Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

Sorry, you cannot refute that with the Bible. That would be circular reasoning. The Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence. But go ahead. Show that I am wrong without using the Bible.

Alright, I won't beat around the bush any more. Besides, it's highly doubtful you would ever get the right answer, so here it is:

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (Jesus).
​

The scriptures are about Jesus. Period. End of story. Without understand that simple assertion the rest of the book would make little sense. Anyway, now you know what the Bible is about. That should help in any further research you may do in the scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Let's assume the Bible is as much fairy tale as Harry Potter. Whether either one is factual or not does not negate the fact that each has a definite subject. Care to guess what the subject matter of the Biblical story? Seems you ought to know at least that much before making sweeping declarations about it.

Sorry, that is a strawman. People use those when they cannot refute the actual argument. There is some historical accuracy in the Bible. But not nearly as much as believers claim.

Would you like to try again?

The challenge was to show that I am wrong about the Bible without using circular reasoning. The Bible is not evidence for the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you keep talking about the Bible without even knowing what it's about.

LOL! I do know what it is about. You on the other hand have made the error of turning it into a god in its own right.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which question you are referring to here. I already acquiesced to your superior knowledge of science.

That is because you have not been following the thread and posted too early. And please, if you had acquiesced we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alright, I won't beat around the bush any more. Besides, it's highly doubtful you would ever get the right answer, so here it is:

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (Jesus).
​

The scriptures are about Jesus. Period. End of story. Without understand that simple assertion the rest of the book would make little sense. Anyway, now you know what the Bible is about. That should help in any further research you may do in the scriptures.

And you just demonstrated that you have nothing. The Bible can be used to defend or attack almost anything. One simply cherry picks the scripture that one wants. Christians are well known for cherry picking verses out of context that when read properly do not support their claims. I need to remind you that 15 different times the Bible says "there is no God". Worse yet you are using circular reasoning. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. The challenge is to find reliable evidence for your beliefs.

 

[rrobs]

Sorry, that is a strawman. People use those when they cannot refute the actual argument. There is some historical accuracy in the Bible. But not nearly as much as believers claim.

Would you like to try again?

The challenge was to show that I am wrong about the Bible without using circular reasoning. The Bible is not evidence for the Bible.

Ah, yes, the proverbial "Strawman" comes up yet again...used when there is otherwise no logical reply.

The challenge was to tell me the subject of the Bible. How is that circular reasoning. You either know what it's about or not. You didn't know the answer until I told you. You have an odd way of showing gratitude after having been enlightened about a rather fundamental question.

 

[rrobs]

LOL! I do know what it is about. You on the other hand have made the error of turning it into a god in its own right.

That is because you have not been following the thread and posted too early. And please, if you had acquiesced we would not be having this discussion.

I acquiesced to your knowledge of science. Now we are talking about the Bible. Are we done with that?

 

[rrobs]

And you just demonstrated that you have nothing. The Bible can be used to defend or attack almost anything. One simply cherry picks the scripture that one wants. Christians are well known for cherry picking verses out of context that when read properly do not support their claims. I need to remind you that 15 different times the Bible says "there is no God". Worse yet you are using circular reasoning. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. The challenge is to find reliable evidence for your beliefs.

My belief is that the Bible says that it is about Jesus. John 5:39 is evidence of my belief. If this verse does not say the scriptures are about Jesus, what does it say?

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (Jesus).
​

Surely you must be running out of any remotely logical argument to refute my claim. If not, give me some more fancy word twisting. It's rather entertaining.

Seriously, why can't you just accept the fact that I knew what the Bible was about and you didn't? It's not like I'm a better person than you or anything like that. I never knew it was about Jesus until someone pointed out John 5:39 to me. There's no shame in not knowing. In fact, you and I are now equally informed as to the subject of the scriptures.

​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, yes, the proverbial "Strawman" comes up yet again...used when there is otherwise no logical reply.

The challenge was to tell me the subject of the Bible. How is that circular reasoning. You either know what it's about or not. You didn't know the answer until I told you. You have an odd way of showing gratitude after having been enlightened about a rather fundamental question.

