-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
God vs Science
- Thread starter Fuzznip
- Start date
that was done, you didn't listen
You are forgetting something. The Earth CAN move from its orbit. Therefore it is not completely stationary. You were arguing that the Earth could not be moved from its orbit. I proved you wrong.
Yes, the Earth being hit by a large asteroid is very unlikely. But all that matters is that it can happen, and that it is possible for the Earth's orbit to change. That is not a hypothesis. It is a 100% proven fact. The Earth's orbit can change, it can be proven with mathematical calculations.
The Sun burning out is also not a hypothesis. The Sun is a star. All stars burn out. Therefore the Sun will burn out.
Now when stars burn out they either explode, shrink, or expand. Therefore the Sun will eventually explode, shrink, or expand. If the Sun shrinks, explodes, or expands, the Earth's orbit will be affected. Therefore the Earth's orbit will change once the Sun inevitably burns out.
And I told you that you were wrong regardless of whether they meant the word stationary literally or metaphorically. The Earth has changed in multiple ways. The Earth today is different from the Earth millions of years ago.
Hero killed this thread. Great job trolling. I commend you sir.
If people want to start ignoring Hero, perhaps we can get on topic again?
Ciao.
If people want to start ignoring Hero, perhaps we can get on topic again?
Ciao.
Bible said:
This is the complete verse in a different translation, it now says "the world will not change", compared to "the world will not move".
Now to find the correct meaning, it should fit with both translations. The earth will not cange it's orbit does fit with "the world will not move", but not with the above translation.
Something like "continents will not rise any more" fits with both translations better.
Also the passage "Nobody will move it anymore" could imply no person can move the earth.
You are taking the verse out of context still. The verse is not talking about the position of the earth moving at all but rather is talking about the Lord's reign.
Psalms 93
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.
2 Your throne was established long ago;
you are from all eternity.
3 The seas have lifted up, O LORD,
the seas have lifted up their voice;
the seas have lifted up their pounding waves.
4 Mightier than the thunder of the great waters,
mightier than the breakers of the sea—
the LORD on high is mighty.
5 Your statutes stand firm;
holiness adorns your house
for endless days, O LORD.
The context of this is that it is talking about the Lord's reign, by which the creation order has been and will be secure throughout the ages, is from eternity. Though Israel as a nation has come late on the sceen, her God her been King since before the creation of the world. That is the context of the verse, not that the world cannot physically be moved.
Psalms 93
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.
2 Your throne was established long ago;
you are from all eternity.
3 The seas have lifted up, O LORD,
the seas have lifted up their voice;
the seas have lifted up their pounding waves.
4 Mightier than the thunder of the great waters,
mightier than the breakers of the sea—
the LORD on high is mighty.
5 Your statutes stand firm;
holiness adorns your house
for endless days, O LORD.
The context of this is that it is talking about the Lord's reign, by which the creation order has been and will be secure throughout the ages, is from eternity. Though Israel as a nation has come late on the sceen, her God her been King since before the creation of the world. That is the context of the verse, not that the world cannot physically be moved.
Ah, good call. I now realize physically moving the earth is completely unrelated to the first part of the verse anyways.
I killed this thread because I (with help of course) rendered pretty much all your arguments useless.
Look, I don't expect you guys to change your beliefs about God through text. And I didn't prove your arguments wrong either. All of them have been answered a long time ago. You guys just haven't realized it. I suggest you guys seek out an educated Christian and interview him/her (Read: Not some random person who claims they believe in God). Good luck with your efforts of proving the Bible (and effectively God, because God is his word) wrong. You'll need it.
Which is the point. In order to show that God may be blamed for the existence of evil, it suffices for me to show that he could have made a better world than this one.
Like what? What ways to do evil would they find that doesn't already exist and that they don't do already? You can't just say that without giving concrete examples.
Cop out. I am satisfied with my solution. If you want to say that it doesn't solve anything then by any means support your claim. What you're doing here is hit and run, in all honesty there's hardly any substance to respond to.
