Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what you think that means but I'll say that No mas andas papaloteando, mijo...

QV please: Obscure Spanish words.

 

[sandwiches]

QV please: Obscure Spanish words.

hehe
I know what it means; I'm just not sure you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

hehe
I know what it means; I'm just not sure you do.

Oh, sorry -- I figured you did!

 

[sandwiches]

Oh, sorry -- I figured you did!

It's cool. If you ever wanna find out what it means, let me know.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's cool. If you ever wanna find out what it means, let me know.

Doesn't it mean 'to stir up trouble'?

If not, what does it mean?

 

[SkyWriting]

So atheists aren't allowed to go into the sciences? I mean the bottom two links you provided could just as easily have listed Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Vegetarian or Red Sox fans as scientists. So what?

Soo....Scientists are never supposed to be so sure about unprovable ideas. So he's not acting as a scientist. So if I assume Scientists only deal with what can be proven, and have no preconceived ideas about what they study...then Atheists cannot legitimately comment on the supernatural.

Dawkins is his own sort of being. A New Atheist who conflates a sense of smug superiority regarding his religious beliefs* with his professional calling. I think he's absolutely brilliant with his writing when it comes to pop-sci and the Crevo debate**, but I've not been a fan of his New Atheism since he and some others came up with "brights" a few years back.* IMO he's a strong atheist and that's a belief rather than a lack of belief.** At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, I only wanted one photo with one of the celebrity speakers - Dawkins.

Nice self delusion. He's a very well respected Scientist and Author. And a disgrace to the idea of objectivity.

 

[Nostromo]

Soo....Scientists are never supposed to be so sure about unprovable ideas. So he's not acting as a scientist.

So what do we do about all the religious scientists?

So if I assume Scientists only deal with what can be proven, and have no preconceived ideas about what they study...then Atheists cannot legitimately comment on the supernatural.

What can be evidenced, not proven, and being an atheist doesn't mean one has preconceived ideas about the possibility of the supernatural.

Besides, I don't think anybody can legitimately comment on the supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what do we do about all the religious scientists?

We question their objectivity of course.

What can be evidenced, not proven, and being an atheist doesn't mean one has preconceived ideas about the possibility of the supernatural.

Your thinking of Agnostics. Athiests deny the supernatural.

Besides, I don't think anybody can legitimately comment on the supernatural.

That's Agnostic.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you're not really in a position to describe the circumstances under which they allegedly happened -- it's just wishful thinking on your part.

I have no "wishes" either way. I've experienced a few answered prayers, What I read is possible as well I imagine.

Ever prayed anyone back from the dead?

Taken a spirit back from God's presence? An odd thought. Like Jesus pulling on one arm and me tugging on the other? I wonder how that would turn out? Especially if they were preemie-babies. I wonder what would be the best outcome?

And so do the healing stories -- you don't get them because you're not the intended audience.

How many is this number you have in mind? Could friends and married relatives read the scriptures too? Or would they only get half the message. What's the DNA cut-off point you have in mind?
Am I too LATE? Is there a cut-off date you have in mind? I'm open to your theory that the audience is limited, but I need details.

I'm going to assume you're interested in learning this. Let's start with an important but often overlooked premise: Jesus, the disciples, the Gospel writers, and their intended audience were all observant Jews.Now, in order for those writers to express Jesus in ways the readers would understand and appreciate, they went back to the Hebrew Scriptures, lifted tales of their Old Testament heroes, and worked Jesus into them.
In fact, I'll make a bold claim regarding Jesus' miracles -- none of them are original. Every miraculous act Jesus performs was already done by an Old testament Prophet.

That wouldn't surprise me. The writers cleverly covered the deception by fabricating the statement Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The reason is simple -- While Jesus' teachings were, by Jewish standards of the time, a bit out there in Left Field, the Gospel writers wanted to fit him into the Hebrew religion (remember, Christianity was originally considered a Jewish sect, and wasn't considered a separate religion until long after Jesus' death)

So they made up fictional tales about Jesus and themselves performing miracles.....because if they made stuff up about themselves, it would help their case and increase their reputations.

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Of course, they didn't just want to put him among the OT prophets -- as the Messiah, he needed to be superior to them, so his miracles, although based on OT accounts of the prophets, are more jazzed up -- anything they could do, he could do better.

And themselves. They wanted in on the scam they were brewing up.
To get chicks maybe.

But if you want to focus on a healing miracle, as I said, go ahead and pick one -- we'll look at it in more detail, and you'll learn something you didn't know before.

