Total Posts:138|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bible: Gods Word or Mans?

Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:21:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are various types of religions in existence with their own sacred books called bibles. As a result, many people believe that all religions are valid and that they are simply different roads to the same place. Along that line, many feel that no type of religion can lay claim to which type of religious bible is really the word of God. For instance, Muslims claim the Koran is the correct bible, while Christians claim the Judeo-Christian Bible is the right one.

The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing the Judeo-Christian Bible was inspired by Almighty God. No other religious book has been able to prove such. For instance, hundreds of Bible prophesies have been fulfilled, some written centuries before the fulfillment of the prophesied events. Secular history and archeology bears this out. In addition, Bible writers were privy to information that was not discovered by scientists and explorers until centuries later. Below are two such examples.

Example #1: For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519 that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was proven as fact. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:

"{22} There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell, {28} Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite. He does not tire out or grow weary. There is no searching out of his understanding." (Isaiah 40:22 and 28)

SIDE NOTE: Circles can be 2D (flat) or 3D (an ORB or a SPHERE)

Example #2: Prior to the 17th century AD, none of the best scientific minds could explain what causes the earth to be positioned in a stable orbit. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton published his theory that gravitational forces are the explanation behind the earth's stability. (Gravity is also the reason why humans can move around without fear of toppling off the earth into space.) More than 3,000 years before Newton's existence, under divine inspiration Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing (indicating gravity), as follows:

"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..."
(Job 26:7)

DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. How could Isaiah have known that the earth is circular, considering that the writing of the book of Isaiah was completed in 732 B.C.E., and it wasn't until the 16th century AD/CE that the first person to attempt to prove the earth is a circle was Ferdinand Magellan? Magellan attempted to circumnavigate the globe in 1519 AD/CE or 2,251 years AFTER Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle.
http://didyouknow.org...
http://www.rmg.co.uk...

2. How did Moses know that the earth hangs upon nothing--indicating gravity--considering that he completed the writing of the book of Job in 1473 B.C.E., and it wasn't until 1687 AD/CE that Isaac Newton published his theory about gravitational forces--or 3,160 years AFTER Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing?
http://inventors.about.com...

3. Where did Isaiah and Moses get this info?
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:41:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) He didn't; Isaiah said that the Earth is a circle (Hebrew: gh), not that it is a sphere (Hebrew: rwd).

2) He didn't; the Earth does not hang from or above anything, but rather is governed by inertia through a vacuum.

3) If you mean the authors of Isaiah and Job, respectively, I would guess from the same place I get the ideas for my fantasy and science fiction novels. (Wherever that is.)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:14:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:41:59 AM, WriterDave wrote:
1) He didn't; Isaiah said that the Earth is a circle (Hebrew: gh), not that it is a sphere (Hebrew: rwd).

2) He didn't; the Earth does not hang from or above anything, but rather is governed by inertia through a vacuum.

3) If you mean the authors of Isaiah and Job, respectively, I would guess from the same place I get the ideas for my fantasy and science fiction novels. (Wherever that is.)

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

I distinctly wrote in my opening post that circles are 2D (flat) and 3D (spherical). I've heard that argument too many times about which Hebrew word Isaiah should have used to mean "sphere." I've been to various websites where scholars are arguing back and forth about which Hebrew word Isaiah should have used, which amounts to nit picking and semantics.

Isaiah described earth as a 3D circle affirmatively, more than 200 years before the Greeks merely theorized that the earth is a 3D circle. Likewise, when Moses wrote in the book of Job in 1473 B.C.E. that the earth "hangs upon nothing," he wrote it 3,000 years before any human was able to confirm it.

Moses wrote that the earth "hangs upon nothing" from the viewpoint that only God--who inspired him--could have seen at that time. When viewed from outer space, the earth indeed appears to be hanging upon nothing. This was not confirmed until the 20th century when humans mastered space flight and were able to view earth from outer space--3,000 years after Moses wrote the description in the book of Job.