Yes you would. What the fuck.
What? Why the hell not?
What? No. Not at all. Information has nothing to do with values and values can't be "perfect" since they are inherently subjective. You're mixing so many unrelated concepts together in a giant pot that I can hardly follow your line of thought anymore.
A perfectly rational being can be evil. That's obvious. In fact, if one pursues his exact best interests, one will often do evil things. It's being moral that's irrational in that regard.
Good. But given the sentence that preceded this, color me confused.
Look Tangerine this is a non sequitur through and through. None of your conclusions follow from any of your premises in any of your arguments. I'm disappointed because I know you can do better than that, you're a smart man. But as it stands what you are giving me is so flimsy that I can hardly do anything else than point out gaps where I expected justifications. It's not bad arguments i'm complaining of here, it's the absence thereof.
So what? You give me no reasons to prefer yours. Heck, as it stands, I don't even know why my version is "weaker" because you're not bothering to tell me!
Really? That's funny because if I said something like that I'd make an effort to explain why.
That is an unsubstantiated assertion. I can think of innumerous ways to prevent evil and for each of these ways you can't just say it doesn't work, you have to find a counter-example. So far you have not bothered to offer any.
Your claim that evil requires free will stays completely unsubstantiated. In fact, all your claim are unsubstantiated. All you're doing is saying that stuff is impossible.
Look, I'm imaginative enough to present you with dozens of other options, all wildly different. Are you prepared to counter them all? Because so far I'm underwhelmed. I think the main problem with you is that you don't think outside the box. There are very few things in the world that have to work in a certain way. When you set your mind to it, anything can be subverted, you can find thought experiments that invalidate nearly everything you took for granted. You will find that there are very, very few things that I am willing to call impossible (nonwithstanding practical considerations) and that I usually offer lengthy explanations for anything I deem impossible, typically involving conflicting semantics (such would be the case with the impossible action of "creating time" - creation implying a pair of ordered states, ordered states implying time. making time a prerequisite for the act of creation). I won't expect any less rigor from you.
About bible inerrancy: honestly, with the lengths to which one has to go in order to consider the Bible inerrant and prophecy-ridden, most works of fiction are probably inerrant and prophecy-ridden as well. There is no way you'd cut any other book than the Bible so much slack as far as interpretation goes. If any other book talked about the ends or corners of the Earth, you'd assume it's talking about a flat Earth, you wouldn't even try to play it off as anything else than that. If two books gave different genealogies for the same person, you wouldn't play it off as being genealogy from the mother's and the father's side, you'd just say "they fucked up". If some random ancient book referred to a star whose name could be translated as Chernobyl, you wouldn't say it's a prophecy, in fact, you probably wouldn't even know about it. See a rumor about that being true about the Bible and you get excited! If you had the slightest intellectual integrity you'd have the decency of holding the Bible to the same standards as any other book.
Flawed: You could easily see someone's brain using a PET scan.
Besides if he had no brain he would be dead. This is just one of the silly flaws I saw when reading the article.
I am not an aethiest but I have seen many variations of this "true story" with an angry aethiest teacher, and a calm and wise student who has absolute faith in God. After a while it kind of gets tiring seeing the same propoganda that paints aethiests as God haters who want to prove that there is no God. The reason I say this is because I am Catholic and I have some aethiest friends, and they don't try to push thier beliefs or "science" on me. It just gets tiring seeing the same kind of articles portraying aethiests as belligerent assholes.
Otherwise then that I thought the "debate" was kind of funny at parts. But it is obvious who wrote this article, it is dripping with bias (I'll give you a hint he/she wasn't aethiest)
aaaa stop making me write an essay on random stuff on Smogon i need to grind more in Ragnarok Online :(
The reason I didn't provide arguments is because I just stated definitions, which is in the end, what we are arguing. I'll first start by rephrasing my definition. Secondly, sorry for being an economist ;)
First, we all have constraints. This constraint means that we are not omnipotent, of course, and there'd be no point of studying anything. These constraints are physical laws, any external conditions you may set on yourself (or other people may set on you), etcetera. We make our decisions with regards to our constraints.