We'll stick with what I already brought up..
John 5:8 Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk."

Not "fiction" -- myth. Myth has a meaning which transcends fact or fiction.

Actually, the only solid meaning is "something you choose not to believe". That defines Myth. I wouldn't go there if I were you. Putting the tag on myth on something is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

It is a pretty sad religion, but only because you guys lost the meaning of it all centuries ago. But you know what? It's never too late to get it back.

I know just who to trust on this. I'm going to take your advice!
About Us - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/

A fitting analogy for the Jewish nation -- remember, in the Old Testament, Yahweh was a God for the Jewish people only; only "family" (the 12 tribes) were "on board" with him. Granted, I'm just spitballing on that one -- how about we stick with Jesus for now?

I think I'm in good hands now. Thanks for the send-off. I forgot about these guys. Statement of Faith - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith/

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have no "wishes" either way. I've experienced a few answered prayers, What I read is possible as well I imagine.

Once you throw magical thinking into the mix, absolutely nothing is impossible.

Taken a spirit back from God's presence? An odd thought. Like Jesus pulling on one arm and me tugging on the other? I wonder how that would turn out? Especially if they were preemie-babies. I wonder what would be the best outcome?

Funny, nobody seemed to think about that in the Bible -- resurrections from the dead were pretty common.

How many is this number you have in mind? Could friends and married relatives read the scriptures too? Or would they only get half the message. What's the DNA cut-off point you have in mind?
Am I too LATE? Is there a cut-off date you have in mind? I'm open to your theory that the audience is limited, but I need details.

It's really quite simple -- You're not an ancient Hebrew, and you're not living in the time they did. You didn't grow up in their culture, didn't partake in their history, didn't have your worldview shaped by their folklore or mythology.

What you've got is a interpretation constructed after the fact by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages -- which, perhaps not coincidentally, was estabishing itself as an social institution.

That wouldn't surprise me. The writers cleverly covered the deception by fabricating the statement Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Not a deception -- see how messed up you've gotten it? -- but a mythical structure. The very verse you've cited points out the elephant in the church, as it were: Jesus never intended for his teachings to be taken as a separate religion from Judaism, but rather as the prophecised "Messiah" of the Old Testament, but still an observant Jew -- a notion the Gospel writers shared.

Of course, Christianity, for all its hijacked mythology, is a separate religion from Judaism -- so somewhere along the line, someone screwed up -- either it was Jesus or the Church; you decide which.

So they made up fictional tales about Jesus and themselves performing miracles.....because if they made stuff up about themselves, it would help their case and increase their reputations.

"Themselves"? Oh my -- Now we're getting to another symptom of the confusion. You think that the Gospels were eyewitness acounts from the actual disciples? You think that Jesus traveled around Israel with four men following him with pencils and pads, frantically taking notes?

Child, you have no idea the history of your own Bible -- and it pains me -- but now isn't a time to go into that.

We'll stick with what I already brought up..
John 5:8 Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk."

Ok, now we're talking -- John 5:1-8.

It's not as dramatic as the other healing miracles, and it doesn't attribute sickness to demon possession or anything as cool as that, but that particualr healing story does have an intereting trait -- it's association with the Pool of Bethesda.

Bethesda, by the way, comes from the Aramaic beth hesda, meaning "House of Mercy," meaning its association with healing predates Jesus' arrival -- let's see how that came about, shall we?

Someone unaware of the local history might overlook the descripton of the place as fitting a Greek asclepeion -- a temple to the Greek God Asclepius, God of healing. Especially if they overlook 5:3, which more or less decribes how the infirm would wait for memebers of the Cult of Asclepius to heal their illnesses (for a donation, as like as not).

Now, around the first century AD (the time the Gospel of John was written), the Cult of Asclepius was relatively small, but still a potential bother to the burgeoning Christian movement. So, the writers find a way to stick it to his rivals, using the language of mythology to do it.

Think about it: Jesus goes into the temple of a "false god" -- a god of healing, no less -- to do a healing miracle (free of charge, incidentally). That's like having McDonald's give away free Big Macs on the front steps of a Burger King.

What better way for the writers to tell their audience, "their guy's a fake; ours is the real deal"?

Actually, the only solid meaning is "something you choose not to believe". That defines Myth.

Defines it for whom? Just because you won't go beyond the most superficial lay definition of the term is no reason to drag everyone else down to that level.

I wouldn't go there if I were you.

I'm already past "there" -- just waiting for you to catch up.