The weblink below shows an actual photograph of earth, taken from outer space. You will note that it appears to be hanging upon nothing.

http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org...
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:23:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here we go. 'There is evidence". Nope, not a bit. All that verbosity, and not one shred of fact in it. Also, the writer probably thinks it is brilliant, go figure.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:11:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

I distinctly wrote in my opening post that circles are 2D (flat) and 3D (spherical). I've heard that argument too many times about which Hebrew word Isaiah should have used to mean "sphere." I've been to various websites where scholars are arguing back and forth about which Hebrew word Isaiah should have used, which amounts to nit picking and semantics.

Isaiah described earth as a 3D circle affirmatively, more than 200 years before the Greeks merely theorized that the earth is a 3D circle. Likewise, when Moses wrote in the book of Job in 1473 B.C.E. that the earth "hangs upon nothing," he wrote it 3,000 years before any human was able to confirm it.

Moses wrote that the earth "hangs upon nothing" from the viewpoint that only God--who inspired him--could have seen at that time. When viewed from outer space, the earth indeed appears to be hanging upon nothing. This was not confirmed until the 20th century when humans mastered space flight and were able to view earth from outer space--3,000 years after Moses wrote the description in the book of Job.

The weblink below shows an actual photograph of earth, taken from outer space. You will note that it appears to be hanging upon nothing.

http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org...

Circles, by definition, consist of points in a two-dimensional plane; this precludes them from being three-dimensional objects. If you believe that the author of Isaiah intended to describe a sphere rather than a circle, given the Hebrew terms already identified, the burden is on you to show this.

The author of Job did not write that the Earth appears to be hanging; he wrote that it is hanging. It is not. It is governed by inertia through a vacuum.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thales said the earth was a sphere, Plato said the earth was a sphere, Parmenides said the earth was a sphere, China believed the earth was spherical around 1000 BC, and the Bible says both sphere, circle, and square. Problem?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 10:58:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:11:12 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Circles, by definition, consist of points in a two-dimensional plane; this precludes them from being three-dimensional objects. If you believe that the author of Isaiah intended to describe a sphere rather than a circle, given the Hebrew terms already identified, the burden is on you to show this.

The author of Job did not write that the Earth appears to be hanging; he wrote that it is hanging. It is not. It is governed by inertia through a vacuum.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

As stated in my opening post, Circles are 2D as well as 3D. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly don't. Below are websites where the word "circle" is defined as "orb" and "sphere"—both of which are 3D objects. Two of the websites even reference the Biblical quotation as part of their definition.

Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows.
"a round body; a sphere; an orb"

http://brainyquote.com...

Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and even ties it in with what I quoted from Isaiah 40:22.

"A round body; a sphere; an orb
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

http://www.webster-dictionary.net...

Definition #13 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and also ties in the definition with the quotation from Isaiah 40:22.

"a sphere or orb:
the circle of the earth."

http://www.definitions.net...

Here are the Biblical quotations from my opening post, including the one where Moses wrote that the earth "hangs upon nothing":

"{22} There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell, {28} Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite. He does not tire out or grow weary. There is no searching out of his understanding." (Isaiah 40:22 and 28)

"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;..."
(Job 26:7)
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:11:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 9:42:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Thales said the earth was a sphere, Plato said the earth was a sphere, Parmenides said the earth was a sphere, China believed the earth was spherical around 1000 BC, and the Bible says both sphere, circle, and square. Problem?

ALTER2EGO -to- STEPHEN HAWKINS:

I don't know where you're getting that stuff from about China believing the earth was spherical around 1000 BC. There's no evidence anywhere to that effect.

The first person to write that the earth is a 3D circle was Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.E. Then in the 6th Century (200 years later), the Greeks (one of whom was Aristotle) began theorizing that the earth is a sphere.

In the 15th century B.C.E., Moses wrote in the book of Job that earth "hangs upon nothing."
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:33:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 11:11:10 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 9:42:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Thales said the earth was a sphere, Plato said the earth was a sphere, Parmenides said the earth was a sphere, China believed the earth was spherical around 1000 BC, and the Bible says both sphere, circle, and square. Problem?

