Atheist knowledge

[turboplanner]

Regards the genocide at Jericho, who charged, tried and convicted the children and babies of "thuggish" or immoral behaviour and decided that their crimes merited slaughtering them? And why would any civilised person celebrate such an act of utter horror as ordained by their God? And we are supposed to love a God that sanctions such a massacre? Not my idea of a kind and just deity. Yet your God is supposed to be perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient well the one in the Bible seems to have the odd peccadillo or two to go with his super powers.

 

We are talking of a collection of stories that wasn't translated into English until 1526 having been translated though the one language (Hebrew) over millennia and then through ancient Greek and Latin to old English and modern English. But no mistakes were made either accidentally or on purpose? Are all Bibles true or all false?

 

Most of us would have difficulty understanding much of Shakespeare's writings without the footnotes even though it is barely 500 years old. Go back another five hundred years to the writings that are in the earliest English (like Beowulf - see below) and I promise you that they are unintelligible to a person who knows only modern English. The same thing happened with the evolution of Hebrew . . yes Hebrew did the unthinkable and evolved over time. There have been scholarly arguments over just about every passage in the Bible at one time or another. There are more versions of the Bible than I've had hot breakfasts. And yet it is the unequivocal literal word of God. And if it is not to be taken literally, who gets to decide what is literal, what is metaphorical and what is parable?

 

And who gets to say the Tyndale Bible is more or less correct than the King James? It is well know that Tyndale put a particular slant on the English translation to reduce the power of the clergy that he despised. In England, it meant torture and death to be found with a copy of this the first ever Bible in the English language. Why? Because some people didn't like the translation or interpretation.

 

For these reasons Bibles have little or no provenance. Yes Bibles, plural. And what about the New Testament? There were not only four there were up to 100 and what happened to the other 96? Destroyed because the early Church didn't like them.

I've referred to this post because it is hilarious Don. In the same post you manage to disparage the Bible, but at the same time quote from it to support your argument.

 

The point had already been raised that the King James Bible was not accurate due to translation errors, and of course earlier Bibles had been doctored to suit the flavour of the times.

 

So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ

 

This information clearly sums up how shaky it is to rely on the King James Bible if you want fact:

 

King James Bible translation: 1604 – 1611 (Source Wikipedia)

 

This was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities.

 

The New Testament was translated from Greek

 

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic

 

King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars.

 

If atheists want something more contemporary and source-accurate to quote, here are some alternative sources:

 

3000 BC onwards – Egyptian hieroglyphics

 

300-100 BC – Dead Sea Scrolls written about 80 km from Jerusalem before and at the time of Christ

 

0-400 AD – Gnostic Gospels written

 

1008 AD - Oldest surviving text of Hebrew Bible

 

1120 AD - Scrolls found under Solomon’s Temple

 

1955 – Copper scroll

 

 

[bexrbetter]

So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ

So it's a reasonable question to ask you that the majority of churches today, regardless of denomination, aren't worth attending in your opinion?

 

And if your answer is in the affirmative, which church or method of 'worship' (sorry for wrong term if so) is truer to the "more authentic information available"?

 

Serious questions, no catches.

 

 

[dazza 38]

While I respect your point, and your heritage, being a picky bugger I'd just like to point out that everyone's relatives have been somewhere on Earth about 3.8 billion years. Admittedly you may not see the family resemblance with a single-celled prokaryotic organism (although I know blokes who fit the bill), but follow the family tree back far enough...

I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me.

 

Or Phil with his death stick ......

 

 

[turboplanner]

I should have added my post was tongue in cheek being in the humour section. Being part aboriginal is true though. I just hope nobody points the bone at me.

You have a double problem if you want to be an atheist. You are part of what was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth, with an unparalleled method of managing bloodlines to prevent inbreeding, the ability to manage natural resources and some spiritual skills which Europeans have never attained, so you have to decide whether to walk away from that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So it's a reasonable question to ask you that the majority of churches today, regardless of denomination, aren't worth attending in your opinion?And if your answer is in the affirmative, which church or method of 'worship' (sorry for wrong term if so) is truer to the "more authentic information available"?

 

Serious questions, no catches.

Based on the information which has been coming out, I have some serious sh$t to consider.

