The bible

[jjrox32]

This thread is going in circles. One side approves a theory, the other disapproves it, the other side counters it, so on and so forth.

[gonpost]

18godzilla, all of your arguments are...well...arguable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is one, however, which I do not think you can argue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I admire your commitment to using science to support the bible (much better than just saying "because the bible says so", so thank you), the science is simply not solid enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, it obviously goes both ways. But please, I'd like to hear an answer to the star question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread is going in circles. One side approves a theory, the other disapproves it, the other side counters it, so on and so forth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it always will go in circles until we are able to prove more ideas. The sad thing about us humans is that we die and can't give our knowledge to our young ones as it was, in tact. Therefore younger people must learn...and it's through threads like these that they learn various ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circles indeed.

[warri0r45]

 

According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old. Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old. Some people with a voice in their head is all the proof it is 6000 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also used to be PROVEN that the earth flat. There is no real proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Lets take a look at some real evidence for a young earth ( taken from here):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can provide a source which claims the earth is 6000 years old and has no religous connotations whatsoever, I will consider reading it. I have read sources such as the one you posted and they all have an agenda - to protect thier religion by any means necessary. It's not good science and is generally not taken seriously by any respected scientist because of this and because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community see that all evidence gathered over the years points towards the planet being billions of years old. We know that weather systems and water cause erosion of rock. We also know that such process take more than 6000 years. We know these things. It goes against logic and overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Rebdragon]

Exactly. If the bible is truely the word of god, why would god lie about something that he made?

 

 

 

I suppose you could say it isn't the Word of God, though I'd still stand strong on the Pentatuch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't take this as official Christian belief, as it my opinion, but the Word of God can be interpreted as guidance for the human race. Would that not what God would tell us, give us guidance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Day" has always been a measure of time. The only way it would work out is if their "day" was much much bigger than ours, in fact around 30000 times bigger. Theres no way the stories in the bible would make sense if by "day" they ment 30000 modern days.

 

 

 

In the Pentatuch, I would say no. Maybe in the other parts of the Bible, definitely not the Pentatuch. Do you have any other examples to attack the use of the word "day" besides the Seven Days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've got a good example of time given not actually being real time: 40 years. Back then (maybe now as well, not sure) "40 years" was often used to describe "one generation", which is obviously not exactly 40 years. Here, you see the word "years", a term with a set amount of time, not actually using the time frame it is meant to in our day and age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, remember that this has been translated from another language, so day could easily have multiple meanings in the first text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Give an example please? One less than a few hundred years ago.

 

 

 

How 'bout the modern Christian God? He is an example of love and compassion, a beacon of hope. Today he is used to help the hopeless, to give people reason to be good, to set society straight. And of course there are many supernatural debates in which the Christian God is used as explanation (such as seeing a light when you are near death, ghosts, etc.), if you're wondering about "filling in the holes of the unknown."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read the part about some morals being outdated?

 

 

 

The morals of the Bible aren't outdated. Mind you some cultural rules are, but not the meanings the stories give us, ESPECIALLY the meanings behind Jesus' stories and parables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I think documentaries are interesting because It shows their way of life. I used that as an example of a religion used to explain the unexplainable, that was almost abandoned because we have the technology they lacked today.

 

 

 

Ugh. Again, stop attacking the parts of the Bible real Christians don't look at. The scientific beliefs of the time in no way diminish the meaning(s) and stories of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=D> That was my point. It makes religion back then, no different to the religion today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity ain't got no Volcano gods :-s .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, they really did think a serpent went through 12 gates and fought a serpent every day. They had an explanation for how the earth came to be, and it is completely different to christians, all religions are different. what makes is the one that is true?

 

 

 

Who's "they"? If you're talking about Christians, your only slightly 99.8% wrong (.2% being the fundamentalists).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't know which religion is true. Nontheless, improbability, as Astra has said to me, does not rule out the possibility that Christianity is right in every aspect.

 

 

 

I already talked about moral issues, but since it was written so long ago the morals are getting to be outdated. The technicalities im talking about is because the stories in the bible didn't actually happen, but some people think they did.