ALTER2EGO -to- STEPHEN HAWKINS:

I don't know where you're getting that stuff from about China believing the earth was spherical around 1000 BC. There's no evidence anywhere to that effect.

The first person to write that the earth is a 3D circle was Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.E. Then in the 6th Century (200 years later), the Greeks (one of whom was Aristotle) began theorizing that the earth is a sphere.

In the 15th century B.C.E., Moses wrote in the book of Job that earth "hangs upon nothing."

LOL Moses did not write anything that is in the bible, he was Egyptian if he was at all. More likely it is an amalgamation.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:32:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:58:10 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:11:12 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Circles, by definition, consist of points in a two-dimensional plane; this precludes them from being three-dimensional objects. If you believe that the author of Isaiah intended to describe a sphere rather than a circle, given the Hebrew terms already identified, the burden is on you to show this.

The author of Job did not write that the Earth appears to be hanging; he wrote that it is hanging. It is not. It is governed by inertia through a vacuum.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

As stated in my opening post, Circles are 2D as well as 3D. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly don't. Below are websites where the word "circle" is defined as "orb" and "sphere"—both of which are 3D objects. Two of the websites even reference the Biblical quotation as part of their definition.

Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows.
"a round body; a sphere; an orb"

http://brainyquote.com...

And definition #1 is, "A plane figure, bounded by a single curve line called its circumference, every part of which is equally distant from a point within it, called the center." Plane figure means two-dimensional.

Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and even ties it in with what I quoted from Isaiah 40:22.

"A round body; a sphere; an orb
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

http://www.webster-dictionary.net...

And definition #1 is, "A plane figure, bounded by a single curve line called its circumference, every part of which is equally distant from a point within it, called the center." Again, plane figure means two-dimensional.

Definition #13 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and also ties in the definition with the quotation from Isaiah 40:22.

"a sphere or orb:
the circle of the earth."

http://www.definitions.net...

And definition #1 is, "a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center." Plane curve means two-dimensional.

Since circles and spheres are mathematical entities, I challenge you to find a mathematical dictionary or encyclopedia that states that a circle can be three-dimensional. You may want to start with Euclid; he gives eleven definitions of a circle. Want spoilers?

My point about the earth hanging was not addressed.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WRITERDAVE -to- ALTER2EGO

(boy did I feel silly typing that...)

If you believe that the Bible is free from error, and the context of your writings suggest this much, then I challenge you to try to resolve this contradiction in the Bible: The book of Matthew claims that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive. Herod died in 4 B.C.* The book of Luke claims that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor and was conducting a census of Judea. Quirinius became governor in 6 A.D. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. -- a clear contradiction.

(*)I'm using B.C. and A.D. instead of B.C.E. and C.E. in order to avoid confusion; you probably aren't aware that these latter terms are gaining wider use every year.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:00:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:32:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:58:10 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:11:12 AM, WriterDave wrote:
Circles, by definition, consist of points in a two-dimensional plane; this precludes them from being three-dimensional objects. If you believe that the author of Isaiah intended to describe a sphere rather than a circle, given the Hebrew terms already identified, the burden is on you to show this.

The author of Job did not write that the Earth appears to be hanging; he wrote that it is hanging. It is not. It is governed by inertia through a vacuum.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

As stated in my opening post, Circles are 2D as well as 3D. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly don't. Below are websites where the word "circle" is defined as "orb" and "sphere"—both of which are 3D objects. Two of the websites even reference the Biblical quotation as part of their definition.

Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows.
"a round body; a sphere; an orb"

http://brainyquote.com...

And definition #1 is, "A plane figure, bounded by a single curve line called its circumference, every part of which is equally distant from a point within it, called the center." Plane figure means two-dimensional.


Definition #4 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and even ties it in with what I quoted from Isaiah 40:22.

"A round body; a sphere; an orb
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."

http://www.webster-dictionary.net...

And definition #1 is, "A plane figure, bounded by a single curve line called its circumference, every part of which is equally distant from a point within it, called the center." Again, plane figure means two-dimensional.



