Title: Biblical foreknowledge?
Post by: Nergel on May 25, 2007, 03:32:41 PM
Post by: Nergel on May 25, 2007, 03:32:41 PM
Science And The Bible
The Bible and Earth’s Free-float in Space
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn’t discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650.
The Bible and the Science of Oceanography
Matthew Maury (1806â€"1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, "If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them." Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.
The Bible and Meteorological Laws
The Scriptures describe a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other.
The Bible and Earth’s Free-float in Space
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn’t discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650.
The Bible and the Science of Oceanography
Matthew Maury (1806â€"1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, "If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them." Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.
The Bible and Meteorological Laws
The Scriptures describe a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other.
Title:
Post by: joeactor on May 25, 2007, 07:37:59 PM
Post by: joeactor on May 25, 2007, 07:37:59 PM
Wow... aside from saying that Pi is 3, the Earth is 6,000 years old and we all came from 2 humans without any incest being involved, (among other glaring errors), and the general vagueness of most of the "scientific" statements, that's amazingly accurate!
The largest distance between two punchlines is the sar-chasm,
JoeActor
The largest distance between two punchlines is the sar-chasm,
JoeActor
Title:
Post by: McQ on May 25, 2007, 09:12:43 PM
Post by: McQ on May 25, 2007, 09:12:43 PM
Call me a pessimist, but I smell a Velikovsky reference coming to this topic....
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on May 25, 2007, 09:27:59 PM
Post by: donkeyhoty on May 25, 2007, 09:27:59 PM
...This is what it's like when worlds collide...
Title:
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 03:33:09 AM
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 03:33:09 AM
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"...This is what it's like when worlds collide...
**BA-DOOM-CHA!!!**
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! Good one!
Title:
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 09:07:56 AM
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 09:07:56 AM
Interpet it otherwise, it's as simple as that
The verse in job for example can be interpeted as saying that the earth is flat
The verse in job for example can be interpeted as saying that the earth is flat
Title:
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 04:40:14 PM
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 04:40:14 PM
Nergel, perhaps you could clue everyone in on the point of your initial post...the point of the thread here. What are you trying to say? Or are you here to post random scripture references. What position are you trying to forward here?
This just seems a bit random right now. Understand?
It's akin to me posting something out of my Photoshop 7 instruction manual just to show that it says things inside it.
This just seems a bit random right now. Understand?
It's akin to me posting something out of my Photoshop 7 instruction manual just to show that it says things inside it.
Title:
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 04:59:06 PM
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 04:59:06 PM
Didn't you ever got the argument from biblical foreknowledge?, the book of job was written 3500 years ago and it said this and that
This is from the Hindu sacred book known as the Vedas:
"The moon is 50,000 leagues higher than the sun, and shines by its own light; night is caused by the sun's setting behind a huge mountain several thousand feet high, located in the centre of the earth, that this world, flat and triangular is composed of 7 states - one of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter, and still another of wine, and the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which in shaking produce earthquakes."
And that's ancient western wisdom
This is from the Hindu sacred book known as the Vedas:
"The moon is 50,000 leagues higher than the sun, and shines by its own light; night is caused by the sun's setting behind a huge mountain several thousand feet high, located in the centre of the earth, that this world, flat and triangular is composed of 7 states - one of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter, and still another of wine, and the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which in shaking produce earthquakes."
And that's ancient western wisdom
Title:
Post by: Kestrel on May 26, 2007, 05:27:26 PM
Post by: Kestrel on May 26, 2007, 05:27:26 PM
I'm with McQ, Nergel.
You see, all I glean from this;
What i need is how long to cook it and at what heat setting.
In other words, please clearly phrase your point so that it is better understood.
Thanks.
You see, all I glean from this;
Quoteone of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter, and still another of wine, and the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which in shaking produce earthquakes....is a recipe for Hindu wine muffins. (in good humor!)
What i need is how long to cook it and at what heat setting.
