Creation Museum

[BaseJester 1]

So, I have never actually heard that simply because the concept of heaven or hell is in the bible, that it is proof the bible is false.

I don't think that's the exactly the assertion. The fact that a set of highly biased observers believe X doesn't imply that X is likely.Because the concept of heaven or hell is in the bible, people believing the bible doesn't imply that the bible is likely to be true.If we start evaluating a set of different beliefs held by people, the beliefs for which people have a vested interest are less likely to be true than those for which people don't have a vested interest. If we start evaluating random concepts, then the bias of any believers is irrelevant.

[vbnautilus 48]

Randy, you have been lied to regarding the accuracy of the Bible.It is estimated we could rewrite 90% of the Bible just from letters written by church fathers writing to each other where they reference the letters.The KJV did use greek bibles, because there was a large influx of greek bibles showing up after the fall of Constantinople. This helped the KJV people, but not as much as it helped Tyndale, who was translating the Bible into English 70 years earlier. (I have a page from one of these Geneva Bibles.)The story you are telling is slanted, you keep implying that the Bible is full of mixed messages and changed stories.In fact there are very very few challengable verses, and almost every Bible with any notes points out the verses in question.But even if you strip the Bible of every shaky verse, there is not one thing changed in the message.I do love yous contention that those silly old Jew/Christians hired 'scribes who were illiterate' to copy the early manuscripts.See I heard they hired the 1st century version of Temp Help to outsource the work. And we all know how TH was pretty strict on hiring policies....I mean come on, that doesn't raise a bit of a red flag? The author of your 'proof' has no problem stating something as silly and damaging as to know details about the guy who copied the Bible? Unless he is talking about 12th century Latin Vulgate copies, (which no scholar in the world would use, except to help them understand the local beliefs since the middle age manuscripts were heavily influenced by Catholic expansion), then he is lying.Of course I guess I could be wrong and the illiterate copiers made major word changes to corrupt the documents even though they didn't know how to read or write. I guess they got lucky changing chapters..you know, and infinite bunch of monkeys type thing....The Dead Sea Scrolls were stored away before Christ. When discovered, your guys were so excited to have proof that the OT was in the same shape as you are now claiming the NT is in. There were books written about how the Dead Sea Scrolls were going to put a dagger in the heart of religion.They found a book of Isaiah, which was 800 years older than the oldest known translation. There was one word ( the name of a king ) spelled differently.According to your logic, the book of Isaiah was changed. But did it really change?The Jews were really good at making copies. They were the farm stock from where the Christians came. The ancient world didn't have a lax attitude towards written documents like we do. Saying they just made major changes then tossed the old ones out is so poisoned in bad logic it reeks.I am working today, but I will get back into the study of this for you to give you a better understanding.Until then, please show one change to any reasonably important doctrine that was changed by any of the so called 'faulty manuscripts written by illiterates'.For the last 2,000 years, Christianity has had no change to the message that Jesus died for your sins.

The most accurate copy of bullshit is still bullshit.

[BaseJester 1]

I am working today, . . .

I hope you don't go to hell for that.

[brvheart 1,752]

How do you think we should apply this:to this:Is the rule from Leviticus "a guide for believers in living out the Christian life"? What's the basis for your answer?

That we should avoid blasphemy. The basis is that it's obvious God doesn't like it, so I shouldn't either.

[brvheart 1,752]

Is the law an arbitrary set of rules whose purpose is only to demonstrate that rules are hard to follow or do they have enduring moral value?

Probably a little of both, if you're one of the people that thinks it's immoral to murder people.Also, I wouldn't ever choose the word "arbitrary" when describing anything coming from the mind of an all-powerful being, but I'm assuming that wasn't the focus of your sentence.

[BaseJester 1]

That we should avoid blasphemy. The basis is that it's obvious God doesn't like it, so I shouldn't either.

That's a given. Should Christians stone non-believers? That's the question.

[brvheart 1,752]

That's a given. Should Christians stone non-believers? That's the question.

Yes.

[BaseJester 1]

Probably a little of both, . . .

Would you say that all the laws in the Old Testament are equally arbitrary rules to demonstrate the impossibility of perfection versus moral guides, or are some laws more or less irrelevant morally and purely arbitrary (e.g., burnt sacrifices, perhaps) ?If they're of differing moral weight, how do you know how to the weight them?

Also, I wouldn't ever choose the word "arbitrary" when describing anything coming from the mind of an all-powerful being, but I'm assuming that wasn't the focus of your sentence.

It's precisely what I mean, so I'm going to persist.

[brvheart 1,752]

Would you say that all the laws in the Old Testament are equally arbitrary rules to demonstrate the impossibility of perfection versus moral guides, or are some laws more or less irrelevant morally and purely arbitrary (e.g., burnt sacrifices, perhaps) ?If they're of differing moral weight, how do you know how to the weight them?It's precisely what I mean, so I'm going to persist.

Then no. I don't think anything in the OT is arbitrary.

[BaseJester 1]

If the law says to stone non-believers, but Jesus didn't, by what standard is Jesus perfect? Or is he perfect by definition?

[BaseJester 1]

Even the crazy far out Christians don't preach the putting to death of someone for leaving the faith.

Should Christians stone non-believers? That's the question.

Yes.

Balloon Guy, do you think brvheart is a Christian?