 

 

[dazza 38]

You have a double problem if you want to be an atheist. You are part of what was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth, with an unparalleled method of managing bloodlines to prevent inbreeding, the ability to manage natural resources and some spiritual skills which Europeans have never attained, so you have to decide whether to walk away from that.

I never said I was a Athiest but I will say that I don't know what happens what we die . I do believe in spirits, pretty hard not too when I lived in a haunted house .I need more evidence to convince me of the jesus / god thing.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I did a bit of research this morning, the current technology in carbon dating suggests that the Australian Aboriginal has been in Australia for a least 60 000 years. They believe in multiple "gods".

 

 

[DonRamsay]

To make it easier to understand the sequence of some of the things we have been discussing, here's a timeline of some events. . . .

Any reason for omitting Tyndale's first English Language Bible? It is widely understood that Tyndale was opposed to the Catholic hierarchy and did a far from literal translation putting his personal bias into it and the influences from Luther. Not the first to do his own version it seems. And it almost doesn't matter how distorted the translation was because the provenance of what he was translating from was very poor.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls may be helpful but they are vastly incomplete vis-a-vis the multitude of versions of bibles out there.

 

Even if there were a complete original, first edition of each of the multitude of essays that make up the various bibles, translating them into modern English would take a phenomenal amount of guess work. Every linguist who attempted such a conversion would come up with a different version. How you could describe the outcome as the "inspired word of God" and then require strict adherence to every letter, is beyond belief. But, as you indicate, the earliest Hebrew copy dates from around the Battle of Hastings and would has no reliable or known provenance.

 

As a work of history, it is as wouldn't rate higher than folklore. And yet some people swear by it! And demand that I live my life by an instruction manual written for ancient, wandering tribes (meaning of "Bedouin") that had no knowledge or understanding of just about anything by today's standards.

 

 

[octave]

To make it easier to understand the sequence of some of the things we have been discussing, here's a timeline of some events.

Atheists will be happy to know that science creeps in here with the carbon dating of the so-called "Shroud of Turin", so you can cross that one off your list.

 

 

 

BC

 

28,000 First evidence of religious practice

 

12,000 Grindstones used for flour production

 

9,000 Animal husbandry developed in Mesopotamia

 

5,500 Irrigation systems used in Sumer

 

3,400 First walled cities in Egypt

 

3,250 Earliest known writing in Sumer

 

3,200 Secret Egyptian king-making ceremony

 

3,000 First Egyptian hieroglyphics

 

1500-1450 Most Probable period for the Exodus under Moses

 

972 Solomon builds temple to Yahweh on Temple Mount in Jerusalem

 

300 – 100 AD Dead Sea scrolls written, discovered at Qumran Caves between 1946 and 1956 and are still being translated. About 40% relate to the Hebrew Bible.

 

187 Earliest date for Qumran Community

 

6 Probable date of birth of Jesus

 

AD

 

0 – 400 Gnostic Gospels written (discovered Nag Hamadi, Egypt 1947)

 

27 Jesus spend three years at Qumran

 

31 Jesus leaves Qumran, held to be king of Jews

 

32 John the Baptist beheaded; Jesus assumes priestly as well as kingly messiahships

 

33 Crucifixion of Jesus

 

37 Mandaeans driven out of Mesopotamia by Saul

 

60 Saul becomes Paul and invents Christianity

 

63 Probable date of confrontation between James and Paul

 

64 Killing of James the Just at the Temple

 

70 Destruction of Qumran, Jerusalem and Herod’s Temple by the Romans

 

325 Council of Nicaea established by Emperor Constantine

 

1008 Oldest surviving text of the Hebrew Bible

 

June 14, 1099 Jerusalem was captured by the Crusaders

 

1118 Order of Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon founded

 

1120 Templars find hidden scrolls

 

1306 The arrest of all Jews in France

 

1292 Jacques de Maloy elected last Grand Master of the Templars

 

Fri Oct 13, 1307 Knights Templar were attacked by King Phillip of France, some escaped to Scotland, Fleet escaped never seen again, signs they made it to America, others escaped and founded Switzerland

 

1307 Jacques de Maloy crucified and Shroud of Turin created

 

