The Museum of Hoaxes
Another biblical theory…
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
 http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html

Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."

It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
Category: Religion; Replies: 303

Comments
Page 5 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 > 
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 11:58 PM
Eric also writes " Jews believed in heaven and hell. The existance of heaven and hell are documented in the OT. They awaited the coming of the messiah to save them from Sin."

You obviously know nothing about Judaism. Did you ignore my last post. There were Jews who believed in something like a heaven and hell, and there were Jews that didn't. Heaven and hell have never had any mention in any Jewish texts. As I said before, Judaism lets its followers believe in anything they so desire about life after death, and always has.

Find me some evidence and I'll believe you and appologize profusely. Until then I think I'll go with what I've been taught my whole life from my synagogue, and more importantly, I think I believe my religious studies professors at my University over your obviously ignorant rantings. As I said before, I enjoy hearing your oppinions, but don't start making up facts to make yourself look good.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:09 AM
Razela: If I claim that a fact is wrong, and I end up being mistaken, then it means I didn't research it enough. I try to research it as much as I can before posting something or claiming it as fact, but sometimes I do tend to jump the gun. Please forgive me on that aspect.

I am making it a point from this point forward to not post anything here unless I have researched it as much as I can. Sorry again for that. I'm learning quite a bit from you guys too, so don't think that I think my knowledge is infallable.

There is no solid proof that the translators did that. Context is examined as well. Although it is possible that something like that could happen, it is very unlikely. I have yet to see a verse that doesn't make sense contextually because of an error in translation.

I could very well be mistaken in the fact that I said the Torah may have been changed. However, the fact remains that the beliefs are radically different between the two times. The facts are as follows.

In OT times we have a religious group calling themselves Jews. They are a culture with a monotheisting religion based around there being a heaven and hell, that sin is present in the world, that sin prevents us from being with God, and that a messiah will come to atone for our sins. All of this is documented in the OT.

Today, we have a religious group calling themselves Jews, though more specifically it is knows as Judaism. There is a seperate culture of Jewish people that do not necessarily follow the jewish religion. Also, people that are not jews by race follow the Jewish religion. Whether or not the holy texts were changed, the new judaism is centered around monotheism, no heaven or hell, sin is present in the world, and they are still waiting for a messiah (as far as I know, at least. I could be mistaken on that last part). Yet still (I'm taking your word on the texts not changing), the OT/Torah is referencing the existance of heaven and hell along with the other things the ancient jews believed.

They are very different faiths, regardless of whether they use the same holy text or not.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:13 AM
Peter, I'm curious. I'll read some of the articles, but what exactly is your point? I don't know if your statement "The Bible is not the inerrant word of God" is a quote from earlier, the name of one of the articles, or something you are saying yourself. Fill me in?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:47 AM
Razela: Specific verses from the OT regarding hell existing-

(These are all KJV. Other translations may or may not specifically use the word hell, but the context would imply it)
*Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
*Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

As for heaven, (All KJV)
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

There are a ton more, as well.

There were two groups of Jews back in those times. One believed the entire OT to be God's word, the other belived only the first five books to be inspired. The second group did not appear until closer to Jesus' time. I am unsure as to what books are included in the Torah today, but here is what I say:
If the torah is all the books in the OT, then it is unchanged, and today's faith contradicts it's own holy text as noted above.
If the torah is closer to the first five books (maybe more, maybe less), then it is changed from the OT.
Either way, the judaism of today and the judaism of back then are very, very different.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:12 AM
Sadducee
A group of religious leaders in the Jewish religion from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. In Hebrew their names mean "the righteous ones." They were smaller in size than the group of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were generally on the upper class, often in a priestly line, and the Pharisees in the middle class, usually merchants and tradesmen. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the old Testament, as authoritative. They held rigidly to the old Testament law and a denying the life after death, reward and punishment after death, the resurrection, and the existence of angels and demons. They controlled the temple and its services and were unpopular with the majority of the Jewish population.

That is a direct quote from the definition of Sadducee from http://www.carm.org.
Here are some important things to note from that definition:
1)"A group of religious leaders in the Jewish religion from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D." - They were only around for about 300 years, somewhere around the time of Jesus. The jews of the Bible and the complete OT have been around much longer than that, and this group is the first one known to only use the first five books.
2)"They were smaller in size than the group of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were generally on the upper class, often in a priestly line, and the Pharisees in the middle class, usually merchants and tradesmen." - There weren't as many of them as there were the group accepting the entire OT (Pharisees). The Sadducees also were usually upper class priests, wheras the Pharisees were typically middle class merchants. This is not always the case, however. The high priest of the temple at the time of Jesus (during the trials) was a Pharisee, as were many of the other religious leaders.
3)"The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the old Testament, as authoritative." - The division between the Sadducees and the Pharisees marks the beginning of the change from traditional, biblical, OT Judaism to the judaism of today. As I said, the Pharisees believed in the entire OT, not just the Torah.
4)"They held rigidly to the old Testament law and a denying the life after death, reward and punishment after death, the resurrection, and the existence of angels and demons." - They preached not only against things described in the entire OT, but also against things described in the first five books of the OT (Torah), such as the existance of Angels and Demons. This is a self-contradiction.
5)"They controlled the temple and its services and were unpopular with the majority of the Jewish population." - The jews were used to the old ways, and did not like their beliefs being so radically changed without the option of listening to anything else.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:24 AM
Pharisee
The Pharisees were a Jewish sect from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. They considered the entire old Testament to be authoritative, unlike the Sadducees who only accepted the first five books. The Pharisees believed in life after death, the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons, and that the way to God was through keeping the law. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were the group most influential with the people, were noted for their accurate and therefore authoritative interpretations of Jewish law, and had their own traditions and way of life to which they were faithful. They had a simple standard of living and cultivated harmonious relations with others.

Same source. Let's analyse this one.
1)"The Pharisees were a Jewish sect from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D." - Same timeframe of the Sadducees, around 300 years.
2)"They considered the entire old Testament to be authoritative, unlike the Sadducees who only accepted the first five books." - I said this one in the last post.
3)"The Pharisees believed in life after death, the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons, and that the way to God was through keeping the law." - Unlike the Sadducees, this is not a contradiction with their own holy texts. The existance of angels and demons is directly referenced in the first five books, which the Sadducees view as the only word of God, yet the Sadducees do not believe in angels and demons.
4)"According to Josephus, the Pharisees were the group most influential with the people, were noted for their accurate and therefore authoritative interpretations of Jewish law, and had their own traditions and way of life to which they were faithful. They had a simple standard of living and cultivated harmonious relations with others." - The Pharisees were performing the Jewish faith correctly. The problem was that with the coming of Jesus, even though he fulfilled all of the OT prophecies concerning him, they viewed him as a blasphemer regardless of what prophecies were fulfilled (which, by the way, is a fulfillment of some of the prophecies on it's own).
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:25 AM
I don't know exactly what the jews (religion) of today believe, but I do know that these beliefs are radically different from the jews described in the OT.
Peter
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:31 AM
Eric_the_Lumberjack

I was just "throwing a spanner in the works". I just think people believe there are only 2 sides to arguments. I believer there are often more than just 2 opposing viewpoints when it comes to religion versus science.

"The Bible is not the inerrant word of God" is just a line that Bishop Spong would use.

I'm a Christian but I don't need to believe in miracles to believe in God. I don't have a problem with evolution existing in the world that God gave us.