 

 

 

Yet again, CULTURAL RULES are outdated. Morals, not quite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have missed my point. The only thing I am attacking is the stories in the bible are thaught to have happened. Which looks to be your opinion too. That leaves the bible for morals, I said the morals are getting outdated.

 

 

 

And you're wrong. That is, unless you have a moral (not a cultural rule) that they had back then that is wrong today. I'll give you a cookie if Jesus said it. No, make that two cookies, and a glass of milk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that last sentence concluded was that there is no difference between religions proved wrong, and the ones that people swear by today.

 

 

 

So, you proved that the Earth isn't exactly 6,000 years old. OMG! Christianity must die!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course they could be real, its extremely improbable, but they could be real. That was not my point. A god carrying the sun across the sky isn't real, that was my point.

 

 

 

What, you've been up to the sun and seen, being 100% sure, that an Egyptian god wasn't there moving it?

[Plectrum]

18godzilla, all of your arguments are...well...arguable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is one, however, which I do not think you can argue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I admire your commitment to using science to support the bible (much better than just saying "because the bible says so", so thank you), the science is simply not solid enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, it obviously goes both ways. But please, I'd like to hear an answer to the star question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speed of light = 299,792,458 m / s. You want to know how far away the stars must be to be able to see them in 6,000 years and 4.5 billion years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it took light one year to hit our earth from a distant star, it would be 9.5 x 10^15 meters away. Since there are 31,536,000 seconds in one year. If it took the light 6,000 years it would be 5.7x10^19 meters away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3x10^8 m/s)(31,536,000 s) = 9.5x10^15 meters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3x10^8 m/s)(31,536,000 s)(6,000) = 5.7x10^19 meters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you tell me how a scientists is going to measure how far a certain star is away if the light takes 6,000 years to travel 5.7 x 10^19 meters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But some how they claim certain stars are 4.3 x 10^25 meters away to prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3x10^8 m/s)x(60 s/min)x(60 min/hr)x(24 hr/day)x(365 days/yr)x(4,500,000,000 years) = 4.3 x 10^25 meters or 4,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no way scientists can measure that distance, ever. And if they could it would take them at the very least 4.5 billion years to measure it since light is the fastest constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The light debate is flawed with circular reasoning. Some claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old because light from distance stars are reaching us that are too far away to be reaching us in 6,000 years. Then they go on to say that these stars are this far away because the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

[Guest]

Bible was never meant to be taken seriously. At least isn't now. It's the message it sends what people should be focusing on. But, alas, people take everything too seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering you didn't write the thing, than you have no authority to make a statement like that, no matter who you think you are, or how stupid the Bible may sound to you. :wink:

[Notorious_Ice]

I suppose you could say it isn't the Word of God, though I'd still stand strong on the Pentatuch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't take this as official Christian belief, as it my opinion, but the Word of God can be interpreted as guidance for the human race. Would that not what God would tell us, give us guidance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am talking about the basic opinion of most christians, it seems like you are christian to a certain extent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

've got a good example of time given not actually being real time: 40 years. Back then (maybe now as well, not sure) "40 years" was often used to describe "one generation", which is obviously not exactly 40 years. Here, you see the word "years", a term with a set amount of time, not actually using the time frame it is meant to in our day and age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But when someone said "5 generations ago" people did not automatically think "Thats 200 years ago"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The morals of the Bible aren't outdated. Mind you some cultural rules are, but not the meanings the stories give us, ESPECIALLY the meanings behind Jesus' stories and parables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, great guidence.

 

 

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~owl233/biblequotes.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh. Again, stop attacking the parts of the Bible real Christians don't look at. The scientific beliefs of the time in no way diminish the meaning(s) and stories of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by "real" christian. A "real christian" is someone who takes everything in the bible to heart. Scientific facts do not diminish morals and meanings, but they do diminish the stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How 'bout the modern Christian God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The christian god can be called modern as it is believed today, but that was not what I was talking about. The bible was started over 3000 years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity ain't got no Volcano gods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither does Ancient Egypt, whats your point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who's "they"? If you're talking about Christians, your only slightly 99.8% wrong (.2% being the fundamentalists).