Our initial decisions are defined by such constraints. For example, I will be foolish to jump off a cliff, because I know that I cannot fly. Even if I would wish to try and fly, I will avoid this. I will quickly learn my hand burns in a fire, and will stop being as close to it as I used to be, etc. As we get new information, we adjust our values - we learn these constraints, and try not to break them. Hence, the existences of such constraints due to physical laws are quite obvious. We define stupidity as an attempt to break constraints that are there (note that logic is often a constraint that we put on ourselves, and in a discussion, it is literally a physical constraint)
Meanwhile, we have constraints such as the fact that I'm not a great singer. These again, affect our decisions - but in the end, they're just constraints - equations. The more time I invest in singing, the better singer I'll be, but because I am a poor singer, I have to invest quite a bit of time into it, and I measure this. We make our decisions based on such constraints.
But, in order to make decisions, we need values. In the economic sense, we have this vague concept called "utility" that we attempt to maximize (but it's too vague to be an actual value since it's sorta all encompassing) we try to maximize profits, minimize costs, etcetera. We hold these values, and we make decisions based on these values.
But there are externalities, or evil. As we maximize profits, we have unforeseen effects in the world that we simply do not care for or account for. Whether this is pollution, murder, or second-hand smoking, we don't care about the "bad" effects as such we go on with our decisions.
Hence, given perfect information, such evil no longer exists. You know which value you must consider for wellbeing, and you know every effect every action will do and how it will work out. You know which values are important, and you hold yourself to it. You will not simply just kill another person in such a state for pleasure or because you are angry and what not, since under perfect information, first, you are wise and you will control your emotions, second, you know the exact consequences of it, and hence you're not just going to kill people, since you know that killing one person does have an effect. No evil is possible in such a state, because you hold yourself to the "absolute" value (I know that you know that I believe in such a concept, if you don't, then that's that - in the end, it's just a difference in what we believe leading to different conclusion. I have justified my belief for an absolute value in previous engagements so I don't feel as if I need to do so again). Such actions may seem evil in our eyes - simply because we don't understand, we can't see the "absolute" value that the being holds itself to.
Because we do not have such perfect information, then free will is a consequence thereof, and evil is a direct effect of free will. We make our own values, and we hold ourselves to it. These values are "gods", something that we center our lives around. This ability to choose our own values is a direct consequence of eating the fruit in Genesis - you now "know" good and evil because you self define it, and you have become the judge of the world.
Hence, I don't believe that you can simply just "constrain" evil, as you have said. It is not plausible, since evil is simply a result of free will - removing evil can only result from removal of free will, meaning that all our actions are simply plotted out in advance. I'm not going to say inefficiency in the definition I have defined is evil, but the negative effects. Suppose that we are indeed all immortal - but we are able to communicate. So I decide to spend all eternity bombarding you with Pokemon talk and continue to go after you. Okay, so you're going to say "Let's make that impossible", so in which case, I'll just throw stuff at you, and so you make that impossible. Okay. Now let's say that miscommunication has damaged you, so you say, okay, let's make that impossible, so you either have perfect communication, or remove communication (at which point "what's the point of existence"). Now suppose we have perfect communication, then at which point, we all know which kind of values everyone takes into consideration, and at which point, it's just as good as perfect information. You know what to do in every case, every action, etc. Physical laws don't bind you since you're immortal and you transcend it (you have to remove accidents too, so you can float, fly, you aren't affected by temperatures, you are impenetrable, you don't have to breathe, eat, or drink), so at that point, you're literally a god. It's not free will at this point - there are no values to consider, only the "absolute" value, or something very very close to it.
