The Bible

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Cat@4 November 2003 - 16:38
I think it was more of a way of controlling people back in history. There was no real police, and apart from vigilantes, what was to stop rape, stealing, murder etc.

People were intimidated by it, and therefore order was made. It worked too.

The ideals are still here. Its the base of most modern day "morals."

---

our constitution is based on the values of the bible
wether u beleve in god or not ( i dont ) its is a good basis to live ur life by

as he said The ideals are still here. Its the base of most modern day "morals."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheDave@6 November 2003 - 00:03
i reckon the bible exists for a good reason - to make the world a beeter place.

---

shame religon makes the world a worse place than it already is :(

When u look at the history u get a really good idea of evolution....

2000 Years ago 1/8 of the World Population believed in Jupiter , Juno , Mars and other ancient Politemistic Gods..... they are dead now, and it would be really weird to believe in them today....

so and now guess which "god" is "dead" in 2000 years.....

its ok to study the bible for "knowledge" , like readying tales of Homer or maybe philosophic texts, but the "brainwashing parts" really remind me of "Mein Kampf"

so lets see whats ur Fuhrer (opps i ment God) will say about that when i go to heaven....

-sarcasm-

sry someone will be offended for sure....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by QuietSilence!@16 November 2003 - 16:42

our constitution is based on the values of the bible

---

No it's not. I'll touch on this later.

Many people back 2000 years ago thought stuff like the world being flat, and the Earth was at the centre of the solar system with the planets attached to it on rod like things.
People 2000 years ago wrote the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Cat@20 November 2003 - 16:44
Many people back 2000 years ago thought stuff like the world being flat, and the Earth was at the centre of the solar system with the planets attached to it on rod like things.
People 2000 years ago wrote the bible.

---

Job 26:7 states that the earth is hanging upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle (can also be translated sphere).


It is a fact that if you lived your life completely by the bibles standards, most problems from wars to family breakdowns to AIDs would be avoided.


If evolution was correct, then fossils would be found showing a gradual development of the different species, instead, they are found in a way as if the creatures suddenly appeard on the earth.


What came first; the chicken or the egg?
The chicken was created with a mate, and then produced offspring.

If a spider evolved its ability to spin a web to catch its food, what did it do for food in the meantime to fulfil this need, and if it already had a method, why develop a new one?
The same can be said for a giraffes long neck, and countless other things.


Most religions have somehow customised the bible to suit there own selfish gain. For example, most churches read out the same thing every week, never have any real answers to questions "oh, erm, god wanted that to happen, he wanted him in heaven" and some even blindley read stuff in a different language! What use is that?

Mathew 6:7-8 But when praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. 8So, do not make yourselves like them, for God YOUR Father knows what things YOU are needing before ever YOU ask him.

The Lords Prayer is against the bible, yes Jesus said when praying they are the ideal things to pray about, but he did not say to blindley chant them, he said the prayers are supposed to come from your heart etc


2 Timothy 3:16,17 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The bible was not written by humans wanting to control people etc, it was written by god through humans. You say that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus' life years after, which is true, so how could they get this correct? The Holy Spirit guided them in what to write, and also notice how those 4 books where written with many years difference, so how come they all give the exact same account?

2 Peter 1:20,21 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.


The Bible was written by some 40 different men over a period of 1,600 years, beginning in 1513B.C.E. It is made up of 66 little books. Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. They wrote his thoughts, not their own. So God in heaven, not any human on earth, is the Author of the Bible


Soid, many of the things you said are with a closed mind and some taken out of context.

De 25:11
Sex was a thing considered kinda of sacred. There were many laws about it, and it had to be done properly, married etc. This included the sexual organs, this would be doing something unclean.
Also, notice how God gave this law, afterwards, regardless of what it was, people knew what the law was and had to obey it, whatever there personal feelings.
In school, you are told not to cheat in an exam by some one in authority, wether you think this good or bad, you have to obey it otherwise you will suffer the punishment also told.
God gave out the laws and the punishments, so it wasn't a sudden unfair thing to happen, the people knew what they should and shouldn't do before hand, and so by this woman doing this, she was breaking a law that would have been already well known to her.
Similar for the killing non virgins. A law had been passed that said you must not have sex before you are married. Fair enough, so when an unmarried person is found not to be a virgin, it is obvious they have had sex and will reap the consequences.


