Simply Logic And Reason The Bible

[Aireal]

Gordon

 

I am very aware of the mess in English translations like the NIV, which is why I worked from the Hebrew texts. English has very little in common with ancient Hebrew.

 

Context is very important in the Hebrew, which is part of the problem with translations.

 

I use history in my book, so I fail to see the where you get that I say it has no historical value or context, but then you can’t read the whole thing from the excerpt, so I can see how you might get that. In fact I point out that an understanding of history is needed to view the Bible in the proper context. So no recursive logic failure that I can see.

 

I do not look at the New Testament, I have not worked on it, and don’t comment on texts I have not examined. But for my book, Jesus is not a factor as it is solely on the Old Testament Hebrew.

[joekgamer]

He likely (considering the content of the passage he quoted) got it from here:

 

it's not intended to communicate historical events

[Gordon Freeman]

Polymath is right, and also (to Aireal), I didn't quote you when I wrote my argument, I quoted chilehed, why did you think I attacked you? I didn't...

 

Also, I think this whole subject is silly, many errors on both sides...

 

Don't spam book advertisement here?

[dduckwessel]

But isn't the Big Bang held to be opposing religous views such as those put forth in the Bible (seven days for the whole universe by a singe person who already existed)?

 

The Bible itself agrees with the Big Bang theory, though creationist views are opposed to it:

 

Psalm 104:2

Who covers thyself with light as with a garment: who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

 

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth...that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in

 

'stretches out' and 'spreads out':

1) to stretch out, extend, spread out, pitch, turn, pervert, incline, bend, bow

a) (Qal)

1) to stretch out, extend, stretch, offer

2) to spread out, pitch (tent)

3) to bend, turn, incline

a) to turn aside, incline, decline, bend down

b)to bend, bow

c)to hold out, extend (fig.)

(Niphal) to be stretched out

c) (Hiphil)

1) to stretch out

2) to spread out

3) to turn, incline, influence, bend down, hold out, extend, thrust aside, thrust away

[joekgamer]

Isn't a core piece of the bible the story of Adam and Eve?

[coldcreation]

The Bible itself agrees with the Big Bang theory...

 

[...]

 

Actually, the following would appear to support your claim:

 

Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951

 

D. THE BEGINNING IN TIME

 

[...]

 

(1) recession of the spiral nebulae or galaxies:

 

36. The examination of various spiral nebulae, especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations, that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the "expanding universe," it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning.

 

[...]

 

44. [...] With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.

 

 

Hawking refutes the claim though:

 

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

 

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

 

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Source

 

 

CC

[dduckwessel]

Actually, the following would appear to support your claim:

 

Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951

 

 

After those embarrassing moments with Copernicus and Galileo (and they're still eating humble pie over it) the RCC has been very open to science.

 

 

Hawking refutes the claim though:

 

Source

 

Hawking is right. All the evidence points to the fact that God did not create this pseudo-reality, otherwise it would be friendlier to human habitation.

[dduckwessel]

Isn't a core piece of the bible the story of Adam and Eve?

 

 

Yes it is. You probably want to know how that story fits with evolution and other things?

 

 

1) Gen. 2:7 calls it man, then I discovered this creature wasn't a man (human being) at all, the translation is soul, which means, 'the animal principle only (which had to have been an early monkey). This creature had evolved through natural processes on earth.

 

2) Gen. 2:8 man/animal/monkey accidentally (had to have been an accident because if God had picked the animal, he would have picked one not prone to violence and polygamy while telling them to love each other and only have one wife) discovers the entrance to other realm and there gets 'God's image' (spirit, sixth sense, E.S.P., etc.). God is a spirit , which is eternal/supernatural/immortal, etc. If this animal got God's image, then it got a supernatural spirit.

 

3) we have no idea how long Adam was in this realm before God said 'it's not good for man to be alone...let's make a partner comparable (the same as) to him' (Gen. 2:18-20). So God made a whole bunch of other creatures but none was suitable. God then took drastic measures to procure a help/meet for Adam and put Adam into a deep sleep (death, Gen. 2:21) and Adam found itself once more in mortal form on the earth.

 

a) I believe that Adam had evolved in the garden and was now Neanderthal but that it was both sexes (I debated this on hypography and they stated there was never a monkey that was both sexes at the same time.).

 

a.1) The reason I believe man was both sexes was because the woman was taken 'out of' man (Gen. 2:23) and she was made of flesh and bone (2:23) not just rib (the translation of rib = 'as curved', which I believe could mean DNA)

 

After Adam gave birth to the woman, it became strictly male as all the female genes were somehow pooled into its offspring.

