 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: inerrancy, hallelujah |
 |
|
Sorry about the long post, it just happens sometimes, this one should compensate for your reading.
The beauty of the Bible is that it is impossible to prove It right or wrong.
If we could do either, everyone on the planet, or none would believe IT.
This would negate GOD'S plan to save His children through FAITH in His Word and the entire project would be forfeit.
Isn't it a Masterful stroke, to get everyone arguing about proof, trying to out-spiritualise each other, out scholar each other, instead of accepting IT as GOD'S WORD, as composed, by revelation.
Thank you Argenta for helping this revelation to formulate.
Look forward to hearing from you
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 596
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Argenta,
First I would like to say there is NO CONFLICTING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE BIBLE AS TO THE AUTHOR, unlike the Verda which does.
Secondly, if you study the scriptures you will see there is no contradiction in Gen 1 and Gen 2. For in Gen 1 God is CREATEING, WITHOUT FORM and in Gen 2 He is giving form to what He created. As is in Gen 1:2, God created the heavens and the earth and they were without form. Such is the rest of Gen 1. I like to use the example of a potter who must first create clay before he can give it form. My other scripture for why I see this as so is in Gen 1:27 God created man in His OWN IMAGE, and John 4:24 tells us God is a Spirit.
Thirdly, when talking about women, scriptually we are under the new covenent in which the OT ways are replaced by what Christ teaches us such as concerning divorce, the only reason would be for fornication Matt 5:31-32 and 19:1-9 : Eph 5:25 "Husband love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it" and 1 Peter 3:7 "Likewise ye husbands dwell with understanding GIVING HONOR UNTO THE WIFE..." Scripture tells us repeatedly to love our wives and even as ourselves. Now I have got to admit I was very appauled that you would compare How the Verda speaks on the treatment of women compared to the Bible, especially when the Verda condones women being forced to have intercourse with animals, being treated as property and beaten as slaves, told they are subhuman creatures, and this is still going on TODAY. No, the Verda can't compare with the Bible which teaches us to love and honor our wives with the same in depth love God has for us.
Finally my friend, Mythology is admitly a part of the Verda and its beliefs. I have never even heard mythology and the Bible used in the same sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5769
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The actual (non-vernacular) definition of "mythology"
a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 596
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
mythology - 1. a body of myths relating to a particular country or person. 2. the study of myths
myth - 1. a legend or story, usually attempting to account for something in nature. Such stories collectively; mythology; the realm of myth. 2. any invented story. 3. an imaginary person of thing.
After also looking up legend and story, for their definitions, I found out a myth could be used to refer to something that truely did happen. I never knew that before. Thanks FFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5769
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it really just refers to the stories, or more specifically the reverence given (or once given) to those stories.
It's important to know that "myth" is not equivalent to "false."
Kind of like "theory" is not actually equivalent to "guess"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: Re: inerrancy, hallelujah |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | Sorry about the long post, it just happens sometimes, this one should compensate for your reading.
The beauty of the Bible is that it is impossible to prove It right or wrong.
If we could do either, everyone on the planet, or none would believe IT.
This would negate GOD'S plan to save His children through FAITH in His Word and the entire project would be forfeit.
Isn't it a Masterful stroke, to get everyone arguing about proof, trying to out-spiritualise each other, out scholar each other, instead of accepting IT as GOD'S WORD, as composed, by revelation.Thank you Argenta for helping this revelation to formulate.
Look forward to hearing from you
John |
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].
I think the arguing and the proving and the spiritualizing and the digging and the picking and the searching...are all God's blessings John.. 
And without opponenants to oppose, who would look, who would seek, who would search out, who would prove?
hugs
lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | | First I would like to say there is NO CONFLICTING STATEMENTS WITHIN THE BIBLE AS TO THE AUTHOR, unlike the Verda which does. |
I don’t understand what your capitalised phrase means. Would you explain please?
| james wrote: | | Secondly, if you study the scriptures you will see there is no contradiction in Gen 1 and Gen 2. For in Gen 1 God is CREATEING, WITHOUT FORM and in Gen 2 He is giving form to what He created. As is in Gen 1:2, God created the heavens and the earth and they were without form. Such is the rest of Gen 1. I like to use the example of a potter who must first create clay before he can give it form. My other scripture for why I see this as so is in Gen 1:27 God created man in His OWN IMAGE, and John 4:24 tells us God is a Spirit. |
This is an extraordinary interpretation james. Certainly Genesis 1 verse 2 says the earth was formless. This cannot mean the earth had no shape—if the earth existed it must have had a shape. Surely this means the earth had no features, hills, valleys, mountains or life or maybe it was all covered with water. By verse 9 we have seas and land. If these things existed they must have had form.
