Is the Bible is the Literal Word of God?

[sevin]

A lot of evangelical Christians take the Bible very literally. But consider the following:

Who was the father of Joseph?
MATTHEW 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUKE 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
(From here on, there is not one name in common until it gets back to David.)

Does Jesus judge?
JOHN 5:22: For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
JOHN 8:15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Did Jesus bear witness to himself?
JOHN 5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
JOHN 8:18: I am one that bear witness of myself...

What were Jesus’ last words?
LUKE 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
JOHN 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Who bought potter's field?
MAT 27:6-8: And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
ACT 1:18-19: Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
(Two very different stories about how it came to be called "the field of blood.")

Only Jesus ascended to Heaven?
JOHN 3:13: No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.
II KINGS 2:11: And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACTS 9:7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACTS 22:9: And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Does God tempt?
JAMES 1:13: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
GENESIS 22:1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

Who provoked David?
II SAMUEL 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
(If you look it up, you will find that these are referring to the same event)

Can God be seen?
Yes:
GENESIS 32:30: For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
EXODUS 33:11: And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.
No:
JOHN 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.
EXODUS 33:20: And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.

Discuss...

[Bman]

The Bible should have a sub-title.

It's what YOU make of it.

[dannno]

No.

That is, unless, "we" are God. In that case the answer would be yes.

[Theocrat]

I got one word for you to solve all your problems with the literal interpretations of the Bible. Context, context, context.

With all due respect, you're like a little kid who plays with a sword, but does not know how to use it. Do you know what "Biblical hermeneutics" is? Did you bother to consult a Biblical scholar/theologian about those passages before you started the thread in your attempt to discredit the Bible? How about any Hebrew and Greek lexicons? Commentaries on the Bible?

As a quick reference, here's a link which can help you with all the supposed contradictions you've posted: "Bible Difficulties" (http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties). Next time, please do some research before you try to discredit God's word.

[Bruno]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[TER]

A lot of evangelical Christians take the Bible very literally. But consider the following:

Who was the father of Joseph?
MATTHEW 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUKE 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
(From here on, there is not one name in common until it gets back to David.)

Does Jesus judge?
JOHN 5:22: For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
JOHN 8:15: Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Did Jesus bear witness to himself?
JOHN 5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
JOHN 8:18: I am one that bear witness of myself...

What were Jesus’ last words?
LUKE 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
JOHN 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Who bought potter's field?
MAT 27:6-8: And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
ACT 1:18-19: Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
(Two very different stories about how it came to be called "the field of blood.")

Only Jesus ascended to Heaven?
JOHN 3:13: No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.
II KINGS 2:11: And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACTS 9:7: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACTS 22:9: And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Does God tempt?
JAMES 1:13: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
GENESIS 22:1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

Who provoked David?
II SAMUEL 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
(If you look it up, you will find that these are referring to the same event)

Can God be seen?
Yes:
GENESIS 32:30: For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
EXODUS 33:11: And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.
No:
JOHN 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.
EXODUS 33:20: And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.

Discuss...

Are these the questions from someone who genuinely wants to learn the truth, or someone whose intention is to attempt to humiliate, because if I am going to spend the next few hours explaining things to someone who is unwilling to read the posts or the links I post, than I'll use my time for more fruitful activity.

[Peace&Freedom]

The original poster should simply consult the ten zillion books which have repeatedly answered all the apparent contradictions he has brought up. Here's the Google search url, do your own homework:

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=bible+contradictions+answered&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Kludge]

Eh, I've been told by quite a few pastors now that much of the New Testament was written 40+ years after the witnessing was actually... witnessed.

I have trouble remembering conversations from a day ago.

[idiom]

Who was the father of Joseph?
MATTHEW 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUKE 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
(From here on, there is not one name in common until it gets back to David.)

Discuss...

I will do the first one just because its fun.

Matthew traces the legal status of Jesus, that is up his fathers line, the line of the Kings to David.

Luke traces Jesus Human line that is back through Mary all the way to Adam.

Shortly after Solomon a blood curse was put on the line of the kings which means Jesus could not receive genetic material from Joseph. The Virgin birth was nessecary for Jesus to legally be of the line of the kings but not genetically.

The naming convention is difficult becasue they don't let women show up in geneaologies.

[TER]

Eh, I've been told by quite a few pastors now that much of the New Testament was written 40+ years after the witnessing was actually... witnessed.

I have trouble remembering conversations from a day ago.