Definition #13 on this website defines CIRCLE as follows, and also ties in the definition with the quotation from Isaiah 40:22.

"a sphere or orb:
the circle of the earth."

http://www.definitions.net...

And definition #1 is, "a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center." Plane curve means two-dimensional.

Since circles and spheres are mathematical entities, I challenge you to find a mathematical dictionary or encyclopedia that states that a circle can be three-dimensional. You may want to start with Euclid; he gives eleven definitions of a circle. Want spoilers?

My point about the earth hanging was not addressed.

You were the one claiming there's only one defintion for the word "circle"; remember? I just directed you to definitions in three separate dictionaries that define the word "circle" as a SPHERE and an ORB (which are both 3D). In other words, Isaiah's use of the word "circle" was accurate. He was referring to a 3D circle.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:00:06 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 3:32:20 PM, WriterDave wrote:

Since circles and spheres are mathematical entities, I challenge you to find a mathematical dictionary or encyclopedia that states that a circle can be three-dimensional. You may want to start with Euclid; he gives eleven definitions of a circle. Want spoilers?

My point about the earth hanging was not addressed.

You were the one claiming there's only one defintion for the word "circle"; remember? I just directed you to definitions in three separate dictionaries that define the word "circle" as a SPHERE and an ORB (which are both 3D). In other words, Isaiah's use of the word "circle" was accurate. He was referring to a 3D circle.

Again, since circles and spheres are mathematical objects, you need to find a mathematical dictionary or encyclopedia that defines a circle as three-dimensional.

Oh, and before I forget, you need to prove that a three-dimensional object, rather than a two-dimensional, is what the author of Isaiah had in mind.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:22:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
OP's argument scheme:

1. Something is proven as fact far in the future
2. The same fact is stated in the Bible far in the past
3. Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired.

Fails to take into account:

1. Things were hypothesized and theorized far before solid proof was available
2. These hypotheses took place near the same time as, or long before they were inscribed in the Bible.
3. The dating of the creation of Bible chapters may not be accurate

Big picture arguments:

Why would God pass his word down in the form of our written language? Why does God speak or communicate the same way we do at all?

Also, why would God view the Earth as being spherical? Why would God view the earth as "hanging in nothing"? God is not a man staring at the Earth from a satellite. The way he perceives the Earth would be completely different from the way we do and would likely describe it in a much different way.

In fact, you could say that the fact that the earth is described as spherical and suspended in nothing actually works AGAINST the argument that the Bible was not written by regular men.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:41:52 PM, WriterDave wrote:
WRITERDAVE -to- ALTER2EGO

(boy did I feel silly typing that...)

If you believe that the Bible is free from error, and the context of your writings suggest this much, then I challenge you to try to resolve this contradiction in the Bible: The book of Matthew claims that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive. Herod died in 4 B.C.* The book of Luke claims that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor and was conducting a census of Judea. Quirinius became governor in 6 A.D. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus was born before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. -- a clear contradiction.


(*)I'm using B.C. and A.D. instead of B.C.E. and C.E. in order to avoid confusion; you probably aren't aware that these latter terms are gaining wider use every year.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

When I used C.E., people complained at another website, so I switched over to A.D. At times, I simply use them both as follows "C.E./A.D." so nobody will complain.

Perhaps you don't realize that there were two different Herods in the Bible. The first one was Herod the Great and ruled from 37 to 4 BC. His grandson--Herod Agrippa--is the one that was on the scene when Jesus Christ was an infant. It was Herod Agrippa that attempted to kill Jesus by ordering the slaughter of all of the male children two years old and younger.
http://www.blurtit.com...

FYI: Jesus was born in the 1st century A.D./C.E.

