Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[joshua 1 9]

If scientists don't -- not "can't" ... "don't" -- if scientists don't see the Godhead in nature, perhaps their brand of science can take a hike?

They say the same thing as you. If you do not see what they see then your religion can take a hike. Science and religion needs to work with each other, not against each other.

 

[joshua 1 9]

atheists aren't "mad at a God that they don't believe exists".

Does Santa Claus exist?

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished."

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and religion needs to work with each other, not against each other.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You cited a modern revision. Mine's earlier than yours.

Yours can be traced to two homosexuals: Wescott & Hort.

Yours was altered for the King James version. Older versions and almost all subsequent versions use "divinity" rather than "Godhead", which was pretty much only in KJV (and subsequent derivations of that translation).

The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort.
Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism

Westcott, having been a married Anglican Bishop with several sons, could hardly have been a homosexual. I'm sure you can clear this up with some evidence for the attack. Repeating rumors other KJV-only people wrote will confirm the impression your post has made.

 

[katerinah1947]

Is an extreme atheist a person who proselytizes reason and scientific facts the same way theists have for centuries permeated their religions throughout our society?

Also for bhsmte's benefit; atheists aren't "mad at a God that they don't believe exists". They use the concept of gods as a way to demonstrate a point. For example, if you said something like: "God is good and benevolent", an atheist might respond by saying: "I don't think so. I think your God is mean and selfish". That's not some kind of admission (by atheists) that gods actually exist; it's simply a way providing you with a counter argument by playing along with your belief, by talking your language.

Hi,

Extreme Atheists are those who get angry and verbal when anyone brings up the subject of God.

Extreme Atheists, were a set of test subjects I used in my study of Atheism, also.

And I don't use a common definition of atheism. I use the variation that they don't believe God exists.

So extremes are used typically, if they can be found, as everyone and everything exists, within those extremes.

Atheists are common, but what are they?

One definition is they don't believe in God.

So, I went looking, (without telling anyone) and tried to find people who didn't believe in God.

Not telling anyone is a requirement.

In about 10 years, I was done. I had found enough extreme Atheists, who vocally and verbally railed against the concept of God.

I also was able to talk to them and find out what I needed to, research wise.

So, these Atheists, were extreme in their mannerisms on God, and extreme in their positions on God.

In all the extremists, not the moderates, I found something quite unexpected. Honesty. Morality. Ethics.

These were honest Atheists. And, they were so moral and ethical at the time, that they were better Christians than any Christians, that I knew of.

A very peculiar finding, which I understand today.

They are brave, honest people, who are so brave and so honest, that they refuse to follow any evil within an organization, including lies.

In all extreme Atheists, this horrible awful researcher, who has and does anger many, many that are not happy with what is actually true versus the views they hold, found that there is actually no one who does not believe in God.

Extreme Atheists, just don't believe in the version of God being shoved down their throats, or represented by churchs that also allow heinous acts, or who have done heinous acts.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Is an extreme atheist a person who proselytizes reason and scientific facts the same way theists have for centuries permeated their religions throughout our society?

Also for bhsmte's benefit; atheists aren't "mad at a God that they don't believe exists". They use the concept of gods as a way to demonstrate a point. For example, if you said something like: "God is good and benevolent", an atheist might respond by saying: "I don't think so. I think your God is mean and selfish". That's not some kind of admission (by atheists) that gods actually exist; it's simply a way providing you with a counter argument by playing along with your belief, by talking your language.

Yep, you got it.

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

I deal with extreme Atheists. Yes, I can explain how they can be mad at God.

LOVE,

Go ahead.

 

[The Barbarian]

Decades ago, on several forums, none of which still exist, I sort of allied myself with another person, trying to bring some rational understanding of evolution to creationists. Our approach was to focus on just the facts, to avoid any philosophical or religious issues and merely show how it was inescapable for anyone who would just look at the evidence.

Didn't work all that well, for reasons most of you probably understand. But a friendship evolved.

Neither one of us talked about religion, and at one point, he asked me to join a group of atheists. I was surprised that he was a militant atheist; he was rather surprised that I was a Catholic. But we both had the same impression. We were unprepared to see that someone on the other side was ethical.

He asked me to join, his group suggesting that they needed "rational theists", which I declined politely. We sometimes talked about what to tell his daughter, who was approaching puberty, asking about his nonbelief, and generally showing some indication of wanting to believe.

He was torn between wanting to protect her and his belief that everyone should be free to live their lives as they saw fit. Not long after that, the boards went away, and I lost touch with him.

 

[katerinah1947]

Go ahead.

Hi,

The actual reason extreme Atheist Number One, got angry to the point of stopping conversations, if God were brought up or mentioned at work, was because his mother was horrible, and a Catholic.

He hated God, because of his own mother's actions towards him, and probably his father, as he fit the profile for having a Predator Mother who is a Predator wife, who is a Narcissist, and who has a child, to keep her husband providing for her, because he is sweet, kind and honest, normally from one good parent, but very very very vocal about what his mom was like, using religion also to do what all Nacissists do, which is enslave one person to themselves, psychologically.

The second extreme atheist, was the same.

The third one a female was the same as the first, abused.

In all my extreme cases, God was blamed, for the actions of people and organizations. And, oh yes there was hatred.

There was also hatred by the Tecnical definition of hatred used by Therapists.

They were disappointed, in someone they cared deeply about.