I have trouble remembering conversations from a day ago as well, but this is normal for casual conversation. Had someone said to you "Your died today", you would never forget the conversation.

What the disciples witnessed and thousand of other people witnessed were miracles Jesus performed which could only be attributed to divine workings. Jesus was not crucified because He performed miracles- the fact that He [I]could was never disputed, even by the Jewish authorities. Instead, they questioned where He received His power from.

Such supernatural events are not forgotten easily and the teachings of that person who had the power to perform them would be teachings you wouldn't easily forget either.

In fact, there was no need to spread a written account of the miracles or the Resurrection because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry. However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and ministry.

When those testaments were written, they did not then establish who Jesus is. They did not set out to create an account of His life out of thin air (as if the rest of the early Church would then forget what they preached from the days after His Resurrection), but rather just transcribed what those teachings and events were for future posterity and instruction.

As a side note, the earliest writing from the New Testament is St. Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians which scholars date to about 51 AD, less than 20 years from the Lord's Ressurrection. Imagine that, in a span of less than 2 decades, the ancient Church, under intense persecution, had spread the Gospel of Christ. That alone is a miracle considering the number of martyrs involved defending their witness that they beheld the Risen Christ.

[TER]

I will do the first one just because its fun.

Matthew traces the legal status of Jesus, that is up his fathers line, the line of the Kings to David.

Luke traces Jesus Human line that is back through Mary all the way to Adam.

Shortly after Solomon a blood curse was put on the line of the kings which means Jesus could not receive genetic material from Joseph. The Virgin birth was nessecary for Jesus to legally be of the line of the kings but not genetically.

The naming convention is difficult becasue they don't let women show up in geneaologies.

If I could add to this, the Virgin Mary and Joseph were both decendants of King David, as it was the law at the time that a women could not be betrothed or married to a man if she was from a different tribe or lineage of the husband's father. In the Gospel of Matthew, which is written intended for the Jewish/Hebraic listener, the writer is also following the law at the time by listing geneology through Joseph since the law forbade the reckoning of one's geneology through the mother but rather the father (though both would eventually follow a similar geneology the earlier one went back due to the the previous law I mentioned earlier).

[jsu718]

I find a hard time taking a mere translation literally. Now if you are going to take the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts literally then okay, but don't try to translate something and then say that it has all of the original meaning. That's where most people find their supposed "contradictions".

[idiom]

If you are paying attention Ruth (A gentile woman ) and Rahab (a lady of negotiable affection) both show up in Jesus bloodline in Luke.

[TER]

If you are paying attention Ruth (A gentile woman ) and Rahab (a lady of negotiable affection) both show up in Jesus bloodline in Luke.

The choosing of these two particular women are telling: Rahab was a harlot who received the spies of Jesus son of Nave (i.e. Joshua son of Nun; Joshua 2:1-21; 6:21-25). She saved them , and was herself saved as well. Matthew mentions her to show that just as she was a harlot, so, too, was the congregation of the nations, for they went whoring in their practices. But all those who accept the spies of Jesus, that is, the apostles, and were convinced by their words, were saved from among the nations.

Ruth was a foreigner but nevertheless she was married to Boaz (an Israelite). So, too, the Church is from among the Gentiles. For like Ruth, these Gentiles had been foreigners and outside the covenants, yet they forsook their people, their idols, and their father, the devil. And as Ruth was wed to Boaz of the seed of Abraham, so too was the Church taken as bride by the Son of God.

[sevin]

I got one word for you to solve all your problems with the literal interpretations of the Bible. Context, context, context.

With all due respect, you're like a little kid who plays with a sword, but does not know how to use it. Do you know what "Biblical hermeneutics" is? Did you bother to consult a Biblical scholar/theologian about those passages before you started the thread in your attempt to discredit the Bible? How about any Hebrew and Greek lexicons? Commentaries on the Bible?

I have read these passages in context. In fact, I have read the old and new testaments cover to cover, commentaries on the bible, and books on Christian apologetics. I'm not even trying to argue against believing the bible. I'm simply arguing against those who would translate it so literally. You can't explain away every contradiction.


As a quick reference, here's a link which can help you with all the supposed contradictions you've posted: "Bible Difficulties" (http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties). Next time, please do some research before you try to discredit God's word.

I've been looking at that site. Here's their solution to whether anyone has seen God...
"The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus."
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty lame explanation. That's not what the bible says, but what he thinks it might mean. People take the bible literally until they run into a problem like this, and then they interpret it. I imagine they have a "solution" for every one of these contradictions. I'll continue to check it out, though.