In verse 11, vegetation was created bearing fruit and seeds. Are you seriously suggesting this is formless trees and fruit and seeds?
In 14 to 18 he created the stars, the sun and the moon. No mention of planets in other solar systems or pulsars or quasars or black holes mind. And what happened to the light he created in verse 2—do we still have that I wonder? And are the stars, sun and moon formless???
In verse 20ff he created fish (presumably sea mammals too) and birds that could actually fly. That must be tough for formless creatures!
In 24ff he produced land animals, insects and similar genera. Formless??
Verse 26 says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”
This being one of several places where god is referred to in the plural and is one of the clues as to the origins of this chapter.
Genesis 2:2 shows clearly that God had finished his work of creation—hence the rest from all that strenuous work!
“2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” He was exhausted—just like a man would be from all that work.
I think your interpretation betrays a strained and unsuccessful effort to conceal the fact that the genesis 1 account is incoherent and conflicts with the Genesis 2 account.
I am more persuaded by the scholars who argue that Genesis 1 is around 500 years older than Genesis 2. Genesis 1 shows the polytheistic and anthropomorphic roots of Judaism. But Judaism moved on and become the first monotheistic religion and God was transformed into a spirit. I recall hearing that god is called by the Canaanite term, "Elohim" in Genesis 1 but is called by the Judean name Jehova in Genesis 2 but I can't remember which version of the Bible use these names now, so I can't substantiate that, I'm afraid. The older and newer concepts of god are interwoven in several places in the Old Testament.
Look at Genesis 3:8 8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
Sounds very anthropomorphic doesn’t it? Consider the occasions when God betray emotions such as surprise and disappointment. Quite understandable for a human-like God but inconceivable for an omniscient god.
| james wrote: | Thirdly, when talking about women, scriptually we are under the new covenent in which the OT ways are replaced by what Christ teaches us such [snip].
No, the Verda can't compare with the Bible which teaches us to love and honor our wives with the same in depth love God has for us. |
As I understand it God set out the laws for the Hebrews in the OT and Jesus was God in human form. So I don’t understand why a perfect God would change his mind. And anyway I thought Jesus said he would uphold ALL the laws of the OT:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: Re: inerrancy, hallelujah |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | | John R Nolan wrote: | Sorry about the long post, it just happens sometimes, this one should compensate for your reading.
The beauty of the Bible is that it is impossible to prove It right or wrong.
If we could do either, everyone on the planet, or none would believe IT.
This would negate GOD'S plan to save His children through FAITH in His Word and the entire project would be forfeit.
Isn't it a Masterful stroke, to get everyone arguing about proof, trying to out-spiritualise each other, out scholar each other, instead of accepting IT as GOD'S WORD, as composed, by revelation.Thank you Argenta for helping this revelation to formulate.
Look forward to hearing from you
John |
Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].
I think the arguing and the proving and the spiritualizing and the digging and the picking and the searching...are all God's blessings John..
And without opponenants to oppose, who would look, who would seek, who would search out, who would prove?
hugs
lone |
G'day Lone, good to hear your dulcet tones again.
Thank you for the point you make re opponents.
That is exactly the point.
If the authenticity of the Bible could be conclusively proven, without error, there would be no inquiry, no studying, and that would suit the wicked one beautifully.
Because the Bible cannot be PROVEN inerrant, those who believe IT are required to seperate the religious chaff, dogma, doctines of man, etc., from the Spiritual truth which is revealed, personally, to those who are called, chosen, elected, by GOD.
Election is not a popular doctrine, but is all through the Bible, so why do the denominations deny it?
Scripture explicitly seperates the sheep from the goats, Mat.7:1-23, explains this, along with Mat.13:11,15, 38; 15:7-9; Mk.4:12; Jn.4:12; Acts 28:25-27.
Many are called but FEW chosen Mat.22:14.
We may deduce from these verses that HE alone, through His relationship with those He calls His children, rather than children of the wicked one, Mt.13:38 reveals the meaning, the mysteries of His Word, and none else are able to comprehend what is going on.
