Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Take a look at my post on the previous page about Radiological Dating. It is extremely accurate as it is based upon Neutron decay which can be determined various ways.

Mountains on Earth have come and gone but there have been mountains existing and being subducted for Billions of years.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the entire Earth to be covered by water even if the Polar Ice Caps melted.

Noah's Arc is simply a nice story....BUT JUST A STORY....it is not nor ever has been reality and even if you had 10,000 people working 24/7 it would take over 100,000 years if ever to collect all animals in two's on Earth.

AboveAlpha...p.s......and you could not fit 2 of every animal species on a boat.

AboveAlpha

 

I don't think he understands that logic is not opinion.

P1. All humans are mortal
P2. John is human
C: John is mortal.

If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. John is Mortal. The logic is valid, and the conclusion is sound.

 

It hasn't been brought up yet, but is Mitt of the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old and man co-existed with the dinosaurs?

 

I hope not as such a belief would be uninformed in the extreme.

AboveAlpha

 

Well...the entire premise of this thread is pretty extreme...so I don't think I'll be too shocked. I just haven't encountered a real person that believes that.

 

If a being came down to earth and proclaimed 'himself' the creator and started to perform miracles, raise the dead and proved 'himself' a superior being:
1. The Jews would probably reject him unless he had an army with him to conquer their foes.
2. Christianity would probably reject him without his band of angels, or say he was the anti-christ.
3. Islam would reject him for the same reason as the Jews, only in reverse.
4. Atheists would reject him as a superior 'magician'.

Highly confused, 'he' would return to where 'he' came from and the religious would continue to wait for him, the rest of us would continue to get on with our lives.

Perhaps, before he went we could ask him why it took so long to create man. Was it trial and error?

Little girl sitting with her mother looking at the family photo-album. They came across a snap of 3 generations of females. Grandmother, mother and daughter.
Little girl was fascinated with the picture. She asked her mother
'Mummy, did God create Grandma?'
'Yes dear'.
'Mummy, did God create you?'
'Yes dear'
'Mummy, did God create me?'
'Yes dear'.
Litlle girl thought for a while, looking at the picture
'Mummy, God's improving isn't He'.

 

Okay even worse, we got talking supernatural beings, able to transcend whatever dimensional barriers that exist between where they are and where we are. angels and demons? metaphors and excuses for human behaviour.

 

a geological impossibility with absolutely NO evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

Yes I do know for a fact. The earth was shaped over billions of years. Its not simply geology that confirms this, its cosmology, orbital mechanics, nuclear physics, and i'm sure a few more "ologies".


FYI, the earth is more "spherical" than a billiard ball. that's pretty damn spherical.

Once again you completely misunderstand the scientific definition of theory. Its easy, if completely inaccurate to attempt to compare a laic "theory" with a scientific one, but that is a fool's errand.

Not even remotely close. But why let simple common sense and logic get in the way. Have you ever experienced an earthquake? A volcanic eruption?

how exactly could the earth before the flood have really low mountains and no deep sea trenches and yet 1 year later have high mountains and deep trenches? there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support such a primitive interpretation of events.

Yes, a bunch ignorant ancients describing their version of the creation myth. Might want to examine the science of hydrodynamics. That much water gushing from the earth and the skys for 40 days and 40 nights would create massive tides travelling around the world at hundreds of miles an hour. then of course there is the rate of water rising. In the 960 hours of the torrent, the water level would have risen - in your world perhaps 9,600 feet ( in the real world 29,035ft.) That's a 10 foot per hour average rising rate, since that rate would necessarily slow down despite the torrent remaining constant.

Unless the world was substantively smaller there simply isn't enough water in existence on this planet to make this anything but a creation myth.

that is simply a self referential argument of no substance or intellectual merit.
One cannot simply claim omnipotence as the reason for outrageously unscientific stories being true, when there isn't a shred of physical evidence of such events occuring, nor of any physical mechanisms that could possible by employed to make such stories true.

Of course, if God actually said that, I'd like to know to whom he did, and how would that be any different than the claims that Odin spoke to ragnar or whomever, just like vishnu spoke to raj, and yaweh spoke to moishe and allah spoke to mansoor?