I seem to remember that it was only in the late 20th Century that the Catholic church "relented" and said that the Earth orbits the sun (not the other way around). I also remember hearing that the church regarded flight as heresy and anybody who could fly would've been excommunicated (or something worse). Now everybody flies, including The Pope. It also wasn't that long ago that Mass was read in Latin, not in English.

It just seems a bit odd that conservative Christians don't even seem to recognise the changing views in their own churches when they defend their own dogma.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:08 AM
Peter, you claim to be Christian, yet you are refuting yourself. I'm not attacking you with this, I just have some statements for you, if that is okay.

First of all, you state that you don't need to belive in miracles to believe in God. Does this mean you belive in miracles, or do you not belive in miracles? This is important. The bible says that Jesus performed miracles, so to not believe that miracles can happen is to not belive a part of the bible, our own holy text.

Second, with evolution. This is possible. However, the only evolution that could have occurred, based on the fact that Christians believe the bible to be 100% true, would be gradual adaptation of existing species to constantly changing environments. Support of evolution on a very large scale (such as the theory that we all gradually evolved from smaller, more simple organisms (such as amoebas) over time) contradicts the bible.

Third, the Catholic church itself has been ridden with corruption since before the protestant movement began. Many of their doctrines contradict themselves, and many people that qualify as catholics do not qualify as Christians. Only if a catholic believes with their heart and accepts jesus christ as their lord and savior as atonement for their sins will they be a Christian. Although you can be a good Christian within the catholic church, I do not recommend it.

Fourth, I have never claimed to be catholic. The changes within their own traditions do not affect me. However, there are a few things about all Christian churches that need to be noted. There are three groups of doctrines. The first are the primary doctrines. These are those that are directly declared as essential in the bible. The second group would be the secondary doctrines. These are doctrines that are only implied by the bible, but are necessary to be considered a christian organization, and include the concept of Trinity and Virgin Birth, among others. Those are the only two doctrine groups necessary to be considered Christian. The last group are the Non-Essential doctrines. These are just as the name implies. They are not necessary to be considered a christian church, but any christian church is free to adopt them into it's doctrines. This is where the distinction between denominations occurs, and here only.

My point with that is, whereas the doctrines have not changed, times do change. Computers were not even imagined when any part of the Bible was written, yet here I am today typing this into a public message board on the internet. Our views of what Christianity is and what is required of a Christian church remains the same, otherwise the specific group in question is considered a cult. However, our views of the world itself have to change. As new science comes out, discovering things that the bible doesn't describe, we as Christians have to adapt as well. We must be ready to refute anything that contradicts our faith, and we must be ready to accept discoveries that can be proven to be in line with God's word. New technologies, such as computers, internet, PDA devices, and telephones help us in this.
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:32 AM
Just out of curiosity, why does any Christian have internet access? Shouldn't he be using that money to help others? Don't they understand that they can't invest money in their pleasures for this world, but most help others for the treasures in the next? As an atheist, I still can't understand how anyone can be moderately religious, when eternal life hangs in the balance. Don't you realize how rich you are, and that 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gate of heaven?' I don't see how anyone who doesn't live like St. Francis can really claim to be a serious Christian, or believe that he will make it into heaven.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 03:16 AM
CP: It isn't even required for a Christian to tithe to the church. It's a courtesy we do so our church can be supported monetarily and is representant of a sacrifice of something we have for God's work. Ask yourself this. If you became a Christian, would you give up using the internet? Even if you didn't know about all of the Christian websites that describe our faith, even if you didn't realize the potential to research different religious groups and cultures so you could better talk to them about Christ, could you give up this convenience?

You are correct. I own three guitars. Why? Because I like them. I am a guitarist. But I can't take them with me into heaven. So why do I have them? Because God gave us this world for us to enjoy it. The internet contains so many things other than sites with dumb flash games. It contains reference sites so we can learn about anything from mollusks to meditation, bears to buddhism. It contains sites that have helped me to understand the bible better. There's also this site that I'm on right now, which I am using to share my faith (this is what Jesus told us to do).

Granted, there's also a lot of crap and smut on the internet that is frowned upon by God. Things like pornography (of all forms) and internet crime (blackhat hacking). This simply means that I do not have to go to these sites or participate in these actions.

I will not be able to take the internet with me into heaven, but no one (not even you) can argue the benifit it can provide to even the most conservative Christian out there. The Pope (I'm not catholic, but this is fact) even has an email account that anyone can contact him and ask a question. Just because the internet isn't necessary to everyday life (although it is a benifit) doesn't mean that it is unbiblical.

Why do you work? To make money. What do you spend this money on? Food, shelter, clothing, bills and taxes, insurance, gas, and transportation. What about things other than these nonessentials? Well, you CAN, if you want to, give all of this to the Church. You CAN, if you want to, donate all of this money to charity. But you do not HAVE to. I could put a penny in the offering plate on sunday, or even nothing, if I wanted to, and this act will not disqualify me from heaven.

Why will I still go to heaven? Because we are saved by grace, not through works alone. Good works are nice, but they are not necessary for me to be saved. Being saved is necessary for being a Christian.

In fact, it isn't even necessary to my being saved to go to church at all. I don't even have to be sharing my faith if I don't want to. Why do I do it? Because, simply I want to. It's what Jesus said to do. Bringing others to Christ and going to church aren't requirements of getting into heaven. This could invalidate salvation by grace. If I go to church do I go to heaven? Not necessarily. Even atheists can go to church. A church is just a building without Christians to attend it. It's the saved, born again Christians that make the Church, not the building. And what about bringing people to Christ? That would imply that even an atheist, concerned about their own destiny for some reason, could talk someone into being Christian and go to heaven just in the case that Christians are right. This is not true. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I claim to be a serious Christian not because of what I do for fun in my spare time, but instead because of what I believe; that the Bible is the infallable word of God, that Jesus died to atone for my sins, and that without Jesus as my lord I cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Also, I claim to be serious because I'm not afraid to share that with other people.

Does that answer your question?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 03:26 AM
I forgot to fully address good works. Good works will not get you into heaven. Only jesus will. If you are a good person, then that doesn't mean that you do not sin. Sin cannot enter heaven. Therefore, relying on good works alone will not bring you salvation. Only through faith in Jesus.

Why only through faith in Jesus? He claimed to be God, and then did and said things that would back up those claims. He walked on water, cured the blind, deaf, and mute, healed people of leprosy and other diseases, cured paralysis, and even raised the dead. He spoke scripture fluently even though he had never read them. He even referred to himself by the name God told Moses on the mountain, 'I AM'

So, assuming that Jesus really is who he says he is, then he also said (paraphrase) 'I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one enters the kingdom of heaven except through me," This means just as it says. Only through Jesus can we get to heaven.

This is what makes someone a Christian. Not good works, not donations, and certainly not denying yourself entertainment and useful reference materials.
Peter
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 04:45 AM
Eric_the_Lumberjack

You wont regard me as a Christian and I'm just going to accept that as it is your right to have your opinion. I say that because I don't believe the Bible to be literally "The Word of God". I don't believe that Jesus necesarilly performed any miracles. I don't believe that Jesus was literally born "The Son of God".

And yes, I don't for one minute put any credence in the news article supporting the Global Flood. There is, however, a convincing story about how the legend of the Great Flood got started at:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9743.htm

I believe that Jesus was a historical figure who was totally filled with the Spirit of God. I believe God adopted Jesus as his own when he saw how Jesus submitted himself to the Cross in his name. I don't believe God commanded Jesus to give himself up to be crucified like that.