 

 

 

By "they" I was talking about Ancient Egyptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't know which religion is true. Nontheless, improbability, as Astra has said to me, does not rule out the possibility that Christianity is right in every aspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your saying that your beliefs are right and other religions are [cabbage]?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet again, CULTURAL RULES are outdated. Morals, not quite.

 

 

 

Cultural rules are based on morals.

 

 

 

And you're wrong. That is, unless you have a moral (not a cultural rule) that they had back then that is wrong today. I'll give you a cookie if Jesus said it. No, make that two cookies, and a glass of milk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God said it was morally right to take over a town by force, as long as you asked for surrender first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus said believe or be condemned to hell, today it is not morally right to use your influence and fear to gain supporters.

 

 

 

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/heavnhel.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make em chocolate chip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, you've been up to the sun and seen, being 100% sure, that an Egyptian god wasn't there moving it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um... Are you trying to argue that the sun moves around the earth?

[Rebdragon]

I am talking about the basic opinion of most christians, it seems like you are christian to a certain extent.

 

 

 

Meh, I'm against most Christian beliefs. My biggest being not considering Jesus the "Son of God", at least in the sense most Christians do. I also don't believe in the Christian God. I'd rather not have an argument about that though, seeing as how I don't really agree with or care for most Christian beliefs :lol: .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But when someone said "5 generations ago" people did not automatically think "Thats 200 years ago"

 

 

 

Exactly..? It's a literary technique :? .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, great guidence.

 

 

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~owl233/biblequotes.htm

 

 

 

Yet agian, those are cultural opinions of the time :? . I've heard nearly all of those, they're not morals, they're basically laws for the people, in the same way the government laws are not morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by "real" christian. A "real christian" is someone who takes everything in the bible to heart. Scientific facts do not diminish morals and meanings, but they do diminish the stories.

 

 

 

You've gota be frikking kidding me. You'd don't have to be an idiot fundamentalist to be a real Christian, genius.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The christian god can be called modern as it is believed today, but that was not what I was talking about. The bible was started over 3000 years ago.

 

 

 

You asked for a current God, and I gave you one. I don't get what you're saying telling me to answer the question in terms that were excluded from the question you asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither does Ancient Egypt, whats your point?

 

 

 

The point is that religion isn't used to fill scientific holes in the way it used to. In fact, I'm not sure if Christianity tries to fill in any current scientific holes, just supernatural ones. So yes, it's different from historical religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By "they" I was talking about Ancient Egyptions.

 

 

 

'Kay, I still hold to my point that it's still possible that any religion could be the right one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your saying that your beliefs are right and other religions are [cabbage]?

 

 

 

If I didn't believe I was right, they wouldn't be beliefs, now would they? Don't take that as me not being open to other ideas and beliefs though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd also like to take this time to, again, state that I disagree with most Christian supernatural beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural rules are based on morals.

 

 

 

Doesn't mean they are morals. And cultural/governmental laws are set for the good of society, not what it means to be good as an individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God said it was morally right to take over a town by force, as long as you asked for surrender first.

 

 

 

No, religious leaders during the time, who needed followers to help them take over other cities, said that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus said believe or be condemned to hell, today it is not morally right to use your influence and fear to gain supporters.

 

 

 

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/heavnhel.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make em chocolate chip.

 

 

 

Hell can be seen and interpreted in many ways. My personal belief, and I know many people here agree, is that Hell is basically "being without God." It's not some fiery place at the center of the earth, it's literally a choice to be without God. So, going against/not believing in God, as said, is "being without God", which sounds like hell to me. Pun intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pfft, cookie denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um... Are you trying to argue that the sun moves around the earth?

 

 

 

Mebe... :anxious: .

