Take it on faith.
Bible Vs. Science
Sort:
Oct 27, 2015
0
#83
Senior-Lazarus_Long a écrit :
Take it on faith.
Interesting: it demonstrates than Bible 3000 years ago is >> Science and progress in knowledge in three millenium !
Who could seriously believe in that ?
Oct 27, 2015
0
#84
"to be sure about Abram / Abraham, and doubtful about JC,
3000 years later .....!"
105 ; exactly, I do agree, lol ! Bible beats Science 1-0 !!!!! Game over.
Oct 27, 2015
0
#85
ZigyStardust a écrit :
quran beats bible 5-0
game over without even starting
lol you mean ....qumran ???
Oct 27, 2015
0
#89
latvianlover hat geschrieben:
Direct quote from answersingenesis.org. "The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and trees were created before the sun. However the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite."
Doesn´t work. The earth contains plenty of heavy metals just like iron, nickel, gold etc. These metals have been generated by dying stars. Means the earth is build up from second generation matter and there had to be stars billions of years before.
Scientist estimate the age of earth to be about 4,5 billion years. The oldest still existing (!) star known is estimated to be 13,6 billion years old.
Bible needs an update urgently - way to many bugs in that old book. 
The Bible isn't a History,or Science text. It's a work on Theology.
Oct 27, 2015
0
#91
exact Time and ages mean nothing for GOd, according to th Bible, because god IS. No past, no future, but Word, Spirit.
Then time was used for existence on the earth for creatures, in the moment God gives them to pro-create something, just to see what happens. And after death, time is over. Nothing to do with Sciences of mankind, but apart: Theology, science of God, with not the same cartesian rules (experience, measurability, etc ...).
there is something spiritual in it, magical. For instance :
If someone has the answer to that incredible paradox,
about Abram / Abraham existence, no one eriously doubts he existed !
and doubtful about JC,
hmmm ..... 3000 years later,
ty very much, one billion 240 mio. people would appreciate as a minimum!
Oct 27, 2015
0
#92
Senior-Lazarus_Long hat geschrieben:
The Bible isn't a History,or Science text. It's a work on Theology.
I looked up Wikipedia:
Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas, but can also mean the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary, or school of divinity.[1]
I think if you want to study the concepts of gods you first have to prove the existence of gods (or at least of one god).
If you fail to provide that proof what´s the point in trying to study something which might not exist at all?
So the second definition about a learned profession makes more sense.
It's God not gods. You don't need to prove the existence of God;in fact,you are supposed to take it on faith. That's the whole point.
Oct 27, 2015
0
#94
Senior-Lazarus_Long hat geschrieben:
It's God not gods. You don't need to prove the existence of God;in fact,you are supposed to take it on faith. That's the whole point.
I am supposed to take it on faith???
Sorry I won´t take anything without proof - otherwise everything would become completely chaotic and arbitrary.
E.g. if you accepted the existance of one god without any proof you could as well allow for a number of different gods - like the Old Greeks had. What makes the difference?
You're not entitled to any proof.The difference is Heaven or Hell. You are required to submit and obey. Simple.
science is the evolution of religion,"ceremonial magic" and masonry. religion was once like an algebraic equation consisting of all variables. and science was born of a gradual process of defining these variables
Nope,Heaven is everywhere except where it isn't. Hell is that which is not Heaven.Now you know.
Oct 27, 2015
0
#99
Reverend-Vicious hat geschrieben:
science is the evolution of religion "ceremonial magic". religion was once like an algebraic equation consisting of all variables. and science was born of a gradual process of defining these variables
Beautiful +1
There is something amazing : plenty of people doubt about JC, say he was married, had two children, didn't exist, didn't go to Paradise on the airs on a white horse, was a woman, got a last temptation, was Antechrist, E.T., etc ...
OK. Good. Why not?
but NO ONE doubts about Abram called Abraham, Isaac sacrifice, size, look with blue kasher beard, pace of Joseph's tomb with or without graffitis,
minus only ... 3000years+ before JC !!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is like you know everything about Georges Washington 1776, his breakfast, blood analysis , DNA etc ....and say
" may be Pdt Carter 1977 was unreal", isn't it funny ??
This question is NOT about religions, but epistemiologia of religions, methods of historical inquiries. Strange, Stalin who reinvented hitorica analysis of facts died sixty years ago!! ooops : sixty three
.
If someone has the answer to that incredible paradox,
to be sure about Abram / Abraham, and doubtful about JC, 3000 years later, ty very much, one billion people would appreciate as a minimum!