Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[katerinah1947]

In post 1896, you made the following personal claims about me and I quote them directly:

"If I remember correctly, you are and were hurt deeply in your youth.

It was not easy for you growing up."

Since your wrote the above, I have asked you to support your claim above with evidence and an explanation as to how you concluded the same.

You have not responded to my request for your to support the above, point me to a post # where you have.

If you make personal claims about others, don't be shocked when you are asked to support it.

Hi,

POST # 1940.

And only one two insults. One is that I have not responded. Two is, I have avoided answering you, disingenuously.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

POST # 1940.

LOVE,

Post 1940 is more claims and assertions, I see no objective evidence to support what you said below:

"If I remember correctly, you are and were hurt deeply in your youth.

It was not easy for you growing up."

Please point out specifically in post 1940, the objective evidence that supports; I was hurt deeply in my youth and it was not easy for me growing up.

By the way, are you a psychologist?

 

[katerinah1947]

Post 1940 is more claims and assertions, I see no objective evidence to support what you said below:

"If I remember correctly, you are and were hurt deeply in your youth.

It was not easy for you growing up."

Please point out specifically in post 1940, the objective evidence that supports; I was hurt deeply in my youth and it was not easy for me growing up.

By the way, are you a psychologist?

Hi,

It's all there. How are you missing it?

Do you need to be taught, you with an advanced degree? It, is all there.

Is that the fundamental problem here? You don't understand?

It's all there and couldn't be any clearer.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

It's all there. How are you missing it?

Do you need to be taught, you with an advanced degree? It, is all there.

Is that the fundamental problem here? You don't understand?

It's all there and couldn't be any clearer.

LOVE,

There is a fundamental problem, what you write, is all your opinion and absent any objective evidence. Do you enjoy making derogatory personal judgments about others?

I will ask again, are you a psychologist?

 

[katerinah1947]

There is a fundamental problem, what you write, is all your opinion and absent any objective evidence. Do you enjoy making derogatory personal judgments about others?

I will ask again, are you a psychologist?

Hi,

Let's see. Are you insulting me? Let me look and count.

There are 6, and possibly 7.

There are 34 Words.

That is almost one insult for every 5 words.

No there is 8, you have insulted my long and careful response to you.

Nice work. An insult for almost ever 5 words, and one silent insult.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Let's see. Are you insulting me? Let me look and count.

There are 6, and possibly 7.

There are 34 Words.

That is almost one insult for every 5 words.

No there is 8, you have insulted my long and careful response to you.

Nice work. An insult for almost ever 5 words, and one silent insult.


LOVE,

I am asking you to support a personal claim you made about me that was negative, did you somehow miss that?

If asking you to support your own claims insults you, maybe you shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about others.

 

[katerinah1947]

I am asking you to support a personal claim you made about me that was negative, did you somehow miss that?

If asking you to support your own claims insults you, maybe you shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about others.

Hi,

Let's see. Are you insulting me here also? I'll try and count again.

Only 5 insults. One of them is very demeaning.

So all in all, the last response and this one even out in the impact of your insults.,

Oops!, 6, I missed the silent one.

40 words though. It is harder now to compare the two.

LOVE,

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the bibolatry of KJVO:
Worshiping man's revision of God's Word seems more than a little foolish to me. But that's your choice to make.

And which revision do you worship?

Christians worship God, not a book.

The Douay (a.k.a. Catholic Bible)?

It's not the Catholic Bible. In fact, most Catholics use others today.

If not, what's wrong with it, Catholic?

It's just that Catholics, like most Christians, don't worship any version of the Bible. It's the word of God, but it's not God.

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call "Douay-Rheims-onlyism." The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.


What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide

Isn't it good enough for you?

Or are you above your own inhouse translation?

You may perhaps not know that the documents from which the KJV was prepared, were supplied by a Roman Catholic, Erasmus.

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516 – a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus' edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text, and included some missing parts back translated from the Latin Vulgate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Ironic, um?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Honesty would probably require one to note that Gould was an agnostic.

Really?

Yep. He once speculated that intelligence evolved because a creator wanted someone to share it with.

Ok Still Gould was of the opinion that if we went back to the beginning of time and started all over again the results of evolution would be totally different. This opposed to the theory that evolution is subject to the natural laws and if you go anywhere in the universe you will end up with pretty much the same results every time.

There is no such theory. The laws stay the same, but exactly how they play out is different because small variations in initial states can produce very different outcomes. This is no problem for a Christian, since God can use contingency just as easily as He can use necessity to do what He wills to do.

None of that really changes the fact of Gould being an agnostic, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

Barbarian, regarding the bibolatry of KJVO:
Worshiping man's revision of God's Word seems more than a little foolish to me. But that's your choice to make.

Okay with you if I claim you worship nature?

Christians worship God, not a book.

No kidding?

It's not the Catholic Bible. In fact, most Catholics use others today.

It's just that Catholics, like most Christians, don't worship any version of the Bible. It's the word of God, but it's not God.

I should report you for this, but I'll just consider the source.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s.

Okay, let's get this straight:

1. I worship the Bible?
2. I don't know the Bible I'm using -- (which is the AV1611, fifth edition) -- is not the One completed in 1611?

Anything else about me you can't get right?

You may perhaps not know that the documents from which the KJV was prepared, were supplied by a Roman Catholic, Erasmus.