I do not know if a creator of the universe exists.
I do know that in the absence of evidence, I cannot and do not believe in such an entity.

the bible was written by people who didn't know what an earthquake was, nor a volcanic eruption, nor the stars in the sky, nor what caused the tides, or the climate. they could not even percieve of either the macro or micro world. Such profound ignorance of the authors of the various "holy books" cannot be irrelevant to their explanations and preceptions of the world, their existence and their purpose.

 

So, does accepting the rain forecast from the local weather channel also constitute blind faith?

How do you know that?

Again, how do you know that?

And you're unable to actually conceive of an explanation for why it was unconvincing, other than simply relying on a tautology, right?

 

If you said God is omnipotent then the timelessness of natural law is false, because he'd be in a position to change it. On the other hand, if you said that God does not have the power to change natural law, then that would undermine his omnipotence. Does natural law exist or not? BTW...God doesn't say that he flooded the entire earth. The Bible says that. What proves that this is true? You're using the Bible to prove the Bible? That's circular logic. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

 

Sorry but again you're wrong. I don't deliberately add things to Scripture. I quote Scripture exactly how I see it, word for word. If you had done a thorough investigation you would have seen that to be true and you wouldn't be so quick to jump to false conclusions.

The New Living Translation bible that I have in my possession was published in 2004 and it is the 2nd edition. In 1996, that was the date that the New Living Translation was originally published. Since those previous dates another bible was published in 2007.

And so the bible I have differs slightly from the 2007 version. The quote that you presented is from the 2007 version. Below I present a quote from the New Living Translation website, they are quoted as to saying,

"1996 was the date that the New Living Translation was originally published. 2004 was the date that the second edition of the New Living Translation was published. You can read about the improvements made in this transition here.

Since the second edition was published in 2004, various queries have been submitted related to details of the NLT text. (Queries are constantly being made of Bible translations, especially the newer ones.) Most of these queries came from our own editors as they worked on new NLT commentaries and Bible notes, closely comparing the NLT to the original language texts. The 2007 changes were mostly minor textual or footnote changes. You can view these changes here (link to PDF of chart). The edits demonstrate the NLT Bible Translation Committee’s continued commitment to both scholarly precision and clear communication in modern English."

So if you still believe I'm not telling you the truth, go ahead and click on the link below that I have provided. You will see that in 2004, which is the edition that I have, the verse in Genesis 1:16 says, "God made two great lights, the sun and the moon---the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars."

In the 2007 version, Genesis 1:16 says, "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars"

They omitted "the sun and the moon" that was in the 2004 version.

Since I have corrected you twice now, the score is:

Theist 2
Non-theist 0

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/faqs.asp?faq=20#go20

Sheesh! Again you didn't take the good advice Acts 17:11 gave you. You remind me of those lynch mobs, who want to hang someone so badly, they neglect to really find out the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Do you know the difference between a word-for-word, a phrase-for-phrase and a paraphrase translation? Do you know which of these the NLT represents?

 

You of course made that up. Or else you can point to the scripture to qualify your claim.

You must have some idea. You know how old the earth was when moses was born and died. So you must have some clue within even a few thousand years?

Of course it's an estimate.

The same way you know they aren't.

 

I think he thinks dinosaurs never existed. They aren't explicitly stated in the bible.

 

Pretty long winded response to what really amounts to, the bible changes. If the bible changes, God isn't writing it.

 

When they make slight changes, the wording may change or omitted, however the message that God gave does not change from the original texts...does that help you?

The publishers of the NLT are quoted saying,"Most of these queries came from our own editors as they worked on new NLT commentaries and Bible notes, closely comparing the NLT to the original language texts.

 

Really?
Whats all this bantering back and forth about when the sun was created?
One time it's in your text, then it's removed. Why?

 

You don't understand.

We can VISUALLY COUNT by using Computer scanning methods over 200 Billion Stars in M-31 or the Great Galaxy in Andromeda....a Galaxy that is next to our own Galaxy the Milky Way and is on a collision course with our Galaxy.

Now as we can see visually as well as see in different spectrum's of Light and various Electromagnetic Stellar Emissions....Billions upon Billions of Galaxies in our Universe and since we can see some of these Galaxies over 12 to 13 Billion Light Years away.....which means we are looking 12 to 13 Billion Years in the PAST as a Light Year is the distance it takes LIGHT to travel in one Earth YEAR which is about 6 Trillion Miles.