 

I believe Adam later mated with his own female offspring and left Neanderthal offspring on the earth before they returned to the other realm. They stayed there for who knows how long before they suffered another 'death' and found themselves on mortal earth (but this time some sort of rule had been broken and they couldn't immediately return).

 

Our earth and universe is the result of 'something gone wrong' as Adam forfeited everything to Satan (called, the god of this world).

[dduckwessel]

 

I too am of Native American ancestry

 

Me too, Micmac (Mi'kmaq), on my father's side.

[dduckwessel]

Cold Creation:

 

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

 

You're right, there's no creative hand constantly re-creating everything, it's all self perpetuating.

 

Perhaps that's the deception? If I were going to create a psuedo-paradise with which to fool people, I would have as little of God as possible. The God factor is most definitely missing here.

[dduckwessel]

I hope to allah ahkbar that you are aware that the modern day bible (including the NIV) has been re-written literally hundreds of times since the original publication hundreds of years ago.

 

The King James Version is very accurate except the thee's and thou's have to go. If you read it like a textbook then yes of course, it will contradict itself. But - it's not a textbook, it's a puzzle. You just need to know how to put the correct pieces together and only then does it make sense.

 

 

Not to mention there's tons of direct conflicts with logic and reason, for example: When jesus was hanging on the cross, he turned to one of the other sinners hanging on the crosses and said to him, "Today you will see me in paradise." Then he went to hell for three days...

 

Jesus' soul went to hell (the grave) for three and a half days but his spirit went immediately to Paradise:

 

"Then shall the dust (soul/body) return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccl. 12:7, brackets mine)

 

According to the Bible, human beings are dual-natured:

soul = body/mind/earthly

spirit = God's image, supernatural

 

 

Learn2rationale, *****.

 

Not nice.

[Deepwater6]

So if we are to make science and the Bible jive we must conclude that the garden of eden was in southern Africa correct? Geneticists have confirmed that modern mans roots started there. I'm curious to know how you're book addresses that issue. There is also the issue of modern man getting started a few hundred thousand years ago and the age of the earth being much older. If they were created near the same time how does you're book mesh these items?

[dieadderalls]

So what happens when Science abandons the big bang theory? How does the Bible not conflict with evolution or do i need to buy your book to find out? Can anyone say spam???

 

 

But isn't the Big Bang held to be opposing religous views such as those put forth in the Bible (seven days for the whole universe by a singe person who already existed)?

 

 

Maybe it has existed forever. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

 

 

There is a theory that theorizes the Universe we live in today started with the Big Bang and time in our Universe started with that event. This is not proven though and science freely states we 'think' this is what happened.

 

 

 

No we're not. The only answer we're stuck with is 'we don't know'. There doesn't "have" to be an answer for everything. There are phenomena we can't explain yet but that doesn't mean we have to turn to religion and just make up the answers. We're still looking for answers and that's all that matters. Making up answers is just being dishonest.

 

 

 

You guys should hit up Gnosticism, that has some pretty interesting ideas that are in common with your own.

 

Above where the big bang is being discussed, and where it asks what will become of the comparison between science and religion when science no longer assers that theory? Philosophers have often asked "Why is there something rather than nothing?", but it is human rationalization which assumes that nothing is the stabler state, a question which may provide more answer is "Why is there nothing rather than something?". It is a more logical question, as we know that we exist, and therefore the universe must also exist by extension (at least as we realize it, blah blah blah no absolute truth stuff, i absolutely agree :P) would it not be more logical to ask how nothing could exist, when all that we know is something?

 

Also this book sounds excellent, but there are already many like it; Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides and the Monologion by Anselm of Canterbury. I cannot and will not assert the truths in these texts, but similarly I will not and cannot assert the truths of any other text in relation to it. The period of history that produced these texts was an amazing one, where theology and philosophy co-existed in what could almost be called harmony, among the educated upper classes, where the lower and uneducated classes were simply confused about the whole deal. All these theories fit together somehow, it's just very, very complicated and will require further conceptual interrogation.

[dieadderalls]

So if we are to make science and the Bible jive we must conclude that the garden of eden was in southern Africa correct? Geneticists have confirmed that modern mans roots started there. I'm curious to know how you're book addresses that issue. There is also the issue of modern man getting started a few hundred thousand years ago and the age of the earth being much older. If they were created near the same time how does you're book mesh these items?

 

A physical location for the Garden of Eden is missing the point! Sure the location can be inferred, and Southern Africa is the cradle of civilisation, so we have an interesting correlation that requires further exploration. Maybe you should read some Terence Mckenna and his "Stoned Ape Theory", although I am sure there was more to it than simply ingesting mushrooms and tripping balls, it is very interesting to consider.