Yes, your challenge was to tell you the subject of the Bible. I did that. You are trying to change the question after the fact as "How do I defend my personal interpretation of the Bible?" That was not the question that is why what you were doing is a strawman. Second using the Bible as a source is valid only if both parties agree that the Bible is accurate.

I acquiesced to your knowledge of science. Now we are talking about the Bible. Are we done with that?

Hopefully. Let's see where it goes.

My belief is that the Bible says that it is about Jesus. John 5:39 is evidence of my belief. If this verse does not say the scriptures are about Jesus, what does it say?

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (Jesus).
​

Surely you must be running out of any remotely logical argument to refute my claim. If not, give me some more fancy word twisting. It's rather entertaining.

Seriously, why can't you just accept the fact that I knew what the Bible was about and you didn't? It's not like I'm a better person than you or anything like that. I never knew it was about Jesus until someone pointed out John 5:39 to me. There's no shame in not knowing. In fact, you and I are now equally informed as to the subject of the scriptures.

​

And that is not evidence. The Bible may say that but claiming that it is evidence for Jesus is only circular reasoning and indicates a very biased mind set. And you do not understand the Bible better than I do because you lack the ability to discern that parts of it that are clearly mythical. You put a huge handicap on yourself when you have to deny reality to believe in your claim to understanding the Bible.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, your challenge was to tell you the subject of the Bible. I did that. You are trying to change the question after the fact as "How do I defend my personal interpretation of the Bible?" That was not the question that is why what you were doing is a strawman. Second using the Bible as a source is valid only if both parties agree that the Bible is accurate.

Hopefully. Let's see where it goes.

And that is not evidence. The Bible may say that but claiming that it is evidence for Jesus is only circular reasoning and indicates a very biased mind set. And you do not understand the Bible better than I do because you lack the ability to discern that parts of it that are clearly mythical. You put a huge handicap on yourself when you have to deny reality to believe in your claim to understanding the Bible.

I asked you what the Bible is about. I even suggested you could take the Bible as myth. Nonetheless, even a myth has a definite subject. I'm not trying to "prove" the Bible is about Jesus. I merely pointed out that it does say that about itself. I told you there was a verse that gave a succinct answer to that question. You beat around the bush. I gave you the verse that, at about a 6th grade reading level, tells us that the scriptures are about Jesus. Very simple, but you just can't seem to accept the simple truth. Nor are you apparently able to give me an alternate "interpretation" of John 5:39.

Your denial of ignorance is stunning. Even if you won't admit it out loud, you must know I told you something you didn't know. What's the big deal? You should be thanking me for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked you what the Bible is about. I even suggested you could take the Bible as myth. Nonetheless, even a myth has a definite subject. I'm not trying to "prove" the Bible is about Jesus. I merely pointed out that it does say that about itself. I told you there was a verse that gave a succinct answer to that question. You beat around the bush. I gave you the verse that, at about a 6th grade reading level, tells us that the scriptures are about Jesus. Very simple, but you just can't seem to accept the simple truth. Nor are you apparently able to give me an alternate "interpretation" of John 5:39.

Your denial of ignorance is stunning. Even if you won't admit it out loud, you must know I told you something you didn't know. What's the big deal? You should be thanking me for pointing out the obvious.

Actually the quote does not even refer to the Bible. It is a quote of only one author of today's Bible that refers to a poorly defined "scriptures". At that time the New Testament did not even exist in the form that we have today. So it does not "say that about itself". You are making the error that many literalists do of trying to make the Bible a coherent whole. One cannot even begin to do that if one cannot recognize which parts of the Bible are only morality tales at best.

When it comes to ignorance you make yours more and more obvious with every post. One cannot properly understand the Bible from a literalist point of view.

 

[rrobs]

Actually the quote does not even refer to the Bible. It is a quote of only one author of today's Bible that refers to a poorly defined "scriptures". At that time the New Testament did not even exist in the form that we have today. So it does not "say that about itself". You are making the error that many literalists do of trying to make the Bible a coherent whole. One cannot even begin to do that if one cannot recognize which parts of the Bible are only morality tales at best.