As long as we are able to make our values to decide under constraints, evil follows. Hence my statements that I have made (which weren't arguments so I apologize if you thought they were).There is really, no other option. Evil is also relative (do I really need to back this up... this is obvious), so what may seem to be evil to one is not evil to another - so even if a "perfectly rational being" may do something that may seem evil to us, it's not, and cannot be. This is the point of the genesis story - that through this disobedience to God and the "absolute value", we rejected it, and made our own system, and now we are the ones who decide what is right or wrong and good and evil. Removing evil from this world would also amount to removing our ability to make such a decision, meaning it removes the ability to choose our own values. The point is this - if a "perfectly rational being" is making decisions, how can it be evil? It may seem evil to us, but remember, we work with imperfect information, we work with our biases, we work with many many other things simply because of the fact that we can't consider every side, every fact, or know every fact (yet). But I'd be wary of calling God "flawed" and try to gather more information before hand.
I hope this suffices and it's not just a non sequitiur ;)
The reason I didn't provide arguments is because I just stated definitions, which is in the end, what we are arguing. I'll first start by rephrasing my definition. Secondly, sorry for being an economist ;)
First, we all have constraints. This constraint means that we are not omnipotent, of course, and there'd be no point of studying anything. These constraints are physical laws, any external conditions you may set on yourself (or other people may set on you), etcetera. We make our decisions with regards to our constraints.
Our initial decisions are defined by such constraints. For example, I will be foolish to jump off a cliff, because I know that I cannot fly. Even if I would wish to try and fly, I will avoid this. I will quickly learn my hand burns in a fire, and will stop being as close to it as I used to be, etc. As we get new information, we adjust our values - we learn these constraints, and try not to break them. Hence, the existences of such constraints due to physical laws are quite obvious. We define stupidity as an attempt to break constraints that are there (note that logic is often a constraint that we put on ourselves, and in a discussion, it is literally a physical constraint)
Meanwhile, we have constraints such as the fact that I'm not a great singer. These again, affect our decisions - but in the end, they're just constraints - equations. The more time I invest in singing, the better singer I'll be, but because I am a poor singer, I have to invest quite a bit of time into it, and I measure this. We make our decisions based on such constraints.
But, in order to make decisions, we need values. In the economic sense, we have this vague concept called "utility" that we attempt to maximize (but it's too vague to be an actual value since it's sorta all encompassing) we try to maximize profits, minimize costs, etcetera. We hold these values, and we make decisions based on these values.
But there are externalities, or evil. As we maximize profits, we have unforeseen effects in the world that we simply do not care for or account for. Whether this is pollution, murder, or second-hand smoking, we don't care about the "bad" effects as such we go on with our decisions.
Hence, given perfect information, such evil no longer exists. You know which value you must consider for wellbeing, and you know every effect every action will do and how it will work out. You know which values are important, and you hold yourself to it. You will not simply just kill another person in such a state for pleasure or because you are angry and what not, since under perfect information, first, you are wise and you will control your emotions, second, you know the exact consequences of it, and hence you're not just going to kill people, since you know that killing one person does have an effect. No evil is possible in such a state, because you hold yourself to the "absolute" value (I know that you know that I believe in such a concept, if you don't, then that's that - in the end, it's just a difference in what we believe leading to different conclusion. I have justified my belief for an absolute value in previous engagements so I don't feel as if I need to do so again). Such actions may seem evil in our eyes - simply because we don't understand, we can't see the "absolute" value that the being holds itself to.
Because we do not have such perfect information, then free will is a consequence thereof, and evil is a direct effect of free will. We make our own values, and we hold ourselves to it. These values are "gods", something that we center our lives around. This ability to choose our own values is a direct consequence of eating the fruit in Genesis - you now "know" good and evil because you self define it, and you have become the judge of the world.