I don't care if Micky Mouse supplied them.

What's your point?

Textus Receptus ...

Oh, here we go --

Look, if you don't have anything to say, Barb, how about not saying anything ... eh?

And the thing is, the more we converse, the more mistakes you make.

I should have taken the hint when you refused to address me after I showed you you were wrong about the King James Bible and ff. using "Godhead."

But apparently you want to walk and talk like some barbarian and just stomp around making wild accusations and look and sound like a modern-day scientist.

Suit yourself -- but don't expect me to play along.



NNNN

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Let's see. Are you insulting me here also? I'll try and count again.

Only 5 insults. One of them is very demeaning.

So all in all, the last response and this one even out in the impact of your insults.,

Oops!, 6, I missed the silent one.

40 words though. It is harder now to compare the two.

LOVE,

You don't like being asked to support the claims you make about others do you? Crying foul for being asked to support your claim is just more evasion.

I am quite certain, your next post will be more of the same; no support of your claim and more assertions of being insulted for being asked.

 

[The Barbarian]

Okay with you if I claim you worship nature?No kidding?I should report you for this, but I'll just consider the source.Okay, let's get this straight:

1. I worship the Bible?

Only if you think that only one translation is the "real" one.

Barbarian, regarding the bibolatry of KJVO:
Worshiping man's revision of God's Word seems more than a little foolish to me. But that's your choice to make.

Okay with you if I claim you worship nature?

If so, you're also arguing that St. Paul worshiped nature. Romans 1:20, you know.

Barbarian chuckles:
It's not the Catholic Bible. In fact, most Catholics use others today.

It's just that Catholics, like most Christians, don't worship any version of the Bible. It's the word of God, but it's not God.

I should report you for this,

I don't think it's out of bounds to make that point. Few Christians do.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s.

Okay, let's get this straight:

1. I worship the Bible?

You're asking me? Bibolatry isn't uncommon, but you should answer for yourself.

The Barbarian said:
You may perhaps not know that the documents from which the KJV was prepared, were supplied by a Roman Catholic, Erasmus.

I don't care if Micky Mouse supplied them.

That was Erasmus. Perhaps you're thinking of who edited them.

I should have taken the hint when you refused to address me after I showed you you were wrong about the King James Bible and ff. using "Godhead."

As you learned, that is a relatively modern revision of scripture. St. Paul, as I showed you, used "divinity" not "Godhead."

But apparently you want to walk and talk like some barbarian and just stomp around

Well, you know how stompy barbarians are...

making wild accusations

We aren't so much on accusations. Accuser is on the other side of this argument, I think.

and look and sound like a modern-day scientist.

Well, my wife says that I don't have any sense of fashion at all. And I pronounce "unionized" with four syllables, so you may have a point, there.

Suit yourself

My wife won't let me. She insists on reviewing what I want to buy for clothes before I can buy them.

-- but don't expect me to play along.

You're doing just fine.

 

[katerinah1947]

You don't like being asked to support the claims you make about others do you? Crying foul for being asked to support your claim is just more evasion.

I am quite certain, your next post will be more of the same; no support of your claim and more assertions of being insulted for being asked.

Hi,

Okay, let's look at this next response, to see if I am still being insulted. I'll mix it up.

The number of words are first this time.,

55 Words.

Are there any insults though? Maybe there will be none this time,

6 insults that I caught.

One insult for every 9 words.

I am getting tired of doing his math for him.

Are insults allowed?



LOVE,

 

[Extraneous]

Hi,

Okay, let's look at this next response, to see if I am still being insulted. I'll mix it up.

The number of words are first this time.,

55 Words.

Are there any insults though? Maybe there will be none this time,

6 insults that I caught.

One insult for every 9 words.

I am getting tired of doing his math for him.

Are insults allowed?



LOVE,

There is a pattern, and no they will not stop. They dont have instructions in righteousness. They dont value respect, truth, honor, or love.

 

[katerinah1947]

There is a pattern, and no they will not stop. They dont have instructions in righteousness. They dont value respect, truth, honor, or love.

Hi,

Romans 13:1-5, is my hope here. Also, Proverbs says much also.


LOVE,

 

[Extraneous]

Hi,

Romans 13:1-5, is my hope here. Also, Proverbs says much also.


LOVE,

Yes, but they dont value those words. I wasn't contradicting you or anything, i was actually trying to show support. I dont always know how to do that in the best way. Anyway thank you.

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

I enjoy the accuracy of some people here.

You are one of my absolute favorites, in that way.

And, no, I am not asking you to ignore any mistakes I make. I don't think you would or could anyway.

I have always thought you were a gnostic theist, or at least a scientist.

Amazingly, I think you said that you are an artist.

Although such clarity of thought, and commitment to reality and truth, I do not understand at all being in an artist, your remarks display much of the interior of you, and inside, you are impressive.

LOVE,

Uh, thanks.

I am an atheist, always have been. I'm not a scientist. I'm a musician. But I have a very strong interest in science.

 

[Kylie]

Hey there, fellow atheist-musician-scientific thinker! Classical guitarist here, and some experience on the trombone.

Nice, I'm a pianist.

 

[Kylie]

I'm glad you PICKed up on it, I was worried you might FRET.

 

[The Cadet]

Hey there, fellow atheist-musician-scientific thinker! Classical guitarist here, and some experience on the trombone.

Rock guitarist and singer, at yer service!