LittleNipper wrote: Science is a tool to be used for inquisitive investigation and not for selective arrogance --- either religious or irreligious or secular opinion!
That's why we aren't relying on the Bible for scientific information. The Bible is a bundle of stories, opinions and guesses, much of it demonstrably wrong. But if you have a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, you will never be open to anything else. And I think that's really where you're at. You don't understand science, don't care, and you can quite hypocritically live off its fruits while deriding it and those who make it work. If ignorance is essential to maintaining your identity, that's your psychological burden. But don't be surprised if you don't become a role model. Christianity has a broad and deep heritage that you're basically throwing away because of your own deficiencies. Dumbing it down as you're doing is playing into the Jack Chick stereotype of Christian intolerance and determined stupidity. If you want to be that kind of Christian, congratulations, you're already there.
No, the Bible is a cultural timecapsel, a historical documentation of real events. The Bible isn't persay a scientific illustration; however, it does contain data that can be researched and investigated. The Bible does present truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood. The fact is that many "scientists" are failing to investigate what the Bible has to offer. They simply ignore it. That is presumptuous and arrogant. I've heard some say that the Flood has been investigated throughly and was found to be wrong... When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you.
Could this be true? I don't know because the investigation is not completed nor verified by other researchers. Why? Because it is felt by many to be a waste of time and money.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-culture/
Maksutov wrote:That's why we aren't relying on the Bible for scientific information. The Bible is a bundle of stories, opinions and guesses, much of it demonstrably wrong. But if you have a presupposition of Biblical inerrancy, you will never be open to anything else. And I think that's really where you're at. You don't understand science, don't care, and you can quite hypocritically live off its fruits while deriding it and those who make it work. If ignorance is essential to maintaining your identity, that's your psychological burden. But don't be surprised if you don't become a role model. Christianity has a broad and deep heritage that you're basically throwing away because of your own deficiencies. Dumbing it down as you're doing is playing into the Jack Chick stereotype of Christian intolerance and determined stupidity. If you want to be that kind of Christian, congratulations, you're already there.
No, the Bible is a cultural timecapsel, a historical documentation of real events. The Bible isn't persay a scientific illustration; however, it does contain data that can be researched and investigated. The Bible does present truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood. The fact is that many "scientists" are failing to investigate what the Bible has to offer. They simply ignore it. That is presumptuous and arrogant. I've heard some say that the Flood has been investigated throughly and was found to be wrong... When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you.
"Historical documentation of real events."
"When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you."
Indeed. Have you read Biblical scholars outside of Ken Hovind? You do realize that not all of them accept all of the books of the Bible as written. They also question the authorship of books, the reality of the Exodus and many other scenarios presented. And yes, these are believing Christians, not atheists or agnostics. But they come to different conclusions. All Bible scholars do not agree on the nature of the trinity or the timing of the tribulation or the reality of a rapture. The portions of the Bible that are invoked for such proposals are not interpreted in consensus.
The Bible has generated many libraries full of literature and it has also generated thousands of religious sects, all with differing beliefs and practices. This is not a bad thing. This shows the rich fertility of the traditions for our culture. But that is not the same thing as historical documentation. Our historical methods now extend far beyond texts. Texts are the beginning, not the end. To remain with the text and not look beyond it is a sure recipe for error. It must be understood in a social and temporal context that you never seem to address.
LittleNipper wrote:Could this be true? I don't know because the investigation is not completed nor verified by other researchers. Why? Because it is felt by many to be a waste of time and money.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-culture/
If you ask me, no. But this seems to be a perennial scam that more credulous Christians like to fall for. Here's an immortal epic from 1976, "In Search of Noah's Ark".
LittleNipper wrote:No, the Bible is a cultural timecapsel, a historical documentation of real events. The Bible isn't persay a scientific illustration; however, it does contain data that can be researched and investigated. The Bible does present truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood. The fact is that many "scientists" are failing to investigate what the Bible has to offer. They simply ignore it. That is presumptuous and arrogant. I've heard some say that the Flood has been investigated throughly and was found to be wrong... When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you.
"Historical documentation of real events."
"When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you."
Indeed. Have you read Biblical scholars outside of Ken Hovind? You do realize that not all of them accept all of the books of the Bible as written. They also question the authorship of books, the reality of the Exodus and many other scenarios presented. And yes, these are believing Christians, not atheists or agnostics. But they come to different conclusions. All Bible scholars do not agree on the nature of the trinity or the timing of the tribulation or the reality of a rapture. The portions of the Bible that are invoked for such proposals are not interpreted in consensus.
The Bible has generated many libraries full of literature and it has also generated thousands of religious sects, all with differing beliefs and practices. This is not a bad thing. This shows the rich fertility of the traditions for our culture. But that is not the same thing as historical documentation. Our historical methods now extend far beyond texts. Texts are the beginning, not the end. To remain with the text and not look beyond it is a sure recipe for error. It must be understood in a social and temporal context that you never seem to address.
SO, why are they not investigating ALL possibilities? Why are secular values considered more relavant than the spiritual? My guess is that most people don't wish to prove God exists, because it makes them uncomfortable with the choices they make in life. It is far "cheeper" and easier to proclaim innocence through not knowing. Unfortunitly, this will not work!
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Maksutov wrote: "Historical documentation of real events."
"When was this done? Who was it done by? Who verified these results? The answer to these questions may surprise you."
