Just ONE FACT, that's all I ask, JUST ONE..... (page 5)

Mad Sweeney

The science link doesn't show any sort of ancient knowledge that would require a divine source to figure out. It isn't like it was written by cavemen. Civilization existed at the time.

Terry

I think what I'm looking for is something in the bible which demonstrates the MIND OF GOD in a real world.

If mere man was writing and calling it the mind of god you would expect nothing special--or, at best, imagination.

By spiritualizing examples of God's superior mind we avoid testing the Word for transcendance in a real way.

The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed, for example.

The Eagle is not a carrion bird.

Insects don't go on four legs.

Gimme something that IS true.

PSacramento

Terry,

Interpretation is the key, One can interpret the Genesis story as being quite "supernatrual" for the time:

From nothing God created the universe and set in motion the beginnigs of Life, Man came from the organic material of the earth.

These are things that ancient man, typiclaly, didn't think of to be right and that we know now as "facts".

Of course not all interpret Genesis to mean this so...

Terry

Without Science everything is natural...even one's own imaginings.

Science gives us a map of reality all measured, quantified, tested and ordered into practical usefulness and accessibility.

Religion and the Bible give us a fake map which disconnects us from the real world and pushes us into the area of wishful thinking.

You can get really addicted to magic thinking. It beats reality to the punch every time.

Once you get hooked on the Supernatural you can't easily go back to the cold reality for which you no longer have a map.

sir82

Oh! Oh! Oh!

I've got one:

Ecclesiastes 11:3 (New International Version)

3 If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain upon the earth.
Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there will it lie.

Argue with that one, Mr. Smuggy Smartypants!

HintOfLime

Just for the laughs (this scripture amuses me):

3 If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain upon the earth.

Well for one, clouds do not 'fill' with water as if they are some sort of containing vessel - but rather are water, in the form of water vapor. Secondly, the verse ignores entirely the process which keeps the vapor aloft in the air - the weight of the combined water or ice particles, the force of gravity, and updrafts and air currents. Third, it also entirely omits other forms of precipitation - clouds produce more than just rain, after all.

Overall, the scriptural description is an overly simplified and in some cases potentially erroneous understanding of the relation between clouds and rain. It is the 'simple human explanation', from the perspective of a human - it certainly wasn't beyond the capabilities of humans at the time to make this general observation.

Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there will it lie.

Newton has one up on the bible here by acknoledging a key point:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Where Ecclesiastes gets it wrong here (in stating the obvious) is that it does not consider outside forces:

Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there will it lie.

If a tree is on a steep westward face of the mountain, and falls north, it will probably not lie where it falls. It will hit the ground, then begin sliding downhill and to the west, following the force of gravity and the contours of the terrain until it comes to rest or is otherwise stopped (outside forces). A subsquent avalanche (an outside force) might reposition the tree later. I can go into any nearby forest and probably pretty easily find a tree that does not lie where it fell. Wind, the tree's center of gravity, the nature of how it falls, the slope of the terrain.. there are a lot of variables that could change where the tree lies in relation to where it fell. So, this statement may be true in some cases, but there are just as many cases where it will not be true.

This verse needs a LOT of reworking before it can be considered fact, let alone a divinely inspired fact. I would hope most people could figure this out on their own without needing the bible to explain it to them.

- Lime

jaguarbass

Terry, you work in a book store. I dont have any hard facts but if you want a pretty good

clue to what is going on read "Slave Species of God" by Michael Tillinger, or the 12th planet

by Zechariah Sitchin.

Or have you read them already and dismissed them?

sabastious

"Interpretation is the key, One can interpret the Genesis story as being quite "supernatrual" for the time:"

lol? He's asking for FACTS. The Genesis account CANNOT be proven no matter how it's "interpreted."

Man is not dust, nor is he made up of it. That explanation of the components of our creation is extremly simple and man-like.

sabastious

Simple logic would dictate that we CAME from the earth in some way. It's by no means a point to divine author of Genesis, it points to man who came up with a cool way to GUESS that we came from the earth around us.

sabastious

If I were God I know JUST the place I would have put in my supernatural knowledge...

The story of Joshua and the battle where God stops the sun to give them more time to kill people.

Instead of saying I stopped the SUN (which we all know doesn't move, but the writer of the book apparently didn't) I would have written what I ACTUALLY DID, which was stopped the EARTH.

Simple way to prove that God was actually the author of the Bible... sucks he passed that GOLDEN oppurtunity up.

Just ONE FACT, that's all I ask, JUST ONE.....

Share this