1308 Arrival of Templar fleet in America

 

1440-1490 Building of the Chapel of Roslyn near Edinburgh

 

1534 English split with Roman Catholic Church

 

1604-1611 King James Bible translation

 

1799 Rosetta stone found, enabling Egyptian hieroglyphics to be read

 

1945 Discovery of Nag Hammadi cache of Gnostic gospels

 

1947 Discovery of Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran near Jerusalem

 

1951 Excavation of Qumran starts

 

1955 The copper scroll opened and deciphered as an inventory of hidden treasures

 

1988 Carbon dating of Turin Shroud establishes its earliest possible origin to be 1260

 

1991 First public access to full collection of the Dead Sea scrolls

 

Black: Source “The Hiram Key” Red: Other sources

 

If this is the "The Hiram Key" written by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas it seems to be largely about Freemasonry also it does not really inspire confidence when you look at Christopher Knights other books such as "Who Built the Moon". For an interview with Christopher Knight http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/who-built-the-moon-an-interview-with-christopher-knight

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(author)

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I've referred to this post because it is hilarious Don. In the same post you manage to disparage the Bible, but at the same time quote from it to support your argument.

I don't see anything funny in Genocide justified by being "God's chosen people".

 

I have no idea whether the Jews fought the battle of Jericho or not and neither does anyone else. What I know as a fact is that Theists generally accept, even boast about this conquest amd mayhem. My question, asked many times and remaining unanswered by either you or GG or any theist is on the morality of people who consider Genocide a practice to celebrate.

 

. . . The point had already been raised that the King James Bible was not accurate due to translation errors, and of course earlier Bibles had been doctored to suit the flavour of the times.

And yet all the born again Christians hang off every word of it and look down their noses at people who don't.

 

. . . So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ

On the contrary, there are those, like GG who hold these (to quote you) "ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations", to be immutable facts. My question is that if you believe that the massacre at Jericho was a fact, how can you justify that abomination to be a good thing?

 

This information clearly sums up how shaky it is to rely on the King James Bible if you want fact:

King James Bible translation: 1604 – 1611 (Source Wikipedia)

 

This was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities.

Being approved by a schism of the Catholic church in a time of mortal sectarian combat hardly is a justification to elevate any version of the King James Bible to "fact" status. Provenance is still the issue. There is no reliable provenance for any modern English version of the Bible.

 

The New Testament was translated from Greek

And written, non-contemporaneously, in conflicting versions by four different people. And these are only the edited, carefully selected, surviving versions. And for which no first editions survive. Again zero provenance as an historical record.

 

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic

Well known. And as fraught an exercise in translation as can be imagined.

 

King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars.

Just more evidence of distortion and illegitimacy of books said to be the "inspired word of God".

 

And was it not King James who oversaw the "Hang, draw and quarter" of every Catholic priest he could get his hands on? And what was their heinous crime warranting such a cruel punishment? Loyalty to the Church allegedly founded by the Apostle Peter at the request of JC himself in words to the effect of "upon this Rock I build my church". Whether I believe JC existed or ordained Peter as the first Pope is immaterial. King James and his cronies believed that.

 

If atheists want something more contemporary and source-accurate to quote, here are some alternative sources:3000 BC onwards – Egyptian hieroglyphics

 

300-100 BC – Dead Sea Scrolls written about 80 km from Jerusalem before and at the time of Christ

 

0-400 AD – Gnostic Gospels written

 

1008 AD - Oldest surviving text of Hebrew Bible

 

1120 AD - Scrolls found under Solomon’s Temple

 

1955 – Copper scroll

All very interesting but beyond the capability of other than the experts to fathom. I'm happy to wait for the video.

 

In fact I doubt any atheist is all that interested in spending hours fathoming the fantasies of any of the thousands of religions that plague this Earth.

 

For me, there is enough Science to get back to within a whisker of the Big Bang and to dispel the myths and legends as to how the Universe began. Why would I want to pore over translations of ancient documents in case somebody suffering undiagnosed schizophrenia really did claim to be Barabas ("Son of God").

 

Many people in the Philippines really believe the tricksters who appear to do surgical removals of body parts without leaving a mark on the surface of the skin. People will believe anything, who am I to tell them to snap out of it and get a real education in facts?