Obviously the religious leaders of Israel had no idea Scripture was being fufilled amongst them, and, as Jesus is the same, yesterday,today and forever, Heb.13:8, we may believe that the Gentiles duplicate that error.
We ignore Scripture dealing with His coming, such as Rev.10:1-7, and what about Mal.4:5-6, Lk.17:30; Rev.3:3;16:15; 19:11-16?
Man wants religion, something in which he can be involved, rather than surrendering his thoughts and becoming totally submissive to the will of GOD.
All religions want to help GOD get things done, but HE needs no assistance.
Religion has blinded the masses, blind leaders of the blind, replacing GOD with personal interpretation, additions, deductions to the Word, contrary to Rev.22:16-19.
Hugs 4 U 2
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi John
If I could send you a nice bunch of flowers I would for you are the first Christian I have ever conversed with who has conceded a point!
And, I might add this is not because previous Christians have been able to answer all my challenges—it is because they refuse to admit that they could be wrong. You have changed my view of Christians. Thank you 
You made a long post but there are just a few points that need to be discussed so I hope you won’t mind my liberal use of scissors…
| John R Nolan wrote: | [snip]…
That a seed of a specific genus knows to reproduce itself, in multiple numbers, without in any way changing its nature and character implies there is an inbuilt codification which inerrantly reproduces the specie.
Mango trees invariably produce mangoes, unless MAN starts playing around with the natural genetic code.
I believe you will agree with that, and, as we extend this concept, we find that any specie which has been genetically modified is NOT capable of natural, ongoing self perpetuation.
Could you please explain how this occurs?
|
There are two things I don’t agree with here.
No biological system is inerrant (are we back to that again ? ) DNA reproduction is remarkably good but it certainly does make errors. If it did not, we would not have genetic birth defects and our species would not exist.
It is not true that GMOs are sterile. That is precisely why some people in Europe are concerned about planting GM crops—they are concerned that GM seeds will cross pollinate with non-GM plants and cause the uncontrolled spread of GM genes which might have unpredictable consequences.
In fact, some GMO have been shown to OUT-BREED their non-GM counterparts. Richard Howard of Purdue University studied this in a small Japanese fish, Oryzias latipes. See http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/apr0402.htm. You may have heard that Monsanto sells sterile GM seeds, but they are specifically engineered to be sterile, partly, to boost the company’s profits.
| John R Nolan wrote: | What is the law and what power enforces the law causing each seed to bring forth according to its kind?
One could ask how gravity works? Is it a law that came into action of itself?
Man is atempting to date the universes, the age of the earth, to comprehend the incalcuable dimensions of the universes, where did they all come from?
[snip] |
You ask some questions that we have pretty goods answers to and some we do not—yet. But I’m sure you are not headed for that old trap of arguing from ignorance ie we don’t understand x therefore god must be responsible. You wouldn’t do that would you john?
| John R Nolan wrote: | Why do I believe the Bible?
Because It provides answers my psyche requires and which no science books, history books nor any other psuedo spiritual books have been able give. |
Would you give one or two examples John?
| John R Nolan wrote: | Let us continue a little further with our comments on the inerrancy of a book. [snip]…
Providing evidence to support my belief the Bible is inerrant is dependant on my confidence in the Author, Who has stated that He cannot lie, that He is all knowing, omniscient, and that He controls all elements of His creation, purely through His spoken word.
There is no evidence to support my personal belief, it is my choice. |
It is your choice, John, and for as long as you present like that you will have no argument from me or most other atheists. It is only when Christians, Muslims or any other theists wish to impose their beliefs or morality on me that I object or when they insist that their beliefs are true that we have an argument.
I asked you a question earlier that you have not yet responded to:
“Then I would just ask you to explain how you can KNOW that the Bible is revelation from God.” This again may be just faith—something you have no evidence for but if you think you believe this rationally please explain how you can know this to be true. I have thought about this and have developed some criteria that would enable one to rationally assert that some words are known by revelation and I’m interested to see how my thoughts compare with your own.
| John R Nolan wrote: | | [snip]…Thus we need deduce many, and those may include yourself, Argenta, will never be able to understand Scripture, as they were not given the necessary facilities with which to see beyond this dimension and into the absolute which exists outside this sense limited, impoverished dimension we call time. |
So I never had a chance? Why would your omni-benevolent god wish to discriminate against me in such a dreadful way?
| John R Nolan wrote: | | Faith DOES NOT serve to reliably distinguish anything, faith requires the ability to put aside one’s own faulty mental processing and step into a dimension where a superior Being provides the information, strength and wherewithal one has need of. |
I agree that faith does not allow one to distinguish truth from falsity so I wonder why you rely on it so absolutely. You say “a superior Being provides the information” but you believe this too on faith. Therefore you cannot distinguish whether this statement is true or false. You simply cannot know that a superior Being provides the information. Let’s look at your beliefs a bit more closely. I will list some of the things you have declared you believe on faith.