In other words, please clearly phrase your point so that it is better understood.
Thanks.
Title:
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 05:52:54 PM
Post by: McQ on May 26, 2007, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: "Nergel"Didn't you ever got the argument from biblical foreknowledge?, the book of job was written 3500 years ago and it said this and that
This is from the Hindu sacred book known as the Vedas:
"The moon is 50,000 leagues higher than the sun, and shines by its own light; night is caused by the sun's setting behind a huge mountain several thousand feet high, located in the centre of the earth, that this world, flat and triangular is composed of 7 states - one of honey, another of sugar, a third of butter, and still another of wine, and the whole mass is borne on the heads of countless elephants which in shaking produce earthquakes."
And that's ancient western wisdom
I'm still baffled. Nergel perhaps an introduction of yourself would be appropriate, stating your beliefs, background, etc. I'm not sure why you are posting these things. Are you here to support biblical foreknowledge? What faith or lack of faith are you, etc.?
Do you understand that we don't even know why you are posting this? I am able to read the posts, of course, but what is the point of them? Please put these in context of your purpose.
Title:
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 05:59:27 PM
Post by: Nergel on May 26, 2007, 05:59:27 PM
Im a theist. This topic was inspired about a christian friend of mine that tried to convert me to christianity, so I want to see the atheists response about the argument from scientific foreknowledge
Just post your rebuttal that this presents foreknowledge, by interpeting it differently, using ancient people such as Yajnavalkya's foreknowledge about astronomy, provide contradicting verses, etc
Just post your rebuttal that this presents foreknowledge, by interpeting it differently, using ancient people such as Yajnavalkya's foreknowledge about astronomy, provide contradicting verses, etc
Title:
Post by: joeactor on May 26, 2007, 08:46:41 PM
Post by: joeactor on May 26, 2007, 08:46:41 PM
Quote from: "Nergel"Im a theist. This topic was inspired about a christian friend of mine that tried to convert me to christianity, so I want to see the atheists response about the argument from scientific foreknowledgeAhhhhh.... I see...
Just post your rebuttal that this presents foreknowledge, by interpeting it differently, using ancient people such as Yajnavalkya's foreknowledge about astronomy, provide contradicting verses, etc
I'm an agnostic theist, but I don't mix science with religion or philosophy.
Until one of these "holy" books can present some kind of unbiased, concrete, testable predictions, it's not science. I don't look for scientific results from tea leaves, tarot cards, psychics or prophets.
It's like the old joke:
A certain ethic man walks into a shop and says "I'll have a burger, fries and a shake".
The guy behind the counter replies "I'm afraid I can't give you that, sir".
The customer says "Oh! Is it because I'm certain ethnic? Is that why?!?!".
"No", replies the owner, "this is a hardware store."
Not looking for a cheeseburger,
JoeActor
Title:
Post by: SteveS on June 01, 2007, 03:47:08 AM
Post by: SteveS on June 01, 2007, 03:47:08 AM
How about a rebuttal from selective interpretation?
In other words, the language of science is specific and quantitative. Scientists don't say the earth "hangs upon nothing", they describe it's precise path through space as a result of measured forces acting upon it. These forces are consistent with the theories that describe them --- with equations, not with poetic interpretations. Why does this phrase:
About the meteorology reference, I really don't take the book of Ecclesiastes to be a scientific description of atmospheric phenomena as much as a poetic description of the timelessness of existence in the biblical era. About the author, I'd say he was expressing how things tend to remain the same, whatever you do the wind blows, changes direction, blows again. It's actually a very eloquent and meaningful sentiment to me --- but not about meteorology. More about the human condition. Read the other, surrounding parts of Ecclesiastes, and I think you'll catch my drift.
About ocean currents --- paths? Really? You can only say this on a poetic level. Currents are currents, and they are caused by physical forces and properties - they are not paths. Wouldn't the so-called Bimini Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road) qualify more as a path in the ocean?
