Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.

Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.

Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the first diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.

To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.

So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.

[Zain]

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.

Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.

Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the fist diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.

To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.

So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.

I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.

I will do some research

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

[drone]

And where did those gases come from drone?

Gases are elements. I think the proposal is that the elements were formed from the energy to matter conversion (E=mc^2 works both ways) of the big bang. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter.

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

Unless your belief structure is wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemns you to the hell of the extra-spicy marinara for your heresy.

Since you obviously aren't going to be swayed (I half suspect this whole thread to be a thinly disguised troll), let me ask this question: Why do you think that just because you believe the way you do leads you to paradise and not someone that believes differently? Should a believer that acts in contempt of his fellow man deserve heaven over an unenlightened schmuck that actually helps people?

[Centurion1]

^ he never said that we would burn in hell for it merely that he disagreed. Zain obviously harbors no malice towards us drone, he seems like he really wants to understand.


tribes that "article" is not in accepted scientific format. h obviously wrote it himself. as drone has pointed out there are mistakes in the post.

asking questions is fine but why cant he ask you one back?



I dont agree with him but i am going to respect his beliefs as long as he respects mine. you are not allowing for either option to occur.

[drone]

^ he never said that we would burn in hell for it merely that he disagreed. Zain obviously harbors no malice towards us drone, he seems like he really wants to understand.

Then what is this supposed to mean?

If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not.

No malice, I agree, but that viewpoint is very dangerous.

He has every right to his own beliefs. But if he is going to use religious belief on it's own to attack the scientific method, he opens himself up to the deluge. Science is not about belief, as much as he tries to state it.

Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?

No idea, I'm not read up on the Big Bang to remember that one. IANAP.

And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)

I know your location says Texas and all, but now it's obvious this is a troll thread. [billhicks]Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]

I'll let PVC ruin your perception of the perfect Bible, he knows way more about it than I. Out b4 teh lock...

[Zain]

Then what is this supposed to mean?

No malice, I agree, but that viewpoint is very dangerous.

He has every right to his own beliefs. But if he is going to use religious belief on it's own to attack the scientific method, he opens himself up to the deluge. Science is not about belief, as much as he tries to state it.

No idea, I'm not read up on the Big Bang to remember that one. IANAP.


I know your location says Texas and all, but now it's obvious this is a troll thread. [billhicks]Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]

I'll let PVC ruin your perception of the perfect Bible, he knows way more about it than I. Out b4 teh lock...

So when it comes down to it, the answer you don't know, you don't want to question. There are answers and to me its a very important question.

[drone]

So when it comes down to it, the answer you don't know, you don't want to question. There are answers and to me its a very important question.

I don't know, and nobody else knows either. But I do question. Did I ever say I trusted the big bang theory? Several times in this thread I have stated there are problems with it. It's a theory, not fact.

Edit->Mods must be asleep, this might get to 60.

[Zain]

Gases are elements. I think the proposal is that the elements were formed from the energy to matter conversion (E=mc^2 works both ways) of the big bang. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter.


Unless your belief structure is wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemns you to the hell of the extra-spicy marinara for your heresy.

Since you obviously aren't going to be swayed (I half suspect this whole thread to be a thinly disguised troll), let me ask this question: Why do you think that just because you believe the way you do leads you to paradise and not someone that believes differently? Should a believer that acts in contempt of his fellow man deserve heaven over an unenlightened schmuck that actually helps people?

Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?

And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)

The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.

And that somewhere is to God.

[gaelic cowboy]

Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?

And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)

The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.

And that somewhere is to God.

Oldest rocks Four Billion Years Old

[Meneldil]

Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?

And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)

The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.

And that somewhere is to God.

Wow, that's kind of scarry.

The way some human beings create their own alternate reality to support their beliefs against all odds is both amazing and terryfying.

If I were bothered to write a thesis, that would be my topic.

[Zain]

Wow, that's kind of scarry.

The way some human beings create their own alternate reality to support their beliefs against all odds is both amazing and terryfying.

If I were bothered to write a thesis, that would be my topic.