Are these the questions from someone who genuinely wants to learn the truth, or someone whose intention is to attempt to humiliate, because if I am going to spend the next few hours explaining things to someone who is unwilling to read the posts or the links I post, than I'll use my time for more fruitful activity.

While I admit I already have my opinions, I've always been pretty open-minded and enjoy friendly discussions on these subjects. I won't ignore your posts or try to insult anyone.


I find a hard time taking a mere translation literally. Now if you are going to take the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts literally then okay, but don't try to translate something and then say that it has all of the original meaning. That's where most people find their supposed "contradictions".

Yeah, I imagine a lot of contradictions pop up because of crummy translations. But again, this is all the more reason why it doesn't make sense to take it all literally when you don't even understand the original language.




Matthew traces the legal status of Jesus, that is up his fathers line, the line of the Kings to David. Luke traces Jesus Human line that is back through Mary all the way to Adam.

Shortly after Solomon a blood curse was put on the line of the kings which means Jesus could not receive genetic material from Joseph. The Virgin birth was nessecary for Jesus to legally be of the line of the kings but not genetically.

The naming convention is difficult becasue they don't let women show up in geneaologies.

Okay, that makes sense.

[MelissaWV]

If the Bible, as currently assembled, is the unfailing and unquestionable word of God, then what of the texts written by people commended by the Bible which were not included in its modern rendering? What of the old translations, which vary from the current versions? What of books which were included, but were contraversial at their consideration?

There are going to be variations in the same story by different authors. That, to me, is proof that the story is being told by the authors, and not by God Himself, no?

Does this mean I'm a non-believer? Of course not. I actually believe an awful lot contained in the Bible refers to historical facts of one sort or another. My foundation for that is personal. I don't intend to push it onto others. What I am asking is that people not put their faith in the Book above the Father, or at least consider what God might make of trusting a book above the Soul and Spirit each person was endowed with by Him (addressing believers here). The people who wrote these Gospels, and the books finally assembled into the modern Bible, had souls and minds and hearts and were God's own creation, if one believes the entirety of the same book. Isn't that more inspiring than some robe-clad Zeus-clone zapping words to paper with lightning bolts?

[Wineman77]

I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but in the end, was penned by men. Many of their own politics, beliefs, and agendas are now part of a book that many take as hard fact. I also believe some of the stories are lessions and fables and are not ment to be taken literally, the story of creation, for instance.

[sevin]

In the end it comes down to this: Christians do not literally know there is a god, but they believe there is a god. They may try to appeal to some personal religious experience whereby they "know" god exists, but they do not know god exists the way they know the earth exists. It is really just faith.

My problem is, I do not understand how people can base their lives around something that is completely based on faith. I don't just choose not to do this, I am incapable of doing this, especially with a religion riddled with so many contradictions. It would be like trying to convince myself the Easter bunny is real. No matter how many times I told myself it was, I wouldn't really believe it.

[TurtleBurger]

In the end it comes down to this: Christians do know literally know there is a god, but they believe there is a god. They may try to appeal to some personal religious experience whereby they "know" god exists, but they do not know god exists the way they know the earth exists. It is really just faith.

My problem is, I do not understand how people can base their lives around something that is completely based on faith. I don't just choose not to do this, I am incapable of doing this, especially with a religion riddled with so many contradictions. It would be like trying to convince myself the Easter bunny is real. No matter how many times I told myself it was, I wouldn't really believe it.

If you think about it, the vast majority of what you "know", you accept on faith. For example, I doubt that anyone on this forum has performed the observations and mathematical calculations necessary to prove that the earth orbits the sun; most or all of us accept a heliocentric solar system based on faith in other people who have done the calculations. Same with the existence of atoms, the shape of the earth, the function of internal organs, the interior working of an automobile, etc. Without faith, we'd have to start by re-inventing fire and the wheel in every generation.

[TortoiseDream]

The Bible is not the word of god. Language is subject to human interpretation, biased towards ways of thinking in a language. If god is universal and objective, he is incompatible with something like a written text. My $.02.

[sevin]

If you think about it, the vast majority of what you "know", you accept on faith. For example, I doubt that anyone on this forum has performed the observations and mathematical calculations necessary to prove that the earth orbits the sun; most or all of us accept a heliocentric solar system based on faith in other people who have done the calculations. Same with the existence of atoms, the shape of the earth, the function of internal organs, the interior working of an automobile, etc. Without faith, we'd have to start by re-inventing fire and the wheel in every generation.

