HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
current us events
jim993 - Jun 26, 2002

 < Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next> 

  Falstaf Jun 27, 2002
You make a good point. The bibles purpose is not that of a historical textbook, although it has been shown to be very accurate in that sense.

It is also not a science textbook, but here again it has been shown to be accurate, even in some areas where the author had no way of knowing the validity of what he wrote. A good example in what is found in Isaiah 40:22 states,"There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth.......". This was written close to 2000 years before scientists were capable of verifying this as a fact, that the earth is a circle or round. How did he know is the big question. The bible also speaks of there being other planets when man had no telescopes to verify this as a fact. It makes you wonder how they knew.

 Rumata Jun 27, 2002
Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.

 Gallstaff Jun 27, 2002
you guys don't think discussing different religions in an open forum would offend anyone? I'm not saying it offends me, but just don't you think someone might not apreciate you contridicting their religion?

 racketboy Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Rumata@June 27 2002,10:59



Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.


If you want to get technical, the Old Testiment (where Isaiah is found) was written in Hebrew. So to be able to know what "circle word" he used, you would have to find out what the original Hebrew word is that was on the manuscripts and then find out what the actual meaning of that word is.

 racketboy Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Gallstaff@June 27 2002,10:59



you guys don't think discussing different religions in an open forum would offend anyone? I'm not saying it offends me, but just don't you think someone might not apreciate you contridicting their religion?


hehe -- it's probably be a little late for that.

But to be honest, maybe we should close this thread. We have all discussed our opinions on these 6 pages. Otherwise, it will probably never end.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Rumata@June 27 2002,10:59



Actually, falstuff, there is a world of difference between a circle and a sphere. Saying that Earth is a circle is just as good as saying that Earth is flat, which was the belief at the time.


Actually, you are quiet incorrect here. The idea that the earth was flat as a common belief, is a fairey tale propagated by early history textbook writers who did not understand the illustrations on early maps. All mariners have recognized the fact the the earth is not flat just from the obviouse observation of seeing ships disappear slowly over the horizon, and then return later to port. And even if they didn't (which they did in fact recognize) that the earth a sphere, how did they know it was a circle?

Common guys, give me stuff thats real and not the ramblings of school boys fresh from the mind washing recieved by teachers who teach the widely accepted stories, as fact. Have you really ever looked into this stuff in depth yourselves or are you once again and again just repeating what you have "heard" or have been "taught" as fact?

No I don't have a blind adherence to the bible' but I have studied it in depth and been able, at least somewhat, to seperate what is real and what is fable.

Here is one other point for you to mull over. Mathematically and statistically speaking, evolution ( ie a goo of amino acids coming together to form life) is impossible! Science states that any number (when speaking of statistical chances or oportunities for an event to ocurre naturally with no outside unnatural manipulation) with a factor of greater then 10 ( a number followed by 10 zeros) is considered an impossability. The statistical chance that lifes origins did in fact occure in this manner is 1 in 20 followed by 200 zeros. A mathimatical impossability.

For reference work, read well known astronomer Robert Jastrows book The Enchanted Loom: Mind In The Universe pg 19, evolutionists Loren Eiseley's work The Immense Journey pg 199.

Also check out New Scientist Magazine June 25 1981 pg 828

and Physics Bulletin 1980 vol. 31 pg 138.

I will post the reference on the stitistical point above shortly. I know the book but have to find it to refernce the page#.

 jim993 Jun 27, 2002
i have to say that if anyone takes offense then they shouldn't read anythign in here. 2nd if it goes on forever let it i mean who cares.

and to comment on something racket said, isn't it somewhere in the bible that we shoudln't try to predict what's going to happen or set times for things that are going to happen(mainly the end of world and stuff like that) and also that god can not be understood.

If i could understand why god does things and understand god then i have limited god(lol i basically just ripped off some budhist or maybe taoist or possibly shinto saying) (note how i basically state that i believe in a god but when it comes down to it i don't know if there is a god i hope there is but i can accept that there might not be a god)

 Myname Jun 27, 2002
Seeing as there was a request for other religions, I was raised with a lot of Buddhist thought (I am half-Burmese).. That's not to say that I'm a monk or anything, but I feel lucky to have been influenced by it and I don't really think I'd have appreciated Chrisianity or whatever the same way, but that's just me and I'm not knocking anyone else (apart from those God Channel dudes). I like the idea of 'religion' (not the best word) being more of a personal experience, trying to find some sort of understanding of things through trying to understand yourself and your current environment rather than believing things wholeheartedly which may or may not be true... but again, that's just me.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by racketboy+June 27 2002,11:10-->
QUOTE(racketboy @ June 27 2002,11:10)
QUOTE(falstaff @ June 27 2002,12:00)





  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by racketboy@June 27 2002,11:10