Bible Disproved By One Scripture

[elizsia]

Mark 13:25

 

King James Bible

And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

 

Question...

 

How Can The Stars Fall From The Sky? 2000 years ago they didnt know what the stars were.. They looked up and saw specs of light in the night sky.. Didnt know they were huge balls of fire billions and trillions of miles away. The Scripture is Literal, It means those specs of light, Not comets or metors, but the specs of light they called stars..

 

If one single scripture has been disproved it undermines the whole bible and the belief system. How can God be wrong?

Edited May 10, 2016 by elizsia

[Phi for All]

Discredited maybe. Undermined definitely. Disproven? Not in a scientific sense.

[Essay]

Mark 13:25

 

The Scripture is Literal, It means those specs of light, Not comets or meteors, but the specs of light they called stars..

 

Can you provide a citation for why you think any such historical document or translation should be taken literally, rather than literarily? Don't most religious leaders and scholars suggest a literary interpretation?

~

[Memammal]

If one single scripture has been disproved it undermines the whole bible and the belief system. How can God be wrong?

There are of course others that cannot be argued away based on figurative, symbolic or poetic interpretation, nor by the notion that it was merely the inspired word of God. No point in trying to convince a fundamentalist believer that their holy scriptures contain flaws though...

[John Cuthber]

 

Can you provide a citation for why you think any such historical document or translation should be taken literally, rather than literarily? Don't most religious leaders and scholars suggest a literary interpretation?

~

Most Bible scholars seem to take those passages of the book that can be shown to be wrong as "allegorical or literary while those bits which are not proven to be wrong, are taken literally.

 

Whenever the real world shows that a passage is not true, the Bible bashers simply move it from one category to the other and conveniently forget that they used to believe it.

[Moontanman]

Well the concept of God can be disproved in two words... PROVE IT!

Edited May 29, 2016 by Moontanman

[trixy]

Science new about the stars six thousand years ago because the arc of the covenant/ tables of the covenant in the bible is arched mathematical tables that formulate the process of spontaneous movement. It holds mathematical systems that man today have no knowledge of. The formulated system produces the greatest break through in science ever known to man and gave the world new knowledge in physics. I am going to recommend the book that contains this information at the risk of getting scolded on line. The author is Cheri Potter the books are The Tables Of the Covenant (TOC): revelation and notes on teleportation and the other (TOC):The E-Manuel activation of Teleportation. The first book is all math using gametri and presents graphs of even the ancient cubit. The three wise men that searched for the messiah followed the celestial star path to find him two thousand years ago. Nimrod was the first cosmologist written about in the bible and he lived six thousand years ago. I have read these books and they are amazing. So in short if science could prove God to be false I don't think science would hide its secrets under Gods altar.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

No more spamming for that crackpot book, trixy. We don't allow advertising here, and you've brought this up far too many times. Stop now, please.

[disarray]

Let's look at some statistics as to what percentage of Americans actually take scripture literally:

 

'An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.” Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

 

Comments made in connection with the Gallup Poll 2011 include the following:

 

"Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God."

"In general, the dominant view of Americans is that the Bible is the word of God, be it inspired or actual, as opposed to a collection of stories recorded by man."

Highly religious Americans and those who have less formal education are more likely to hold that "the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God, rather than the actual word of God or a book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts."

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

 

Similarly,

 

An "Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 77 percent of adults believe these ethereal beings [angels] are real. Belief is primarily tied to religion, with 88 percent of Christians, 95 percent of evangelical Christians and 94 percent of those who attend weekly religious services of any sort saying they believe in angels.Dec 23, 2011"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

Though polls show that such literal beliefs are gradually going down in recent decades, the figures seem in-credibly high given that the source of such beliefs is reduced to, basically, one book, and one that, by any educational standard today would be considered woefully outdated and inaccurate. More importantly, such statistics suggest that there is often some sort of disconnect between what people believe, in terms of a scientific approach, and what they believe in terms of a religious one.

Mark Lorch, for example, wondered how scientists can believe in both without some sort of face-twitching cognitive dissonance:

"I could never reconcile what I saw as a contradiction between the principles of the scientific method and faith in a supernatural god. And ever since then, it has puzzled me how anyone could be religious whilst also being a scientist."

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4889/can-you-be-a-scientist-and-have-religious-faith

He goes on to relate that as he grew older (and presumably wiser?) he began to realize that science also has its own faith (i.e., the power of the inductive method) and therefore that he should not be surprised that people can believe in science as well as having faith in a book such as the Bible (as if science is also a religion, and therefore can't claim that its textbooks are any more accurate than any other religious text).

Well, I will let people make up their own minds as to whether such verbal legerdemain is a reasonable defense against any scientific efforts to dispute the sort of miracles described in many scriptural accounts, though I think it helpful to remember the cultural context in which the scriptures were written, when weighing, for example, the likelihood of a scriptural description of the origin of life and the universe in comparison with modern scientific descriptions about the way the universe unfolded.

Edited May 29, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

 

More importantly, such statistics suggest that there is often some sort of disconnect between what people believe, in terms of a scientific approach, and what they believe in terms of a religious one.