You believe on faith that:
God exists
God created the universe
God wrote or inspired the Bible
The Bible is inerrant
A superior Being provides you (John) with information
Jesus was god in a physical form
And here is a list of statements, from your own admission, that you cannot tell whether they are true or false:
God exists
God created the universe
God wrote or inspired the Bible
The Bible is inerrant
A superior Being provides you (John) with information
Jesus was god in a physical form
Have I got that right John?
| John R Nolan wrote: | | I believe there is sufficient evidence to vindicate my belief, for, we are saved by FAITH, not knowledge, works, wisdom. |
What evidence?
| John R Nolan wrote: | | In fact, if you look to the account of what happened in the Garden at the beginning, (if you believe in a beginning,) you will see that it was man’s choice to partake of the tree of KNOWLEDGE, INSTEAD of FAITH: that screwed the whole process up. |
We have agreed that we cannot be sure the Bible is inerrant, so we cannot be sure whether this passage is true, metaphorical or a made up story. So I wouldn’t take it too seriously if I were you John
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: Inerrancy, AGAIN? |
|
|
God bless you Lone, and Argenta, thanks for the flowers. Were they genetically modified? If so I won't eat them.
Lone, any Christian who suggests he can't be wrong, needs to get back on his knees and repent.
Scriptures say 'Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps.51:5.
58:3; 1 Tim.4:2; Rom.5:12; Eph.2:1-3 help support the reality that we come into the world, born evil, and a Christian's goal in life is learning to die to personal aggrandisment and allow He Who has all the answers to take control of our intellect.
In no submitted work has there ever been suggestion that I am right; one's hope is to encourage, stimulate debate and to learn from others who contribute, such as yourself.
That is why 'election' is such a blessing, if one is not part of GOD'S family, chosen in HIM before the foundation of the world, then it would appear they have little hope of redemption.
Yes, agreed, we are instructed to 'search the Scriptures,' Jn.5:39; we also read that the scholars, the Pharisees, said "search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet" Jn.7:52
One would suggest these Biblical experts got things seriously wrong, didn't they.
Now if those men, who were the supposed elect of GOD, the religious leaders of their day, were so drastically deluded, what is to prevent that happening also to the Gentiles?
It would appear Lone, that they neglected to do what they were demanding others do.
Sound familiar?
Sure, GOD does pour out blessings on His children but there is no Word to suggest all religious people get the blessings. Moreover, are we looking for temporal blessings, or ones of a Spiritual nature?
That is what this site is about, debating, searching, encouraging each other in the Faith, as I see it.
In Christian love
John.
Now, back to Argenta's challenging confrontation.
Love you too, friend.
Yes we established there is no way to prove the Bible, nor any other book, inerrant, according to the criteria with which we are presented, which is why we are saved by FAITH, not works.
You are, it would appear, a scholar Argenta, and very capable with scissors; that is a trick I am still learning.
It would appear there have been great advances in genetic engineering, for which Adolf Hitler was roundly condemned, but last time such experiments were done by myself it was found, by the third generation, the food, capsicums, were inedible.
Yes, it is true that there can be natural mutations within a specie, and that, due to external conditions, we witness genetic defects appearing, in any species.
One would suggest, in this rapidly deteriorating environment, that all biological systems are prone to error, as with many books, authors, though, possibly, in the beginning it was NOT meant to be this way.
Is genetic deterioration another result of the fall?
Natural selection implies random breeding but there is no evidence of species crossing except through controlled alteration, maybe that was part of Lucifer's trades.
That gmo's out breed their natural counter parts is no proof of the product being beneficial, except in increasing numbers.
What is the food value of gmo's compared to organically raised, natural foods?
Where does the LIFE come from in a product that is artificially manufactured?
We eat food to not only absorb the vitamins, etc., but to access the life that is in the food we eat, don't we?
No, arguing from any unprovable point is ludicrous, which is why I conceded previously.
This is not about proving anything, but discussing the situation from within our natural boundaries.
For many years I had serious doubts about religion, and the god they sold for gigantic profits. Those concerns, doubts have not been affrayed by further reading and conversation, but I have come to understand my situation more clearly and been provided with answers to questions none could answer, to my own satisfaction, of course.
Examples, maybe we should look at them away from this site, as they could be considered unsuitable here.
How do I know what I believe is a revelation from GOD?
Again, what proof do you require?
There is no means by which I can convince you that my personal revelation is legitimate, just as there is no way you can prove there is no GOD, it is my belief, and, as Paul said, 'if what we believe is incorrect then we are to be considered more than fools', but at least my life is positive, my abilities to contribute to my environment, my community, have been enhanced and my personal health has improved greatly.
Yes, positive thinking will bring about these results, and maybe that is all I experience, and thus I am happy in all things.
I look forward to receiving your criteria for this topic and will do my best to accomodate your questions.
By reading Gen.4 one may see that although it appears Adam was the only one to know Eve, 1 Jn.3:12 suggests otherwise. Also, in no Scripture is Cain ever described as the son of Adam, nor is Adam identified as being evil, which suggests Adam could not have been Cain's father.
Thus, your lineage is the source of your hope or the determination of your fate.
In your list of my beliefs through FAITH, I will agree that what you say is correct.
Jesus was not GOD.
Jesus was the physical tabernacle, the temple made without hands, in which GOD, SPIRIT resided for a period of about three years and an half.
Again, I have no evidence to convince you of my belief's reliability and confess that, to scientific researchers, my case is based on very shaky ground.
That I choose to take IT seriously is again my choice.
Thank you for your most stimulating conversation and I look forward to further debate, though it appears, in the atheist's eyes, my opinion is baseless and foolish, and discussion rather than debate may be the criteria for further communication.
One question though, what if my beliefs are right?
GOD bless you Argenta and thanks for your communication and love
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="John R Nolan"] | John R Nolan wrote: | It would appear there have been great advances in genetic engineering, for which Adolf Hitler was roundly condemned, but last time such experiments were done by myself it was found, by the third generation, the food, capsicums, were inedible.
Yes, it is true that there can be natural mutations within a specie, and that, due to external conditions, we witness genetic defects appearing, in any species.
One would suggest, in this rapidly deteriorating environment, that all biological systems are prone to error, as with many books, authors, though, possibly, in the beginning it was NOT meant to be this way.
Is genetic deterioration another result of the fall?
Natural selection implies random breeding but there is no evidence of species crossing except through controlled alteration, maybe that was part of Lucifer's trades. |
John, you might be confusing two things here: artificial selection and genetic modification.
In the former, man attempts to breed organisms to emphasise certain traits or reduce certain traits. This is done by checking offspring and only allowing those with the desirable traits to breed. Over many generations we have seen dramatic changes by this mechanism. For example, wild rice and wheat are very low yield and have very poor resistance to diseases compared to commercial varieties. And everyone can see the huge range of pedigree dog breeds that now exist largely through artificial selection.
We could compare artificial selection with natural selection, where the selection is done through competition for food and mates (and other things).
Both natural and artificial selection generally produce robust offspring that continue to reproduce and flourish.
Genetic modification is very different and has only been technically possible over the past 20 years or so. In GM, a gene from a foreign specie is implanted into an organism’s the genome. So for example, a jellyfish gene is implanted into, say, wheat. This can have unpredictable results but generally it works well. Living in Australia, if you eat tomato paste on your pasta or pizza, you will almost certainly be eating GM tomatoes. The same is true of Soya products. All the evidence, I am aware of suggests that nutrition is unaffected (may be improved if the foreign gene results in more vitamin C in your oranges say) and taste may or may not be affected. Indeed taste may be improved.
As to your point about a deteriorating environment… Well the environment may well be deteriorating but genetic errors have occurred since the beginning of life on earth. It is the primary mechanism by which natural selection has some variety from which to make selections. So this would have been happening about a billion years before the fall… And I don’t know what you mean by genetic deterioration. And what do you mean by “no evidence of species crossing”?
| John R Nolan wrote: | | That gmo's out breed their natural counter parts is no proof of the product being beneficial, except in increasing numbers. |
Agreed but you said GMOs cannot breed and this shows you were wrong.