 

What happened before the Big Bang is, at this time anybody's guess. My hypothesis (not a scientific theory) is that the Universe will continue to expand but eventually be swallowed by Black Holes. Eventually all Black Holes will disappear into one incredibly dense Black Hole which will eventually reduce to a "Singularity". As it achieves critical mass, it will explode in another Big Bang and the Universe will rapidly expand in a never ending cycle of expansion, contraction and explosion. Do I believe this? No, I surmise this. It is just as plausible as a God who always was and always will be and is omni everything and works in mysterious ways? To me it is more plausible. The best Theists could do if they were into logic would say that God created the singularity and lit the blue touch paper and stood well back and watched the Big Bang go off to the rules She had deemed. But logic and religion seem to be the antithesis of one another.

 

You Turbo, if I could be so bold as to suggest, appear to be a genuine enquirer and for that reason, for the moment at least, an Agnostic. It is possible for us to argue with you (as opposed to bickering with GG). Argument can lead to enlightenment but bickering gets nobody anywhere and is a waste of electrons.

 

In a way we are all agnostic in that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a divinity whether it is Yaweh or Shiva or Jupiter or Zeus. Even Dawkins is prepared to admit the possibility of Intelligent Design by a divinity. He just says there is no evidence for it and that if there were such an entity the question of who created the creator remains unanswered.

 

Scientists and genuine enquirers are comfortable or even joyous that they don't know it all, that there is so much more to discover. Theists are joyous because they have the answer to everything and for some of them it is not 42 or Shiva or Zeus but Golf Oscar Delta. And that's no skin off my nose unless they want to impose their peculiar beliefs on me and prosecute me for what they perceive as blasphemy.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Post 661 has just been posted. If this thread keeps expanding at this rate, we'll soon be the runner-up to the Never Ending Story.

 

I don't see anything funny in Genocide justified by being "God's chosen people".

I have no idea whether the Jews fought the battle of Jericho or not and neither does anyone else. What I know as a fact is that Theists generally accept, even boast about this conquest amd mayhem. My question, asked many times and remaining unanswered by either you or GG or any theist is on the morality of people who consider Genocide a practice to celebrate.

 

And yet all the born again Christians hang off every word of it and look down their noses at people who don't.

 

On the contrary, there are those, like GG who hold these (to quote you) "ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations", to be immutable facts. My question is that if you believe that the massacre at Jericho was a fact, how can you justify that abomination to be a good thing?

 

Being approved by a schism of the Catholic church in a time of mortal sectarian combat hardly is a justification to elevate any version of the King James Bible to "fact" status. Provenance is still the issue. There is no reliable provenance for any modern English version of the Bible.

 

And written, non-contemporaneously, in conflicting versions by four different people. And these are only the edited, carefully selected, surviving versions. And for which no first editions survive. Again zero provenance as an historical record.

 

Well known. And as fraught an exercise in translation as can be imagined.

 

Just more evidence of distortion and illegitimacy of books said to be the "inspired word of God".

 

And was it not King James who oversaw the "Hang, draw and quarter" of every Catholic priest he could get his hands on? And what was their heinous crime warranting such a cruel punishment? Loyalty to the Church allegedly founded by the Apostle Peter at the request of JC himself in words to the effect of "upon this Rock I build my church". Whether I believe JC existed or ordained Peter as the first Pope is immaterial. King James and his cronies believed that.

 

All very interesting but beyond the capability of other than the experts to fathom. I'm happy to wait for the video.

 

In fact I doubt any atheist is all that interested in spending hours fathoming the fantasies of any of the thousands of religions that plague this Earth.

 

For me, there is enough Science to get back to within a whisker of the Big Bang and to dispel the myths and legends as to how the Universe began. Why would I want to pore over translations of ancient documents in case somebody suffering undiagnosed schizophrenia really did claim to be Barabas ("Son of God").

 

Many people in the Philippines really believe the tricksters who appear to do surgical removals of body parts without leaving a mark on the surface of the skin. People will believe anything, who am I to tell them to snap out of it and get a real education in facts?