And what about all the weird, obviously wrong things the bible says? How about Daniel 2:35
My main point is that if there was no bible, no scientist would ever describe these physical phenomena in the way the bible allegedly describes them. If god is perfect, and the bible is the word of god, and these phrases were meant to describe actual physical phenomena on earth, then one can't help but wonder why god is such a lousy scientist.
I say your average bible thumper looks at a phrase like one of these and finds it vaguely similar, in some interpretation, to a non-specific description of a concept that is in some fashion reminiscent of a current scientific explanation. At this point, they say "close enough for me, I just proved god" and live happily ever after. Like the look on a baby's face changing from consternation to delight when it finally manages to shove the round peg half-way into the square hole. If I just push hard enough ... hey, it sort of fits! Must be right!
If god wanted to put scientific foreknowledge into the bible, then why not put something really good in there, like an exact description of the inverse square law central to gravity or electromagnetic force? So what if the authors of the bible couldn't understand it --- in fact, even better, right?
In other words, the language of science is specific and quantitative. Scientists don't say the earth "hangs upon nothing", they describe it's precise path through space as a result of measured forces acting upon it. These forces are consistent with the theories that describe them --- with equations, not with poetic interpretations. Why does this phrase:
Quote"He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing"seem to be an accurate description of reality to anyone? The earth, the last time I checked, wasn't "hanging upon nothing". In fact it isn't hanging at all --- it's falling. Around the sun. Which is falling, around the center of the galaxy. And so on. Even the concept of hanging implies stasis --- it's just totally wrong. Of these three, this one is by far the weakest.
About the meteorology reference, I really don't take the book of Ecclesiastes to be a scientific description of atmospheric phenomena as much as a poetic description of the timelessness of existence in the biblical era. About the author, I'd say he was expressing how things tend to remain the same, whatever you do the wind blows, changes direction, blows again. It's actually a very eloquent and meaningful sentiment to me --- but not about meteorology. More about the human condition. Read the other, surrounding parts of Ecclesiastes, and I think you'll catch my drift.
About ocean currents --- paths? Really? You can only say this on a poetic level. Currents are currents, and they are caused by physical forces and properties - they are not paths. Wouldn't the so-called Bimini Road (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road) qualify more as a path in the ocean?
And what about all the weird, obviously wrong things the bible says? How about Daniel 2:35
Quote... and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.How can a mountain fill the whole earth? Think about the geometry of it. This is impossible. Unless you envision the world as flat, perhaps? Ahhhhh, now it makes sense! How do you separate out the wheat from the chaff? Couldn't anything resembling a correct explanation just be plain old lucky, considering all the really wrong explanations?
My main point is that if there was no bible, no scientist would ever describe these physical phenomena in the way the bible allegedly describes them. If god is perfect, and the bible is the word of god, and these phrases were meant to describe actual physical phenomena on earth, then one can't help but wonder why god is such a lousy scientist.
I say your average bible thumper looks at a phrase like one of these and finds it vaguely similar, in some interpretation, to a non-specific description of a concept that is in some fashion reminiscent of a current scientific explanation. At this point, they say "close enough for me, I just proved god" and live happily ever after. Like the look on a baby's face changing from consternation to delight when it finally manages to shove the round peg half-way into the square hole. If I just push hard enough ... hey, it sort of fits! Must be right!
If god wanted to put scientific foreknowledge into the bible, then why not put something really good in there, like an exact description of the inverse square law central to gravity or electromagnetic force? So what if the authors of the bible couldn't understand it --- in fact, even better, right?
Title:
Post by: skeptigirl on June 01, 2007, 09:19:03 AM
Post by: skeptigirl on June 01, 2007, 09:19:03 AM
OK Nergel, I've heard all those claims of the Bible supposedly having some knowledge that only a god would have known. I've heard this one before too.
