Big bang theory?

[Know it all.]

What a load of bull ****.

Well I hope you did not dig deep into your vocabulary to come up with that stunning rebuttal.

:guitar1:

 

[McBell]

Well I hope you did not dig deep into your vocabulary to come up with that stunning rebuttal.

The post was barely worthy of the rebuttal it got.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What a load of bull ****.

Agreed....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Out of God's thoughts, the universe was created.

So a god that is omniscient is capable of thought?

Does it not stand to reason that for such a god to "think" then it is not omniscient?

For creation would be futile. What would be the purpose of and omniscient to create?

 

[Onlooker]

when the bible was written it was written to be read allegorically because they wanted you to pull out the benifits and goodness from the fiction. People get to carried away with it all and when you cross the literal line you left what the multiple unknown authors were trying to get across and the point is lost.

The Tankh/Bible has different levels of meaning, from superficial, allegorically, hidden and Jewish Law. The same verse can have different meanings, which from your standpoint shows a fallibility, while (Bible readers/believers) my standpoint shows depth. Think of the Bible code, is it accidental?
Specifically, the genesis story has been, in the past, only taught in small (one on one) numbers with the Rabbi's for many reasons.
I think as science progresses, it is easier to read into these descriptions that start off at a "Creator" standpoint and ends up with a "human" standpoint and time frame.

 

[McBell]

The Tankh/Bible has different levels of meaning, from superficial, allegorically, hidden and Jewish Law. The same verse can have different meanings, which from your standpoint shows a fallibility, while (Bible readers/believers) my standpoint shows depth. Think of the Bible code, is it accidental?
Specifically, the genesis story has been, in the past, only taught in small (one on one) numbers with the Rabbi's for many reasons.
I think as science progresses, it is easier to read into these descriptions that start off at a "Creator" standpoint and ends up with a "human" standpoint and time frame.

The Bible code?
Seriously?

 

[Onlooker]

You continue to ignore the fact Genesis clearly states the earth and seed bearing plants on it came before the sun and other stars which is just nuts.

That is nuts. But the Hebrew bible doesnt state that.
I bought some commentaries from Ramban/Rashi and their insight is amazing .
Its the English "Bible" that you are quoting.

 

[Onlooker]

The Bible code?
Seriously?

Are you disproving the Bible code?
No publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal has appeared refuting MBBK's paper (the Bible code "discoverers", not that it was discovered by them, it was written up in scientific form). In 2006, three new Torah Codes papers were published at the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06).

 

[McBell]

Are you disproving the Bible code?
No publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal has appeared refuting MBBK's paper (the Bible code "discoverers", not that it was discovered by them, it was written up in scientific form). In 2006, three new Torah Codes papers were published at the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06).

Wow.
the bull **** is getting mighty deep in this here thread.

 

[McBell]

** climbs onto pontoon boat **

MAN THE LIFE BOATS!!

 

[outhouse]

Wow.
the bull **** is getting mighty deep in this here thread.

No kidding

how far away from reality do you want to take this yeesh

the bible code is a joke


the sooner they learn the bible has nothing to do with creation, sience or history the better off humanity will be

 

[Know it all.]

That is nuts. But the Hebrew bible doesnt state that.

So true - the Bible does not say as claimed.

How sad that is.

:banghead3

 

[McBell]

So true - the Bible does not say as claimed.

How do you know?

I mean seriously, with all these various "layers" of the Bible where a verse can be made to say the exact opposite of what is actually written, how can you know what is not in the Bible?

Then when you add the Bible code, stuff so secret that the authors themselves did not even know it was in there, how the hell can you with a straight face honestly say what is not in the Bible?

 

[outhouse]

Neither one of the two posters follows anything other then thier opinions.

one is semi clued in but missing what historians and scholars have found

and then the other is out in space and thinks he knows critical analysis

 

[David M]

Are you disproving the Bible code?
No publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal has appeared refuting MBBK's paper (the Bible code "discoverers", not that it was discovered by them, it was written up in scientific form). In 2006, three new Torah Codes papers were published at the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06).

You mean other than the paper published by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai (MBBK) in Statistical Science in 1999. Thats the same journal that published Witztum, Rips, and Rosenber's (WRR) paper on the bible code in 1994.

Yes you read that right, the MBBK paper is one that disproves the bible codes. I think you meant the the WRR paper when referring to the bible code "discoverers". But maybe you are correct, nothing has been published that refutes the MBBK paper (that proved the bible codes do not exist).

But you don't really need peer reviewed papers, the demonstration of the fact that you could pull similar codes out of War and Peace by doing what WRR did to the bible just confirmed what rational people already knew, Bible Codes are bunkum.