The statistics that you quoted are actually quite frightening and astonishing. I think you nailed the gist thereof in your sentence above. In another thread (that has since been locked) I attempted to explain why the underlying basics, the core beliefs of Christianity, are scientifically flawed (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95207-religious-scientists/page-2#entry921405). The same kind of argument, albeit with a slight change in doctrinal approach, may be relevant to the other monotheistic religions. So the real question boils down to why this so-called cognitive dissonance continues to exist on such a large scale? There are many theories but the kind of arguments that make the most sense to me are those that insert (among others) the evolutionary "brainwashing" capacity of superstition/religion coupled with generations of environmental strengthening and confirmation bias along cultural groups. Some societies/cultures where the ancestors of today's generations formed part of-, or were exposed to the influences of the Age of Enlightenment, have become largely secular (Europe). In other societies where the populations are largely representative of the descendants of former protestant reformer strongholds, conservative Christian beliefs still hold strong (as per your stats). And lastly there is the significant factor of colonial (and other) missionary movements that have spread their respective faiths (Christianity, Muslim) to continents such as Africa and South America that, if I am not mistaken, have the highest number of religious followers nowadays.

[Velocity_Boy]

Hey I'm no Christian but that proffered Bible passage disproves nothing. It will be construed as a Believer as being a mere figure if speech.

 

Like when you say that was a nice sunrise this morning.

 

We all know that term is Cosmologically inaccurate.

 

So if a book by Hawking used it that means his whole book is bogus, right? According to your argument.

 

Sorry. You lose this one, amigo.

 

Anyway, the Bible has far more absurd stuff in its pages than that!

 

Hope this helps.

[Moontanman]

Genesis chapter one verse one is BS the rest is just piling the BS on deeper...

Edited June 7, 2016 by Moontanman

[Ultimate Infinity]

Well the concept of God can be disproved in two words... PROVE IT!

That doesn't prove God doesn't exist it just is your opinion

Genesis chapter one verse one is BS the rest is just piling the BS on deeper...

Genesis one agrees with scientists on many levels- "From dust you were made and from dust you shall return." And scientists say we are evolved all the way from stars and what are they made of? Dust

[Strange]

That doesn't prove God doesn't exist it just is your opinion

 

I agree. I don't see how any rational person would claim that science can disprove god or gods.

 

 

Genesis one agrees with scientists on many levels- "From dust you were made and from dust you shall return." And scientists say we are evolved all the way from stars and what are they made of? Dust

 

If you are happy to interpret the Bible in that metaphorical way then I for one won't disagree with you. I'm sure there are ways of making most of the Bible (including its contradictions!) work with a suitably poetic interpretation....

[Ultimate Infinity]

Look strange I feel as though u are picking on me

[Strange]

Look strange I feel as though u are picking on me

 

I thought I was agreeing with you ...

 

There are a lot of people here who are anti-religion and may well attack me for supporting your views.

[dimreepr]

Look strange I feel as though u are picking on me

 

 

If you think correcting you is being picked on, then yes he is; the best thing to do with the bible is, use it to protect your nadgers from a swift kick.

Edited June 28, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

 

I thought I was agreeing with you ...

 

There are a lot of people here who are anti-religion and may well attack me for supporting your views.

 

Now now, the "a" in a-theist doesn't stand for "anti".

 

Your points did agree with Ultimate Infinity, and they were also valid. Ultimately, I think the best stance is that gods and science are tools for completely different projects. One shouldn't be used to refute or support the other, they really aren't compatible. It's like measuring the volume of an aquarium with a poem.

[Strange]

 

Now now, the "a" in a-theist doesn't stand for "anti".

 

It does in some cases ... *cough* Dawkins *cough* ... and a few people on the forum...

 

Your points did agree with Ultimate Infinity, and they were also valid. Ultimately, I think the best stance is that gods and science are tools for completely different projects. One shouldn't be used to refute or support the other, they really aren't compatible. It's like measuring the volume of an aquarium with a poem.

 

Nicely put.

[DrP]

I think I am starting to understand why the 'anti' and not the silent 'a'. I used to believe these lies.... why should I stand by while some other poor sod listens too and accepts these lies as true? I do not want to see my fellow humans taken in by some con merchant peddling a non existent god to benefit his own gain or to some idiot (like myself some many years ago) who is spouting BS based upon what they believe to be true based on what they have been told and what is in a book. I want the human race to improve and advance in it's learning - not to be held back by some backward rubbish which is clearly bull crap.

 

It might sound harsh, but, I feel the same with religion now as I do with homeopathy. We all know it is BS, so if you are peddling it (whilst knowing it to be untrue or not understanding why it is not true) then you are either a con man or an idiot. What other reason would you have for pushing it?

[dimreepr]

I think I am starting to understand why the 'anti' and not the silent 'a'. I used to believe these lies.... why should I stand by while some other poor sod listens too and accepts these lies as true? I do not want to see my fellow humans taken in by some con merchant peddling a non existent god to benefit his own gain or to some idiot (like myself some many years ago) who is spouting BS based upon what they believe to be true based on what they have been told and what is in a book. I want the human race to improve and advance in it's learning - not to be held back by some backward rubbish which is clearly bull crap.

 

It might sound harsh, but, I feel the same with religion now as I do with homeopathy. We all know it is BS, so if you are peddling it (whilst knowing it to be untrue or not understanding why it is not true) then you are either a con man or an idiot. What other reason would you have for pushing it?

 

 

 

Some find solace in what it represents without falling for what it actually says.

[Strange]

I think I am starting to understand why the 'anti' and not the silent 'a'. I used to believe these lies....

 

Maybe that is the difference.

[Ultimate Infinity]

Wow DrP you are unbearablely naive there are to many ways that we can see God exists

[dimreepr]

Damn it there goes another meter

[Memammal]

Wow DrP you are unbearablely naive there are to many ways that we can see God exists

Now see, this is where the distinction between science and religion becomes a bit blurry. Please enlighten us, Ultimate Infinity.