Hence, I don't believe that you can simply just "constrain" evil, as you have said. It is not plausible, since evil is simply a result of free will - removing evil can only result from removal of free will, meaning that all our actions are simply plotted out in advance. I'm not going to say inefficiency in the definition I have defined is evil, but the negative effects. Suppose that we are indeed all immortal - but we are able to communicate. So I decide to spend all eternity bombarding you with Pokemon talk and continue to go after you. Okay, so you're going to say "Let's make that impossible", so in which case, I'll just throw stuff at you, and so you make that impossible. Okay. Now let's say that miscommunication has damaged you, so you say, okay, let's make that impossible, so you either have perfect communication, or remove communication (at which point "what's the point of existence"). Now suppose we have perfect communication, then at which point, we all know which kind of values everyone takes into consideration, and at which point, it's just as good as perfect information. You know what to do in every case, every action, etc. Physical laws don't bind you since you're immortal and you transcend it (you have to remove accidents too, so you can float, fly, you aren't affected by temperatures, you are impenetrable, you don't have to breathe, eat, or drink), so at that point, you're literally a god. It's not free will at this point - there are no values to consider, only the "absolute" value, or something very very close to it.
As long as we are able to make our values to decide under constraints, evil follows. Hence my statements that I have made (which weren't arguments so I apologize if you thought they were).There is really, no other option. Evil is also relative (do I really need to back this up... this is obvious), so what may seem to be evil to one is not evil to another - so even if a "perfectly rational being" may do something that may seem evil to us, it's not, and cannot be. This is the point of the genesis story - that through this disobedience to God and the "absolute value", we rejected it, and made our own system, and now we are the ones who decide what is right or wrong and good and evil. Removing evil from this world would also amount to removing our ability to make such a decision, meaning it removes the ability to choose our own values. The point is this - if a "perfectly rational being" is making decisions, how can it be evil? It may seem evil to us, but remember, we work with imperfect information, we work with our biases, we work with many many other things simply because of the fact that we can't consider every side, every fact, or know every fact (yet). But I'd be wary of calling God "flawed" and try to gather more information before hand.
I hope this suffices and it's not just a non sequitiur ;)
Tangerine writes too much.
Guys, the Church used to believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe. They even persecuted scientists on many discoveries.
In the end, the Church was proven wrong.
As a matter of fact, many things in the Church were proven wrong and corruption occurred on a regular basis.
That's why the Protestants separated from Church due to Priests consuming money from the people by using fear as a device.
Believing the Church or a book won't get anyone anywhere. They have commmited many horrible crimes in the past to silence people from questioning them.
Whose to say that the other things they rally about aren't false as well?
Guys, the Church used to believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe. They even persecuted scientists on many discoveries.
In the end, the Church was proven wrong.
As a matter of fact, many things in the Church were proven wrong and corruption occurred on a regular basis.
That's why the Protestants separated from Church due to Priests consuming money from the people by using fear as a device.
Believing the Church or a book won't get anyone anywhere. They have commmited many horrible crimes in the past to silence people from questioning them.
Whose to say that the other things they rally about aren't false as well?
Did HeroMaskaki make a new account named Agape, or is their clan of like-minded ignorants trying to destroy this thread? Since I'm not very sure if you are a troll too, I'm just going to ask if you read the entire thread, and then you can find proof that their is at least one thing wrong in the bible. In fact, their are multiple things wrong in the bible. (already stated in this thread) I'm considering going on a DK like rant on how uneducated you must be, but I'll pass this time.
To turn this around, how about you describe how it is possible to part a sea, live in a whales mouth, or you prove that Zarngonth (the destroyer of worlds) is not real.
Post #226 is flawed. The burden of proof does not rest on Atheists.
It is literally impossible to disprove God. It is also impossible to disprove the existence of said teapot. Therefore it is not up to Atheists to prove that God is nonexistent. It is up to the religious to provide 100% irrefutable proof that God does exist. Such proof does not yet exist.