So let's just look at the Book of Job, shall we? From The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/job/intro.html)
And as has already been mentioned, the Biblical version of Creation is a complete myth. My favorites, where is there any mention a simple measure like washing your hands prevents disease?
And all women are supposedly punished for Eve's Original Sin by suffering the pain of childbirth. We were supposedly forgiven by Jesus. Then why didn't child birth pain even merit mention in the New Testament let alone go away for those who are "saved"? Oh, but 2,000 years later, we have anesthesia. Have you found any verses explaining why science gave us anesthesia 2,000 years AD? It was, after all, the crux of the entire Jesus thing, that Original Sin. You'd think Jesus might have mentioned we would have to wait 2,000 years for God to get around to that pain in child birth thing.
So let's just look at the Book of Job, shall we? From The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/job/intro.html)
QuoteJob for SkepticsSo that's the background, now let's look at Job 26:7
The Book of Job gets way too much credit from both believers and skeptics. Everyone, it seems, thinks it inspiring and profound, especially those who have never read it. But Job is, in fact, as silly as it is evil. Let me summarize it for you.
God and Satan play a game with the lives of Job and his family. Satan bets that Job will curse God to his face if Job's life is made unpleasant enough. So God (or Satan, it's hard to tell them apart) kills Job's family and sends various torments upon him. Although Job curses the day he was born and says some nasty (and true) things about God, he doesn't curse God (as he should have), so he is rewarded with a new, even better, family. Another happy ending!
Here are a few interesting passages in Job:
* God asks Satan where he's been. Satan answers, "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up an down in it." 1:7, 2:2
* God gives Job to Satan, saying: "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power." 1:12, 2:6
* God (or Satan) kills Job's children in a windstorm. 1:19
* Satan (or God) smites Job with boils from the "sole of his foot unto his crown." 2:7
* Job's wife says that to retain his integrity he should "curse God and die." 2:9
* Job curses the day he was born. 3:1-2, 3:11
* Job rightly accuses God of multiplying his wounds without cause. 9:17
* Job says that God "will laugh at the trial of the innocent." 9:23
QuoteHe stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.Yet the Bible also says:
Quote1 Samuel 2:8So which is it, pillars or nothing? Pillars are mentioned twice.
The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
Job 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.
And as has already been mentioned, the Biblical version of Creation is a complete myth. My favorites, where is there any mention a simple measure like washing your hands prevents disease?
And all women are supposedly punished for Eve's Original Sin by suffering the pain of childbirth. We were supposedly forgiven by Jesus. Then why didn't child birth pain even merit mention in the New Testament let alone go away for those who are "saved"? Oh, but 2,000 years later, we have anesthesia. Have you found any verses explaining why science gave us anesthesia 2,000 years AD? It was, after all, the crux of the entire Jesus thing, that Original Sin. You'd think Jesus might have mentioned we would have to wait 2,000 years for God to get around to that pain in child birth thing.
Title:
Post by: Nergel on June 01, 2007, 08:04:09 PM
Post by: Nergel on June 01, 2007, 08:04:09 PM
QuoteOK Nergel, I've heard all those claims of the Bible supposedly having some knowledge that only a god would have known. I've heard this one before too.I wish I can get a few rebbutals then, perhaps you know of a pre-topics about this?
QuoteSo which is it, pillars or nothing? Pillars are mentioned twice.it's not speaking of a pedestal upon which the earth sits, but rather the creation of the earth
QuoteAnd as has already been mentioned, the Biblical version of Creation is a complete mythTrue, the two accounts are known to be written by two known authors, I forgot their names though
QuoteAnd all women are supposedly punished for Eve's Original Sin by suffering the pain of childbirth. We were supposedly forgiven by Jesus. Then why didn't child birth pain even merit mention in the New Testament let alone go away for those who are "saved"?Nice perception. But I think Jesus just gave an oppurutunity for believers t go to heaven, nothing more
Title:
Post by: skeptigirl on June 02, 2007, 09:57:09 AM
Post by: skeptigirl on June 02, 2007, 09:57:09 AM
Quote from: "Nergel"I don't know what you mean, but rebut away. I'm up for it.QuoteOK Nergel, I've heard all those claims of the Bible supposedly having some knowledge that only a god would have known. I've heard this one before too.I wish I can get a few rebbutals then, perhaps you know of a pre-topics about this?