I'm sure you will be either very angry with me or upset with me for saying that.

For me it is miracle enough when a baby is born or when somebody can find joy in their life. It is also a miracle to me that life sprang from elements millions (or billions?) of years ago and evolved into such a diverse array of life including dinosours and Humans.

I call myself a Christian. You will disagree with that. I can accept that. I think it's best just to leave it there
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 04:55 AM
Alright, we'll leave it there. I'm not angry or upset, you are entitled to your own beliefs. I just want you to know that the belief in Jesus being adopted by God anytime after his birth is a Heresy known as "Adoptionism." It was declared as such in 798 A.D. by Pope Leo III as the result of a council. This heresy is adopted into all Christian denominations. This is why I would not consider you a Christian; because you believe in a doctrine noted as heresy that directly contradicts with the rest of the NT. I don't mean any offense by it, it's just the truth.

Also, evolution in the sense you describe there is directly contradictory with the account of creation in Genesis.

If you want to leave it at that, then fine.
If you want to talk about it more, you can email me (<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 06:04 AM
To go off-topic for just a moment. I'd like to apologize for my apparent pompousness. I was seeing this thread going wonderful places...people staying on topic and asking questions relevent to the posts. When I asked what I asked of Hairy...I only did so b/c I didn't want his posts to be viral - in creating further posts (by others) that were simply shots at other people. It was that simple. Hopefully, my pomp-ASS-ness can be forgiven.

Please continue...
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 06:12 AM
Yeah, that's what I wanted too... I'm just really bad at handling things like that the right way. This is seriously the longest running internet discussion I have ever participated in. I know the definitions of Flaming and Trolling, but I really don't have that much experience dealing with them. It seems the more I try to word something so it wont piss someone off, the more it pisses them (and potentially others) off. Kinda ironic.

Maegan is correct. A discussion like this does not need to result in hurt feelings. Although something like that may arise, we can all do our part to ensure that it doesn't happen. To discuss something this important with so many people even as peacefully as this has been going is a very difficult undertaking for everyone involved. It's even harder because this is the internet and people can hide behind annonymity.

If I offend/have offended anyone in any of my posts, I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to.

Now, continuing...
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 09:57 AM
Do you really have to continue Eric? Hairy was right. This is a site about HOAXES! The hoax part is supposed to be in the header at the top, not in the comments section.

I have asked many pointed questions and given mathematical proof that disproves the whole Creation theory. It's not hard. But you just use the typical Creationist tactic of side stepping them and then carry on spewing out verses from some stupid book.

The original topic of this thread is about some looney saying the bible explains how our weather patterns work today and proves the biblical flood happened. All you are doing is making the Museum of Hoaxes a mirror site for holybible.com. Your arrogant viewpoint about how you are a true Christian and Catholics, Jews and Muslims are not, has nothing to do with the subject. Being a true Christian is nothing to brag about. Your cult is just as fucked up as their's are. So either get on topic or get lost.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:00 AM
Eric -

Re your further explanation of your beliefs on the differences between the Jews of Jesus' time and the Jews of today, you said:

"If the torah is all the books in the OT, then it is unchanged, and today's faith contradicts it's own holy text as noted above.
If the torah is closer to the first five books (maybe more, maybe less), then it is changed from the OT."

The third possibility, which you didn't mention, is:
If the torah is closer to the first five books (maybe more, maybe less), then what we know as the Old Testament has been changed from its original source (the Torah).

Every reference to the differences that I've seen online (haven't had a chance to get to the library and see what they had to offer) has been from Christian sites, all stressing that differences between the OT as used and the Jewish texts, MUST be the result of changes to the Jewish texts. Some even claim that these were done specifically to combat the rising influence of the Messianic/Christian Jewish sects.

Nowhere do any of these authors examine the possibility that, as Christian authorities codified the usages of the OT, they might even POSSIBLY have re-interpreted passages for ther own purposes, in order to weaken Judaism. Weakening the Jews' biblical authority, i.e., claiming that THEY had chenged the holy texts, would have weakened their claim to moral authority as God's Chosen People and strengthened their (the Christian Fathers') moral authority as the true inheritors of the New Covenant.

And, again, I believe that this (accidental or willful) blindness to this third possibility among these commentators is the result of their belief that THEIR Truth is perfect and complete, therefore anything that disagrees with it is unequivocally wrong.

Oh, and the site that you referenced about the capacity of the Ark seems to assume that the GROSS volume (960,000 cubits^3) equals the ACTUAL volume of the ship. It )fails/neglects to take into account the volume of bracing required, thickness of decking, even the thickness of the hull. For a mobile structure of that size built of wood, the bracing would have been significant.

Also on the Flood/Ark. I've seen references, and you yourself mentioned the "Canopy" theory, that the water for the flood was suspended as atmospheric vapor until the time of the flooding.

Does anyone mention what happened to it AFTER the flood? I mean the Bible said that the waters receeded, but where did they go? (I'm assuming here that, since no mention of a change in coastlines is noted in any Scripture, that the sea-level today is about where it was before the flood. Yet the volume of water that fell during the flood was enough to sink the highest mountain.

Doing a quick-n-diirty thumbnail calculation, using the diameter of the earth as 8,000 miles, the height of mount Everest as 5 Mi. above sea level, and the formula for determining the volume of a sphere as 4/3 π r^3, we get:

A - Volume of Earth: 4/3 π 4000^3 = 268,082,573,106.34668 cu. mi.
B - Volume of Earth+5-mile shell of water: 4/3 π 4005^3 = 269,089,139,916.1557 cu.mi.
Subtracting A from B to get the volume of the water that fell during the flood gives us:
C - (4/3 π 4005^3) - (4/3 π 4000^3)=1,006,566,809.809 cu.mi.

Unless I mis-remembered something,hat's 1 Billion cubic miles of water that is unaccounted for in the Canopy theory.

That's a lot of water to write off as something akin to a "rounding error"!
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:22 AM
Captain: Like it or not, this is what the topic has become. Did I ever say that Catholics were not Christians? No, I said that some aren't, but most are. Did I say that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian? Yes, because by definition, they are not.

Your mathematical proof is inconclusive thusfar, and I am not sidestepping. I'm answering questions that I am able to answer. Until I get a chance to look into your math more, I'm sure you wouldn't want me to give you a 'pulled right outta my butt' answer after you went through all that work to figure that out, would you?

Why do I quote the bible? Because it is a useful source that I can quote to get the exact reference to these things in question. Could I just as easily go onto science site and post sources? Yep. I don't, however, because I'm still looking for them. I found some good ones a few months ago, I just don't remember how or where I found them.

And I am not bragging. I'm simply stating fact. I happen to fall into the definition of what a Christian is, and I am pointing out what faiths do not fit with that definition, no matter what they want to think.

Please, no more attacking. I'm only one person and I'm trying as best I can. I plan on getting back to the original topic as soon as I can, I'm just bogged down by all these questions that everyone is asking about these now 8 or 9 pages of me talking only about my faith.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:29 AM
Ooops ...!

I just realized that the "Canopy Theory" article was the thing that started this whole thread!

Boy, I've sure taken a long meander just to get back to the starting point! <gr>
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:40 AM
Yankee: Yes, that is a possibility. I don't believe that is true, for these reasons.
The Sadducees didn't refer to these books as the Torah. They referred to them as the Five Books of Moses. The five books of moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leveticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) are identical to the books in the OT.