 

What happened before the Big Bang is, at this time anybody's guess. My hypothesis (not a scientific theory) is that the Universe will continue to expand but eventually be swallowed by Black Holes. Eventually all Black Holes will disappear into one incredibly dense Black Hole which will eventually reduce to a "Singularity". As it achieves critical mass, it will explode in another Big Bang and the Universe will rapidly expand in a never ending cycle of expansion, contraction and explosion. Do I believe this? No, I surmise this. It is just as plausible as a God who always was and always will be and is omni everything and works in mysterious ways? To me it is more plausible. The best Theists could do if they were into logic would say that God created the singularity and lit the blue touch paper and stood well back and watched the Big Bang go off to the rules She had deemed. But logic and religion seem to be the antithesis of one another.

 

You Turbo, if I could be so bold as to suggest, appear to be a genuine enquirer and for that reason, for the moment at least, an Agnostic. It is possible for us to argue with you (as opposed to bickering with GG). Argument can lead to enlightenment but bickering gets nobody anywhere and is a waste of electrons.

 

In a way we are all agnostic in that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a divinity whether it is Yaweh or Shiva or Jupiter or Zeus. Even Dawkins is prepared to admit the possibility of Intelligent Design by a divinity. He just says there is no evidence for it and that if there were such an entity the question of who created the creator remains unanswered.

 

Scientists and genuine enquirers are comfortable or even joyous that they don't know it all, that there is so much more to discover. Theists are joyous because they have the answer to everything and for some of them it is not 42 or Shiva or Zeus but Golf Oscar Delta. And that's no skin off my nose unless they want to impose their peculiar beliefs on me and prosecute me for what they perceive as blasphemy.

Sorry Don,

 

There are quite a number in inaccuracies in what you have written above. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to list them, but I thought I would just flag this for now.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Sorry Don, There are quite a number in inaccuracies in what you have written above. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to list them, but I thought I would just flag this for now.

What, me get something wrong?

 

Never been known to happen before. Guess there's a first time for everything.

 

I look for to your critique - always happy to be corrected. (Not sarcasm - genuine.)

 

I do hope you mean you don't have time now not don't have time ever.

 

Don

 

 

[facthunter]

The chance of anyone writing without error or inaccuracies on this matter is zero. All tribes have invented a god in the past. Why is it still necessary in the present.? I didn't start this post and the one who did thought it was a laughing matter to ridicule the views of another group. Not a good motivation really and I'm not particularly impressed.. I have no wish to offend anyone but all must be as free to express their views as much as any other. I can't se any point in pressing on . If God appears, I will undertake to honestly report the fact. You have my word. but I hope we don't run this again on the forum. What has it achieved? Anything positive? ( For me Yes, but I think the cost is too high for the amount gained, and I only reluctantly responded). Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Any reason for omitting Tyndale's first English Language Bible? It is widely understood that Tyndale was opposed to the Catholic hierarchy and did a far from literal translation putting his personal bias into it and the influences from Luther. Not the first to do his own version it seems. And it almost doesn't matter how distorted the translation was because the provenance of what he was translating from was very poor.

I'm not writing a thesis just to help atheists; my point is that when we know that early Bibles were altered and whole books removed and when that information was translated several times and then even later versions were printed it is not realistic to quote a chapter or verse and then say "see, God doesn't exist!"

 

You're welcome to add Tyndale's or any other downstream tome to the list.

 

What I am saying, is if we want to take some meaning out of the Bible we know these days that it will be worthwhile cross referencing with some of the older, purer texts.

 

Doesn't mean it's all wrong, just watered down over many generations.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls may be helpful but they are vastly incomplete vis-a-vis the multitude of versions of bibles out there.

They predate most of those Bibles so it's only reasonable they wouldn't know, or comment on something that didn't exist.

 

Even if there were a complete original, first edition of each of the multitude of essays that make up the various bibles, translating them into modern English would take a phenomenal amount of guess work. Every linguist who attempted such a conversion would come up with a different version. How you could describe the outcome as the "inspired word of God" and then require strict adherence to every letter, is beyond belief. But, as you indicate, the earliest Hebrew copy dates from around the Battle of Hastings and would has no reliable or known provenance.

That's what I've been saying, but people, including yourself have been quoting them verbatim to further the atheist argument.