 

[Vansdad]

So a god that is omniscient is capable of thought?

Does it not stand to reason that for such a god to "think" then it is not omniscient?

For creation would be futile. What would be the purpose of and omniscient to create?

Those are nice simple human thoughts but quite meaningless because who knows how God thinks or what His ultimate purpose is. What you wrote makes no sense to me.

 

[Onlooker]

You mean other than the paper published by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai (MBBK) in Statistical Science in 1999. Thats the same journal that published Witztum, Rips, and Rosenber's (WRR) paper on the bible code in 1994.

Yes you read that right, the MBBK paper is one that disproves the bible codes. I think you meant the the WRR paper when referring to the bible code "discoverers". But maybe you are correct, nothing has been published that refutes the MBBK paper (that proved the bible codes do not exist).

But you don't really need peer reviewed papers, the demonstration of the fact that you could pull similar codes out of War and Peace by doing what WRR did to the bible just confirmed what rational people already knew, Bible Codes are bunkum.

Good call. You are right , the MBBK papers disputes the WRR "Torah code".
Embarrassing , but proves a point. You can't help your 17 year old with homework while you type on RF.
But I still stand on the depth of the Tankh/ bible. I still stand by the "inspired" input. You can judge and debate every variable but I still see Gods hand on all this.
This needs a new thread on reality, perception and faith.
Your "faith" is based on a humanistic reality that has our human brains at the top of the food chain. My faith has a "Creator" at the top.
I doubt I will change your mind, nor will your arguments change my mind unless some new fresh info is put forth.
I am trying to open a new door for you to at least look at this document from a new angle, one that is translated by torah scholars.
The bible in the nkj version is broken in some of the translation.
But here's to both sides , keep arguing, before the "Internet switch" is thrown.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Those are nice simple human thoughts but quite meaningless because who knows how God thinks or what His ultimate purpose is. What you wrote makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense...just not to a believer is all.

My view of a supposed omniscient is it should never have to think for it should know the answer before the question.

The bible god is far from omniscient. It is caught asking its creation questions, is said to be an angry and/or a jealous god. It is said it regretted creating man...etc...etc.... This is not omniscience.

If there is a god then what was/is it's purpose for creation and could his creation do or not do that which it did not already know would happen?

If this god is thought to be omniscient but expects its creation to do certain things or act a certain way or it will punish that which it created then it stands to reason this god does not meet the definition of omniscient.

IMO gods only exist in the minds of those who create them.

 

[Vansdad]

It makes perfect sense...just not to a believer is all.

My view of a supposed omniscient is it should never have to think for it should know the answer before the question.

The bible god is far from omniscient. It is caught asking its creation questions, is said to be an angry and/or a jealous god. It is said it regretted creating man...etc...etc.... This is not omniscience.

If there is a god then what was/is it's purpose for creation and could his creation do or not do that which it did not already know would happen?

If this god is thought to be omniscient but expects its creation to do certain things or act a certain way or it will punish that which it created then it stands to reason this god does not meet the definition of omniscient.

IMO gods only exist in the minds of those who create them.

I don't think He's a mind reader. We are free beings to do what we want. It's a choice.

 

[Thief]

It makes perfect sense...just not to a believer is all.

Really?

My view of a supposed omniscient is it should never have to think for it should know the answer before the question.

The bible god is far from omniscient. It is caught asking its creation questions, is said to be an angry and/or a jealous god. It is said it regretted creating man...etc...etc.... This is not omniscience.

If there is a god then what was/is it's purpose for creation and could his creation do or not do that which it did not already know would happen?

If this god is thought to be omniscient but expects its creation to do certain things or act a certain way or it will punish that which it created then it stands to reason this god does not meet the definition of omniscient.

IMO gods only exist in the minds of those who create them.

Here's your sign....from a post long ago....


Look in the mirror.

Your form has five senses. Each is different, but yields it's portion of perception to your mind.
You have two eyes to view your surroundings, two feet to change those surroundings and two hands to manipulate as you see fit.
There is no mystery to life.
All of this is a learning experience.

Why?

Picture yourself as God....yes you can.
Look in the 'mirror'.
Your reflection is perfect....but there is no conversation.
Each question you would ask, would have the perfect answer.

You are alone.

There is the universe...the creation...and though it responds to your touch...
it does not really respond.

Man is that part of creation that is unique.
Your linear existence insures it.
Your lack of knowing all things...creates 'the' question.

Would you like to question God?
Go ahead.
It's what He has been waiting for.