Good point. But at least with things like the existence of atoms, the shape of the earth, etc. there are an overwhelming number of reasons to assume these things are true.

I suppose Christians consider the existence of the universe as a reason to believe in god, but it seems just as reasonable that it has always existed. The idea that a supreme being had to create it is even more far-fetched.

And even if I did find proof of god, how could I accept the bible as the one true word when there are so many religions to choose from? Christians have to make some mighty large leaps of faith.

[heavenlyboy34]

If you think about it, the vast majority of what you "know", you accept on faith. For example, I doubt that anyone on this forum has performed the observations and mathematical calculations necessary to prove that the earth orbits the sun; most or all of us accept a heliocentric solar system based on faith in other people who have done the calculations. Same with the existence of atoms, the shape of the earth, the function of internal organs, the interior working of an automobile, etc. Without faith, we'd have to start by re-inventing fire and the wheel in every generation.

This is an example of accumulated knowledge passed down through generations, not faith.

[PaulaGem]

When those testaments were written, they did not then establish who Jesus is. They did not set out to create an account of His life out of thin air (as if the rest of the early Church would then forget what they preached from the days after His Resurrection), but rather just transcribed what those teachings and events were for future posterity and instruction.


I know you won't believe this , but the truth is that Jesus never existed. The biographical accounts in the synoptic gospels contradict each other, indicating that they were probably created out of thin air.

By the way, I do believe that Jesus the Greco-Roman God co-opted the teachings of the Hebrew Rabbi Yeshua, and he was a real historic figure.

Older, more authentic gospels such as the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas were destroyed because they didn't represent the official Roman version.

[TurtleBurger]

I know you won't believe this , but the truth is that Jesus never existed. The biographical accounts in the synoptic gospels contradict each other, indicating that they were probably created out of thin air.

By the way, I do believe that Jesus the Greco-Roman God co-opted the teachings of the Hebrew Rabbi Yeshua, and he was a real historic figure.

Older, more authentic gospels such as the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas were destroyed because they didn't represent the official Roman version.

It seems the consensus puts the Gospel of Thomas in the late 2nd century or even the 3rd century. That alone disqualifies it from being authentic scripture.

[jkr]

Yes it is.

-me

[heavenlyboy34]

If you think about it, the vast majority of what you "know", you accept on faith. For example, I doubt that anyone on this forum has performed the observations and mathematical calculations necessary to prove that the earth orbits the sun; most or all of us accept a heliocentric solar system based on faith in other people who have done the calculations. Same with the existence of atoms, the shape of the earth, the function of internal organs, the interior working of an automobile, etc. Without faith, we'd have to start by re-inventing fire and the wheel in every generation.


It seems the consensus puts the Gospel of Thomas in the late 2nd century or even the 3rd century. That alone disqualifies it from being authentic scripture.

FWIW,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_Composition

Stevan L. Davies argues that the apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels) and probably predated them.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#cite_note-20) A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source. Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#cite_note-theissen-19) Similarly Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter. [1] (http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/jhcjp.htm) Koester agrees, citing especially the parables contained in sayings 8, 9, 57, 63, 64 and 65.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#cite_note-koester-3) In the few instances where the version in Thomas seems to be dependent on the Synoptics, Koester suggests, this may be due to the influence of the person who translated the text from Greek into Coptic.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#cite_note-koester-3)
Koester also argues that the absence of narrative materials (such as those found in the canonical gospels) in Thomas makes it unlikely that the gospel is "an eclectic excerpt from the gospels of the New Testament". [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#cite_note-koester-3) He also cites the absence of the eschatological sayings characteristic of Q to show the independence of Thomas from that source.

[Peace&Freedom]

I suppose Christians consider the existence of the universe as a reason to believe in god, but it seems just as reasonable that it has always existed. The idea that a supreme being had to create it is even more far-fetched.

And even if I did find proof of god, how could I accept the bible as the one true word when there are so many religions to choose from? Christians have to make some mighty large leaps of faith.

The notion that the material universe always existed is self-contradictory, and more far fetched than the idea of an eternal God. With God you at least have a being who is understood to be Necessary by definition, that is, an entity that by nature requires nothing else in order to exist. Every aspect of the whole universe, by contrast, has been observed to be dependent on prior causes in order to currently exist.