 

As for God requiring strict adherence to every letter, I would't expect an atheist to realise that's just BS. I'm a confirmed Anglican, and throughout the teaching I had, especially during the confirmation process the emphasis what on how to behave in society with only one of the less controversial stories from the Bible now and then, so don't upset yourself thinking we spend several hours a night going over and over what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do.

 

As a work of history, it is as wouldn't rate higher than folklore. And yet some people swear by it! And demand that I live my life by an instruction manual written for ancient, wandering tribes (meaning of "Bedouin") that had no knowledge or understanding of just about anything by today's standards.

As I've mentioned several times, parts of the Bible are very accurate, and have been corroborated by contemporary sources, however, I'd agree it needs a rewrite to take out the political games and mis-translations.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

666 yes it happened

 

 

[facthunter]

You have your parameters Turbo, but about 80% of USA people believe the bible is the absolute word of God. About 3% know the name of the first chapter. Everyone want's to select THEIR version of the "truth" in the writings. You seem to know a lot about how atheists think.

 

I doubt you do at all. How would you? Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

I've referred to this post because it is hilarious Don. In the same post you manage to disparage the Bible, but at the same time quote from it to support your argument.

The point had already been raised that the King James Bible was not accurate due to translation errors, and of course earlier Bibles had been doctored to suit the flavour of the times.

 

So there's no point in atheists plucking ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations from later Bibles to try to make a case when there is more authentic information available in the original languages written closer to the contemporary times, particularly those of Jesus Christ

 

This information clearly sums up how shaky it is to rely on the King James Bible if you want fact:

 

King James Bible translation: 1604 – 1611 (Source Wikipedia)

 

This was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities.

 

The New Testament was translated from Greek

 

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic

 

King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars.

 

If atheists want something more contemporary and source-accurate to quote, here are some alternative sources:

 

3000 BC onwards – Egyptian hieroglyphics

 

300-100 BC – Dead Sea Scrolls written about 80 km from Jerusalem before and at the time of Christ

 

0-400 AD – Gnostic Gospels written

 

1008 AD - Oldest surviving text of Hebrew Bible

 

1120 AD - Scrolls found under Solomon’s Temple

 

1955 – Copper scroll

Turbs, since you highlight how flawed the reported word of god is(ie the bible/s), whose word can I believe?

 

 

[nomadpete]

I am mildly annoyed by most (yes most) practicing christians using chapter and verse of their favoured version, as proof that their god exists (etc). The same folk don't allow me to use their preferred reference text to debate anything. So, like many others, I usually smile and nod when receiving some well intentioned amateur preaching. A pity really because I do enjoy a nice debate

 

 

[eightyknots]

666 yes it happened

Yes, it happened exactly 1348 years ago.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Yes, it happened exactly 1348 years ago.

Julian or Gregorian calendar????

 

 

[turboplanner]

If this is the "The Hiram Key" written by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas it seems to be largely about Freemasonry also it does not really inspire confidence when you look at Christopher Knights other books such as "Who Built the Moon". For an interview with Christopher Knight http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/who-built-the-moon-an-interview-with-christopher-knight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(author)

Yes that's the same book. The other book is "Who built the moon?" so to begin with, let's not take the question mark off that book to imply it's something it's not. Some of these authors employ teams of researchers - Gavin Menzies (1431) has around 25 researchers, and that alone is turning up a lot of new evidence together with some red herrings, but that is what a questioning mind is for.

 

I wasn't tempted to buy the book but from memory they found that dimensions on the moon matched ancient dimensions on earth and they hypothesise. Since ancient civilizations on earth, apparently without the aid of aliens knew the earth was round, knew it's dimensions, mapped the star system and probably what they could see of the moon, knew how precession worked, and for example, in the Maya's case could produce an accurate calendar over thousands of years (which by the way didn't predict the end of the world, just ended with the end of the world of Pisces much as today's calendar from the local service station may end with a helpful 2015 set of dates), without knowing what they are up to in the book, I would suspect the argument could equally be that some of the ancient measurements on earth built by man could have been designed based on moon measurements.

 

Knight also collaborated on another book called Civilization One which discusses interesting sites in Great Britain, Alexander Thom's Megalithic Yard, Newgrange, Stonehenge etc.

