Quantcast

Is the bible right about everything it says there?

bcarrera 2012/08/17 08:35:27
Related Topics: Bible
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • hapman 2012/08/17 15:56:55
    No
    hapman
    +5
    just read some science. christianity's previous ideas about the structure of 'creation' were comprehensively dismantled by free, open inquiry. the bible is generally vague and ambiguous. it doesn't really say anything at all, leaving it open to any interpretation you want to put on it. and that's precisely what's happened. any number of different ideas on 'what god wants' all come out of the same book. amazing. what more conclusive proof do you need that religion is about what people want, not what a fictitious god wants. hard facts and real knowledge have clearly demonstrated that, when the bible does make a definitive statement, it's inaccurate or just wrong. belief in christian doctrine requires ignoring a whole lot of stuff that has actually been proven. christianity has a sum total of zero evidence to support it's position. they only thing it's ever proved is that it has no credibility. pope paul v and the inquisition charged galileo with contradicting the holy scriptures. as turned out, galileo was right. therefore the holy scriptures are wrong. therefore they can't be the word of god. nothing that christianity thinks or says can be trusted. it's been proved.

    scriptures turned galileo holy scriptures wrong god christianity thinks trusted

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JMCC 2012/08/21 12:39:40
    Maybe
    JMCC
    +1
    That really rather depends on who is interpreting it and what their motives are doesn't it?
  • Patent1 2012/08/21 02:41:25
    Other
    Patent1
    Only if its in the right context.
  • Mark In Irvine 2012/08/21 00:59:20
    No
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    there are countless examples where it is absolutely false!!
  • poet4justice 2012/08/21 00:53:39
    No
    poet4justice
    +2
    only lunatic will take te bible literaly
  • sonofason 2012/08/18 04:28:12
  • Burnjuan 2012/08/17 20:43:17
  • Muskoka 2012/08/17 20:38:52
    No
    Muskoka
    +2
    Absolutely no, there are many complete falsehoods in the bible.
  • Cirsten Hahn 2012/08/17 19:45:32
    Yes
    Cirsten Hahn
    +1
    U bet ur sweet bippy!
  • kcandi 2012/08/17 17:58:39 (edited)
    No
    kcandi
    +2
    The bible was written by man, re-translated by man, to make man behave in a "sociable" manner. Had god or jesus wanted to convey their direct word, they would have done it on their own.
  • hapman 2012/08/17 15:56:55
    No
    hapman
    +5
    just read some science. christianity's previous ideas about the structure of 'creation' were comprehensively dismantled by free, open inquiry. the bible is generally vague and ambiguous. it doesn't really say anything at all, leaving it open to any interpretation you want to put on it. and that's precisely what's happened. any number of different ideas on 'what god wants' all come out of the same book. amazing. what more conclusive proof do you need that religion is about what people want, not what a fictitious god wants. hard facts and real knowledge have clearly demonstrated that, when the bible does make a definitive statement, it's inaccurate or just wrong. belief in christian doctrine requires ignoring a whole lot of stuff that has actually been proven. christianity has a sum total of zero evidence to support it's position. they only thing it's ever proved is that it has no credibility. pope paul v and the inquisition charged galileo with contradicting the holy scriptures. as turned out, galileo was right. therefore the holy scriptures are wrong. therefore they can't be the word of god. nothing that christianity thinks or says can be trusted. it's been proved.