Indeed. Have you read Biblical scholars outside of Ken Hovind? You do realize that not all of them accept all of the books of the Bible as written. They also question the authorship of books, the reality of the Exodus and many other scenarios presented. And yes, these are believing Christians, not atheists or agnostics. But they come to different conclusions. All Bible scholars do not agree on the nature of the trinity or the timing of the tribulation or the reality of a rapture. The portions of the Bible that are invoked for such proposals are not interpreted in consensus.
The Bible has generated many libraries full of literature and it has also generated thousands of religious sects, all with differing beliefs and practices. This is not a bad thing. This shows the rich fertility of the traditions for our culture. But that is not the same thing as historical documentation. Our historical methods now extend far beyond texts. Texts are the beginning, not the end. To remain with the text and not look beyond it is a sure recipe for error. It must be understood in a social and temporal context that you never seem to address.
SO, why are they not investigating ALL possibilitied? Why are secular values considered more relavant than the spiritual? My guess is that most people don't wish to prove God exists, because it makes them uncomfortable with the choices they make in life. It is far "cheeper" and easier to proclaim innocence through not knowing. Unfortunitly, this will not work!
How do you know that they aren't? "Unfortunitly", you'll never find out if you just read Ken Hovind's pseudoscientific biblebabble. People are doing research all over this planet, but the question of Noah's Ark is not as important as about 99,999,999,999,999 other things they could be working on. It's a myth, Nipper. It didn't happen. It's a story to teach a moral. Do you think that foxes and crows actually talked to each other, or did people like Aesop just use them as characters in stories? Good grief.
LittleNipper wrote:Let me ask you a dumb question. Do you play the lottery?
No I don't.
And I thought that only the fanatical fringe played the numbers game... I can honestly say I do not buy lottery tickets nor play games of chance. However, I do see that what some view as coincidence, serendipity, and "lady luck" is strangely not entirely unfounded.
Games of chance obey the odds. How do you think casinos stay in business?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
LittleNipper wrote:Let me ask you a dumb question. Do you play the lottery?
No I don't.
And I thought that only the fanatical fringe played the numbers game... I can honestly say I do not buy lottery tickets nor play games of chance. However, I do see that what some view as coincidence, serendipity, and "lady luck" is strangely not entirely unfounded.
Games of chance obey the odds. How do you think casinos stay in business?
Maksutov wrote: How do you know that they aren't? "Unfortunitly", you'll never find out if you just read Ken Hovind's pseudoscientific biblebabble. People are doing research all over this planet, but the question of Noah's Ark is not as important as about 99,999,999,999,999 other things they could be working on. It's a myth, Nipper. It didn't happen. It's a story to teach a moral. Do you think that foxes and crows actually talked to each other, or did people like Aesop just use them as characters in stories? Good grief.
He has a serious flaw in understanding how anxious grad students are to establish themselves by advancing their field and how difficult it is to come up with a Masters or PhD thesis that is original or ground breaking. Can you imagine the reputation a young archeologist would immediately establish if they could show proof of the Exodus or if they actually found remains of Noah Ark? How many religious universities are there out there that would like to be on the forefront of such discoveries? Some, like BYU, are smart enough to know that such investigations inevitably lead to loss of faith when the student proves to himself that his faith was based on events that never happened or happened differently from the narrative on which their faith is based.
The safety net of wanting to categorize all scientists as not investigating all possibilities is much easier to hold on to than finding out there are actually people out there doing exactly what he wants. The problems must be since they are not getting the results he wants they must be secular scientist, because obviously true believers would get different results. The more we excavate the middle east, the more we know that events in the Bible, especially events from the Pentateuch, simply are made up.
Just like Frank, Nippers disagrees with science only where it challenges his religious views. It ought to tell him something, but it won't.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
LittleNipper wrote:SO, why are they not investigating ALL possibilities? Why are secular values considered more relavant than the spiritual? My guess is that most people don't wish to prove God exists, because it makes them uncomfortable with the choices they make in life. It is far "cheeper" and easier to proclaim innocence through not knowing. Unfortunitly, this will not work!
How do you know that they aren't? "Unfortunitly", you'll never find out if you just read Ken Hovind's pseudoscientific biblebabble. People are doing research all over this planet, but the question of Noah's Ark is not as important as about 99,999,999,999,999 other things they could be working on. It's a myth, Nipper. It didn't happen. It's a story to teach a moral. Do you think that foxes and crows actually talked to each other, or did people like Aesop just use them as characters in stories? Good grief.
My, you certainly make up things and exagerate! No wonder you think the Bible is all made up! You seem to do enough of it... I firmly understand that what scientists are considering with regard to Climate Change would have to be entirely revamped if in FACT the earth is only say 7000 years old and there was the Flood that lasted about a year across the entire planet. This would change all the predictions regarding present and future events. First off, how long would such a flood have an effect on the planet? I would imagine it would continue until the present day. The other point would be that such a flood would demonstrate how quickly the climate can change----literally overnight.
Some scientists literally believe that only humanity can save this planet. How dumb is that? The government doesn't even know how to be frugal with taxpayer money. Humans throw babies away with the blessing of governments. How is that exactly teaching humanity to be respectful of nature when they can't even respect their own bodies or those of the innocent? All this the Bible clearly reveals throughout its pages. The land will vomit the inhabitants off the land due to their own continuous abuses. And you want nothing to do with the truth of the Bible and ignore its warning.