I’ll continue my reply as a separate post.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | How do I know what I believe is a revelation from GOD?
Again, what proof do you require?
[snip]
I look forward to receiving your criteria for this topic and will do my best to accomodate your questions. |
Lots of people claim revelation from god. Some of them are written off as mad. Take the case of Brain J White. Here’s a true story I’ve taken from my unpublished (and incomplete) book:
| Quote: | It was 16 March 2007. Brian J White from Humble Texas had parked his 1984 Chevrolet Camaro at a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. Leaving the restroom he noticed an elderly man walking towards him. The man was Michail J. Makarenko, a 75 year-old exiled Russian and former Soviet political prisoner. Makarenko, now an art gallery owner, was travelling from his home in Hillsboro Virginia to see friends in New York. He would not complete his journey.
White at 26 was a devoutly religious man who had direct revelations from God. God had revealed that He was angry with America, that aliens now live on our planet, that the USA government has built a secret city where men were being cloned. White had written a book to share this knowledge with the people of America. The book was called The Book of Brian, and White was convinced it would form part of a ‘next century Bible’. White had also produced hip hop CDs to make his revelations more accessible and it was the CDs that would make him angry that night.
White approached the old man, “Hello sir. How are you?” He held a handful of CDs. Makarenko, had moved to the USA 28 years earlier but his English was poor and he was tired and in a hurry. He shook his head dismissively and veered to pass White by. But something snapped in White. He reached down, picked up an ornamental rock and struck Makarenko repeatedly on his head until he fell, face down, in a pool of blood. White dropped the rock, climbed into his Camaro and set off towards New York City. Despite the efforts of paramedics, within 30 minutes, Makarenko would be dead.
Until this incident, White’s friends regarded him as a normal person but passionate, possibly obsessive about his religion. |
I don’t think Brian J White had many followers, though who knows what might have happened if he had not lost his temper that night in March? If you will bear with me, here is another true story from my book.
| Quote: | In 1822, 17 year old Joseph Smith saw the Angel Moroni. Smith from Vermont, was one of 10 children. His family was poor but spiritual. The visitation from Moroni was Smith’s second vision; when he was only 13 he claimed he had spoken directly to God. Moroney revealed the whereabouts of golden tablets of Palmyra that had been buried in New York some 1,300 years previously. The tablets recorded the history of a lost tribe of Israel and were brought to America by tribe members fleeing Israel around 400 BCE.
Unfortunately, the tablets were written in a language that only Moroni could read so the angel provided Smith with special lenses that when placed inside his hat would enable him to read them. Smith was not accomplished in the arts of reading and writing so he devised an elaborate scheme to translate the tablets and commit them to paper in English. This had to be done without anyone laying eyes on either the golden tablets or the special lenses. Smith would read the tablets aloud using the lenses and a neighbour would write the words on paper. To maintain strict secrecy, Smith erected a blanket across the room with his collaborator on one side and him on the other. In this way the Book of Mormon was written.
In accordance with the Angel Moroni’s instructions, Smith was careful to ensure that the golden tablets were never found and nor were the special lenses although he did recruit 11 people who signed statements witnessing that they had seen the tablets. No archaeological or documentary evidence of Moroney’s lost tribe of Israel has ever been unearthed. |
Of course, this is the story of the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints which now boasts 12 million members worldwide. You may find Smith’s account convincing but I don’t and nor do many others—indeed Smith was killed by an angry crowd in 1844.
So my question is, if a man approaches you and insists that he has a revelation from god how would you decide whether or not to believe him? Here is my answer.
Revelation as a source of knowledge has one over-riding problem. Very obviously, revelation cannot be valid if the source (Gods, angels and so on) do not exist. So a precondition to believing revelation is to be sure the source is real. But even if God is real, a person could invent a revelation and ask you to believe it. So before we believe revelation, we must rule out the factors that would otherwise invalidate it. I argue that revelation can only be considered reliable if it can be shown that:
1. The relevant God exists and;
2. The relevant God actually revealed the claimed words and;
3. The claimed words are an accurate reproduction of the revealed words and;
4. The words are unambiguous and;
5. The relevant God had no wish to mislead humans.
Only if all five conditions can be established can the revealed knowledge be given validity. To my knowledge there is no known example of revealed knowledge that meets all of these tests. Indeed, it is rare for revealed knowledge to meet any of these tests.