    scriptures turned galileo holy scriptures wrong god christianity thinks trusted
  • moomoof 2012/08/17 15:43:59
    No
    moomoof
    +2
    The bible was written by men then taken apart by the priest so i am not sure what ti says
  • Charles Braley 2012/08/17 11:57:47
    Yes
    Charles Braley
    Sad but true; Some people just don't know how to "READ" the Bible (ignorance) - and others have had their hearts hardened, so they reject the Bible, and anything related to God.
  • Muskoka Charles... 2012/08/17 20:41:58
    Muskoka
    +2
    Very sad indeed, If kyou think that some of the most intelligent people in the world are incapable of deciphering a silly book your are sadly mistaken. They problem is that the buybull is full on nonsense that some take literally and others think itis the truth or a source of knowledge and morality. It is neither.
  • Cirsten... Muskoka 2012/08/18 01:45:48
    Cirsten Hahn
    +1
    To each his own! :)
  • Muskoka Cirsten... 2012/08/18 01:57:07
    Muskoka
    +2
    when you consider the outright lies in the bible it is not to each his own. It is to the intelligent of the planet to tell the truth.
  • Alex Jenkins 2012/08/17 11:46:36
  • .: LiVi :. 2012/08/17 11:22:33
    No
    .: LiVi :.
    +2
    If taken literally, no. But if taken metaphorically, in certain parts, the bible is a very interesting book and has many moral stories to learn from. No one is ever 100% right about anything, because nothing in life is known for certain. Just because the bible may not be right about everything, it doesn't mean it is entirely useless and irrelevant. You can still learn a lot about the human spirit by picking up the bible, or any kind of religious book.
  • classic .: LiVi :. 2012/08/17 15:47:09
    classic
    +2
    The bible contains 10% fact and 90% lies.....It needs the 10% facts to make the gullible believe the other 90%.....LMAO
  • .: LiVi :. classic 2012/08/18 08:15:52
    .: LiVi :.
    +1
    I don't think there is any percentage of fact in the bible, but that's only because I don't think anything is fact.. Oh well, each to their own. I respect people's personal beliefs. After all, we all have personal beliefs, whether we believe God exists or believe God doesn't exist, they are all beliefs, none of which based on pure 100% fact.
  • classic .: LiVi :. 2012/08/18 13:35:30
    classic
    +1
    I have been studing and have many books on the bible written by Biblical scholars. Also recently there have been more and more clerics admit the bible is full of lies.. starting with the lies of who the authors were......
    Then the authors lied about who they were... then most of what they wrote was made up in their minds..Even in the bible it says lying is OK,,, It even says God will make people lie,,
  • 3003573 classic 2012/08/21 03:45:58
  • Muskoka .: LiVi :. 2012/08/17 20:40:04
    Muskoka
    +3
    Many moral stories that should not be read in the presence of children.
  • .: LiVi :. Muskoka 2012/08/18 08:13:48
    .: LiVi :.
    +1
    Haha well some of them..
  • Muskoka .: LiVi :. 2012/08/18 17:36:53
    Muskoka
    +2
    A lot of them.
  • Icarus 2012/08/17 11:10:46
    No
    Icarus
    +2
    I think it's mostly wrong, but it might have some valid historical facts in it.
  • Radical Ed 2012/08/17 10:48:50
    No
    Radical Ed
    +3
    if it was then i would have slaves and rapists could marry any they violated for 50 shekels.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/08/17 10:05:17
    No
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    Just.... NO.
  • Scream 2012/08/17 09:45:15
    No
    Scream
    +4
    Let's put it this way.
    When I say I know someone in a biblical sense, I mean that I don't believe a word they say.
  • Crypt_Heart 2012/08/17 09:43:02
    No
    Crypt_Heart
    +2
    Considering it can't prove anything, gives vague definitions....and so on.
  • freespire 2012/08/17 09:28:49
    Yes
    freespire
    +1
    have no reason to believe otherwise yet
  • classic freespire 2012/08/17 15:47:55
    classic
    +2
    Try Logic!!! that may help....
  • freespire classic 2012/08/18 06:23:34
    freespire
    ah yes the wisdom of men :-)))

    hows that working out for you ?

    found world peace and put and end to world hunger yet?
  • classic freespire 2012/08/18 13:37:04
    classic
    +2
    No and neither has your GOD LMAO......Hows that working for YOU??? LMAO