This leaves only the Torah as a possibility for change, but then again, it is still very unlikely, because those five books do not give a definative reference to hell (they do to heaven, though).

If you look at the possiblility of the OT changing instead of the Torah, then that would mean that today, like 2000 years past all of their lifespans, they managed to keep their changes completely secret. Copies of the original manuscripts were not found only in the Dead Sea scrolls, but also in many other groupings found all over the european/middle eastern region. After being referenced for accuracy, no changes reported. This disproves change in the OT.

Can you give me the URLs of those sites? I'd like to check them out.

As for the Ark, it had many decks and it was large. Noah would probably have to keep many of the animals in seperate pens on these decks. If he was worried about bracing, logically wouldn't he work the pens themselves into the bracing system?

I did mention the Canopy theory. It's possible. I don't remember specifically what I had said about it before, but it has no biblical evidence. After examining that fact, I don't think it is viable. In fact, the only thing the bible says is that the floodgates opened and it rained from heaven. When the flood was over, it simply drained. It implies that this happened because God willed it so.

So where did the water go? Assuming that God exists with with authority over even the rains and oceans, he could just make all that water disappear, or evaporate into the atmosphere an form clouds, or maybe a combination of the two. Maybe some of it just seeped into the ground? It took around 200 days to drain, so the only place the water could really go is unexplainable except through God.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:41 AM
Good point, Yankee! See Captain? We're fully on topic again now 😊
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:43 AM
Oh, and Captain, here's some math for you, supporting my stance.

(Taken from http://www.carm.org)
The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.
"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."
Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10^157, or 1 in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10^79. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:50 AM
Eric, are you telling us that there ares still some bible verses that you haven't repeated yet? Please don't bore us with them. We'll just let you stew in your fairy tale beliefs.

Meanwhile, the world goes on. People are still tortured, raped, exploited and have birth defects. Oh I almost forgot. They are still being killed by tsnamis and earthquakes too. But you just go thinking that everything is okay and your loving God is looking out for everyone. You should go far in life.

"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars."
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 10:59 AM
Captain, I do nothing to try to insult you, so what is this all for?

Anywho, you are free to think this is a fairy tale. But, understand that this "fairy tale" happens to be my system of belief.

Why are people raped? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Tortured? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Exploitation? Sin in the world, and we have free will.
Birth Defects? Sin in the world affecting even infants who are blameless.

These problems with the world are not God's fault. If you took the time to look at scripture yourself, then you would see that these problems (in my faith) are only overcome through God. They are not caused by God, they are caused by man because we have free will.

Natural disasters? These are part of life. It happens. We don't know why God makes these. There are theories as to why, all sides backed by scripture.

You have no right to insult me, just as I have no right to insult you. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, we're all still on the same earth, and as long as we're here, we might as well get along.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:01 AM
I see you were posting while I was writing mine.

Once again you have showed that you have no sense of logic. You invent a statement, declare it as fact then proceed from there. This strategy is used by scam artists everywhere. (Check out the LifeWave Energy Patch thread.) Where the fuck did 1^17 come from? You also assume Jesus, if he even existed, fulfilled some prophecies. Again you start your "proof" from an unverified statement.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:04 AM
"Birth Defects? Sin in the world affecting even infants who are blameless."

Are you telling me you think sin is responsible for birth defect? Now I know you are fucking crazy!
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 11:40 AM
Wow, I have so much to say and am not sure where to start, but I've decided that since my posts will probably be ignored, or at least not thoroughly read, I'll try to keep this short.

Eric, what part of my post explaining the differences between the OT and the Torah were misunderstood by you. Did you read Yankee Clippers post, he explained much history in more detail then I had the patience to write. Yet, you still ignored it.

I'd like you to go to Israel and see the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have. They are not in English, they are in an Aramaic form of Hebrew, which is a copy of what you will find in any synagogue in the Torah. Your translation which you so often refer to as the word of god has been changed and Christianized if you will to make it fit the New Testament, and those translations were used in the past to try to convert Jews.

Your logic is running like this:
1) The OT is the word of God and is therefore perfect
2) The OT was originally copied from the Jewish bible
2) The Jewish bible today is different from the OT
Therefore, the Jewish bible must have changed from what it originally was

The rest of your argument looks like this:
1) The OT is the word of God
2) The OT was copied originally from the Jewish bible
3) There are prophesies and beliefs in the OT that the Jews do not now believe
Therefore the Jews must have changed their beliefs.

Unfortunately, your basic assumptions are grossly off. (1) is a matter of opinion (though it takes a lot for me to just say that and many others on this board as well as I have shown you proof that the OT is not the word of God, however I
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:13 PM
Captain: 10^17 refers to an exponent. It should be read "10 raised to the 17th". This textbox does not let me do superscript, so that will have to do.

Razela:
1) That is not my logic/argument. That is what I am assuming hypothetically. I believe it as fact, but for sake of discussion I present it as hypothesis.

2) For all we know, my knowledge of this history is not flawed and yours is. Can we agree to disagree?

3) I present biblical verses because they are historically correct. The New Testament alone is 99.5% accurate historically with around 5600 copies of the original manuscript produced within 100 years of the original to prove that. The last 0.5% are simple, nonimportant things such as saying "Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus" or minor spelling/punctuation errors, which they are very good about fixing. Homer's Iliad has only around 643 copies of the original manuscript produced approximately 500 years after the original with only a 95% historical accuracy. This is fact, whether you choose to accept that is up to you, and I invite you to research that yourself.

4) The OT was also historically accurate. The jewish faith described in it believed everything in the OT. This was until the roman times when that division occurred. This is also historical fact, and again, I invite you to do research yourself and show me specific historical documents where this is not the case.

5) Jews of today proclaim that their faith has always been the way it is. This is a direct contradiction of historical fact, which was given even in my 10th grade world history textbook. Again, if you wish to provide me with specific documentation as to why this is not true, feel free. I'll again provide my own. And in this case, I'll even do it without the Bible.

6) I am not Judging anyone. A Christian, by definition courtesy of http://www.dictionary.com, is defined as "n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

That's right. To be a Christian you must follow all of Jesus's teachings as described in the New Testament. One of his teachings is that he said he was God. This means the whole bible is viewed as our holy text. To be saved is to accept Jesus as savior and atonement for sin based on what he said and the sacrifice he made. To deny the validity of the bible's description of what he said he is means you do not believe it to be fact, and you cannot be saved, hence, not a Christian. This is based on DICTIONARY definitions, not a Christian website.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:25 PM
7) The essential doctrines one is required to believe to be considered Christian are described in the bible, and this is backed up by that dictionary definition I gave earlier. There are plenty that are nonessential. For example, belief in the apocalypse/rapture are not required to be Christian. Neither is moral integrity. There are many others that are nonessential, as well. The different denominations of Christianity will all have different sets of these nonessential doctrines, but they are still Christian because they include ALL of the essential doctrines without any changes or perversions made to them. Mormonism denies several of the essential doctrines, as does JW. Therefore, they are not Christian.
Any doctrine declared to be a Heresy is noted as such because it contradicts the essential doctrines. Any individual or group believing one or more of these heresies is not considered Christian. These heresies include Peter's Adoptionism and Theistic Evolution.

My point is, anyone that is considered a Christian by the above rules will be in heaven with me regardless of the difference the sets of nonessential doctrines. So I will not get lonely up there, but thanks for caring.