Well....using Gravimetric Calculations we can determine the relative Mass of various Galaxies and thus can determine within an acceptable plus or minus of 5 % for Galaxies close to us and 10% for Galaxies farther out....we can indeed get a VERY ACCURATE CALCULATION OF JUST HOW MANY STARS AND PLANETS EXIST IN A GALAXY.

I am not trying to be mean but when you argue this point with me in the manner you are arguing it....that being that you are disputing a specific issue in a field of knowledge that you have very little to no education in as well as you are making statements in a manner that you THINK are well thought out counter points to shed a light of doubt upon what I have posted but in fact to any and all members here who have education in Cosmology, Astrophysics, Astronomy and the like......when such educated in these fields members read you posts and counterpoints they have to laugh as you don't even realize just how silly and ridiculous what your posting truly is reading to such members.

Now as I stated I don't want to pick on you but I do want to try to let you know anyone can make a mistake here and I have made mistakes myself.

But there is a BIG difference between making a mistake and purposely posting derogatory comments towards another members posts and attempting to discredit such posts that are about a field of study, knowledge and science THAT YOU HAVE ZERO UNDERSTANDING, EDUCATION OR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT.

I wish you well in that I hope you take a small amount of time to educate yourself about this posted issue as you have a computer that has access to the Internet so you are fully capable of accessing the facts about this topic and field of study.

AboveAlpha

 

Well of course I haven't corrected you, it's because you're in denial...lol

The bible that I use is still valid, no where did those publishers at NLT say that the 2004 version is obsolete, out of date and so it is still acceptable. Just because a word or two have been omitted in some of the text, it doesn't mean the message has been changed...it is still the same message bro!

You're like a child, showing your poor sport character...lol

When you snooze...you lose!...lol

 

I don't think you understand what the term means. The refusal to acknowledge a fact is often not even recognized by the person in denial because the matter/fact so upsets or scares the person that s/he can't admit it to herself, much less anyone else. Sometimes s/he knows the truth but refuses to admit it because it is so psychologically painful to him. It is a coping mechanism a person uses to protect himself. He will deny the facts to others when it is necessary to continue denying it to himself. Being in denial causes the person in denial as much, if not more, trouble than it causes anyone else. That's where you find yourself right now. You've been exposed. You're resorting to a version of the text that even the publishers of that text have come to realize required revision and editing, which is now more in line with all of the more universally accepted versions...most of which I named. You've included wording that your own source has recognized as inaccurate. Congratulations. You've successfully torpedoed your own argument. Well done.

You're a fool and are obviously in denial. They don't have to say it's obsolete. The new version says it for them. They've already shown that it's inaccurate by publishing a version that they deem more accurate regardless of what you may think. Bro! The insertion of words that are not found in any other text that is in use by the vast and overwhelming majority of the Christian and even Jewish world was deemed unacceptable to them. Putting words into Gods mouth is frowned upon.

Sorry "bro", but if you're going to claim to be some authority on interpretation of the Bible, then appealing to a version that virtually the entire Christian world ignores for being inaccurate isn't going to earn you the brownie points you've hoped for. Did you really think you could pull off this bullsh*t? I have to admit the "thick clouds" bit was entertaining. Gods own smoke screen. Oh BTW....you still haven't told us what happened on the 4th day. Have you come up with some explanation on that yet? If everything that took place on day 4 actually had happened on day 1....then what work was done on day 4?

Then it's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

You don't insert wording into the scriptural text of the Bible of all things. You're putting words into the mouth of God. That's called bearing false witness. Something that God himself considers a violation of one of his commandments. You can't attribute things to God that he never said, and make outrageous claims of absolute correctness of interpretation of the text when you are using a version that the very publishers have recognized required more editing to bring it into line with the traditional reading of almost every version of the Bible in print. The process of editing is the removal of extraneous text. It's not the insertion of wording that isn't needed to convey an idea. That's not what editors do.

 

Using an outdated version that has changed, supposedly because of errors, can be considered bearing false witness.
Does your version explain anywhere what happens to those who bear false witness?

 

Exactly! Good post my friend!