Why are we here?

Speedwell · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
But, you do not accept the creation Day sequence.
What else in the Bible you do not accept in a similar manner? Are you picking and choose?

Of course I accept the creation day sequence. It is very clear and hard to overlook. It just doesn't have anything to do with what science has discovered about our origins. It was written by and for a people who didn't know anything scientific about our origins and written for reasons which had nothing to do with what science would discover about our origins.

ananda · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
This very viewpoint is exactly a very strong argument for the truth of Bible message.

The Bible is a historical document. At any moment in the history, any verse in any Book of the Bible could be modified, for any reason, by Scribes. If so, what would be the consistency of the Bible messages after thousands of years? A similar situation can be seen in Buddhism scriptures. Do you know what is the current situation of Buddhism scriptures? Tell you in brief: it is disastrous. That is why we have denominations in Buddhism which is far far diversified (disastrously) in doctrines when compared with Christian denominations.

(full graphic here)

46AND2 · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
It a strong support to the truth of Bible.

No. It isn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

2000 years from now, if there are exact copies of Harry Potter books, will people say that because it was preserved so well, it must be true?

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

pitabread said:
I'm talking about your Biblical interpretation. That is what is post-hoc.

I am talking about science. Bible descriptions are always there. Science is catching up all the time.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

ananda said:
(full graphic here)

I know Buddhism, as well as other major religions, has messages in very good agreement with Bible messages. This is a fact. But what does it mean?

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

Speedwell said:
Of course I accept the creation day sequence. It is very clear and hard to overlook. It just doesn't have anything to do with what science has discovered about our origins. It was written by and for a people who didn't know anything scientific about our origins and written for reasons which had nothing to do with what science would discover about our origins.

You simply can not do that. If you accept what Genesis 1 says that plants are created before our sun, then it MUST be supported by science. At least, it should not be disproved by science. There is no compromise between the two.

For those faithfuls who do not know enough science, they at least should not say anything against the Bible verses.

pitabread · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
I am talking about science. Bible descriptions are always there. Science is catching up all the time.

And science contradicts those Bible descriptions unless you invoke a post-hoc interpretation to make it "agree" with science. Which is what you appear to be doing here.

(Although I honestly have no idea how you think a passage written about grass and fruit-trees has anything to do with organic molecules on comets, but I guess you'll have to rationalize that for yourself.)

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

46AND2 said:
No. It isn't. It is entirely irrelevant.

2000 years from now, if there are exact copies of Harry Potter books, will people say that because it was preserved so well, it must be true?

For a single author book, such as the Koran, there is no problem.
For multiple authors book with time stretch over thousands of years, it would be nearly impossible to keep the theme of the book consistent and coordinated perfectly. the Bible is such a miracle Book.

One may try to pick 30 books/authors published across a period of time, e.g. 300 years, to compose a single most important message. See what message would it be.

bhsmte · Jan 11, 2019

pitabread said:
And science contradicts those Bible descriptions unless you invoke a post-hoc interpretation to make it "agree" with science. Which is what you appear to be
doing here.

(Although I honestly have no idea how you think a passage written about grass and fruit-trees has anything to do with organic molecules on comets, but I guess you'll have to rationalize that for yourself.)

Remember, Juvy claims rocks are alive.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

pitabread said:
And science contradicts those Bible descriptions unless you invoke a post-hoc interpretation to make it "agree" with science. Which is what you appear to be
doing here.

I am not using science to "interpret" Bible verses. I use science to support that the Bible says. In doing that, there is not much room for interpretation.

Just bring you to the ground once for a while: If we have a scientific hypothesis (description), then do we use evidences to interpret it or to support/against it?

You may interpret the statement of bird before land animals anyway you want. But any scientific argument would only either support it or against it. You try to make a scientific argument and see if you could only "interpret" it.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

bhsmte said:
Remember, Juvy claims rocks are alive.

I did it with 100% scientific argument. You can not beat me simply because you do not know enough science.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

pitabread said:
(Although I honestly have no idea how you think a passage written about grass and fruit-trees has anything to do with organic molecules on comets, but I guess you'll have to rationalize that for yourself.)

You don't. But if you like to learn, I won't mind to repeat it one more time.

pitabread · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
I am not using science to "interpret" Bible verses. I use science to support that the Bible says. In doing that, there is not much room for interpretation.

Then explain to me how Genesis 1:11 refers to things other than grasses and fruit-trees?

You may interpret the statement of bird before land animals anyway you want.

I never brought up birds.

I pointed out the fact that the order for the creation of grasses and fruit trees (Genesis 1:11) contradicts the order of the creation of aquatic animals (Genesis 1:20).

A plain reading of the text is out of order with real world events based on scientific findings. Any post-hoc interpretation of these events to make them "fit" with science is just that: post-hoc interpretation.

46AND2 · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
For a single author book, such as the Koran, there is no problem.
For multiple authors book with time stretch over thousands of years, it would be nearly impossible to keep the theme of the book consistent and coordinated perfectly. the Bible is such a miracle Book.

One may try to pick 30 books/authors published across a period of time, e.g. 300 years, to compose a single most important message. See what message would it be.

But the theme of the Bible isn't consistent, nor is it coordinated perfectly. And even if it was, what does that have to do with it's truth? There are series of fiction books written by multiple authors with a central theme and are consistent with each other. How can that be so? Um. Because, the newer authors read about the fictional universe of the previous books, and expand on that universe.

Speedwell · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
You simply can not do that. If you accept what Genesis 1 says that plants are created before our sun, then it MUST be supported by science. At least, it should not be disproved by science. There is no compromise between the two.

Only if you assume that Genesis was intended to be accurate literal history.

bhsmte · Jan 11, 2019

juvenissun said:
I did it with 100% scientific argument. You can not beat me simply because you do not know enough science.

Major league, LOL

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

pitabread said:
Then explain to me how Genesis 1:11 refers to things other than grasses and fruit-trees?

I never brought up birds.

I pointed out the fact that the order for the creation of grasses and fruit trees (Genesis 1:11) contradicts the order of the creation of aquatic animals (Genesis 1:20).

A plain reading of the text is out of order with real world events based on scientific findings. Any post-hoc interpretation of these events to make them "fit" with science is just that: post-hoc interpretation.

You have set your mind. Then that is it for you.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

46AND2 said:
But the theme of the Bible isn't consistent, nor is it coordinated perfectly.

It is.
You may ask question. Otherwise, that is it.

juvenissun · Jan 11, 2019

Speedwell said:
Only if you assume that Genesis was intended to be accurate literal history.

If I assumed that, you can not prove me wrong.

46AND2 · Jan 11, 2019

Duplicate

Why are we here?

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Similar threads