I don't attack you maliciously, so why do you do it to me?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:36 PM
Oh yeah, and Captain: Jesus did exist. Everyone in the NT existed. Read this for proof. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:42 PM
The thing is, guys, at least even the bible is documentation. You guys aren't providing me any. If you can back up your claims with accepted, solid historical fact, then I will recind what I have said that is errant about judaism. If you cannot, then I'll assume that there isn't any.

The bible is historical documentation, and very accurate, as described above. You can choose not to belive this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if you think it isn't, I'm still providing more sources than you are to back up my claims.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 12:55 PM
I know what 10^17 means. I said the number is pulled out of thin air just to support their case. It assumes a lot.

I don't see any proof that Jesus existed in that link. All I see is people talking about Jesus but not actually meeting him. They refer to others knowing him just like you do today.

The bible is not documentation. It was written by men who made wild claims. It is up to you and them to prove it. When you do, we will believe it. Its been 2000 years and you guys still haven't done it. Our claims are backed up by evidence. Mathematical and scientific observation evidence. Your only evidence is your bible. You need some new material.

Anyway I don't have time for any more of this foolishness. I have an appointment back on earth.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:07 PM
Eric, that website doesn't really support anything. All the people who are quoted were born after the date Jesus supposedly died. I'm not aware of any document in existence where the author said, "I saw Jesus", not even in the Bible.
Nor are all of the quotations on that page saying "Jesus existed"; some are only saying that Christians worship Christ. If Pliny writing that people worshiping Christ means that Jesus existed and was indeed the Son of God, then writing about people worshipping Vishnu means that Vishnu exists and is really an aspect of Brahman.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:22 PM
The number was calculated mathematically using the modern science of probability. It gives the name of the person that calculated them, so feel free to contact him about that calculation to see how he arrived at it.

I just gave you a source from the dictionary. That is most certainly diffent material than the Bible. The link I gave you gave historical accounts or these people (John the baptist, Jesus) existing. By saying that, then you either didn't read it or you skimmed over it.

Written by men that made wild claims? This implies that they were lunatics. Do lunatics have very much credibility? No. So explain how these "lunatics" managed to convince so many people into believing this, that what they wrote would spawn the world's largest organized religion?

Here's some more nonbiblical accounts of Jesus.
-Islam recognizes that Jesus existed. Muhammad called him a prophet.
-Buddhism acknowledges that Jesus existed. Buddha called him a great man.

So let's see. Were the gospel writers lunatics? If they were, then how did their writings spawn the largest organized religion? Wouldn't people have seen through the lunacy?
Were they liars? If they were, then why did they not recant even after being threatened with being put to death for their belief? No one would die for a lie.

Jesus did exist. The Gospels were written as an eyewitness account of Jesus' life and crucifixion. This means that they cannot be lunatics. People saw what Jesus could do. They heard him speak. They saw him die a horrible death, and even while he was being crucified showed nothing but love to everyone. If jesus did not exist, than these claims would have never been credible, even back then, and Christianity would have died out in minutes. This is proof within itself that Jesus existed.
But what if Jesus was a liar? If he was a liar, he never recanted once, even when he was told he would be put to death if he did not. Then, they scourged and crucified him, and he never once recanted. After that, his followers spread his teachings and were in turn put to death. As I said, a liar would never die for his lie, and his followers wouldnt die for that lie, either, if they knew it was a lie.
So what does that make Jesus? You tell me.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:22 PM
I'm willing to accept the possibility of there having been a major flood, although I have rather serious doubts that it would have covered all land over the entire Earth. Many of the ancient cultures from around that region (Hebrews, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hellenes) have stories of a flood in ancient times that wiped out most of the population. That can be the result of either coincidence, of one culture borrowing stories from another culture, or else of an actual flood. I find coincidence to be unlikely, so I tend more towards the latter two possibilities. If there was a major flood in the region that covered large areas (e.g.: the idea that the Mediterranean was once a large valley that was cataclysmically flooded when the Atlantic broke through at the current Strait of Gibraltar), then the locals, given their limited geographical point of view, might very well have considered the "entire world" to have been covered in water.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:24 PM
Eric, where in the Gospels does it say that they are eyewitness accounts?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 01:33 PM
Accipiter: Your statement doesn't make any sense. That link I gave was the only one I could find in five minutes, and it wasn't even the one I intended to give that lists manuscripts written while Jesus WAS alive by people who did see the events take place.
Either way, it still doesn't make sense and doesn't hold up. What I gave you were writings that said Jesus existed and people worshipped him. They said that along with accounts of what he did. They are somewhat backed up (though I admit not a lot) in their claims, and there are many more documents out there not in that list that have much, much more credibility based on evidence than those in that list. And they still say the same facts, that Jesus people worshipped him.

Your statement that you could write a manuscript that said Vishnu was worshipped by the people and that he is really an aspect of Brahman. Okay. Fine. Now back it up. Provide even a little historical reference supporting that claim. It's not easy. The most you are probably going to get are documents describing the hindu faith. This is not historical evidence that Vishnu, or even Brahman, even existed, just statements that he is part of the Hindu faith.

My point is the link I gave claims that Jesus really existed and provides at least some evidence that can back it up. Can you do this with Vishnu? Probably not. Good luck trying, though.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:00 PM
Accipiter: Not every one of the gospels is an eyewitness account. The two that are direct eyewitness accounts are Matthew and John.
***Even though Mark and Luke were not eyewitness accounts, notice the similarities between Mark, Luke and Matthew.***

Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle. Matthew was personally with Jesus though most of his later life, and claimed to have seen him resurrected. This is an eyewitness account.

Mark is actually not an eyewitness account. Mark was written by John Mark, who recorded this from the teachings of Peter the Apostle, who WAS an eyewitness account.

Luke is also not an eyewitness account. It was written by Luke, who was a compainion of Paul. They learned of the account from the Apostles and other non-apostolic eyewitnesses. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was only concerned with the facts. He consulted with eyewitnesses in writing Luke and also when writing Acts.

John was written by John the Apostle (not John the Baptist). It is an eyewitness account because John accompanied Jesus for much of his life. Also, he speaks in this book from a perspective of having been there.

All of the gospels were written before the end of the first century A.D.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:16 PM
Many Biblical scholars, even those who are Christian, do not believe that the books Matthew and John were written by the apostles. Nor does either Gospel actually say that they were written by Matthew or John; that was decided much later at some religious council. There is also good evidence that the authors of Matthew and John were basing a lot of their works upon that of Mark.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 02:52 PM
Correction. SOME Biblical scholars, even those that are Christian, do not believe that the books Matthew and John were written by the apostles. The MAJORITY belief is that they are. Complete quotes on this are (http://www.carm.org):

For Matthew - The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5

* "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias
David B.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 04:07 PM
On the gospels:
Regardless of who wrote them, the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain information which they were not personally witness to, i.e. the birth of Christ. Their accounts of that event are therefore hearsay, which is not in itself evidence they are inaccurate.

Mea Culpa:
Working mostly from memory, I had forgotten the brief rule of Herod Archelaus in Judea, mainly because Herod Antipas ruled in Galilee at the same time.

Nevertheless:
The 'Herod the King' of Matthew is Herod the Great [Mt2.19 'Herod was dead', Mt2.22 'Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod']. Hence Luke cannot be right [Lk2.1-2 'there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus [...] when Cyrenius was governor of Syria' and Lk2.4-5 'Joseph also went up from Galilee [...] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child'].