Please explain further instead of bashing my words. What do you believe?

[Meneldil]

Please explain further instead of bashing my words. What do you believe?

I do not believe in anything and try to question everything, as far as my limited mind allows me to.

I certainly do not believe that there's no evidence that Earth is older than ~4300 (as I think that's what you said).
But then, if you reject things such as Radiocarbon dating, there's no much point discussing, right?


Here's the difference between you and I:
- Your beliefs are based on the litteral interpretation of a book written centuries ago, translated in hundreds of languages. They are set in the stone, and no matter how many people prove you wrong, how many evidences are thrown at you, you will never ever admit to be wrong.
Because your whole life and identity is based on your - very own and apparently not really knowledgeable - interpretation of the Bible. Admitting that it might be wrong would shatter everything you've ever thought. That's why you create your own little world, refuse to see facts, and keep claiming that you know, because you believe. This is also why you claimed the Founding Fathers were a bunch of christian believers who created a christian theocracy: because it supports your beliefs. The others are wrong, because they're betraying the Founding Fathers/not reading the Bible. I'm right, because I believe, because I know.

- My "beliefs" are based on the knowledge made available to the human kind, through all kind of sciences. I accept the theory of evolution because so far, it's the most conclusive scientific explanation. If someone discovers a new theory, or proves that the theory of evolution is in fact wrong, I'll be willing to re-evaluate my "beliefs" according to the new informations available. Sure, it would be quite an important event, but all my life isn't based around the theory of evolution like yours is based around the Bible. My whole world won't be shattered by such a discovery.
My identity doesn't require me to believe in evolution, big bang or anything else. I accept those theories because so far, we haven't found anything else to explain things. I honestly thinks the whole Big Bang idea seems a bit too much "human" (by implying that there's a beginning) for my tastes, but it's the only explanation we have at the moment, and as such, it will be true until proven wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.

I will do some research

I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?

You are operating under a missaprehension based on the belief that understanding the origin of the scriptures automatically makes one an atheist. Most Theologians are religious, and they will happily tell you everything I just did.

After all, why would you have faith in an anthology compiled by blind scribes and priests of unknown virtue when you could just have faith in God?

[Pannonian]

I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe.

Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.

[Zain]

Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word of God and do not entirely trust the other translations.

[drone]

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word God and do not entirely trust the other translations.

Well, that's not actually true, because many of the copy-texts they worked from were translations from Greek, not originals. No Hebrew or Aramaic originals exist for any of the books of the New Testemant either.

The King James translation suffers from bad copy-texts (we have much better ones now that were discovered in the last 100 years or so), it also suffers from bad methodology because it's a post-Medieval Humanistic work.

Also, it contradicts itself, so it CANNOT be the word of God, God never contradicts himself. Why haven't you checked the verses I cited yet, anyway?

[Zain]

Well, that's not actually true, because many of the copy-texts they worked from were translations from Greek, not originals. No Hebrew or Aramaic originals exist for any of the books of the New Testemant either.

The King James translation suffers from bad copy-texts (we have much better ones now that were discovered in the last 100 years or so), it also suffers from bad methodology because it's a post-Medieval Humanistic work.

Also, it contradicts itself, so it CANNOT be the word of God, God never contradicts himself. Why haven't you checked the verses I cited yet, anyway?

Quite possibly John was a fisherman before or after he was a disciple of John the baptist? I haven't checked because I have been busy here on this thread.

The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite possibly John was a fisherman before or after he was a disciple of John the baptist? I haven't checked because I have been busy here on this thread.

No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.

The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?

The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.

As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.

As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".

You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.

[Zain]

No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.

The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?[/QUOTE]

The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.

As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.

As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".

You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.[/QUOTE]

You trash my bible, I understand and do not judge you. But i'd to know, what do you believe and how did you come about believing it as truth? Was it a book? Or your own mind? Or someone elses mind? My following puts myself under a God. Atheism says "I am my own God. I decide right from wrong."

Do you think you know everything? Maybe half of everything? Let's say you know half of everything there is to know. Do you think my God could be in the other half you don't know?