[Notorious_Ice]

Yet agian, those are cultural opinions of the time Confused . I've heard nearly all of those, they're not morals, they're basically laws for the people, in the same way the government laws are not morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They may not be technically morals, but people then believed them to be morally right. Otherwise they would not have followed them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've gota be frikking kidding me. You'd don't have to be an idiot fundamentalist to be a real Christian, genius.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently not, but back then you did. Everything in the bible was taken literally, if you disagreed you were put to death. Nowadays, science is finding flaws in the bibles "facts," thats why its not taken so literally anymore, and the term "christian" is a lot more relaxed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You asked for a current God, and I gave you one. I don't get what you're saying telling me to answer the question in terms that were excluded from the question you asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a current god, but its not new. I mean a new set of morals, beliefs etc made into a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that religion isn't used to fill scientific holes in the way it used to. In fact, I'm not sure if Christianity tries to fill in any current scientific holes, just supernatural ones. So yes, it's different from historical religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why not having a volcano god makes your point, but:

 

 

 

Christianity still tried to fill in the hole about how the universe was made and how we came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't mean they are morals. And cultural/governmental laws are set for the good of society, not what it means to be good as an individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Close but not quite. Cultural/government laws are set for what the government THINKS is for the good of society. Not what is. Like back then, they thaught that women being treated badly was right for society. In the future, morals will change, perhaps people will look upon our generation and think we are barbaric for putting people in jail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell can be seen and interpreted in many ways. My personal belief, and I know many people here agree, is that Hell is basically "being without God." It's not some fiery place at the center of the earth, it's literally a choice to be without God. So, going against/not believing in God, as said, is "being without God", which sounds like hell to me. Pun intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pfft, cookie denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus said that hell was a real place. Make sure the milk is cold too.

[Rebdragon]

-stuff-

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I really don't know where to go from here. Honestly, it seems like we're not even fighting in the same arena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm arguing that the Bible's meanings (behind the parables and stories) are valid. You're arguing that the culture and beliefs of the time when it was written were wrong, most of which I agree about (especially the rules about the treatment of women, that's just crud...). It's like we're swinging at each other in different zip codes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christians don't treat women like the bible tells them to, they understand that was just part of how the Hebrew culture worked. They understand that times have changed, and that that's not how to treat a person. Still, the Bible gives valuable insight on the treatment of our fellow man and how God, according to the Christians, should be regarded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus said that hell was a real place. Make sure the milk is cold too.

 

 

 

A state of being away from God can easily be seen, or actually be, a real place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure (really, not being sarcastic), did Jesus ever describe Hell as a fiery place deep in the earth? I can't remember >_<.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, our human minds can't really fully understand it, so I can't give you the cookies and milk. No, this isn't an excuse because I already ate them. Seriously, it isn't.

[issy2]

 

I would like to point out that in the Bible it is okay to own slaves, and (for guys) to stone your wife to death if she wasn't a virgin on the wedding day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Err....end of Hollywood?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to point out that the bible is thousands of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the messages the bible tells are good, even if the storys are largly ficticious (sp?). The only thing is some of them are really only aplicable for back when it was written.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would suggest that the rules, laws, and ways of the so-called Christians six thousand years ago were based on the society they lived in, completely disregarding of moral right or wrong. Or it was written by someone extremely prejudiced and too caught up in their own culture to think for themselves.

[assassin_696]

That would suggest that the rules, laws, and ways of the so-called Christians six thousand years ago were based on the society they lived in, completely disregarding of moral right or wrong. Or it was written by someone extremely prejudiced and too caught up in their own culture to think for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgetting about the New Testament?

[Guest]

 

 

 

I'm not sure (really, not being sarcastic), did Jesus ever describe Hell as a fiery place deep in the earth? I can't remember >_<.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and gnashing of teeth and some other stuff. But yes he did. :wink:

[Notorious_Ice]

Im arguing that the Bible's meanings (behind the parables and stories) are valid. You're arguing that the culture and beliefs of the time when it was written were wrong, most of which I agree about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, were almost in the same mind. We both agree the actual stories themselves aren't true, contrary to a large but decreasing amount of people's belief. Though the meanings and "moral values" are true. I agree though I made a point that since the bible was written so long ago, that perhaps it is getting outdated, as morals and culture is a lot different now. Although the basic values of life, such as respecting fellow man etc will still remain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would suggest that the rules, laws, and ways of the so-called Christians six thousand years ago were based on the society they lived in, completely disregarding of moral right or wrong. Or it was written by someone extremely prejudiced and too caught up in their own culture to think for themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They weren't disregarding morals, they just had different morals back then. Just as 5000 years from now, people will have different morals than what we have today.