These events are separated by 10 years, making the two accounts of Jesus' birth over 20 years apart.

Probability:
The calculation of probability is not a straightforward game of 'name those odds'. When working with living things, particularly things capable of reason, there is always a pyschological aspect to the example.

Say that the figure of 1 in 1E157 is right (for the moment). This is the probability that anyone would fulfill all 40 prophesies by chance. Right, chance is not only out of the window as an explanation, it's down the street, turn right, head two miles out of town and catch the first bus to Cuba! So from this we conclude that Jesus matched these 48 prophesies by design, right? Hmm... but he knew about them didn't he, and so did the apostles, the gospel writers, the earliest Christians, in fact anyone with a stake in Jesus Christ being the messiah pretty much had had it drummed into them, from childhood, just what to look for in the guy who came along.

And then they get to write the definitive, unerring, incontestable account of just how their buddy J.C. was, like totally a fit guys! So saying Jeus must match prophecy by design just begs the question, 'whose design?'.

Regardless of the prophesies, regardless of the maths, regardless of the depth of belief of Captain Al or Eric The Lumberjack for their viewpoints; unless the gospel accounts can be shown independently to be accurate historical documents, this argument is barren, nonsensical and not worthy of either a theist or an atheist.
David B.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 04:51 PM
Okay, now for the big aside...

Are we off-topic?

No. Well, maybe a little, but not by as much as some people seem to think.

Let's look at DeYoung's theory. Or rather, let's look at his theorizing.

DeYoung believes in God, not 'a god' but God. God exists and the bible is a historical record of his doings.

Good for him.

So why exactly is he trying to find 'physical' and 'scientific' mechanisms for the biblical flood? Isn't this not only self-defeating (if there was a physical mechanism then there needn't be a god behind it), but anti-theist (if God were God, why would he need a physical mechanism) if not downright heretical (if God put all that water up there ready, then God had judged the people of Noah's time before he had even created Adam, so much for free will!).

It is pointless to ask where all the flood waters came from (and where they went). God giveth (the world an early bath); God taketh away (the cosmic bathplug and leteth the water runeth out(eth)).

It is pointless to ask where all the food for the animals on the ark came from. God did a 'loaves and fishes' and however many times the fodder was divided, enough remained (however everone was so busy on the ark that no one noticed the miracle; God didn't mind, he'd just drowned 5 million people, he was pretty chilled out).

It is pointless to argue that some point of the bible is not physically possible when talking about the actions of a being who is not limited by physical laws. If you put a limit on God then argue that some part of the bible is outside that limit you are not arguing the absurdity of the bible, you are arguing absurdly.

I don't want to go all Socratic here, but find a point on which your opponent stands, bring him forward, make him put his weight on that point. Then chop it out from under him. Okay that's non-Socratic enough for me.

What I mean is that DeYoung's hypothesis rests on two premises; that the bible is an accurate historical account, and that there are reasonable physical explanations for that account.

The second premis is practically unassailable. Yes, you can trot out the science, the evidence, the studies and the experiments. But there is no common scientific ground between mainstream science and a 'young earth' geologist; you say they are wrong, they say you are wrong, and no-one is persuaded by any of it.

Ah, but the first premis... 'the bible is a accurate historical account'. Everyone likes their history, don't they. If you find history dull then you're probably not reading this anyway as you'd have given up this thread (p)ages ago.

Hence the focus on bible history. Can the bible be said to be historically accurate? If yes, then the rest of history should agree with it, if no, then it becomes a matter of interpretation.

Eric, history is your achilles heel. There's lots of it about, most of it's written by people unconnected with your faith, an awful lot of it is very accurately dated, and the bible (if it is an accurate historical document) must be consistent with it and not the other way around.

I may not be insulting you, I may not be throwing the tensile strength of lower babylonian hardwoods at you (and shouldn't it have been their compressive strengths anyway), but I'm as out for your blood as any of 'em.

En garde!
David B.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 05:09 PM
A quick flash-back:

As regards laws and theories, I racked my brains and battered Google for the best part of two hours and I couldn't come up with a single physical law that provided a mechanism, or a single theory that didn't. I thought of several post-relativity laws (including a couple of consequence-of-relativity laws, probably not coined by Mr. E though), and completely failed to remember a single scientist or tutor of my acquaintence mix the two things up.

Well I was convinced, skepticallity was imagining it.

"Hey J***!" I jovially called to my wife, a research scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics and astronomy, "What's the difference between a physical law and a theory?"

"One's proven and the other isn't!" came the reply.

It just goes to prove what I've always said. She may have the wallpaper, but my wife can't be that smart or she wouldn't have married me would she?

[Sob.]
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 05:41 PM
Actually, none of the writers of the Gospels were present at Jesus' birth. Mark doesn't even cover the birth. Regardless of whether the theory on Matt and Luke using Mark as reference or not is true, it's fact that they did not reference each other. They can talk to the people who WERE present at the birth to find this information out, such as the Mary or Joseph.

But, you could argue that they were lying about the whole thing. Ask yourself, would you take such a huge lie to the grave with you? Is living a lie that important to you that you would watch your son die and be subjected to persecution because of it? I don't think so. It's very unlikely that they were lying about the account. Matthew and Luke could ask the owner of the stables (the inkeeper) as well. While he could have been in on a lie, it is unlikely. He wouldn't likely take such a lie to the grave with him, and to even consider lying about something as big as the messiah would be major bad news to your standard jew of the time.

Jesus was born in 6 B.C. The escape to Egypt (escape from Herod the Great) occurred in 5 B.C. Their return to Nazareth occurred in 3 B.C. Because of Archelaus, Joseph took them to the district of Nazareth (Fulfilling the prophecy "He will be called a Nazarene"). These dates are based on archaeological finds dealing with locations mentioned in the NT, and the dates are consistant to historical accounts. They even stand up to carbon-14 dating (Accurate, according to a a professional, on artifacts up to 4000 years old. Anything beyond that is unpredictable). Herod the Great, as Yankee Clipper noted, died in 4 B.C. This fits, in my opinion.

Luke's account is not a contraiction at all. Caesar Agustus (I'm not sure if this was his reign or his life) according to historical accounts was from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. This timeframe ties in with the dates above. Luke goes on to say that Josephy and Mary went from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Mary had the child in the manger. This ties in nicely with the timeframe I give above.

As for probablility. It's possible, yes, that what you say could be true. But if it is all just a lie, then why were they willing to die for it? It all boils down to this. You can either accept the bible as accurate history or not accept it. You can either accept that Jesus was lord or not accept it. That's how I'm going to leave this for now.

This proves that at the very least those parts are historically accurate. Because it is historically accurate (there are historical accounts available that prove the whole thing is, I just don't remember where the links are), then it is not barren, nonsensical, and is very worthy of argument by a theist or atheist.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 05:51 PM
David B: I really don't mind if anyone is out for my blood, so to speak. This has been a learning experience for me so far, and I'm hoping it has for others as well. I've honestly been enjoying this. I keep a browser tab open to the most current page of this forum just to see if someone posts something new. Then, I go research and respond as fast as I can. This is almost beyond fun for me 😊

Anyway, all I ask is that people go about going out for my blood is that they do it in a respectful manner (to everyone, not just me) and that they provide documental references (of any kind, biblical or non) to support their inquiries/statements. I try to do that same if able. You and many others have been very good about this, and I thank you for that.