When it comes to ignorance you make yours more and more obvious with every post. One cannot properly understand the Bible from a literalist point of view.

I accept the fact that evolution says people are apes. Read that very carefully. I know what evolution says, I just don't believe it is true.

You, on the other hand, don't even know what the Bible says. It certainly says something. Whether one believes that something is another matter.

You gave me your opinion of the Bible's subject which is not at all what John 5:39 claims in incredibly clear cut terms. I gave you the verse. Given that the verse is in the actual book itself, why would you discard it's declaration in favor of an opinion?

OK, we won't take John 5:39 literally. We'll say that It instead means something other than what it literally says in rather simple grammar. What would you say the esoteric, symbolic, non-literal, or whatever, meaning of it is?

I don't mean to offend you in any way. As I said, I respect your life's work in geology. I just can't understand why you can't accept something that is as clear as clear can get. Again, I'm not asking you to believe the Bible is about Jesus. I'm just wondering why you won't accept that that is in fact what it claims. I understand your disbelief of the claim, I just don't understand why you don't accept that it does make a certain claim.

I wonder how much you'd get out of a book on geology if you thought the book was about railroads. I mean, getting the subject of any book correct is pretty fundamental to understanding anything the book says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept the fact that evolution says people are apes. Read that very carefully. I know what evolution says, I just don't believe it is true.

Unfortunately since theory of evolution has more evidence for it than we have for gravity that would qualify you as a science denier. You have not been able to state any rational reasons for your opposition.

You, on the other hand, don't even know what the Bible says. It certainly says something. Whether one believes that something is another matter.

Actually I know quite a bit of what the Bible says. I don't memorize specific verses because the Bible can be used and abuse to support almost any belief.

You gave me your opinion of the Bible's subject which is not at all what John 5:39 claims in incredibly clear cut terms. I gave you the verse. Given that the verse is in the actual book itself, why would you discard it's declaration in favor of an opinion?

I explained this to you. You did not seem to pay attention. It is only the opinion of one author of the Bible. And it is not even about the Bible itself. It was about what was called "scripture" in those days. Some of which made it into the Bible and probably some of it was not.

OK, we won't take John 5:39 literally. We'll say that It instead means something other than what it literally says in rather simple grammar. What would you say the esoteric, symbolic, non-literal, or whatever, meaning of it is?

This is an example of you using a strawman argument again. I never claimed that it means something that it does not. Your use of that verse was simply an claim that could have been largely refuted with a "So what?"

I don't mean to offend you in any way. As I said, I respect your life's work in geology. I just can't understand why you can't accept something that is as clear as clear can get. Again, I'm not asking you to believe the Bible is about Jesus. I'm just wondering why you won't accept that that is in fact what it claims. I understand your disbelief of the claim, I just don't understand why you don't accept that it does make a certain claim.

Because once again that is not what it is about. It is only part of what the Bible is about.

I wonder how much you'd get out of a book on geology if you thought the book was about railroads. I mean, getting the subject of any book correct is pretty fundamental to understanding anything the book says.

You are once again asking the wrong questions based upon your misunderstanding of the Bible.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes you are right. I didn't think most people knew that so I didn't want to offend. The fact is you are not an ape. You are a human.

Did I really need to tell you that?

So you have absolutely have to show your total lack of understanding of biology. A total disregard for basic classification based on genetics and science and not rrobs opinion. Simply amazing. We are in the sub family of Hominini, But with your amazing knowledge of science you already knew that. And the sub family of Hominidae. And the family of Hominidae called the Great Apes. You must have made a typo on your response with your extensive scientific knowledge.

Get over it. You are an Ape just like me. Nothing more and nothing less. This is biology not imagination. Yes I and you are a human and in the family of great apes.

 

[Bear Wild]

I accept the fact that evolution says people are apes. Read that very carefully. I know what evolution says, I just don't believe it is true.