    I dont claim to be god,,, however I do my share of helpeing people within my limits...
    What has your God done for anyone???
  • freespire classic 2012/08/18 23:57:52
    freespire
    well maybe it was providing tree's or fish in the sea or even that tastey roast chicken your enjoy on sundays.

    have you ever considersided what Proverbs 6:6-13 really means if so share with me now what your understand of this Proverb. please do I am interested in your thoughts.
  • classic freespire 2012/08/19 14:39:18
    classic
    +2
    I put no stock in what a 3000 year old book written by goat herders has to say.. I have a mind, I know what is good or bad , and dont need a diety to tell me.. Only those that need a diety have a deficiency.... There is nothing you can spout especially out of the bible that will convince me that this Big Daddy in the sky ever did anything, expecially make Chickens LMAO...Take your medications....
  • freespire classic 2012/08/23 02:29:50
    freespire
    who said the Bible was written by Goat Hearders?

    the scriptures used to compose the bible with came from serveral places. and just a note was it the Roman Catholic Chruch that produced the first version of the bible?
  • Muskoka freespire 2012/08/17 20:43:28
    Muskoka
    +2
    Since snails do not melt, unicorns and werewolves do not exist, rabbits do not eat their cud and there has never been a world wide flood. You c ould start there.
  • freespire Muskoka 2012/08/18 06:26:55
    freespire
    oh well I guess you will enjoy learning about the flood then :-)

    http://www.sodahead.com/livin...
  • Muskoka freespire 2012/08/18 06:48:54
    Muskoka
    +1
    Yes, I am sure you will enjoy learning that no such flood has ever happened. There is enormous amount of evidence to prove it did NOT happen

    Recently an ice core nearly two miles long has been extracted from the Greenland ice sheet. The first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (GISP2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events. Since the ice sheet would have floated away in the event of a global flood, the ice core is strong evidence that there was no global flood any time in the last 110,000 years.


    Geological effects of the flood:
    • How were mountains formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were laid down during the flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
    • How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of ...
    &








    &








    &&&

    &

    &
    &

    &

    Yes, I am sure you will enjoy learning that no such flood has ever happened. There is enormous amount of evidence to prove it did NOT happen

    Recently an ice core nearly two miles long has been extracted from the Greenland ice sheet. The first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (GISP2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events. Since the ice sheet would have floated away in the event of a global flood, the ice core is strong evidence that there was no global flood any time in the last 110,000 years.


    Geological effects of the flood:
    • How were mountains formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were laid down during the flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
    • How does a global flood explain angular unconformities, where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top? They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
    • When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]
    • How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting fail to explain:
    1. the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
    2. the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
    3. why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
    4. why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
    5. why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
    6. how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
    7. why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
    • How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per day*. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, followed by thirty minutes more of .... well, I think you get the picture. [From: Bill Hyde; see also Kent & Olsen, 1992]
    • How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle. [From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)]
    • How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [Short et. al., 1991]
    • Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. All such evidence is lacking in annual layers dating back 40,000 years.
    • How were limestone deposits formed? Limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits?
    • How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of planktonic animals 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the flood, they could have settled about half a meter. [From xdegrm@oryx.com (glenn r morton)]
    • Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
    o rain drops;
    o river channels;
    o wind-blown dunes [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984];
    o beaches;
    o glacial deposits [Eyles & Miall, 1984];
    o burrows;
    o in-place trees [Cristie & McMillan, 1991];
    o soil [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1994];
    o dessication cracks;
    o footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]

    http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/...
    (more)
  • freespire Muskoka 2012/08/19 00:07:11
    freespire
    K I am comfirming your claims at the moment and will return to this with the edit section below once finished I do thank you for what you have given right now and look forward to sharing my findings soon I did note that the post I am reading via the link states """if the samples are valid""
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/...

    http://www.csa.com/discoveryg...

    more to be added later>>>>

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2013/05/21 19:16:01

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals