to say for sure. They have pet theories, but the cosmic nursuries are too far away for observational certainty.

Speaking of frauds and tripe, your tektonics/JPH is a good example, FYI:

 

ALTER2EGO -to- FIFTH OF NOVEMBER:

You are giving me wash, rinse, and repeat. I previously explained that the expression "hanging the earth upon nothing" (at Job 26:7) is a viewpoint description. Since you are repeating yourself, I will return the favor and repeat the explanation that I previously gave: A viewpoint description is how something appears to a particular viewer, because of where he/she is located. The expression "hanging the earth upon nothing" is a viewpoint description of how earth appears to someone far above it.


"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7)


During the 20th century, astronauts confirmed that from their position far above earth, in outer space, earth appeared to be held in orbit by no visible means, thereby confirming what Moses wrote in the book of Job more than 3,500 years prior--that the earth appears to be "hanging upon nothing." Notice what one astronaut, Rakesh Sharma, said regarding his viewpoint description of earth from outer space.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=747


You will find the above description at Paragraph 2 when you click the weblink. Notice that Rakesh Sharma described Earth being against a "vacuum" when he knew full well that gravitational forces were responsible for Earth being in orbit. Because he could not see gravity, all he could describe was what he saw with his naked eyes: a vacuum or nothingness. Rakesh Sharma's description of earth against a vacuum accurately lines up with the description "hanging the earth upon nothing" at Job 26:7.


DEFINITION OF "VACUUM":
2. A state of emptiness; a void.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/vacuum


QUESTION #1 to FIFTH OF NOVEMBER: Are you going to tell Rakesh Sharma that his personal viewpoint description is wrong because gravity is not a vacuum or gravity is not nothing?


QUESTION #2 to FIFTH OF NOVEMBER: How could Moses have known that the earth appears to be "hanging upon nothing" in the 15th century B.C.E. or some 3,500 prior to the 20th century astronauts, when Moses was earthbound?

 

Most prophesy was written after the fact.. Prophets were the conscience of the people.. like commentators.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GELECSKI7238:

I did not make an issue of Graham's pseudonym. I made an issue of the craziness he wrote and the fact that he did not back up any of his claims with evidence. As I previously said, Graham is hiding behind a pseudonym so that he can publish tripe in his book and not have to face the music.

I can well understand Graham's desire hide his true identity by using a pseudonym (a fake name) in light of the science fiction he dreamed up in his book Deceptions and Myths of the Bible. He would likely become a laughing stock to his neighbors if they knew his true identity. Take, for example, his unsubstantiated claim that all planets were once suns.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/grahamlloyd01.html


You will find the above quotation at Paragraphs 4 and 6 when you click the weblink.


QUESTION #1 to GELECSKI7238: How does Graham know that all planets were once suns, and that our sun will someday burn out and become a planet?


QUESTION #2 to GELECSKI7238: How does Graham know that the moon once had life when the astronauts that landed on the moon on July 20, 1969 said nothing of the kind, and it has since been confirmed that the Moon is incapable of supporting life?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MARGOT2:

So you claim. I am waiting for you to prove it. Also, suppose you explain away the prophecy I presented at Post 58? Below is the weblink that will take you there quickly.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=249982&page=6&p=1061746250#post1061746250

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GELECSKI7238:

Excuse me, but I did not ask you for the supposed "scientific view" or what "science thinks." I frequently attack what "science thinks" in my thread dealing with Darwin's macroevolution Myth, at the following weblink:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showt...rwins-macroevolution-why-unscientific-23.html


FYI: The expression "science thinks" amounts to scientific theory aka speculations by scientists. Speculations are personal opinions. I am not interested in what "science thinks." I asked you to tell me how Graham KNOWS that all planets were once suns. Your above response amounts to evading my question.


STRIKE ONE ! ! !

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GELECSKI7238:

Instead of responding to what I asked you at Question #1, you started off by telling me what "science thinks" rather than telling me what Graham knows, in order to prove his ridiculous claim about all planets starting off as suns. Now you are off on another of your rants about which characters in the Bible are--in your opinion--fictitious. You presented no evidence to support what you stated directly above. Instead, you told me and the rest of the forum about pagan myths that you claim the Bible copied. Without documentary or physical evidence to back up your claims, it amounts to personal philosophy.



STRIKE TWO ! ! !

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GELECSKI7238:

I did not ask you to tell me Graham's "concept." A concept without concrete evidence to back it up amounts to personal opinion. True science clearly states that the moon is not capable of supporting life because:

1. It does not have enough water.
2. It does not have oxygen.
3. Its temperature is inhospitable to life.
http://www.universetoday.com/41212/yes-theres-water-on-the-moon/
http://www.letusfindout.com/why-there-is-no-life-on-the-moon/


In light of the scientific facts regarding the inhospitable atmosphere of the Moon, Graham's science fiction "concepts" only confirms that he lacks credibility.

DEFINITION OF "CONCEPT":
"an idea or thought, esp. a generalized idea of a thing or class of things; abstract notion"
(Source: Webster's New World Dictionary)


I am not interested in Graham's generalized ideas or abstract notions aka personal opinions. I asked you specifically to tell me how Graham KNOWS that the moon once had life. All credible scientific sources--including those who landed on the moon in 1969--says life cannot survive on the Moon.

You failed to present evidence to support Graham's claims, as usual. This is the same Graham who wrote the book Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, in which he made off-the-wall claims about Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible.



STRIKE THREE ! ! !

 

I see you remain ignorant of what 'theory' means in the context of science.

STEEEEEE-RIKE ONE!

 

THE BIBLE: God’s Word or Man’s?
If one actually reads the bible, it's arguably SATAN'S word.
Kill gays, women are worth 1/2 a man, slavery is the way to go, it's ok to beat slaves, approval of rape in no less than TEN places, kill someone who works hard to feed his family on a particular day of the week, kill your own kid if he disobeys you (Jesus approved of that "old law"), approving of Moses mass-murder of 3000 people (more than Bin Laden on 9/11 technically), kill, kill, kill......come on, clearly it's from SATAN! To NOT see that is to be blinded by fear.

Ok, ok, "Satan" is just a legend, so it was actually created my immoral barbarians who thought that raping virgins captured in a war, and making slaves out of the children, was the morally right thing to do. This book is less moral than Mien Kampf (the Bible actually was an inspiration to Hitler's Jew-hatred, as it turns out.....)

 

Talk about a false premise. No one can even establish that Jesus was a real person or was what the (often conflicting) accounts written about him say he was or did what they say he did.

His resemblance to other such supernatural figures from earlier mythologies should also give a thinking person pause. Should...

 

Literarily, the bible written by some god(s) resembles the novel written by Kilgore Trout - himself a fictional author. The concept of a work of fiction written by an author who is himself fictional is hardly a new idea. The bible of course wanders all over the place, in terms of culture, style, and intent. It's a compendium of writings, sampled from a much larger body of writings, and the sample changed considerably over about a thousand years as different schools of thought and political winds blew some books in and others out. As theologians, the various gods responsible for inspiring/writing/taking credit for various portions are wildly inconsistent.

What's amazing is that anyone with two neurons to rub together can't see that Judges (for example) is worlds apart from Ecclesiastes (for example), and neither author could have written more than a couple of the psalms. At least we know that Kilgore Trout probably wasn't more than Kurt Vonnegut and Philip Jose Farmer.

 

....and morality. Most of it's proclamations would be felonies today. Yet people bitterly cling to that superstition.

 

If I myself claimed to be supernatural like Jesus, and the savior of the world, then I'd go out of my way, over the last 2000 years, to simply prove that I was indeed real. Jesus doesn't do that because he either won't, or can't. Either way he's not worthy of being followed. He clearly doesn't give a damn about his "children", or more likely, he's just a legend.

 

What sort of Sunday school did you attend.. what denomination???

 

If you stand back and look at the whole thing objectively, the entire scenario is simply ludicrous. The bible is a product of pre-scientific thinking, and if there's one thing people were before science came along, it's inventive. They were also clever enough to observe and track the heavenly bodies long before the invention of the telescope and anything resembling modern astronomy, so what we have from quite a lengthy period of human history and prehistory is stories revolving around that knowledge. You take that and people's usual capacities for superstition and religion, the fear of death, the natural proclivities of some to BS others for their own gain, etc. etc. etc., and you get these ancient religious traditions that sadly still survive to this day and are very sadly still taken seriously.

The entire endeavour of Christianity is both tragic and comical in the modern context. I'm just waiting to see humanity catch up, but then maybe it never will. Humans aren't that far removed from what they were when they were inventing this crap ages ago, and this crap fills emotional needs and offers a substitute for a skeptical and scientific understanding of reality.

Because people are generally illogical, emotional messes, we have to endure creationism and the pro-life movement and Republicans.

 

What we read in te Bible comes from a source that we now recognize as the Unconscious Mind.

That we are not conscious of that separate thinking source does not mean that is has little input to our life, or that it is less "awake" than we conscious people are.

The evidence for this long suspected Third Eye has now been uncovered by MRI psychology researchers.
What they are discovering is we live in two different worlds, one we are conscious of, and think that our dealings with each other on conscious levels is all there is.

But, as the research is showing, the life of our ancient of ancient, genetically reproduced Unconscious minds, collectively interacting in their own world, possibly break in and reveal things to us, making many decisions we think we have made, and even talking to the bible prophets who wrote down a continuous chain of warnings and advice over centuries and centuries:

Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior
Random House, Inc.
Book Description
Publication Date: April 24, 2012
Leonard Mlodinow, the best-selling author of The Drunkard’s Walk and coauthor of The Grand Design (with Stephen Hawking), gives us a startling and eye-opening examination of how the unconscious mind shapes our experience of the world and how, for instance, we often misperceive our relationships with family, friends, and business associates, misunderstand the reasons for our investment decisions, and misremember important events.

For instance:
Your preference in politicians, the amount you tip your waiter—all judgments and perceptions reflect the workings of our mind on two levels: the conscious, of which we are aware, and the unconscious, which is hidden from us.
The latter has long been the subject of speculation, but over the past two decades researchers have developed remarkable new tools for probing the hidden, or subliminal, workings of the mind. The result of this explosion of research is a new science of the unconscious and a sea change in our understanding of how the subliminal mind affects the way we live.

 

Filling emotional needs = unconscious mind.

 

Correct, I think some of the biblical authors wrote the book when they were unconscious.