If the universe is entirely made up of material and phenomena that other things caused to make it exist, then the entire universe cannot have always existed. An infinite chain of back causes producing the material effect called the current universe, does not make the causal chain uncaused or always existing. So it is absolutely NOT "just as reasonable" to suppose that fundamentally inconsistent notion is on a par with an always existing God. And since the needed attributes of an always existing God (perfect, omnipotent, all-knowing, personal, etc.) are identical to those of the God described in the Bible, the God described in the Bible therefore exists. That God thus surely speaks through the one set of scriptures that most accurately describes Him.

[TurtleBurger]

I know you won't believe this , but the truth is that Jesus never existed. The biographical accounts in the synoptic gospels contradict each other, indicating that they were probably created out of thin air.

By the way, I do believe that Jesus the Greco-Roman God co-opted the teachings of the Hebrew Rabbi Yeshua, and he was a real historic figure.

Older, more authentic gospels such as the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas were destroyed because they didn't represent the official Roman version.

Simon Peter says to them: Let Mary depart from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Yeshua says: Behold, I shall inspire her so that I make her male, in order that she herself shall become a living spirit like you males. For every female who becomes male shall enter the kingdom of the heavens. (Gospel of Thomas 114)
http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/tom.html

So do you have to undergo a particular surgical procedure to be a good Gnostic, Paula?

[torchbearer]

http://thefirstmorning.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/snakes2.jpg
They also do children's birthday parties.

[sevin]

The notion that the material universe always existed is self-contradictory, and more far fetched than the idea of an eternal God. With God you at least have a being who is understood to be Necessary by definition, that is, an entity that by nature requires nothing else in order to exist. Every aspect of the whole universe, by contrast, has been observed to be dependent on prior causes in order to currently exist.


It doesn't mean the prior cause has to be a god. To shrug your shoulders and say, "a god must have created everything" is a cop out. The big bang theory makes more sense than a supremely intelligent omniscient omnipotent timeless being who created a universe millions of light years across in which on a speck of dust called earth he placed humans because he was lonely and wanted someone to love him.

[TortoiseDream]

It doesn't mean the prior cause has to be a god. To shrug your shoulders and say, "a god must have created everything" is a cop out. The big bang theory makes more sense than a supremely intelligent omniscient omnipotent timeless being who created a universe millions of light years across in which on a speck of dust called earth he placed humans because he was lonely and wanted someone to love him.

I am a physicist studying cosmology. The Big Bang theory is far from making any sense at very high (Planck) energies (or very early times). String theory may be able to resolve those problems, but we're not there yet.

[torchbearer]

I am a physicist studying cosmology. The Big Bang theory is far from making any sense at very high (Planck) energies (or very early times). String theory may be able to resolve those problems, but we're not there yet.

From what i've read- the directions of the galaxies don't indicate they all came from the same point.
I think the "big bang" theory is severely lacking.

[TortoiseDream]

From what i've read- the directions of the galaxies don't indicate they all came from the same point.
I think the "big bang" theory is severely lacking.

I'm not sure where you've heard that, but saying that all matter and energy was at one "point" is actually very misleading. In fact, the entire universe IS that single point, called a singularity. The universe, all of spacetime, is expanding. It's not like you could take a spaceship to the point in the universe where it all began...no, that is wrong. It's more like that point IS the universe.

The big bang theory is actually quite accepted in the physics community. It's very consistent with observation, and that's what counts. The directions of the galaxies you are referring to, and their fluctuations, I believe, come from quantum mechanics.

Actually, if I want to be technically correct, what physicists accept today is a modified version of the big bang theory called "inflation" (wikipedia it). Inflation says that very early in the universe, right after the actual big bang, the universe underwent an ENORMOUS accelerated expansion, and then expanded less violently for the next 15 billion years or so up to the present day. Inflation explains a lot of things the big bang could not, including the origin of structure in our universe (galaxies et al). The universe is very uniform on the large scale, due to classical equations for inflation. But at the same time, the quantum mechanics of inflation predict the variations (like galaxies) we see in the sky. It's one of the triumphs of modern cosmology and physics.

[torchbearer]

I'm not sure where you've heard that, but saying that all matter and energy was at one "point" is actually very misleading. In fact, the entire universe IS that single point, called a singularity. The universe, all of spacetime, is expanding. It's not like you could take a spaceship to the point in the universe where it all began...no, that is wrong. It's more like that point IS the universe.

The big bang theory is actually quite accepted in the physics community. It's very consistent with observation, and that's what counts. The directions of the galaxies you are referring to, and their fluctuations, I believe, come from quantum mechanics.