Also, you might not realize it, but B.C. and B.C.E. originally meant Before Christ and Before the Christian Era, respectively. In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Luke's account of a census is accurate. There were several census' being done, including one that occurred when Jesus was an infant--in addition to the census that was conducted by Quirinius in the 6th century A.D. As stated by one source:

"One of the most popular options for resolving the death of Herod the Great/Quirinius governing debate is that what Luke really meant to say in 2:2, was that "this was BEFORE the census while Quirinius was governor," instead of the "FIRST census while Quirinius was governor." In A.D. 6 there was an infamous census conducted by Quirinius during which the Jews revolted. Luke himself mentions that census in Acts 5:37. It would be like us mentioning a "recession before 1929" or "a market crash before Black September." It would have provided a historical touch point to put things in context. It would also serve to say that this census was NOT the one of Quirinius, which was too late. Thus, any census before that of Quirinius could have been the one Luke meant."

http://noapologies.info...
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong. The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not END them.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:50:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong. The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not END them.

In other words, you're basically stating what I've been saying--except you're doing it in a different way. The fact remains, B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to the century that Jesus' appearance on earth. The 1st Century AD/CE began with the arrival of Jesus.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong. The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not END them.

This may be a first (agreeing with kleptin)...Where do people get this crap that BC AD BCE was somehow on texts, good god almighty.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:06:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

When I used C.E., people complained at another website, so I switched over to A.D. At times, I simply use them both as follows "C.E./A.D." so nobody will complain.

Perhaps you don't realize that there were two different Herods in the Bible. The first one was Herod the Great and ruled from 37 to 4 BC. His grandson--Herod Agrippa--is the one that was on the scene when Jesus Christ was an infant. It was Herod Agrippa that attempted to kill Jesus by ordering the slaughter of all of the male children two years old and younger.
http://www.blurtit.com...

FYI: Jesus was born in the 1st century A.D./C.E.

Also, you might not realize it, but B.C. and B.C.E. originally meant Before Christ and Before the Christian Era, respectively. In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Luke's account of a census is accurate. There were several census' being done, including one that occurred when Jesus was an infant--in addition to the census that was conducted by Quirinius in the 6th century A.D. As stated by one source:

"One of the most popular options for resolving the death of Herod the Great/Quirinius governing debate is that what Luke really meant to say in 2:2, was that "this was BEFORE the census while Quirinius was governor," instead of the "FIRST census while Quirinius was governor." In A.D. 6 there was an infamous census conducted by Quirinius during which the Jews revolted. Luke himself mentions that census in Acts 5:37. It would be like us mentioning a "recession before 1929" or "a market crash before Black September." It would have provided a historical touch point to put things in context. It would also serve to say that this census was NOT the one of Quirinius, which was too late. Thus, any census before that of Quirinius could have been the one Luke meant."

http://noapologies.info...

Herod Agrippa did not reign until 41 C.E.

It is impossible for there to have been a census in Judaea prior to 6 C.E., since the province was not under direct Roman control until then.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:06:56 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

When I used C.E., people complained at another website, so I switched over to A.D. At times, I simply use them both as follows "C.E./A.D." so nobody will complain.

Perhaps you don't realize that there were two different Herods in the Bible. The first one was Herod the Great and ruled from 37 to 4 BC. His grandson--Herod Agrippa--is the one that was on the scene when Jesus Christ was an infant. It was Herod Agrippa that attempted to kill Jesus by ordering the slaughter of all of the male children two years old and younger.
http://www.blurtit.com...

FYI: Jesus was born in the 1st century A.D./C.E.

Also, you might not realize it, but B.C. and B.C.E. originally meant Before Christ and Before the Christian Era, respectively. In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Luke's account of a census is accurate. There were several census' being done, including one that occurred when Jesus was an infant--in addition to the census that was conducted by Quirinius in the 6th century A.D. As stated by one source:

"One of the most popular options for resolving the death of Herod the Great/Quirinius governing debate is that what Luke really meant to say in 2:2, was that "this was BEFORE the census while Quirinius was governor," instead of the "FIRST census while Quirinius was governor." In A.D. 6 there was an infamous census conducted by Quirinius during which the Jews revolted. Luke himself mentions that census in Acts 5:37. It would be like us mentioning a "recession before 1929" or "a market crash before Black September." It would have provided a historical touch point to put things in context. It would also serve to say that this census was NOT the one of Quirinius, which was too late. Thus, any census before that of Quirinius could have been the one Luke meant."

http://noapologies.info...