I don't have time to go through all this long list at the moment, sorry.
But, notice this scripture:


Romans 13:9-10 For the [law code], “You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.

Can you see anything wrong with fulfilling that?

i only skimmed large sections so if my point is in anyway covered by someone else then sorry :D
If you look at any religious texts their teachings invariably reflect the feelings, prejudices and situations present at the time they were written. I'm not really interested in what caused this i.e. whether god gave laws and lessons that would help the people at the time, or whether god's message was pure and passing it through the prophets somehow it got changed, or perhaps even some of the prophets were fulfilling their own agendas, anyway whatever.
My thought is just that perhaps religious texts should be rewritten, to reflect the more educated, knowledgeable and enlightened standpoint of the modern world. Isn't there a point when you decide that killing people in horrible ways is barbaric and make a conscious decision to do away with it? Ie isn't there a time when you accept that sections are basically wrong and should be removed.

Quote:

---

It is a fact that if you lived your life completely by the bibles standards, most problems from wars to family breakdowns to AIDs would be avoided.

---

thats not true unless everyone on earth was exactly the same sect of christianity and were all exactly likeminded which is unimaginably unlikely. Plus you only seem to be considering the good side of the bible, there is a lot of contradictory and vague stuff in there and its teachings are pretty barbaric as it reflects the state of human society 2000 years ago.

Quote:

---

Job 26:7 states that the earth is hanging upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle (can also be translated sphere).

---

What does the bible say about evolution? And what about alien life?
Is everything in the bible true? Or are even all the major parts true?

We have now cloned certain animals etc, and are on the way to do the same with humans. There are many problems to overcome, but today we are doing what the supposed "Gods" did.

I'd say it was more like aliens that a God...

Quote:

---

The Bible was written by some 40 different men over a period of 1,600 years, beginning in 1513 B.C.E. It is made up of 66 little books. Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. They wrote his thoughts, not their own. So God in heaven, not any human on earth, is the Author of the Bible

---

If that is true then what is up with all the contradicting parts.

Plus, its a little convinient that there is no evidence, at all, whatsoever proving that God exists.
Oh and about the "animals just appeared because there are no fossils" etc, ever heard of single celled life, and how hard it might be to find?

As stated out already, one of the major flaws in the Bible is that scientific knowledge is dead wrong or too vague. This can only be because the bible was written by men, and men only, with no divine intervention.
Surely, if an omnipotent entity was to write a book about life and existance, it would have objective answers and explanations for everything.

Where are the answers to the big questions such as: why are there so many lifeless planets? Is the universe infinite? What is the purpose of all the galaxies, stars, black holes, planets, etc.? Is our universe unique? Are there other life forms in the universe (intelligent or not)?
There are no answers to these questions because the Bible was written by men confined to the knowledge of their own time and place.

On the other hand, evolution is a fact.
People usually come up with questions like "Why don't we see animals evolving as we speak?" or "Why aren't monkeys evolving into human beings?".

You have to understand that macroevolution takes millions of years and it's extremely subtle to be noticed. Human civilization is only thousands of years old, which isn't enough to analyze and understand evolution in real time.

And no, monkeys will never evolve into human beings.
Millions of years ago we were one and the same species. However, somewhere along the road, the species evolved and some became Homo Sapiens and others became monkeys.
Evolution makes species more "specific", it doesn't turn supposedly inferior animals into superior ones.
Basically, monkeys will always be monkeys and humans will always be humans. Both species will evolve and will become more refined, more specific.

Some undeniable evolution evidences are human vestigial organs like the appendix and the coccyx (tail bone). These vestigial organs are obsolete and yet they still exist in our body.
If we were created by a deity we wouldn't have these obsolete "imperfections", would we?

Also, micro organisms like bacterias are one of the best evidence of evolution. They evolve, mutate and adapt to the most adverse conditions, being able to survive under almost every circumstances.
We may be on top of the food chain but we don't rule the world. Micro organisms do.

Is there anything in the Bible about micro organisms? They are responsible for almost every disease and they are living organisms just like us. It's not some invisible force sent by God to punish us for our sins. Some of them even help us digesting food...

What does the bible say about evolution?

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:24-28 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
26And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”

The bible say's that God created man, therefore logic suggests that he did not evolve from some goo in the ocean.

Notice the opening introduction to Origin Of The Species:
"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution"

“To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” - Dawin himself
More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be.
Now think of even more complex stuff like the brain.

Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow - “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors."



I also notice people allways say the earth etc couldn't have been created in 6 days.
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration ... Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1)a beginning; (2)a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3)light; (4)an expanse or atmosphere; (5)large areas of dry land; (6)land plants; (7)sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)sea monsters and flying creatures; (9)wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10)man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.


Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men.

Fish to amphibians?
It was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates. This backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become amphibian, that is, a creature that could live both in the water and on land. A pelvis had to be added, but no fossil fish are known that show how the pelvis of amphibians developed. In some amphibians, such as frogs and toads, the entire backbone would have had to change beyond recognition. Also, skull bones are different. In addition, in the forming of amphibians, evolution requires fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves. Gills must change to lungs. In fish, blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.

To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: “It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.”David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.”
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

Amphibian to Reptile?
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization, before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts—all of which constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.

Reptiles to Birds?
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide them with new instincts—for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young—very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds. But there is much more.
Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had “several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets.”10 These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.
Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones—the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile! Does such an explanation seem credible to you?


Reptile to Mammel?
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The very name “mammal” points up one big difference: the existence of mammary glands that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky suggested that these milk glands “may be modified sweat glands.” But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young have both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.

Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles. Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm in reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in reptilian ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings. Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.

Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one. Where did the two “extras” come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw, whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile’s lower jaw moved to the mammal’s middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the process, left only one for the mammal’s lower jaw. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.

Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side of the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals the legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this difference, Dobzhansky commented: “This change, minor though it may seem, has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the musculature.” He then acknowledged another major difference between reptiles and mammals: “Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth. Instead of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting, pounding, or grinding food.”14

One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward—something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.

Conclusion on Evolution
Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”




I don't think the bible specifically says where or not alein life in outer space does exist, apart from obviously the heavens and spirit creatures.



I've got more evidence that the bible was scientifically acurate in its time compared to other cultures in the same time period.

Throughout the centuries there has been great ignorance on matters of health. A physician even observed: “Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat,” and others. Yet he explained: “No such statements are found in the Bible. This in itself is remarkable.”

It is also remarkable when one compares hazardous medical treatments used in the past with what the Bible says. For example, the Papyrus Ebers, a medical document of the ancient Egyptians, prescribed the use of excrement to treat various conditions. It directed that human excrement mixed with fresh milk be applied as a poultice to lesions that remain after scabs fall off. And a remedy for drawing out splinters reads: “Worms’ blood, cook and crush in oil; mole, kill, cook, and drain in oil; ass’s dung, mix in fresh milk. Apply to the opening.” Such treatment, it is now known, can result in serious infections.

What does the Bible say about excrement? It directed: “When you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with [a digging instrument] and turn and cover your excrement.” (Deuteronomy 23:13) So, far from prescribing excrement in medical treatment, the Bible directed the safe disposal of sewage. Up until the present century the danger of leaving excrement exposed to flies was generally not known. This resulted in the spread of serious fly-borne diseases and the death of many people. Yet the simple remedy was on record in the Bible all the time, and it was followed by the Israelites over 3,000years ago.

During the last century medical personnel would go directly from handling the dead in the dissecting room to conducting examinations in the maternity ward, and they would not even wash their hands. Infection was thus transferred from the dead, and many others died. Even when the value of hand washing was demonstrated, many in the medical community resisted such hygienic measures. Doubtless unknown to them, they were rejecting the wisdom in the Bible, since God’s law to the Israelites decreed that anyone touching a dead person became unclean and must wash himself and his garments.—Numbers 19:11-22.

As a sign of a covenant with Abraham, God said: “Every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised.” Later this requirement was repeated to the nation of Israel. (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:2,3) No explanation was given why the eighth day was specified, but now we understand. Medical research has discovered that the blood-clotting element vitaminK rises to an adequate level only by then. Another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the eighth day than at any other time during a child’s life. Based on this evidence, Dr.S.I.McMillen concluded: “The perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day.”12 Was this mere coincidence? Not at all. It was knowledge passed on by a God who knew.



So much for you people saying how the bible is badly outdated!


Please name any of these contradictions in the bible and i will be more than willing to investiagate and try and proove you wrong :P
BTW thanks for all reading that, with an open mind I'm sure you'll appreciate how beneficial and true the bible really is.