My achilles heel IS history.. and math... and science. Not english, and certainly not music or knowing the Bible. The point is, I'm learning more about history, science, and math in this thread right here than I ever did in high school (I was very unmotivated... I just can't learn that way, I learn by doing). So I thank everyone for helping me get a better understanding of these things.


So, everyone, thanks for a great discussion!
~Eric TL
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 | 09:05 PM
Ah...! Here's something that I was looking for when this whole megillah started.

This is from The American Geophysical Union's wbsite
(http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html)

"The weight of the atmosphere's water vapor contributes only about one quarter of one percent of the total sea level pressure of all the gases. If all the water vapor in the air at a particular time were to condense and fall as rain, it would amount to a depth of only about 2.5 cm."

----------
So: all of the water vapor currently in the atmosphere (if I'm reading this right) would precipitate out as 1 inch of water over the earth's surface.

Therefore, given that at least 5 miles of rain must have fallen in the 960 hours of the flood (see my previous post), the proposed canopy must have contained 316,800 times as much water as the current total volume of atmospheric water vapor (5 mi. x 5280 ft/mi x 12 in/ft).

These numbers imply several things, on a strictly physical level:

Had this been evenly distributed through the earth's atmosphere, it would have required an abbitional 99 times that much atmospheric volume to keep the same atmospheric gas/water vapor proportions unchanged. This indicates to me that the total volume of the earth's atmosphere would have been 31,680,000 times its current value.

The earth's mass is 5.98 x 10^24 kg. The mass of the earth's atmosphere is estimated at 5.29 x 10^18 kg. This means that the atmosphere is 1/1,130,000th of the total mass of the earth. multiplying that by 31,680,000 gives us a value for the pre-deluge mass of the atmosphere as 28 times the total mass of the earth today, or nearly three times the mass of Saturn.

On the other hand - if the canopy theory is correct, then God kept a layer of water vapor, equivalentt in mass to a five-mile deep ocean, floating somewhere at least 7 miles above the earth. (I picked seven miles since 3/4 of the atmosphereic mass is found below that altitude. It seemed a reasonable guess at a definition of "above the firmament", in Genesis-terms.). Now that layer MUST be a vapor, hence thicker than five miles thick, since we know from deep-sea exploration that no light penetrates below about 3000 feet of awter. Thankfully, God doesn't have to hold an actual ocean up!

On the other hand, He DOES have to hold that amount of water vapor up WITHOUT LETTING ANY OF ITS MASS ACT AS WEIGHT since, if it DID have any weight, it would add to the pressure of the atmosphere that was being compressed under it, giving the atmosphere at sea level the density and pressure of the ocean at the bottom of the Marianas Trench!

So, okay. God is holding a five-mile-deep-ocean's-worth of water vapor weightless above the atmosphere but not allowing it to form a cloud layer, thus allowing sunlight to pass through that water vapor to light the earth and infrared radiation (heat) to radiate back out to space, to keep the earth from overheating.

And all this time, keeping it from raining and/or snowing (since rain is not mentioned before the flood, nor snow ever, to the best of mu knowledge). Meanwhile the plants are watered by an impalpable "mist" which is also, apparently enough to feed all of the lakes and rivers in the world without the need for the spring snow-melt or the rains on which we have to rely today.

Call me a cynic but it seems like an AWFUL lot of work for God to go through just in case he ever decided that he needed to destroy mankind. It's not so much the miraculousness of it, it's the INEFFICIENCY of it. (Yes, I know; the Bible says that God is all-knowing and all-powerful - it says NOTHING about His being efficient! But still...!)
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 12:01 AM
And thank you too Eric for coming here and dealing with all us skeptics in a mostly respectful way (except for the first few days, but that has been all forgiven). Also, it
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 12:26 AM
Eric When you said:
"I present biblical verses because they are historically correct. The New Testament alone is 99.5% accurate historically with around 5600 copies of the original manuscript produced within 100 years of the original to prove that. The last 0.5% are simple, nonimportant things such as saying "Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus" or minor spelling/punctuation errors, which they are very good about fixing..."

I think that you may have been mixing up your terms.

Let's look at a counter example:
"Stephen King's "The Shining" is historically accurate. With over 30,000,000 copies known to exist, there are fewer than 0.00001% of differences between them, proving them historically consistent and correct."

Where I see a problem is that you are saying that because the extant copies are TEXTUALLY CONSISTENT, that they must therefore be HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. This does not necssarily follow. All that it proves is that, once some person or persons agreed on what the story would be, care was taken to ensure that all copies would consistently follow the agreed-upon story.

Now, nowhere does this imply that the persons copying the texts believed anything else than what they copied down - in point of fact, in any organization, the most zealous "foot-soldiers" are those who truly believe the party line. And I don't even deny the possibility that the founders of the Christian church believed that Yeshua was the Messiah.

But I also cannot deny the possibility that one or more persons, believing that he WAS the Messiah, might not have (either intentoinally or unintentionally) tweaked the story of his life, in order to sway any skeptics. Once this sort of thing happens, it is VERY difficult to correct it in the public mind.

Consider how many people in the United States, for instance, believe that Lincoln started the Civil War to free the slaves, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree as a boy, and Columbus set out to prove that the world was round. All of these are demonstrably false, but they are so frozen intro the common "group mind" that they are generally taken as truth.

Also you wrote:
"Here's some more nonbiblical accounts of Jesus.
-Islam recognizes that Jesus existed. Muhammad called him a prophet.
"-Buddhism acknowledges that Jesus existed. Buddha called him a great man."

But Moslems refers to themselves, Christians and Jews as all being (okay, I'm slipping here on the EXACT phrase) "Children of the Book", or "People of the Book". That they agree that the three religions all come from one belief in a single God and show respect to the prophets who came before their time (and who, coincidentally, got it ALMOST right) is not surprising at all. It's rather similar to an American President paying homage to all previous presidents, whether he actually agreed with all of the earlier President's policies or not.

As to the Buddha praising Yeshua as a good man, considering that Siddhartha Gautama was born in the 6th century BC, the fact that he chose to praise, by name, a personage who wouldn't be born for at least fourl hundred years certainly speaks highly for the Divinity of one or the other of them! Now I know of a Zen story (unfortunately I don't have my copy of "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" in front of me right now) where a Buddhist teacher who, upon having a student read to him from the Christian Bible and getting the "Consider the lilies of the field" sermon, comments that "Whoever said that was close to Buddha-hood".

Could this, perhaps, be the reference that someone gave you, and possibly garbled in the transmission?

And here is an example of my point above; in some way you received the imnpression that a spiritual leader who lived 400 years before your Messiah, and several thousand miles away, praised Him. And because you believe in the divinity of your Messiah, you believed the reference without questioning it.

This is exactly how tales and "histories" become expanded.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 12:28 AM
Eric -

As to the timeframe(s) of Yeshua's birth, you stated:

"Jesus was born in 6 B.C. The escape to Egypt (escape from Herod the Great) occurred in 5 B.C. Their return to Nazareth occurred in 3 B.C. Because of Archelaus, Joseph took them to the district of Nazareth (Fulfilling the prophecy "He will be called a Nazarene"). These dates are based on archaeological finds dealing with locations mentioned in the NT, and the dates are consistant to historical accounts. They even stand up to carbon-14 dating (Accurate, according to a a professional, on artifacts up to 4000 years old. Anything beyond that is unpredictable). Herod the Great, as Yankee Clipper noted, died in 4 B.C. This fits, in my opinion.