Herod Agrippa did not reign until 41 C.E.

It is impossible for there to have been a census in Judaea prior to 6 C.E., since the province was not under direct Roman control until then.

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:12:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:50:16 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong. The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not END them.

In other words, you're basically stating what I've been saying--except you're doing it in a different way. The fact remains, B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to the century that Jesus' appearance on earth. The 1st Century AD/CE began with the arrival of Jesus.

Actually, you're both wrong. B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to a date calculated by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century.

He wanted to make a new calendar to replace the whole "year of the Roman consulship of blah blah blah," so he tried to calculate the year when Jesus was born so that years could be dated from there. He was either four years too late (Matthew) or six years too early (Luke).
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:17:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?

It is a tenant of Faith for main stream Christian Religions. it means....There are inaccuracies in the text as it appears but the revealed truth is absolute. It is one of those basics for biblical understanding and/or comment.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:17:14 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?

It is a tenant of Faith for main stream Christian Religions. it means....There are inaccuracies in the text as it appears but the revealed truth is absolute. It is one of those basics for biblical understanding and/or comment.

Ah. So you're saying Matthew and/or Luke falls into the former category rather than the latter.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:26:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:12:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:50:16 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C. or B.C.E.

Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong. The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not END them.

In other words, you're basically stating what I've been saying--except you're doing it in a different way. The fact remains, B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to the century that Jesus' appearance on earth. The 1st Century AD/CE began with the arrival of Jesus.

Actually, you're both wrong. B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to a date calculated by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century.

He wanted to make a new calendar to replace the whole "year of the Roman consulship of blah blah blah," so he tried to calculate the year when Jesus was born so that years could be dated from there. He was either four years too late (Matthew) or six years too early (Luke).

I stand corrected. Learn something new every day :P
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:26:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bumping this for the OP to address.

At 3/10/2012 4:22:57 PM, Kleptin wrote:
OP's argument scheme:

1. Something is proven as fact far in the future
2. The same fact is stated in the Bible far in the past
3. Therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired.

Fails to take into account:

1. Things were hypothesized and theorized far before solid proof was available
2. These hypotheses took place near the same time as, or long before they were inscribed in the Bible.
3. The dating of the creation of Bible chapters may not be accurate

Big picture arguments:

Why would God pass his word down in the form of our written language? Why does God speak or communicate the same way we do at all?

Also, why would God view the Earth as being spherical? Why would God view the earth as "hanging in nothing"? God is not a man staring at the Earth from a satellite. The way he perceives the Earth would be completely different from the way we do and would likely describe it in a much different way.

In fact, you could say that the fact that the earth is described as spherical and suspended in nothing actually works AGAINST the argument that the Bible was not written by regular men.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:27:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:20:16 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:17:14 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?

It is a tenant of Faith for main stream Christian Religions. it means....There are inaccuracies in the text as it appears but the revealed truth is absolute. It is one of those basics for biblical understanding and/or comment.

Ah. So you're saying Matthew and/or Luke falls into the former category rather than the latter.

Well if you wanna go MAtt and luke....beatitudes. mathew...blessed are the poor Luke....Blessed are the poor in spirit.....Is it one or the other? Is it two different speeches? error....yet right. The bible is full of um....Now, fundamentalists (evangelicals today) discard this tenant in favor of absolutism, and build museums to prove Dinosaurs and humans lived together. They are not considered relevant in most commentaries or study of Scripture. Two example...Moses and Noah Probably never existed as depicted in the Bible. In fact very probable.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:27:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:20:16 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:17:14 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?

It is a tenant of Faith for main stream Christian Religions. it means....There are inaccuracies in the text as it appears but the revealed truth is absolute. It is one of those basics for biblical understanding and/or comment.

Ah. So you're saying Matthew and/or Luke falls into the former category rather than the latter.