Quote from: "Nergel"How convenient, just change pillar to "creation". That's a good one. Did you study ancient Hebrew or Aramaic to come up with your own translation or just repeat what someone else told you?QuoteSo which is it, pillars or nothing? Pillars are mentioned twice.it's not speaking of a pedestal upon which the earth sits, but rather the creation of the earth
Quote from: "Nergel"So your point is? Is the Bible accurate or is it full of errors? Are the stories supposed to be true or are they myths? And who said so?QuoteAnd as has already been mentioned, the Biblical version of Creation is a complete mythTrue, the two accounts are known to be written by two known authors, I forgot their names though
Quote from: "Nergel"So God didn't really forgive us? Is that your interpretation? Or we get forgiven after Jesus but it takes two more millennia for God to take back the punishment? And then he only takes it back for better off people. Those from the poorer ranks among the flock can't afford medical care for childbirth, let alone epidurals.QuoteAnd all women are supposedly punished for Eve's Original Sin by suffering the pain of childbirth. We were supposedly forgiven by Jesus. Then why didn't child birth pain even merit mention in the New Testament let alone go away for those who are "saved"?Nice perception. But I think Jesus just gave an oppurutunity for believers t go to heaven, nothing more
I see.
Title:
Post by: Nergel on June 03, 2007, 07:30:46 AM
Post by: Nergel on June 03, 2007, 07:30:46 AM
QuoteI don't know what you mean, but rebut away. I'm up for it.I just thought you guys knew of some other topic were those claims of scientific facts are debunked
QuoteHow convenient, just change pillar to "creation". That's a good one. Did you study ancient Hebrew or Aramaic to come up with your own translation or just repeat what someone else told you?Prove me wrong and ill accept it gladly
QuoteSo your point is? Is the Bible accurate or is it full of errors? Are the stories supposed to be true or are they myths? And who said so?I never said I was a christian, it's more correct to say im a deist. Either way the bible has many undeniable contradictions such as the birth of jesus, so it wasn't divinely inspired. More likely it was changed by man over time
Title:
Post by: jcm on June 05, 2007, 08:08:25 PM
Post by: jcm on June 05, 2007, 08:08:25 PM
I got one for you...Nergel where is the biblical foreknowledge here?
I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
The rainbow is not set in the clouds. It is a refraction of sun light from rain drops in the air. Are you telling me that there were no rainbows before the great flood? Rainbows can be explained and are not a sign from god. The way a rainbow is made is simple and have always been created after it rains. Even if you spray garden hose a certain way you get a rainbow. I don't think god used a garden hose to flood the earth, did he?
I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
The rainbow is not set in the clouds. It is a refraction of sun light from rain drops in the air. Are you telling me that there were no rainbows before the great flood? Rainbows can be explained and are not a sign from god. The way a rainbow is made is simple and have always been created after it rains. Even if you spray garden hose a certain way you get a rainbow. I don't think god used a garden hose to flood the earth, did he?
Title:
Post by: skeptigirl on June 09, 2007, 07:58:14 AM
Post by: skeptigirl on June 09, 2007, 07:58:14 AM
Nergel, "Prove me wrong and ill accept it gladly".
Pillar defined
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pillar (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pillar)
pil·lar (plr)
n.
1.
a. A slender, freestanding, vertical support; a column.
b. Such a structure or one similar to it used for decoration.
2. One who occupies a central or responsible position: a pillar of the state.
tr.v. pil·lared, pil·lar·ing, pil·lars
To support or decorate with pillars or a pillar.