If course you do not believe it is true. Ignorance can be comforting I suppose. You just do not understand even the basics of biology. We get it. You can believe you are a fairy for all that matters it does not change the fact you are and Ape!!!

 

[Bear Wild]

I wonder how much you'd get out of a book on geology if you thought the book was about railroads. I mean, getting the subject of any book correct is pretty fundamental to understanding anything the book says.

That is exactly your problem. You have either never read a book about evolution or evidently thought it was about railroad construction. Why with such little understanding about biology or evolution do you even post on the subject?

Here is a test for you.

Explain how Pleiotropy in genetics can allow for the development of complex structures during evolution!

Here is you chance to show your extensive knowledge. I dare you to show your knowledge. Or do you realize you really do not know enough.

 

[Bear Wild]

I asked you what the Bible is about. I even suggested you could take the Bible as myth

The bible is myth designed to teach those that follow the faith. I am shocked you did not know this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible is myth designed to teach those that follow the faith. I am shocked you did not know this.

For some odd reason he does not like that answer.

 

[rrobs]

Here is a test for you.

Explain how Pleiotropy in genetics can allow for the development of complex structures during evolution!

Here is you chance to show your extensive knowledge. I dare you to show your knowledge. Or do you realize you really do not know enough.

Do you want me to regurgitate the same Wiki article that you read?

 

[rrobs]

If course you do not believe it is true. Ignorance can be comforting I suppose. You just do not understand even the basics of biology. We get it. You can believe you are a fairy for all that matters it does not change the fact you are and Ape!!!

Well, here's what God says about humans:

Ps 8:4-5,

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.​

That word angels in verse 5 is the Hebrew word elohiym which means "supreme ones" "gods." In other words humans are just a tad below being a god. Apes, while wonderful creatures in themselves, are not.

Of the 2,600 times "elohiym" is used, Ps 8:5 is the only place where it is translated "angels." Every other time it is translated as "god" or "lord." I guess the KJV translators, in an effort at humility, just couldn't bring themselves to say man is just below god. Bias like that is not infrequent, but with a bit of work one can always get back to God's intended meaning. Besides, there are several other Bible versions where the translators stayed with the Hebrew text and translated it correctly as "gods."

In any case, I guess you might find better company with those KJV translators. Me? I'll stick with the scriptures and know I'm just a tad below the creator of the universe.

In reading this post, I trust you understand exactly what the word "god" (elohiym) means in the Hebrew scriptures. The scriptures say there are many gods (1 Cor 8:5), or might ones. However, there is only one Yahweh, the god who created everything and gave us the scriptures. It is not at all unusual for people to confuse tradition with the scriptures. God gave us the scriptures, man gave us tradition.

Now, I'd change my whole world view if you could get an orangutan to join our conversation with some intelligent input.

 

[rrobs]

Unfortunately since theory of evolution has more evidence for it than we have for gravity that would qualify you as a science denier. You have not been able to state any rational reasons for your opposition.

Actually I know quite a bit of what the Bible says. I don't memorize specific verses because the Bible can be used and abuse to support almost any belief.

I explained this to you. You did not seem to pay attention. It is only the opinion of one author of the Bible. And it is not even about the Bible itself. It was about what was called "scripture" in those days. Some of which made it into the Bible and probably some of it was not.

This is an example of you using a strawman argument again. I never claimed that it means something that it does not. Your use of that verse was simply an claim that could have been largely refuted with a "So what?"

Because once again that is not what it is about. It is only part of what the Bible is about.

You are once again asking the wrong questions based upon your misunderstanding of the Bible.

I'll just stick with your advice and refute your arguments with a big ol' "so what?" Just kidding.

Seriously, I think we've run this thread at least as dry as the Sahara. Probably a while ago. It's always a good thing to make one's self think and argue with logic and reason. You've made a good case from the scientific point of view. I'd be a fool to deny that. But I personally have seen enough evidence of scriptural reliability that I'll stake my claim therein.

I'll be around, so undoubtedly we'll get into some other discussion down the road. Take care...