 

Incidentally we can forget visions of religious festivals around Stonehenge with nude figures wearing daisy chain head dresses, because a previously unknown sighting foundation was found a month or so ago, and this "monument" is a reasonably accurate instrument.

 

 

[AVOCET]

I find the book of Job interesting ,

 

When God asked Job , Have you entered into the tresures of the snow ?

 

Or , the arch of the earth , Or

 

All the rivers run into the sea , yet the sea is not full , ....... ( rain cycle)

 

The list goes on.

 

Mike

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't see anything funny in Genocide justified by being "God's chosen people".

Clever twist Don, but it didn't work on me. Nor do I, but I'm p$ssing myself, that someone who recently told me the Bible wasn't credible is now playing on emotions relating to a non-credible story.

 

I have no idea whether the Jews fought the battle of Jericho or not and neither does anyone else. What I know as a fact is that Theists generally accept, even boast about this conquest amd mayhem. My question, asked many times and remaining unanswered by either you or GG or any theist is on the morality of people who consider Genocide a practice to celebrate.

I'll answer it; acceptance of Genocide has never appeared in my lessons, and I would never consider it, and if you don't know and haven't checked whether a battle ever took place or whether anyone was killed due to genocide, the question falls into the category of uninformed mischief.

 

And yet all the born again Christians hang off every word of it and look down their noses at people who don't.

Who are these people? There are bigots and snobs in every town. Stay away from them Don.

 

On the contrary, there are those, like GG who hold these (to quote you) "ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations", to be immutable facts. My question is that if you believe that the massacre at Jericho was a fact, how can you justify that abomination to be a good thing?

I referred to "ridiculously and transparently nonsensical translations" only to those translated sections which fit the picture and can't be supported by evidence. It was not a starting gun to destroy the whole Bible. Most of what you say is good, some of what you say is ridiculous. I don't judge the whole of what you say on the ridiculous statements - same goes for the Bible.

 

Many many parts of the Bible are factual. Give me some more evidence of a massacre at Jericho and I'll be happy to comment.

 

And by the way, please ton't pick on GG; he's been under siege for days from atheists who just can't leave it at not believing, but have to go to extraordinary lengths to try and condemn those who accept God for believing.

 

Being approved by a schism of the Catholic church in a time of mortal sectarian combat hardly is a justification to elevate any version of the King James Bible to "fact" status. Provenance is still the issue. There is no reliable provenance for any modern English version of the Bible.

And written, non-contemporaneously, in conflicting versions by four different people. And these are only the edited, carefully selected, surviving versions. And for which no first editions survive. Again zero provenance as an historical record.

 

Well known. And as fraught an exercise in translation as can be imagined.

 

Just more evidence of distortion and illegitimacy of books said to be the "inspired word of God".

I could have sworn that was the message I've been trying to get across for several days, and why I've given you the opportunity to go out and study older texts and examples like the Knights Templar, who by the way only used the word Christ in their title and didn't go straight to the chase of Solomon, because they otherwise would never have been allowed to excavate on Temple Mount, and who laid the foundations for an Abbey, yet built only the thin Roslyn Chapel which never was a Chapel but an exact replica of Solomon's Temple, and they did that because the "Christians" of their time would have executed them if they knew what they were really up to.

 

The Templars never worshipped Jesus Christ, and to become a Freemason you have to believe in God, not Jesus Christ.

 

And was it not King James who oversaw the "Hang, draw and quarter" of every Catholic priest he could get his hands on? And what was their heinous crime warranting such a cruel punishment? Loyalty to the Church allegedly founded by the Apostle Peter at the request of JC himself in words to the effect of "upon this Rock I build my church". Whether I believe JC existed or ordained Peter as the first Pope is immaterial. King James and his cronies believed that.

All very interesting but beyond the capability of other than the experts to fathom. I'm happy to wait for the video.

There probably will be a mini series called Underbelly - Jimmy and the Pope; there was a lot of disagreement in those days. The Pope's men had been killing the English and Scottish, and King Phillip of France who ordered the execution of every Knight Templar on Friday 13th which we are still wary of today, was a Roman Catholic.