[Gamerr]

It's funny. The bible has been written 2000 years ago (that's 100% sure) but there's still so much doubt about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's all made up, those writers are basicly brilliant. Can you imagine people reading Harry Potter in 2000 years? No, even when it's a fantastic book too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my eyes, the Bible is not all true, but partly it is. If you don't believe in the bible, my question is do you believe in the law? Because all the laws are basicly coming from the bible. For example: The law that says you can't kill is literally the same in the bible...

[warri0r45]

It's funny. The bible has been written 2000 years ago (that's 100% sure) but there's still so much doubt about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's all made up, those writers are basicly brilliant. Can you imagine people reading Harry Potter in 2000 years? No, even when it's a fantastic book too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my eyes, the Bible is not all true, but partly it is. If you don't believe in the bible, my question is do you believe in the law? Because all the laws are basicly coming from the bible. For example: The law that says you can't kill is literally the same in the bible...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could make a decent argument that laws were made according to the bible hundreds of years ago, but not today. Today we have more common sense and realise we can be moral beings without religion.

[Notorious_Ice]

It's funny. The bible has been written 2000 years ago (that's 100% sure)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100% sure? Too bad the bible was started about 4400 years ago, and was finished around 15 years ago.

 

 

 

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you could make a decent argument that laws were made according to the bible hundreds of years ago, but not today. Today we have more common sense and realise we can be moral beings without religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the morals in the bible were based on the laws back then? They seem to fit together so well. We just have different morals today then they did back then.

[warri0r45]

 

It's funny. The bible has been written 2000 years ago (that's 100% sure)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100% sure? Too bad the bible was started about 4400 years ago, and was finished around 15 years ago.

 

 

 

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you could make a decent argument that laws were made according to the bible hundreds of years ago, but not today. Today we have more common sense and realise we can be moral beings without religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the morals in the bible were based on the laws back then? They seem to fit together so well. We just have different morals today then they did back then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps. You could never know the intentions of the authors of it really.

[Will H]

I am a Christian, and I believe that the Bible is a Moral Guidebook, and only certain chapters such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be taken as litery diary text. There are moments where people are said to be 'possessed by demons' which is infact brain disorders. But Jesus cannot have called it brain disorders because nobody would have understood what that meant, so he followed the 'demons' idea just to keep science at the time in harmony.

 

 

 

The Genisis chapter is a complete allegory, and a very clever one too, since this allegory represents something we have not worked out yet, and still explains things such as there was no evil before us (and interestingly there was no good to compare it to), as represented by Adam and Eve. Also, this means that Evolution can still exist alongside Creationism because Creationism is an allegory, and you can't disprove an allegory with fact. Believe what you want, that's what I believe.

[Tigra00]