Since the beginning of civilizaion, humanity has searched for truth, for meaning, for cohesion in their individual and collective lives. Mythology is nothing less than a narrative of that search -- a metaphorical road map of a given culture's search for answers.

It's only because you're convinced that you already have those answers that you dismiss the path people before you have taken -- and that pains me to see.

Putting the tag on myth on something is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Only when dealing with people who have no idea what myth truly is -- but fret not; I'll talk to you anyway; you have potential.

I know just who to trust on this. I'm going to take your advice!
About Us - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/

Messianic Judaism is an interesting hybrid, isn't it?

I think I'm in good hands now.

But of course you do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Once you throw magical thinking into the mix, absolutely nothing is impossible.

God covers that topic much better than you:
Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

for that matter, so does Science:

http://www.stanford.edu/Everything is possible.pdf
Nothing is Impossible - BBC Focus Magazine

Funny, nobody seemed to think about that in the Bible -- resurrections from the dead were pretty common.

The Bible was written over a 1500 year span of time and we read of only nine instances. If averaged that would be 166 years between each. We have different ideas about "pretty common".

I do think differently than the people and events documented in the Bible because I have the completed scriptures to learn from and don't have to rely on Prophets for revelation of knowledge.

It's really quite simple -- You're not an ancient Hebrew, and you're not living in the time they did. You didn't grow up in their culture, didn't partake in their history, didn't have your worldview shaped by their folklore or mythology.

These are all assumptions you've made about me with no facts to back up your assumptions. A common methodology for people claiming to be scientific or more realistic in their mindset.

What you've got is a interpretation constructed after the fact by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages -- which, perhaps not coincidentally, was establishing itself as an social institution.

They must have been rushed the because such a team should have removed all these "glaring errors":
Errors in the Bible

Not a deception -- see how messed up you've gotten it? -- but a mythical structure. The very verse you've cited points out the elephant in the church, as it were: Jesus never intended for his teachings to be taken as a separate religion from Judaism, but rather as the prophecised "Messiah" of the Old Testament, but still an observant Jew -- a notion the Gospel writers shared. Of course, Christianity, for all its hijacked mythology, is a separate religion from Judaism -- so somewhere along the line, someone screwed up -- either it was Jesus or the Church; you decide which.

"Mythology" is simply the parts you choose not to believe.
That's the definition.

"Themselves"? Oh my -- Now we're getting to another symptom of the confusion. You think that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts from the actual disciples? You think that Jesus traveled around Israel with four men following him with pencils and pads, frantically taking notes? Child, you have no idea the history of your own Bible -- and it pains me -- but now isn't a time to go into that.

As you offer no alternative theory Grandpa, I have no way to counter it. So we count this effort as baseless commentary.



Ok, now we're talking -- John 5:1-8.
It's not as dramatic as the other healing miracles,
<snip>
it's association with the Pool of Bethesda.

Bethesda, by the way, comes from the Aramaic beth hesda, meaning "House of Mercy," meaning its association with healing predates Jesus' arrival -- let's see how that came about, shall we?
Someone unaware of the local history might overlook the descripton of the place as fitting a Greek asclepeion -- a temple to the Greek God Asclepius, God of healing. Especially if they overlook 5:3, which more or less decribes how the infirm would wait for memebers of the Cult of Asclepius to heal their illnesses (for a donation, as like as not).
Now, around the first century AD (the time the Gospel of John was written), the Cult of Asclepius was relatively small, but still a potential bother to the burgeoning Christian movement. So, the writers find a way to stick it to his rivals, using the language of mythology to do it.
Think about it: Jesus goes into the temple of a "false god" -- a god of healing, no less -- to do a healing miracle (free of charge, incidentally). That's like having McDonald's give away free Big Macs on the front steps of a Burger King.
What better way for the writers to tell their audience, "their guy's a fake; ours is the real deal"?

(See, now I thought you had some actual facts beyond fanciful possibilities.)
Jesus, knowing all this, would have had the same thought process.

I appreciate lengths you've gone to twist Jesus's role in defying the establishment as fabrication by the biblical writers.

Since the beginning of civilization, humanity has searched for truth, for meaning, for cohesion in their individual and collective lives. Mythology is nothing less than a narrative of that search -- a metaphorical road map of a given culture's search for answers. It's only because you're convinced that you already have those answers that you dismiss the path people before you have taken -- and that pains me to see.

I feel your pain.

Only when dealing with people who have no idea what myth truly is -- but fret not; I'll talk to you anyway; you have potential.