As for finding a factual error in the Bible, that too is impossible. However it is only impossible because of devout people like Lexite, who will simply say that we are misinterpreting it. Brain already made an excellent point about Bible inerrancy. I suggest you read it.
A bat is not a bird.
The mustard plant is not a tree. Meanwhile the mustard seed can hardly be defined as the least of all seeds. Smaller seeds exist.
I'm waiting Lexite. Please explain to me how these are just misinterpretations, or out of context, or mistranslations. Then please provide the actual interpretation, translation, context.
I'm confused.
If you are telling us [atheists] to prove something in the Bible as false, how come you [non-atheists] cannot prove something in the Bible as true?
I understand that some parts of the Bible may be counted as true, but that is also applied in a fiction story. A fiction story is not 100% false, and the same can be said about the Bible. Unless a substantial (or all) amount of this book is proved to be true, we have to question the accuracy of this book.
Take Spongebob, a popular television show. Obviously, this show is purely fictional and cartoon-based. But there are obviously true things in this book.
In one episode, Spongebob and company went above the water, with Sandy. The "true" aspect of this is that starfish (Patrick) CAN live above water, and when Patrick stated he wanted a second rock up here, it (the show) stated that starfish can live above water. Subtly, but still stated.
In another episode, Spongebob was trying to catch a jellyfish. Because of his bad hand-eye coordination, he could not catch it, and the jellyfish stung him. The true aspect of THIS episode is that, in real life, jellyfish are known to sting people. It has already been proven. They incorporated this fact in a show inwhich the bulk is false.
But just because that one aspect of a TV show is true does not mean everything else is credible. Sponges, starfish, squids, squirrels nor crabs can speak English, as projected in the show. Spongebob cannot use a grill underwater in real life because it would be shorted out due to water. Buses and cars cannot be used underwater. Jellyfish do not produce jelly.
This is just like the Bible. Some aspects are proved to be true, but unless the bulk of it is proven true, as humans, we must question the credibility.
This became a 2-way street now.
EDIT: NOT directed at LMPL. ;D
If you are telling us [atheists] to prove something in the Bible as false, how come you [non-atheists] cannot prove something in the Bible as true?
I understand that some parts of the Bible may be counted as true, but that is also applied in a fiction story. A fiction story is not 100% false, and the same can be said about the Bible. Unless a substantial (or all) amount of this book is proved to be true, we have to question the accuracy of this book.
Take Spongebob, a popular television show. Obviously, this show is purely fictional and cartoon-based. But there are obviously true things in this book.
In one episode, Spongebob and company went above the water, with Sandy. The "true" aspect of this is that starfish (Patrick) CAN live above water, and when Patrick stated he wanted a second rock up here, it (the show) stated that starfish can live above water. Subtly, but still stated.
In another episode, Spongebob was trying to catch a jellyfish. Because of his bad hand-eye coordination, he could not catch it, and the jellyfish stung him. The true aspect of THIS episode is that, in real life, jellyfish are known to sting people. It has already been proven. They incorporated this fact in a show inwhich the bulk is false.
But just because that one aspect of a TV show is true does not mean everything else is credible. Sponges, starfish, squids, squirrels nor crabs can speak English, as projected in the show. Spongebob cannot use a grill underwater in real life because it would be shorted out due to water. Buses and cars cannot be used underwater. Jellyfish do not produce jelly.
This is just like the Bible. Some aspects are proved to be true, but unless the bulk of it is proven true, as humans, we must question the credibility.
This became a 2-way street now.
EDIT: NOT directed at LMPL. ;D
@ Enigma
This is very simple because there are true things in the bible. The problem is, not all of it is true. Prepare for your post to be nitpicked to hell. Perhaps you should edit? Because right now, this isn't do much good for your own side.
EDIT: Much better Enigma.
This is very simple because there are true things in the bible. The problem is, not all of it is true. Prepare for your post to be nitpicked to hell. Perhaps you should edit? Because right now, this isn't do much good for your own side.