Well if you wanna go MAtt and luke....beatitudes. mathew...blessed are the poor Luke....Blessed are the poor in spirit.....Is it one or the other? Is it two different speeches? error....yet right. The bible is full of um....Now, fundamentalists (evangelicals today) discard this tenant in favor of absolutism, and build museums to prove Dinosaurs and humans lived together. They are not considered relevant in most commentaries or study of Scripture. Two example...Moses and Noah Probably never existed as depicted in the Bible. In fact very probable.

Soooo, your answer would be, "former, with some exceptions."
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:06:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:06:56 PM, WriterDave wrote:

Herod Agrippa did not reign until 41 C.E.

It is impossible for there to have been a census in Judaea prior to 6 C.E., since the province was not under direct Roman control until then.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

How would you know? Were you there? You complain that Herod the Great wasn't the one that tried to kill the infant Jesus because the dates are all wrong; then when I give you Herod the Great's grandson (Herod Agrippa), you complaint about that, too.

There were several Herods, and that's what you seem to not be willing to acknowledge. Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great--and he actually ended up killing John the Baptist and had a part in the death of the adult Jesus'.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Herod the Great logically was the one who tried to kill the infant Jesus. As you yourself acknowledged in your post below, some character named Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the dating for B.C.E. and got it wrong by about four years. So take your pick between which of the "Herods" tried to kill the infant Jesus. I'll go with the Bible's account, because I've found the Bible to be a trustworthy source. You can go with your "scholars" who can't get their dates together.

BTW: You're going to great pains trying to debunk the Bible and you're failing miserably, because the people you are referencing from way back in the 1st Century AD were themselves confused with the dating because of miscalculations. Depending on which website one goes to, the agreement is that Herod the Great was the one who committed infanticide by ordering the deaths of all Hebrew male children aged two and under, in his murderous attempt at killing the child Jesus. Do you think I'm going to wear myself out arguing dates with you when neither of us were there?
http://www.philipgordon.org...

At 3/10/2012 7:12:36 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:50:16 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, every date that has A.D. or C.E. is as a direct result of
Jesus :appearing on earth. His appearance put an end to the datings in B.C.
or B.C.E.

At 3/10/2012 5:10:11 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Nothing was ever dated B.C. or B.C.E. before Jesus, so you're actually wrong.
The appearance of Jesus actually STARTED the dating in BC/BCE. It did not
END them.

At 3/10/2012 4:46:57 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
In other words, you're basically stating what I've been saying--except you're
doing it in a different way. The fact remains, B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the
years prior to the century that Jesus' appearance on earth. The 1st Century
AD/CE began with the arrival of Jesus.

Actually, you're both wrong. B.C. and B.C.E. refers to all of the years prior to a date calculated by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century.

He wanted to make a new calendar to replace the whole "year of the Roman consulship of blah blah blah," so he tried to calculate the year when Jesus was born so that years could be dated from there. He was either four years too late (Matthew) or six years too early (Luke).
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:10:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 7:33:07 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:27:36 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:20:16 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:17:14 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:14:27 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 3/10/2012 7:11:29 PM, logicrules wrote:

news flash....The bible has errors but is infallible. Age did not matter in the first century, facts did not matter, having a connection to a famous person....that was gold.

I don't know what you mean by "has errors but is infallible." Are you using non-standard definitions of these words? Or are you being tongue-in-cheek?

It is a tenant of Faith for main stream Christian Religions. it means....There are inaccuracies in the text as it appears but the revealed truth is absolute. It is one of those basics for biblical understanding and/or comment.

Ah. So you're saying Matthew and/or Luke falls into the former category rather than the latter.

Well if you wanna go MAtt and luke....beatitudes. mathew...blessed are the poor Luke....Blessed are the poor in spirit.....Is it one or the other? Is it two different speeches? error....yet right. The bible is full of um....Now, fundamentalists (evangelicals today) discard this tenant in favor of absolutism, and build museums to prove Dinosaurs and humans lived together. They are not considered relevant in most commentaries or study of Scripture. Two example...Moses and Noah Probably never existed as depicted in the Bible. In fact very probable.

Soooo, your answer would be, "former, with some exceptions."

I Have no idea where yet former....and is conjunctive, error and infallible. They are both.