Oh...I see the high ground you have painted on "Myth." Myths are not infused with living people, direct quotes from sermons given in front of crowds, or any details that can be disputed by living people or their descendants.

Now you've motivated me to investigate why else these writings are considered Myths by some. Perhaps my research will provide some support for the idea. Usually though such claims have as little support as your above commentary.

Interesting. A nice little religion of your own. It's cute. And lots of interesting content to work with.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God covers that topic much better than you:
Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

So God becomes nothing more than an excuse to prop up your ideas -- how sad.

for that matter, so does Science:

http://www.stanford.edu/Everything is possible.pdf
Nothing is Impossible - BBC Focus Magazine

You don't read these articles, do you? Otherwise you'd know the difference between commentaries on what human can achieve in the future and what you'd like everyone to think your god did in the past.

The Bible was written over a 1500 year span of time and we read of only nine instances. If averaged that would be 166 years between each. We have different ideas about "pretty common".

Compared to the number of real-life instances -- zero -- it's pretty common. Of course, placing the Bible alongside of other religious myths, and we see resurrections are pretty much a dime a dozen.

And if you were to run a comparison of those nine instances in the Bible, you'd see some very interesting patterns emerge... especially if you look at the OT resurrections as compared to the ones performed by Jesus.

Coincidence?

I do think differently than the people and events documented in the Bible because I have the completed scriptures to learn from and don't have to rely on Prophets for revelation of knowledge.

Seems like you don't have to rely on anything except your own opinion -- you certainly don't care much for the people who wrote them or the people they were writing for.

These are all assumptions you've made about me with no facts to back up your assumptions. A common methodology for people claiming to be scientific or more realistic in their mindset.

I have the best possible source of data for my "assumptions" -- I have you.

They must have been rushed the because such a team should have removed all these "glaring errors":
Errors in the Bible

Why would they bother editing old errors when they were too busy making all new ones?

"Mythology" is simply the parts you choose not to believe.
That's the definition.

That's your incomplete and inaccurate definition -- I'm trying to educate you here; you can at least pretend to want to learn.

As you offer no alternative theory Grandpa, I have no way to counter it. So we count this effort as baseless commentary.

Actually, if you look back at the parts of these posts you've obviously chosen to ignore, you'll see I'm offering a very viable and workable alternative.

But since you're too much in love with your own diminutive and dismissive definition of "myth," you're stuck in a malformed understanding of the Biblical message.

I can't help you if you insist on not being helped.

it's association with the Pool of Bethesda.
(See, now I thought you had some actual facts beyond fanciful possibilities.)

I presented actual facts -- perhaps someday you will?

Jesus, knowing all this, would have had the same thought process.

See? You have no facts either, just an assumption about what Jesus must have known, because you say he knew it -- and then you go a step further and draw out his thought process as you need it to be.

What you're doing to Jesus is just like what I'm saying the Gospel writers did -- the difference is, the Gospel writers did it in order to convey a larger and more important message than the literal one; you're just doing it for yourself.

I appreciate lengths you've gone to twist Jesus's efforts at defying the establishment as fabrication by the biblical writers.

Oh, Jesus was a big one for defying the establishment -- and the validity of his defiance was emphasized by the biblical writers.

The irony is that now that the Church supposedly set by him has become the establishemnt, it's hard to imagine he would even recognize it.

I feel your pain.

You cause it.

Oh...I see the high ground you have painted on "Myth." Myths are not infused with living people, direct quotes from sermons given in front of crowds, or any details that can be disputed by living people or their descendants.

Are you kidding? Myths contain all this and more!

Christopher Columbus "discovering" America; The Pilgrims on Plymouth rock, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Betsy Ross designing the American flag, Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" speech... American history alone is chock full of heroic myths...

Are these stories true? Most of them aren't even close. Does it matter? Of course not! They are the stories which define our national identity, and gives every citizen meaning and substance to what it means to be "American."

90% of people can't even identify the myths of their own history -- and they want to declare themselves experts on someone else's?

Take the log from your own eye, brother.

Now you've motivated me to investigate why else these writings are considered Myths by some. Perhaps my research will provide some support for the idea. Usually though such claims have as little support as your above commentary.

I eagerly await your results -- perhaps we can share notes?

Interesting. A nice little religion of your own. It's cute. And lots of interesting content to work with.

It's not really a religion because it lacks ritualism. As much as mythographers study the myths, they don't attempt to interact with them.

Unless, of course, you were using "religion" in a pejorative sense -- how ironic would that be?