Creation defined
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creation)
cre·a·tion (kr-shn)
n.
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.
The two words do not mean the same thing, ergo, you are proved wrong.
Pillar defined
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pillar (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pillar)
pil·lar (plr)
n.
1.
a. A slender, freestanding, vertical support; a column.
b. Such a structure or one similar to it used for decoration.
2. One who occupies a central or responsible position: a pillar of the state.
tr.v. pil·lared, pil·lar·ing, pil·lars
To support or decorate with pillars or a pillar.
Creation defined
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creation)
cre·a·tion (kr-shn)
n.
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.
The two words do not mean the same thing, ergo, you are proved wrong.
Title:
Post by: brainshmain on June 14, 2007, 01:47:46 AM
Post by: brainshmain on June 14, 2007, 01:47:46 AM
Oooh, oooh, I've got one!!!!
"Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)
17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of <b>unicorns</b>: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Numbers 23:22
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an <b>unicorn.</b>
Psalm 22:21 (King James Version)
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the <b>unicorns.</b>
Psalm 29:6
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young <b>unicorn.</b>
Psalm 92:10
10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an <b>unicorn</b>: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
7 And the <b>unicorns</b> shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
And unicorns totally exist, so the bible MUST be true! Praiz da lawd!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi53.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg72%2Fanneinyourdreams%2Fjesus-figure-websmaller.jpg&hash=0f8a7c75d9faaba06f6d24de3e26a0b584f7df35)
"Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)
17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of <b>unicorns</b>: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Numbers 23:22
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an <b>unicorn.</b>
Psalm 22:21 (King James Version)
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the <b>unicorns.</b>
Psalm 29:6
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young <b>unicorn.</b>
Psalm 92:10
10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an <b>unicorn</b>: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
7 And the <b>unicorns</b> shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
And unicorns totally exist, so the bible MUST be true! Praiz da lawd!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi53.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg72%2Fanneinyourdreams%2Fjesus-figure-websmaller.jpg&hash=0f8a7c75d9faaba06f6d24de3e26a0b584f7df35)
Title:
Post by: jcm on June 14, 2007, 02:54:05 AM
Post by: jcm on June 14, 2007, 02:54:05 AM
Now I have seen everything, thanks brainshmain.
Here...more bible fun:
GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)
GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.
GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)
GE 3:14 The serpent eats dust for the rest of his life (by command of God).
GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.
GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip.
LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird. --WTF!
GE 19:30-38 Lot's daughters have sexual intercourse with him while he is drunk and both become pregnant by their father. - oh those drunk saturday nights!
GE 4:17 Cain's wife would likely have been his sister. (Note, assuming that Cain was, say, 100 years older than his wife, his wife could possibly have been a niece rather than a sister.)
GE 38:9 Onan "spills his seed" on the ground rather than fulfill his obligation to his widowed sister-in-law to father a child by her. -- Lovely!
LE 15:16-19 (KJV) "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean ...." -nice
Here...more bible fun:
GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)
GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.
GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)
GE 3:14 The serpent eats dust for the rest of his life (by command of God).
GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.
GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip.
LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird. --WTF!
GE 19:30-38 Lot's daughters have sexual intercourse with him while he is drunk and both become pregnant by their father. - oh those drunk saturday nights!
GE 4:17 Cain's wife would likely have been his sister. (Note, assuming that Cain was, say, 100 years older than his wife, his wife could possibly have been a niece rather than a sister.)
GE 38:9 Onan "spills his seed" on the ground rather than fulfill his obligation to his widowed sister-in-law to father a child by her. -- Lovely!