Do you agree these are good tests for claimed revelation?
| John R Nolan wrote: | One question though, what if my beliefs are right?
GOD bless you Argenta and thanks for your communication and love
John |
If you are right, I never had a chance so it doesn’t matter what I do or believe. In any case, I think the chances of you being right are so vanishingly small as to be unworthy of consideration. This is because I take account of contrary evidence but you ignore it.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum,
I've been following this thread and thought I would post a clip from the Urantia Papers. It is somewhat of a mistake for finite beings to establish at-will testable formulas to analyze absolutes. Science must concede it's posture is also incomplete, it lacks infinite information to make statements of final value.
Unlike science, which is forced to update itself, religion can also remain stubbornly unwilling to modify and concede the evolutionary influence of man made religious systems. Sooner or later revealed religion is contaminated by evolved religion.
If faith in God seems difficult for the scientist, then the idea of a near infinite series of chance and happenstance, consorting to form an uncaused and meaningless life, is even more spectacular.
Urantia Revelation 1911-55
THE VULNERABILITY OF MATERIALISM
How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith--human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.
Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The "scientific method" is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.
The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.
Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.
The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a "psychologic projection"--a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man. And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of "relativity" disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.
If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.
The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man's conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.
The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.
A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.
The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man's futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.
If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.
If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.
If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one's self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.
The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.
Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man, the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values.
In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion--insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art.
How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!
Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.
Mechanists--humanists--tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.
Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.
In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals--of love and hate, of cowardice and courage--represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.
The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.
The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | | I've been following this thread and thought I would post a clip from the Urantia Papers. It is somewhat of a mistake for finite beings to establish at-will testable formulas to analyze absolutes. Science must concede it's posture is also incomplete, it lacks infinite information to make statements of final value. |
I'm really sorry Colter but life is too short to go through a post like this and correct every error or ask you to clarify every impenetrable, meaningless phrase. So I opt out but to show you what I mean I'll just comment on your first paragraph only.
You say: "It is somewhat of a mistake for finite beings to establish at-will testable formulas to analyze absolutes. "
I ask what is an "at-will" testable formula?
You ignore whole fields such as maths and physics that deal with absolutes such as absolute zero or the speed of light or real numbers. We've dealt with these concepts for many years and have done very well, thank you.
Humans are finite in the sense of having a finite lifespan. Our intellectual abilities MAY be finite but we have no idea where the boundary of our possible knowlege is. We do know that each year we learn more than we learned in the previous year and the rate of growth is accelerating.
You say "Science ...lacks infinite information to make statements of final value."
Science never claims to make ANY statements of final value. ALL scientific claims are provisional. They are based on known evidence and therefore may change in the light of new evidence. That's what makes the scientific method so powerful and why it is the opposite of dogma.
The thread you commented on was looking at ways to determine the inerrancy of a book and to determine whether a claimed revelation could be credible. We have possible formulae to answer both of these questions. If you have a contribution to make; don't be shy; make it. If you disagree with us, address the question DIRECTLY and tell us exactly why you disagree--don't just quote slabs of text from a comedy book.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Argenta,
| Quote: | | I ask what is an "at-will" testable formula? |
This would be your at-will testable formula.
1. The relevant God exists and;
2. The relevant God actually revealed the claimed words and;
3. The claimed words are an accurate reproduction of the revealed words and;
4. The words are unambiguous and;
5. The relevant God had no wish to mislead humans.
| Quote: |
You ignore whole fields such as maths and physics that deal with absolutes such as absolute zero or the speed of light or real numbers. We've dealt with these concepts for many years and have done very well, thank you. |
I don't ignore these fields at all, but so called science fails to give due recognition to the master mathematician whom created these absolutes which govern the universe. In this way science then becomes dogmatic itself.
| Quote: |
Humans are finite in the sense of having a finite lifespan. Our intellectual abilities MAY be finite but we have no idea where the boundary of our possible knowlege is. We do know that each year we learn more than we learned in the previous year and the rate of growth is accelerating. |
Science discovers things that have already been created.
| Quote: |
You say "Science ...lacks infinite information to make statements of final value."
Science never claims to make ANY statements of final value. ALL scientific claims are provisional. They are based on known evidence and therefore may change in the light of new evidence. That's what makes the scientific method so powerful and why it is the opposite of dogma. |
Science leaves it's home when it seeks to invalidate spiritual truth. In the same way religion should not concern itself with science but rather with the scientist.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