The star-light argument for a greater than 6,000 year old Earth is actually a pretty good argument. Nevermind the fact that science is 100% sure the Earth is much older than that. Only fundamentalists, nay, INSANE fundamentalists, believe the Earth to be so young. It just isn't possible. The Egyptian's were building Pyramid's 6,000 years ago. That's not really a craft you just invent in a couple years...I mean, they took decades to build ni themselves...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I digress...The star-light argument...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, scientists CAN measure such great distances. Is it 100% accurate? No. I'm sure when they say "This star is 90 million light-years away." that there is a slight margain of error, but that margain of error isn't 89,994,000 light-years. All they need is a telescope and a mathematical formula to figure out such great distances. Or are we not believing in math anymore to make the 6,000 year theory work either?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we can see an object that is 4.5 billion light-years away in space, then it is absolutely safe to claim that the very point in space that we sit upon is older than 4.5 billion years. These objects exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're better off arguing that God only created the Earth, not the Universe (you'd be going against scripture though, lol) or that God broke the laws of physics because God is just God and he can do that. That's the circular logic that most believers use for pretty much every single argument anyways. So why stop now!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At some point, people are going to have to just accept that our Earth is the way it is and it has made everything possible by itself. That's even more spectacular than God. It's more exciting. It's more interesting, even. I'd go as far as to say that isn't even an opinion. We have all these fossils of past creatures and people choose to just ignore them. It's a fact that there were previous humans. It's a fact that there were dinosaurs. It's a fact that these creatures NEVER walked together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What tickles me is people who argue against evolution due to "lack of fossil proof". Do you know how many T-Rex skeleton's we've found? Ninety. The most famous dinosaur of ALL TIME, and we only have 90 skeletons. Only 4 of them had their skulls, the other 86 were full without skulls. Do you honestly think there were only 90-ish T-Rex's on this entire planet over the time of their existence? Of course there wasn't. We haven't even scratched the surface on fossil's, so arguing for a lack of them is just silly. You need the right conditions for a fossil to form, THEN you need to stumble upon it. There's really no "finding" these, they're all pretty much stumbled upon and then exumed. A lack of evolutionary proof due to lack of fossils is just a silly argument. It's just silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Oh yea, and the whole "Was a day really a day in the Bible when refering to God creating the Universe?" argument is crap. Who wrote the Bible? Humans. How many hours are in a day? 24, give or take a few seconds. And back then, how many? 24, give or take a few seconds. They said 7 days, and the meant 7 days. 7 days has always been 7 days to intelligent humans. Granted, a day was shorter waaaaaaay back in time, but that's not the point. Why would God say "Oh yea, I created all this in 7 days!" and expect it not to be taken literally as 7 Earth days? He didn't add "Oh yea, but a day in my time in like 40 bagillion years, so you lose!" :P

[jjrox32]

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

[Ragen]

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

[jjrox32]

 

cam.org link makes no sense. How does it make sense that the ENTIRE new testament was started in the 60's? How would we have records of things back then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm 99% sure that they had a full Bible before the 60's. Just use common sense. That link doesn't actually provide any evidence that those dates are "good estimates"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen and read a bit of a bible over 100 years old. The only difference that I spotted was the use of language like 'thy'. I understood that the current Bible was a direct translation (or as close as possible) from the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are new versions that make the reading a bit easier on the eyes.... wait a minute. If you've read a Bible over 100 years old, how could the new testament have been finished in the 90's?

[Death_By_Pod]

You're getting it! It's a MORAL GUIDEBOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so why haven't we taken all the moral guidelines out of the bible and compiled it into a small concise book without all that non-literal nonsense. Why do so many people persist with using copies of the bible when there is so much Christian literature out there that concisely discuss the morals from the bible, instead of having resort to telling stories with morals. Your view of Christianity is on the fringe as much as a literal view of the bible.

[Rebdragon]

 

You're getting it! It's a MORAL GUIDEBOOK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, so why haven't we taken all the moral guidelines out of the bible and compiled it into a small concise book without all that non-literal nonsense. Why do so many people persist with using copies of the bible when there is so much Christian literature out there that concisely discuss the morals from the bible, instead of having resort to telling stories with morals. Your view of Christianity is on the fringe as much as a literal view of the bible.

 

 

 

Tell me, what kind of literal "stuff" would you take out? Jesus' stories? The pentatuch? Much of the history of the Hebrews? Would you cut out the stories that have hidden meanings behind them, and simply write down the hidden meanings you "think" are the ones they intended to tell us, also thinking that you'll get all of them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait, you want to turn the Bible into a little index card with a few morals written on it? Man, never knew you hated Christianity enough to try and tear the whole religion to pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure (really, not being sarcastic), did Jesus ever describe Hell as a fiery place deep in the earth? I can't remember >_<.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and gnashing of teeth and some other stuff. But yes he did. :wink:

 

 

 

Got a verse :-s ?