 

[SkyWriting]

So God becomes nothing more than an excuse to prop up your ideas -- how sad.

No sadder than your analysis. Let's try and keep your tears out of the discussion.

You don't read these articles, do you? Otherwise you'd know the difference between commentaries on what human can achieve in the future and what you'd like everyone to think your god did in the past.

Don't be silly. Those articles had nothing to do with religion. But it does sound like I missed the point. In Quantum Physics, everything is possible. Not all agree though.

Compared to the number of real-life instances -- zero -- it's pretty common. Of course, placing the Bible alongside of other religious myths, and we see resurrections are pretty much a dime a dozen. And if you were to run a comparison of those nine instances in the Bible, you'd see some very interesting patterns emerge... especially if you look at the OT resurrections as compared to the ones performed by Jesus. Coincidence?

Some of us think of the entire Bible as having one source.
That being the case, the OT and the NT are different versions of the same truth. You don't seem familiar with common christian theology so these facts were a revelation when you discovered them. Its a common mistake.

Seems like you don't have to rely on anything except your own opinion -- you certainly don't care much for the people who wrote them or the people they were writing for.

That would be me. The Catholic church has no history of writing for the common people, so that theory is a wash.

I have the best possible source of data for my "assumptions" -- I have you.

I think not.

Why would they bother editing old errors when they were too busy making all new ones?

An non-logical quip.

That's your incomplete and inaccurate definition -- I'm trying to educate you here; you can at least pretend to want to learn.

I'm learning you have no basis or support for anything you claim so far.
Not very well schooled.

Actually, if you look back at the parts of these posts you've obviously chosen to ignore, you'll see I'm offering a very viable and workable alternative.

That's what I said. I was thinking you had more than just a "workable alternative." Anybody can claim alternate excuses for why the scriptures read the way they do. The trick is to support the theory that it happened. Your information is found in any study bible. You may not be aware of study bibles that give the background details on most every aspect of the scriptures.

But since you're too much in love with your own diminutive and dismissive definition of "myth," you're stuck in a malformed understanding of the Biblical message.

You haven't offered one yet.

See? You have no facts either, just an assumption about what Jesus must have known, because you say he knew it --

They are facts....according to you:

It's really quite simple -- You're not an ancient Hebrew, and you're not living in the time they did. You didn't grow up in their culture, didn't partake in their history, didn't have your worldview shaped by their folklore or mythology.

I'm just going with your assumptions.

and then you go a step further and draw out his thought process as you need it to be.What you're doing to Jesus is just like what I'm saying the Gospel writers did -- the difference is, the Gospel writers did it in order to convey a larger and more important message than the literal one; you're just doing it for yourself.

Just following your lead.

Oh, Jesus was a big one for defying the establishment -- and the validity of his defiance was emphasized by the biblical writers.The irony is that now that the Church supposedly set by him has become the establishment, it's hard to imagine he would even recognize it.

I pay little attention to it. Your fight must be with them.

Are you kidding? Myths contain all this and more!
Christopher Columbus "discovering" America; The Pilgrims on Plymouth rock, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Betsy Ross designing the American flag, Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" speech... American history alone is chock full of heroic myths...
Are these stories true? Most of them aren't even close. Does it matter? Of course not! They are the stories which define our national identity, and gives every citizen meaning and substance to what it means to be "American."90% of people can't even identify the myths of their own history -- and they want to declare themselves experts on someone else's?

Again the Myth religion. Your entertaining.

It's not really a religion because it lacks ritualism. As much as mythographers study the myths, they don't attempt to interact with them.

What you do is attempt to interact and include with them in all areas of thought. You are in so deep. I don't have any rituals either so that makes me non-religious as well. That must be why we're such Buds.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No sadder than your analysis.

Much sadder -- You claim to worship "God," when all you do is use Him as a tool to elevate yourself.

Even nonbelievers such as myself have more respect for the God concept than that.

Don't be silly. Those articles had nothing to do with religion.

Then they don't support you at all -- did you think they would when you brought them up?

Some of us think of the entire Bible as having one source.

Some of you value dogma over history -- that's your prerogative.

That being the case, the OT and the NT are different versions of the same truth. You don't seem familiar with common christian theology.

Maybe I'm too familiar with its history -- Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and while they've officially schismed from Judaism, they owe enough of their foundation to Jewish mythology to hijack it.

What you and I call the OT is the pretty much the cornerstone of Hebrew culture and religion -- and you've got the gall to tell them they're own religion means nothing except as a precursor to yours.