 

In fact I doubt any atheist is all that interested in spending hours fathoming the fantasies of any of the thousands of religions that plague this Earth.

Looks like you were wrong; I'm amazed how many questions and arguments on the Christian era have come up.

 

For me, there is enough Science to get back to within a whisker of the Big Bang and to dispel the myths and legends as to how the Universe began. Why would I want to pore over translations of ancient documents in case somebody suffering undiagnosed schizophrenia really did claim to be Barabas ("Son of God").

Many people in the Philippines really believe the tricksters who appear to do surgical removals of body parts without leaving a mark on the surface of the skin. People will believe anything, who am I to tell them to snap out of it and get a real education in facts?

 

What happened before the Big Bang is, at this time anybody's guess. My hypothesis (not a scientific theory) is that the Universe will continue to expand but eventually be swallowed by Black Holes. Eventually all Black Holes will disappear into one incredibly dense Black Hole which will eventually reduce to a "Singularity". As it achieves critical mass, it will explode in another Big Bang and the Universe will rapidly expand in a never ending cycle of expansion, contraction and explosion. Do I believe this? No, I surmise this. It is just as plausible as a God who always was and always will be and is omni everything and works in mysterious ways? To me it is more plausible. The best Theists could do if they were into logic would say that God created the singularity and lit the blue touch paper and stood well back and watched the Big Bang go off to the rules She had deemed. But logic and religion seem to be the antithesis of one another.

There is nothing to stop you believing anything you choose and making any comparison you choose, or even proposing what God might have done to create the big bang. Maybe he just farted, and we're all going to cop it shortly.

 

The part our minds have difficulty with are things like what actually caused the big bang, what was there before the matter that blew outwards? what's there now in it's place, what's out side of space? etc

 

There are hints that some ancient civilizations got to know a little more than us, so my view is we are a little like the New Guinea natives who, after WW2 where they used to help unload DC3s with food and supplies for our army, built stick runways and stick aircraft decoys to lure the birds back. They couldn't understand it, but we, knowing the mechanics of what an aircraft was, did.

 

You Turbo, if I could be so bold as to suggest, appear to be a genuine enquirer and for that reason, for the moment at least, an Agnostic. It is possible for us to argue with you (as opposed to bickering with GG). Argument can lead to enlightenment but bickering gets nobody anywhere and is a waste of electrons.

In a way we are all agnostic in that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a divinity whether it is Yaweh or Shiva or Jupiter or Zeus. Even Dawkins is prepared to admit the possibility of Intelligent Design by a divinity. He just says there is no evidence for it and that if there were such an entity the question of who created the creator remains unanswered.

 

Scientists and genuine enquirers are comfortable or even joyous that they don't know it all, that there is so much more to discover. Theists are joyous because they have the answer to everything and for some of them it is not 42 or Shiva or Zeus but Golf Oscar Delta. And that's no skin off my nose unless they want to impose their peculiar beliefs on me and prosecute me for what they perceive as blasphemy.

I'm an enquirer, but not an Agnostic. I'm very comfortable with my God, and I'm not going to explain that; I think Mike might be the only one who understands that statement.

 

I mentioned previously that someone who can't handle today's knowledge about evolution will have difficulty further down the track, and if you persist with legal standards of evidence the same thing applies. We are dealing with something our minds are just not trained to process at the present time.

 

Dictionary definitions are:

 

Atheist: One who denies the existence of God (s0 the big A's here have lived up to that in full voice)

 

Agnostic: One who believes that God, the absolute, the infinite, the life hereafter, etc can neither be proved not disproved, and who accepts knowledge of material phenomena only.

 

Gnostics: Followers of a religious sect in the early Christian era who had esoteric spiritual knowledge

 

 

[turboplanner]

You have your parameters Turbo, but about 80% of USA people believe the bible is the absolute word of God. About 3% know the name of the first chapter. Everyone want's to select THEIR version of the "truth" in the writings. You seem to know a lot about how atheists think.I doubt you do at all. How would you? Nev

I thought from your last post this was all getting too much for you. How could you know about 80% of USA pelple believe the bible is the absolute word of God?

 

I've worked with them for decades and goddam! is about as close as I've heard.

 

I don't know how atheists think, but they sure say enough to make some judgements.