 

But reading the Bible as a non-fiction text is like reading LOTR as a non-fiction text, or Harry Potter, or Twilight. If someone started the church of Harry Potter would you not call them a retard? However it cannot be said that there are no moral ideas put forth in those texts, no philosophical and theological ideas asserted (although I haven't read Twilight I know that HP puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of love, and its power in magic). It would be to interpret such a text as true, they are intended to inform people on how to live. The Bible taught methods of plant propagation (Moshe commanded that plants should be left for three years after they are planted to enable a greater harvest later), the problems with large, industrialized society (When Moshe tries to free the Jews from the clutches of Pharaoh).

 

The Bible was just how you taught basic hygiene to a bunch of dumb people, because if you didn't they'd all die from disease and malnutrition. Tradition keeps people from ****ing up too badly. Unfortunately it also doesn't, and idk how to reach a real solution.

[Moontanman]

 

 

But reading the Bible as a non-fiction text is like reading LOTR as a non-fiction text, or Harry Potter, or Twilight. If someone started the church of Harry Potter would you not call them a retard? However it cannot be said that there are no moral ideas put forth in those texts, no philosophical and theological ideas asserted (although I haven't read Twilight I know that HP puts a lot of emphasis on the concept of love, and its power in magic). It would be to interpret such a text as true, they are intended to inform people on how to live. The Bible taught methods of plant propagation (Moshe commanded that plants should be left for three years after they are planted to enable a greater harvest later), the problems with large, industrialized society (When Moshe tries to free the Jews from the clutches of Pharaoh).

 

So one instance of mentioning plants in the bible and it was inspired by god? The people of the time were completely capable of figuring this out on their own.

 

The Bible was just how you taught basic hygiene to a bunch of dumb people, because if you didn't they'd all die from disease and malnutrition. Tradition keeps people from ****ing up too badly. Unfortunately it also doesn't, and idk how to reach a real solution.

 

Basic hygiene? Where? Most of the bible has to do with killing everyone who disagrees with god, genocide, slavery, murder, bigotry, rape, yes a quite good guide on how to be a better human for sure but hygiene? Where exactly?

[dieadderalls]

So one instance of mentioning plants in the bible and it was inspired by god? The people of the time were completely capable of figuring this out on their own.

 

 

 

Basic hygiene? Where? Most of the bible has to do with killing everyone who disagrees with god, genocide, slavery, murder, bigotry, rape, yes a quite good guide on how to be a better human for sure but hygiene? Where exactly?

 

People are dumb, they would have eaten it just because they felt like it one day without the "wrath of G-d" to keep them away. This is an infantile assertion that the bible makes, but it is still one that kind of holds true; people are pretty stupid (just look at the economic system), and they will just keep taking unless they think there is the threat of a greater power. Even though in reality that power is just nature, embodying it in the form of "G-d" gives people an ability to grasp the immensity of it, and the mind-numbing power it possesses.

 

And in response to the hygiene claim I meant in the customs that it promoted; not eating pork (which was prone to disease at the time) and circumcision - which stopped infection and all that **** - are just two examples. I guess they could have just had a shower, so that part of my argument is p. invalid.

 

However I do kind of see it as a "moral guide", but only because of the concept of via negativa; any "act of G-d" in the bible, is not truly an act of G-d, because G-d is immutable and inconceivable. That whole idea (that you can't actually understand what it even is) is one of the foundations of higher theology, it simply isn't taught to those who wouldn't understand it (or at least those who the rabbis and priests do not think would understand it). If all those acts do not take place because of the will of G-d, then we can assume poetic license on the part of the author, and that the author is trying to teach us a lesson.

 

Take for example Sodom and Gomorrah. In these current times it is pretty much a-okay (due to the level of technological development) to be polyamorous. However when the bible was written there was no contraception and no protective devices that could stop you from getting pretty nasty infections if you banged the wrong person. So teaching people not to just have sex with everybody was a really good thing, as it would prevent disease (this kind of adds to the hygiene claim/theory). To add further credibility, G-d smites them, an act he would be "incapable" of if he was beyond conception, since all of his acts would be beyond understanding as well.

 

Also you ignored my point about the whole fictitious/literary bent of this whole bible thang.

[sigurdV]

Hi Aireal!

 

Is there anything special about the bible, or do you accept all standard religious texts as candidates in the field of reconciliation of faith and science?

 

There is a need for a wide and solid approach, even skeptics must use one action of faith in forming their view...

 

Also I expect scientists have faith in the scientific method...