Typical -- first you mangle their mythology, then you want to tell me you know it better than they do.

That would be...me.

That would be... egocentric.

Even Jesus made it clear who he was speaking to...

Matthew 24:33-34 "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."


Of course, it's taken some pretty creative reinterpreting of Jesus' exact and explicit words here in order to deny the elephant in the room, but with their own credibility on the line, the Church delivered.

I think not.

No argument there.

An non-logical quip.

The point is that the Church didn't correct the Bible's errors because it had no interest in doing so -- and no need. They controlled the Bible, and zealously made sure that it stayed away from the public's hands for as long as they could -- centuries, even.

Look what happened when William Tyndale set out to translate the Bible into English, thus making it available to the common people? The Church went batguano, that's what happened. Tyndale's Bibles had to be printed on the European continent and smuggled into England -- while the Church ordered any copies discovered to be burned.

Now, the Church burning books is nothing new under the Sun -- but burning Bibles? That's novel, isn't it?

So again, I ask you -- why should the church care about a couple of factual errors?

That's what I said. I was thinking you had more than just a "workable alternative." Anybody can claim alternate excuses for why the scriptures read the way they do. The trick is to support the theory that it happened.

While invoking as few supernatural excuses as possible -- I'm not the biggest fan of Occam's Razor, as it often gets misquoted, but I'm all for the alternative which requires no miracles on demand.

How about you?

Your information is found in any study bible. You may not be aware of study bibles that give the background details on most every aspect of the scriptures.

But still throw in gratuitous miracles to preserve their own mythology.

You haven't offered one yet.

You don't seem particularly interested.

They are facts....according to you:


I'm just going with your assumptions.

So you're saying that you are an ancient Hebrew, and have lived your life immersed in the same culture as the Bible authors?

I assumed you were not -- apologies if I have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Just following your lead.

I'm not leading you to manipulating the object of your supposed worship for self-glorification -- that's your road. Own it, and be proud of it.

I pay little attention to it. Your fight must be with them.

For someone who pays little attention to it, you follow it religiously... so to speak.

Again the Myth religion. Your entertaining.

So you think all those stories were true?

What you do is attempt to interact and include with them in all areas of thought. You are in so deep.

They're already included in just about every aspect of life whether you're aware of them or not -- it's just a matter of being aware of them.

I don't have any rituals either so that makes me non-religious as well. That must be why we're such Buds.

Which is why I haven't given up on your ability to learn -- even if your desire is somewhat lacking.

 

[Nostromo]

We question their objectivity of course.
Your thinking of Agnostics. Athiests deny the supernatural.
That's Agnostic.

a·the·ist
&#8194; atheist pronunciation&#8194;[ey-thee-ist] noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One can be agnostic and atheist.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point is that the Church didn't correct the Bible's errors because it had no interest in doing so -- and no need. They controlled the Bible, and zealously made sure that it stayed away from the public's hands for as long as they could -- centuries, even.

Easily the most insane theory....Especially the lack of supporting details or facts of any kind.
Fini

 

[Nathan Poe]

Easily the most insane theory....Especially the lack of supporting details or facts of any kind.
Fini

So you didn't even bother to google William Tyndale? Didn't even make a token investigation of the facts I provided?

Not the least bit interested in the sad stroy of Christians persecuting other Christians in order to prevent Christians from hearing the words of Christ?

Typical -- you don't want to learn anything that upsets your religious sensibilities.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you didn't even bother to google William Tyndale? Didn't even make a token investigation of the facts I provided?

Not the least bit interested in the sad stroy of Christians persecuting other Christians in order to prevent Christians from hearing the words of Christ?

Typical -- you don't want to learn anything that upsets your religious sensibilities.

Sorry. I was referring to OT Errors. NT errors are self correcting due to living ancestors being able to read it. Note all the missing critics of NT information. People who claim the events never happened?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry. I was referring to OT Errors.

How about referring to something I was actually discussing, instead?

NT errors are self correcting due to living ancestors being able to read it.

And which living ancestors would those be? The Jews?

Note all the missing critics of NT information. People who claim the events never happened?

If we're going to have a discussion here, it's going to be a lot more productive -- not to mention coherent -- if you address things that are actually discussed with the person who discusses them...

...that would be me, in case you're new to this.

So, how about that William Tyndale?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, how about that William Tyndale?

The Catholic Church has had no input into most of the translations of the New Testament.
Nor do MS's from the CC differ from those from other sources.