[brvheart 1,752]

Yeah. Do you BG?

[speedz99 145]

Question for non-believers: Assuming that Jesus did exist but was not actually the son of god, what do you think was his angle? Let's also assume that he was killed for his beliefs, but did not rise from the dead, that was made up by a few of his followers to keep it all going. I feel like there are only a few options...he was legitimately insane, he really felt like he was doing the world a service, or he was a con artist after religious power. Are there other options I'm missing?Random comment: I'm glad Tebow won today. I may find him to be a bit ridiculous, but the guy is interesting for sure, and the NFL needs good storylines to keep everything interesting.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

he was a crazy person. kind of like most religious people today.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah. Do you BG?

Well, the mental image of you filling your basement with people you are 'helping' makes me afraid to commit.

Question for non-believers: Assuming that Jesus did exist but was not actually the son of god, what do you think was his angle? Let's also assume that he was killed for his beliefs, but did not rise from the dead, that was made up by a few of his followers to keep it all going. I feel like there are only a few options...he was legitimately insane, he really felt like he was doing the world a service, or he was a con artist after religious power. Are there other options I'm missing?a.

There is a very good argument to make that Jesus said things that do not allow you to say He was a nice guy but everyone misunderstood Him or are putting words into His mouth.The question is would a crazy person say and do the things He said?

Random comment: I'm glad Tebow won today. I may find him to be a bit ridiculous, but the guy is interesting for sure, and the NFL needs good storylines to keep everything interesting

Story

[Balloon guy 158]

The most accurate copy of bs is still bs.

I am not saying the Bible today being accurate to the Bible when each letter was written grants it any truth because of the ability of Christians to keep the text whole.Of course, it is truth, but that's not why it is.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Of course, it is truth, but that's not why it is.

well then why is it truth?

[Balloon guy 158]

well then why is it truth?

Because of it's Author, its content and its supernatural ability to predict the future.

[BaseJester 1]

Because of it's Author, its content and its supernatural ability to predict the future.

The bible doesn't predict the future. It just allows believers to say, "Oh yeah, we saw that coming" after the fact.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Because of it's Author, its content and its supernatural ability to predict the future.

anything not found in the book that proves it?

[brvheart 1,752]

Question for non-believers: Assuming that Jesus did exist but was not actually the son of god, what do you think was his angle? Let's also assume that he was killed for his beliefs, but did not rise from the dead, that was made up by a few of his followers to keep it all going. I feel like there are only a few options...he was legitimately insane, he really felt like he was doing the world a service, or he was a con artist after religious power. Are there other options I'm missing?

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord are the three normally thrown around.

The bible doesn't predict the future. It just allows believers to say, "Oh yeah, we saw that coming" after the fact.

Really? I feel just the opposite has happened. The OT said the savior would be born in Bethlehem from the line of David and on and on. Then people like yourself say, "Oh yeah, well of course a descendent of David would be born in that city eventually that would change the world as we know it. It's just a coincidence that I base my entire daily/yearly calendar on His life. I saw that coming... it wasn't a "prediction" so much as luck."

[BaseJester 1]

Question for non-believers: Assuming that Jesus did exist but was not actually the son of god, what do you think was his angle? Let's also assume that he was killed for his beliefs, but did not rise from the dead, that was made up by a few of his followers to keep it all going. I feel like there are only a few options...he was legitimately insane, he really felt like he was doing the world a service, or he was a con artist after religious power. Are there other options I'm missing?

Further assuming all the other miracles were frauds, a lot of people would have to be in on it. Why? Eventual overthrow of Roman rule with the Jews united?I think that's an extremely unlikely scenario, really. I think it's much more likely that Jesus acquired all of his superpowers posthumously and didn't make the claims attributed to him.

[BaseJester 1]

Really? I feel just the opposite has happened. The OT said the savior would be born in Bethlehem from the line of David and on and on. Then people like yourself say, "Oh yeah, well of course a descendent of David would be born in that city eventually that would change the world as we know it. It's just a coincidence that I base my entire daily/yearly calendar on His life. I saw that coming... it wasn't a "prediction" so much as luck."

Even in your version of events, the people who correctly predicted the birth of Christ weren't Jews with the bible; they were foreign astrologers.

[Balloon guy 158]

Further assuming all the other miracles were frauds, a lot of people would have to be in on it. Why? Eventual overthrow of Roman rule with the Jews united?I think that's an extremely unlikely scenario, really. I think it's much more likely that Jesus acquired all of his superpowers posthumously and didn't make the claims attributed to him.

So He just said some things, and some guys decided to create a religion out of Him. A religion that left them all poor, persecuted by their former religion, persecuted by the ruling authorities, and eventually resulted in their deaths, never admitting it was all a plot.And the next 20 generations of church leaders were culpable,or some later guy decided he would made changes and additions to the Bible to fool scholars who would have tools they never could imagine including sonar and X-Rays that are used on manuscripts to determine ink type and composition.Well one thing is sure, they sure thought out their plan.

[Balloon guy 158]

Even in your version of events, the people who correctly predicted the birth of Christ weren't Jews with the bible; they were foreign astrologers.

They were not the ones predicting His birth. They merely arrived for it.All the predictions in Isaiah give you the bigger problem. the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah is dated to decades before Christ was born. And Isaiah has a lot of prophecies about the Messiah.