"Luke's account is not a contraiction at all. Caesar Agustus (I'm not sure if this was his reign or his life) according to historical accounts was from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D. This timeframe ties in with the dates above. Luke goes on to say that Josephy and Mary went from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Mary had the child in the manger. This ties in nicely with the timeframe I give above."

But this doesn't change the fact that the timeframe in your posting ignores Luke 2:1-5 :
"1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
"2: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
"3: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
"4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
"5: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."

The Cyrenean (Quirinian) census is historically dated at 6 AD.

Therefore Yeshua was born in Bethlehem 10 years after Herod the Great had died, and in the same year that Herod Archelaus was EXILED to Gaul by Augustus! (Archelaus, you will remember, was the Herod that Joseph turned into Galilee to avoid after HA took over from his father HtG in 4 BC, whom Joseph fled into Egypt to avoid, because he was toild be an angel that HtG desired the death of the child whom Joseph's espoused wife Mary wouldn't bear until 10 years after Herod's death, and...)
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 01:54 AM
The Yankee Clipper said:

"ecause you believe in the divinity of your Messiah, you believed the reference without questioning it.

"This is exactly how tales and "histories" become expanded."

You realize, of course, Clipper, that you aren't going to change anyone's mind, no matter how good your argument is, right?

You're dealing with people who have drawn their conclusion in advance of any facts. Those are the hardest people to reason with; conceding anything you say would challenge their entire belief system, therefore they just aren't going to do it.

Besides the religious fanatics, there's another group of that kind of person walking around these days: Bush Republicans. The President himself has now admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, yet there is still a large number of Americans who believe those myths. Now THAT'S ignorance!
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 11:46 AM
Yankee: You cannot compare the Stephen King novel with this and claim it to be historically accurate.

Did Stevie write it to be historically accurate? No. If you asked him about it he would probably even laugh at you. Did Matthew, John Mark, Luke, and John write the Gospels to be historically accurate? Yes. Especially Luke, who was the most concerned with mundane details of all of them. If you asked them today you would get a resounding yes.

As for the Census, I'm finding things that would disprove your evidence, but I'm going to need some more time to get them together into an actual argument. Sorry to keep you in suspense, but I will get to it. Promise.

Cranky: I'm open to anything. It doesn't matter if minds are changed. The point is, this is more for the sake of understanding each other and knowledge than anything else. However, it IS possible that minds will be changed, yours, yankee's, even mine.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 11:55 AM
Oh, and Raz: If you aren't able to post anything before this thread dies, it's been nice debating with you. Have fun in London!
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 01:37 PM
Yes, Eric; I understand that King wrote "The Shining" as fiction - I was doing something of a "reductio ad absurdum" of your argument.

The point that I was trying to make, and that you didn't address, is that just because multiple copies of a document are textually consistent, does not count as proof that they are historically accurate.

If you prefer more arguable examples; Many books on purported UFO coverups regurgitate the same sources and stories, but present no corroborating proof from outside their primary sources that their stories are accurate. During WW II, the Nazis told internally self-consistent stories about the role of the Jews in the downfall/subjugation of Germany (THEY were accurately spelled, too...) but these were stories that they made up and/or exaggerated in order to bolster their cause.

You have used Bible refeences to argue the Bible's authenticity. I could as easily state that you can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right and God told me so, Himself. Saying this does not make it so.

Roman Quirinial census rolls from Judea showing a Joseph ben Jacob, wife Mary, son Yeshua... That would go some toward proving the historical accuracy of the Luke verses (although raise more questions about Matthew's "Flight Into Egypt" verses).

Roman judicial reports of:

Date: Second of Mars, in the Consulships of____ and ____
Subject: Crucifictions
On this date three Jewish rebels crucified.
Names:
_______ (rebellion against Roman Authority,
Yeshua ben Joseph (heresy and incitement to riot),
________ (theft)..."

would support the historicity of the Crucifiction. ANY reference to Yeshua by a source OTHER than His biographers would add weight to your arguments.

I understand that, logically, "non-existence of evidence does not constitute evidence of non-existence"; this is why I count myself as an agnostic - I have no empirical evidence for the existence/non-existence of a Deity. But saying that something is true because IT says it is, and that evreybody who believed that it was true and copied it said the same thing does NOT count as empirical, external proof.

I'm not sure how I can state that any more clearly. I know that you believe in the historical accuracy of the Gospels; but if you choose to try to convince others, the you need to find Non-Biblical sources, referenced by independent researchers (i.e.: researchers who start from a position of null-belief, rather than researchers who WANT to prove ANY particular theory) that corroborate the Bible texts.

This is, for instance, why I questioned your assertion that Jews had changed their beliefs because their books don't match the OT, but offered no texts, myself, in defense of the point. I have no PROOF that the Christian fathers rephrased/changed Jewish beliefs to create the OT to match their beliefs, nor do I have any PROOF that the Jewish authorities changed their Holy Books in order to deny the Messiah-hood of Yeshua. The only "proof" that is available comes from belivers of one camp or the other who use the differences to "prove" their beliefs. My Jewish friends are as certain that their Books are the Truth and the OT is an altered form as my Christian frioends are convinced of the opposite.

I simply pointed out that you offered only two choices (both of which could be characterized, really, as ONE choice: "They're wrong and we're right") when there was (at least) a third option available, that you didn't consider.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 01:43 PM
Oooops...

In my last post, I should have said:

"ANY *contemporary* reference to Yeshua by a source OTHER than His biographers would add weight to your arguments."

Sorry for the omission.

tYC
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 02:16 PM
Yankee: Thanks for the tip. I've been looking for those *contemporary* references for a while. As with the census, I'm finding them. I just need time to organize them into an argument.

You have VERY good points of argument, and I'm working on my responses as much as I can.

To everyone: If it takes me a while to get to your argument, it's not because I'm dodging it. I have been working on fixing my car and writing songs a lot, too. I am working on my responses as best I can, and then I will respond. Thanks in advance for your patience. I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 | 02:26 PM
Oh yeah, and Yankee: Your "The Shining argument" is good. You are correct, now that I'm examining it, that the information I provided is not sufficient. My point was, The Shining does not claim to be a work of history, yet the Gospels (and Acts) do.
David B.
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 04:17 PM
ETL said: As for the Census, I'm finding things that would disprove your evidence [...]

Why do I find this statement so disquieting?

I don't think any of my dates were wrong, or my quotes. What is there to disprove? Dispute, yes. You might dispute my conclusions by mentioning the alternatives (supported by the historical record, of course). You might mention facts I've overlooked. I just hope no-one is going to stoop to inventing 'undiscovered' bits of history that 'just happen' to back up their argument.*

There's quite enough history in the world without having to make any up!

Might I forestall something by reminding everyone that to be historically accurate means that the bible agrees with historical fact, not that historical facts are agreeable with the bible. This isn't an 'innocent until proved guilty' scenario; the bible isn't historically accurate until proved otherwise.

* Actually, (macro-)evolutionists do this quite a lot. The difference is that they call it an hypothesis and then go out and try and discover it.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:06 PM
Okay, maybe dispute would be a better word. But nonetheless, I am finding them. I'll get an argument out as soon as I can (hopefully within the week), some things came up in my Church that I need to take care of, so I may be a bit busy for a while.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:14 PM
I do admit that the Bible is a very, shall I say, confusing document.
Page 5 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 > 

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.