EDIT: Much better Enigma.
I can throw off some speculative answers to those 2 questions about those "problem passages".
My finnish Bible translates "birds" into "winged creatures", and I believe this is the case for some other languages too. This proves that the english text can be mistranslated.
While I lack the original hebrew text, I believe the "winged creatures" fits the context of unclean food better, for it is in God's list of creatures unclean to eat, and God sees fit to place "bat" to the category of "winged creatures/birds" (depending on translation).
When you think about it, its only logical to place bats in the same category with birds. - Or do you think that a better grouping can be made? (Assuming rightly, that the passage of Leviticus/Deuteronomy that you quoted is mainly pointed for Hebrew people living in the distant past without the relatively new species category system that we use.)
Also, what if ancient hebrews used the word for "bird" about all flying animals?
Therefore, the interpertation must be made in the light of the thinking of the ancient hebrews, which leads to the conclusion, that God rightly put bats in the group of "flying, warm-blooded edible, but unclean food", when we compare the other "unclean food groups" that are given in the context.
Conclusion: the translation of the "birds" is debatable, and the context is about food, not scientifical species categorizing and that we must take the (mis)translation of the word into accout while interpeting the passage in the light of ancient hebrew people.
I see no problem with this passage.
I like to use the New International Version-translation, because it is more accurate than the King James Version, but thats not the point.
The point is, that Jesus is referring to garden plants of the early first century in Israel.
I assume, that mustard seed was the smallest seed used for agriculture of any level back then.
I assume too, that the mustard seed would be the best seed to refer in this parable, since everyone in the crowd would have known about it and its size. So, while I point out that Jesus knew about the smaller seeds with his Godly knowledge, he wanted to make the simplest parallel possible, while referring to the miraclous growth of the Church in the first centuries AD.
After checking the greek text of the parable, and thru Novum (a greek-finnish New Testament, probably available in english too) I saw that the passages I bolded clearly existed (though for the garden plants part it said - vegetable plants, because it is better translation for finnish language).
So, by comparing translations, we see that the word "garden plants" is important.
By context we must understand the growth of the early Church (which I think is the closest interpertation of "the Kingdom of Heaven" in these verses, without going in theological argue about it - I'm just simplizing it for you atheists out there) in comparison to the growth of a mustard seed into a big tree. Any small seed would have done, so Jesus used the one known to the hearers from their gardens - the mustard seed.
Conclusion: Jesus certainly was meaning "garden/vegetable plants" instead of all plants.
No problem here, either.
If you think I'm wrong, please correct me :P
And sorry for the previous post, if you think that it's trollish.
Ancient hebrew words tend to be ambiguous, that is why we have the alternative translations for the most uncertain cases of texts.
My finnish Bible translates "birds" into "winged creatures", and I believe this is the case for some other languages too. This proves that the english text can be mistranslated.
While I lack the original hebrew text, I believe the "winged creatures" fits the context of unclean food better, for it is in God's list of creatures unclean to eat, and God sees fit to place "bat" to the category of "winged creatures/birds" (depending on translation).
When you think about it, its only logical to place bats in the same category with birds. - Or do you think that a better grouping can be made? (Assuming rightly, that the passage of Leviticus/Deuteronomy that you quoted is mainly pointed for Hebrew people living in the distant past without the relatively new species category system that we use.)
Also, what if ancient hebrews used the word for "bird" about all flying animals?
Therefore, the interpertation must be made in the light of the thinking of the ancient hebrews, which leads to the conclusion, that God rightly put bats in the group of "flying, warm-blooded edible, but unclean food", when we compare the other "unclean food groups" that are given in the context.
Conclusion: the translation of the "birds" is debatable, and the context is about food, not scientifical species categorizing and that we must take the (mis)translation of the word into accout while interpeting the passage in the light of ancient hebrew people.
I see no problem with this passage.
I bolded the parts your quote lacked (due to skipping over a sentence and using an older translation).