God.

To therapists, hatred is love and love is love, just two sides to caring.

Pleasure from one you care about, is called love, by non professionals.

Displeasure from one you care about, is called hate by non professionals.

All of the extreme Atheists, care deeply. All of them, are disappointed, in what they think God should do or should have done.

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

It was not easy for you growing up.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

The actual reason extreme Atheist Number One, got angry to the point of stopping conversations, if God were brought up or mentioned at work, was because his mother was horrible, and a Catholic.

He hated God, because of his own mother's actions towards him, and probably his father, as he fit the profile for having a Predator Mother who is a Predator wife, who is a Narcissist, and who has a child, to keep her husband providing for her, because he is sweet, kind and honest, normally from one good parent, but very very very vocal about what his mom was like, using religion also to do what all Nacissists do, which is enslave one person to themselves, psychologically.

The second extreme atheist, was the same.
The third one a female was the same as the first, abused.

In all my extreme cases, God was blamed, for the actions of people and organizations. And, oh yes there was hatred.

There was also hatred by the Tecnical definition of hatred used by Therapists.

They were disappointed, in someone they cared deeply about.

God.

To therapists, hatred is love and love is love, just two sides to caring.

Pleasure from one you care about, is called love, by non professionals.

Displeasure from one you care about, is called hate by non professionals.

All of the extreme Atheists, care deeply. All of them, are disappointed, in what they think God should do or should have done.

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

It was not easy for you growing up.

LOVE,

I was deeply hurt in my youth??

It was not easy for me growing up??

I am greatly interested, in how you came up with these conclusions about me, please share.

 

[katerinah1947]

I was deeply hurt in my youth??

It was not easy for me growing up??

I am greatly interested, in how you came up with these conclusions about me, please share.

Hi,

No.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

No.

LOVE,

Revealing.

Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yours was altered for the King James version. Older versions and almost all subsequent versions use "divinity" rather than "Godhead", which was pretty much only in KJV (and subsequent derivations of that translation).

Oh, really?

Then why does the 1389 Wycliffe Bible say this?

Romans 1:20 [Wycliffe] For the invisible things of him, that be understood, be beheld of the creature of the world, by those things that be made, yea, and the everlasting virtue of him and the Godhead, so that they may not be excused. [For the invisible things of him, of the creature of the world, by those things that be made, understood be beholden, and the everlasting virtue of him, and the Godhead, so that they be unexcusable.]

Not to mention the 1599 Geneva Bible, which says this ...

Romans 1:20 [Geneva] For the invisible things of him, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are seen by the creation of the world, being considered in his works, to the intent that they should be without excuse:

 

[AV1611VET]

I was surprised that he was a militant atheist; he was rather surprised that I was a Catholic.

Hmmm ...

A "militant atheist" and a "[adjective not supplied for whatever reason] Catholic" forging a friendship to combat creationism.

Brings to mind this passage ...

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

 

[katerinah1947]

Revealing.

Thanks.

Hi,

Dangerous in your case.

You are not a scientist as you said.

Not, being a scientist, and the subject, would not work well, as you have so frequently demonstrated in the past.

Would you like to convince me that you can handle, a complex issue.,?

So far you could not even handle understanding work history, and how it relates, let alone Controlled Experiments.

The answer by the way, is all your responses correlate to a person with the upbringing I mentioned, and rather strongly so.

LOVE,

 

[The Barbarian]

From the Vulgate: (ca. 400 A.D.)
invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus et divinitas ut sint inexcusabiles


divinitas N 3 1 NOM S F
divinitas N 3 1 VOC S F
divinitas, divinitatis N F [XEXCO]
divinity, quality/nature of God; divine excellence/power/being; divining;

You lose.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the Vulgate:

Ooooo!

The Vulgate!

Is that the thing that convinced you that the KJB and "subsequent derivations of that translation" were the only ones that said "Godhead"?

Or were you just saying that and hoping I wouldn't investigate it?

 

[The Barbarian]

A "militant atheist" and a "[adjective not supplied for whatever reason] Catholic" forging a friendship to combat [YE] creationism.

We were both biologists, and objected to it on scientific grounds. On the other hand, being a Christian, I objected to it, because it denies God's work in Genesis. He had no concerns about that, of course. But as you know, YE creationism is a great atheist-maker:

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to
a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!
...

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

Brings to mind this passage ...

John 8:32
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Let God be God, and there will be nothing in the truth for you to fear. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

But as you know, YE creationism is a great atheist-maker:

Either that, or "YE creationism" forces those sitting on the fence to declare their intentions.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

And as I have pointed out before, a "great atheist-maker" is adhering to Linnaeus' philosophy of calling oneself "wise."

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Dangerous in your case.

You are not a scientist as you said.

Not, being a scientist, and the subject, would not work well, as you have so frequently demonstrated in the past.

Would you like to convince me that you can handle, a complex issue.,?

So far you could not even handle understanding work history, and how it relates, let alone Controlled Experiments.

The answer by the way, is all your responses correlate to a person with the upbringing I mentioned, and rather strongly so.

LOVE,

Cool.

What does myself not being a scientist have to do with you making a claim about my personal life?

So, here we go. You have made claims about my personal life, lets see if you can support these claims, by explaining what specific evidence you used to reach these conclusions, rather than just making vague claims.

Ball is in your court to support your bold claims. By the way, are you a psychologist?