LE 15:16-19 (KJV) "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean ...." -nice
Title:
Post by: Tom62 on June 14, 2007, 07:10:24 AM
Post by: Tom62 on June 14, 2007, 07:10:24 AM
Not only unicorns exist according to the Bible, but giants also (who had sex with the daughters of men)
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Title:
Post by: donkeyhoty on June 14, 2007, 09:21:19 AM
Post by: donkeyhoty on June 14, 2007, 09:21:19 AM
Tom62, and those children were the Nephilim, which is just a cool word to say.
brainshmain, I really like the unicorn's bipedal walking motion suggested by that cartoon. Unicorns are 2 cool 2 use 4 legs.
brainshmain, I really like the unicorn's bipedal walking motion suggested by that cartoon. Unicorns are 2 cool 2 use 4 legs.
Title:
Post by: skeptigirl on June 15, 2007, 06:51:24 AM
Post by: skeptigirl on June 15, 2007, 06:51:24 AM
Spilling seed upon the ground? So that's where the nonsense masturbation was bad came from. As if there isn't plenty of seed to go around.
Title:
Post by: Steve Reason on September 13, 2007, 10:40:42 AM
Post by: Steve Reason on September 13, 2007, 10:40:42 AM
Yeah, but modern translations say the word for Unicorn was mistranslated. But wait, the Bible is infallible, thus the original translations would have been infallible. God would not allow his holy words to be mistranslated. But Unicorns are from mythology. But the bible is infallible, and it says they are real. But wait, newer translations say it means "wild ox". So I guess it's not infallible.
So those poor people that might have questioned the bible because of such mistakes, were burned or otherwise tortured because God wasn't so concerned about the accuracy of his holy word. You think god would have found a way around that. He could have easily made it clear, or even done it himself. So maybe the bible isn't directly from god since, you know, it's a collection of various writings put together by men.
I wonder how the same guys that were obviously guided by god to not include various writings in the bible that didn't seem to match up, could have made such a glaring mistake concerning non-existent creatures, not to mention the other glaring contradictions in the bible. Including stuff that they must have known was nuts like the Tower of Babel, for instance. I guess god took a day off or something. Or maybe the contradictions are in there because without them, there wouldn't be a holy bible.
It's simply not believable.
So those poor people that might have questioned the bible because of such mistakes, were burned or otherwise tortured because God wasn't so concerned about the accuracy of his holy word. You think god would have found a way around that. He could have easily made it clear, or even done it himself. So maybe the bible isn't directly from god since, you know, it's a collection of various writings put together by men.
I wonder how the same guys that were obviously guided by god to not include various writings in the bible that didn't seem to match up, could have made such a glaring mistake concerning non-existent creatures, not to mention the other glaring contradictions in the bible. Including stuff that they must have known was nuts like the Tower of Babel, for instance. I guess god took a day off or something. Or maybe the contradictions are in there because without them, there wouldn't be a holy bible.
It's simply not believable.
Title: Re: Biblical foreknowledge?
Post by: oogabooga on October 22, 2007, 07:48:53 PM
Post by: oogabooga on October 22, 2007, 07:48:53 PM
Quote from: "Nergel"Science And The BibleWrong. Babylonians knew that already, along with the fact that the Earth was a sphere, which was considered blasphemy for quite a while by those believing in the scientific accuracy of the Bible. It wasn't until much later that people had the guts to even suggest a heliocentric theory. Let's not forget that thousands were tortured and murdered for much less.
The Bible and Earth’s Free-float in Space
At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn’t discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650.
QuoteThe Bible and the Science of OceanographyOne has nothing to do with the other. Maury found something new (actually something sea faring nations had known for centuries before, they just failed to write it down, so I suppose they don't count, since they didn't exactly like the Bible or the people thumping it) and interpreted it so it fit the scripture. That's not a novel tactics either.
Matthew Maury (1806â€"1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, "If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them." Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.
QuoteThe Bible and Meteorological LawsSo in your opinion people were stupid before the Bible was written. They did lack knowledge we have today, but they didn't lack the basic observational skills. Just because someone actually wrote it, doesn't mean no single human being on this planet had noticed something like that before. This type of arguing will get you exactly nowhere.
The Scriptures describe a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other.