I like to use the New International Version-translation, because it is more accurate than the King James Version, but thats not the point.
The point is, that Jesus is referring to garden plants of the early first century in Israel.
I assume, that mustard seed was the smallest seed used for agriculture of any level back then.
I assume too, that the mustard seed would be the best seed to refer in this parable, since everyone in the crowd would have known about it and its size. So, while I point out that Jesus knew about the smaller seeds with his Godly knowledge, he wanted to make the simplest parallel possible, while referring to the miraclous growth of the Church in the first centuries AD.
After checking the greek text of the parable, and thru Novum (a greek-finnish New Testament, probably available in english too) I saw that the passages I bolded clearly existed (though for the garden plants part it said - vegetable plants, because it is better translation for finnish language).
So, by comparing translations, we see that the word "garden plants" is important.
By context we must understand the growth of the early Church (which I think is the closest interpertation of "the Kingdom of Heaven" in these verses, without going in theological argue about it - I'm just simplizing it for you atheists out there) in comparison to the growth of a mustard seed into a big tree. Any small seed would have done, so Jesus used the one known to the hearers from their gardens - the mustard seed.
Conclusion: Jesus certainly was meaning "garden/vegetable plants" instead of all plants.
No problem here, either.
If you think I'm wrong, please correct me :P
And sorry for the previous post, if you think that it's trollish.
"a day may not be a day in our time..."
In Genesis it states two things:
1) The earth was created in 6 days.
2) a flood covered the earth for 40 days.
So earth would need to have been flooded for nearly 7 times as long as it took to be created. Throw in any amount of time you want to represent a "day" and it still makes no sense.
In Genesis it states two things:
1) The earth was created in 6 days.
2) a flood covered the earth for 40 days.
So earth would need to have been flooded for nearly 7 times as long as it took to be created. Throw in any amount of time you want to represent a "day" and it still makes no sense.
Enigma, your arguments seem to become more and more childish with each post. I can't believe you just compared the Bible to a Saturday morning cartoon. Please stop, its too easy to pick you apart. =/
Agape, that was an awesome post.
EDIT:
What does the amount of days needed to create the Earth have to do with the amount of days it takes to flood it? And by the way, THE RAIN lasted 40 days, the Earth was flooded long before that.
LAST EDIT: Sean, Sean, Sean. So you claim that the Bible has been proven false? Where? I do believe all arguments presented have been countered with the correct information. And we don't need to prove that Zangy doesn't exist. He has nothing backing him up other that your statement. God has the Bible bro which I'll say once again - of all the information in the Bible that can be tested through the Scientific method, none of it has been proven wrong. So your little equation of how some amazing one of a kind asteroid can move the Earth from its Orbit doesn't hold up, sorry. I enjoyed our debate but it was a little boring though since I knew you couldn't present any argument that hasn't been already. And you know how a sea can be parted, people brought back from the dead, etc. Through God, duh.
What more do I need to explain? I already posted it above, go and read it. I posted the whole chapter for you. You have to read the whole chapter, not just a single verse. And also you have to look at the original text in the original language. Many of the "discrepancies" are simply the verse being read wrong, the wrong word being interpreted into another word or the reader completely missing the point.
I would like to point to 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalms 90:4. However, I am not sure as to what point you are trying to make.
Regarding this link
That link just lost all credibility.
That link just lost all credibility.
I'm confused. Why the hell are we having a Bible discussion? This is a God discussion. God is not limited to a Bible, otherwise you are contradicting your own "good book." As for the Bible, we are entitled to our own opinions, but who was the author of the Bible? God / Jesus surely did not write it, so who did and how can we trust her/him? Religion is to help you believe that you actually know what happened, why we are here, how we are here. But it is not our duty to know, we do not have the right to know. Who granted us the right to know? The simple fact is, you're here, you don't know why and you probably never will. So we have to just make the best of it. We can only have faith (or lack thereof) in God.