Actually, if I want to be technically correct, what physicists accept today is a modified version of the big bang theory called "inflation" (wikipedia it). Inflation says that very early in the universe, right after the actual big bang, the universe underwent an ENORMOUS accelerated expansion, and then expanded less violently for the next 15 billion years or so up to the present day. Inflation explains a lot of things the big bang could not, including the origin of structure in our universe (galaxies et al). The universe is very uniform on the large scale, due to classical equations for inflation. But at the same time, the quantum mechanics of inflation predict the variations (like galaxies) we see in the sky. It's one of the triumphs of modern cosmology and physics.

The world being flat was once accepted in educated circles too.
The galaxies accelerating away from each other doesn't fit the model.
All matter was suppose to expand then contract.
But that is not the case- so they have to make up a type of matter that is opposite of gravity- yet they can't prove exist. Dark Matter or some shit like that.

Never once did anyone say- maybe it wasn't a bang outwards- but a bang inwards.
We could just as easily be inside a "black-hole" type cocoon that ejects matter inwards then pulls it back outwards.
And of course- you couldn't see it because light can't escape it.
To even pretend to put a date on the universe is a bit of a stretch.
It be more honest to say- as far as we can see- our maximum of taking light in from far away is about 13 billion years.

[TortoiseDream]

The world being flat was once accepted in educated circles too.
The galaxies accelerating away from each other doesn't fit the model.
All matter was suppose to expand then contract.
But that is not the case- so they have to make up a type of matter that is opposite of gravity- yet they can't prove exist. Dark Matter or some shit like that.

Never once did anyone say- maybe it wasn't a bang outwards- but a bang inwards.
We could just as easily be inside a "black-hole" type cocoon that ejects matter inwards then pulls it back outwards.
And of course- you couldn't see it because light can't escape it.
To even pretend to put a date on the universe is a bit of a stretch.
It be more honest to say- as far as we can see- our maximum of taking light in from far away is about 13 billion years.

You are right about the flat earth and the big bang in that skeptical context, but I can only offer you our best guess.

The physics behind inflation is quite complicated, and yes it is all theoretical. While theory is, by definition, not experimentally verified, it does not mean it is wrong. Einstein's relativity was first a theory on paper, then experimentally verified. This is what science does, we write down some equations, make some measurements, see if our equations hold. If not, we go back and try to fix our mistakes. If they do, we sit happily until we come across something difficult to explain. Then a new theory comes about.

If you are challenging the idea of science itself, then I'm not sure what I can offer you as a physicist. Ultimately, though, science is a lot like math in that it is just a game played that has no connection with reality. What is energy? What is matter? What is length, time? These are just tools we invented. There is no such thing as energy, that is absurd. Energy is just something we use to explain things we see, nothing more. It works on paper, but that is all.

As a philosopher, though, I will say something different. Inwards is outwards. Good is evil. Up is down. The mountain is the valley. Black is white. Expansion is contraction. They cannot exist alone.

[torchbearer]

You are right about the flat earth and the big bang in that skeptical context, but I can only offer you our best guess.

The physics behind inflation is quite complicated, and yes it is all theoretical. While theory is, by definition, not experimentally verified, it does not mean it is wrong. Einstein's relativity was first a theory on paper, then experimentally verified. This is what science does, we write down some equations, make some measurements, see if our equations hold. If not, we go back and try to fix our mistakes. If they do, we sit happily until we come across something difficult to explain. Then a new theory comes about.

If you are challenging the idea of science itself, then I'm not sure what I can offer you as a physicist. Ultimately, though, science is a lot like math in that it is just a game played that has no connection with reality. What is energy? What is matter? What is length, time? These are just tools we invented. There is no such thing as energy, that is absurd. Energy is just something we use to explain things we see, nothing more. It works on paper, but that is all.

As a philosopher, though, I will say something different. Inwards is outwards. Good is evil. Up is down. The mountain is the valley. Black is white. Expansion is contraction. They cannot exist alone.

I didn't mean it in a philosophical sense.
I mean- when scientist try to put their theories to the test with pen and paper- and it doesn't add up, they just make shit up like Dark Matter.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist- but no one has proven that it does.
They just assume it exist because then their big bang theory would work.
To me, that is just plain laziness and dishonesty.
If things don't add up- then something is wrong.
You should be able to take the motions of the galaxies and play them in reverse to see their origins- or something close to it.
For instance- the moon is slowly getting further away from the earth. Playing the motion in reverse you can see the moon came from a collision with the earth.
And not every galaxy is speeding away from the others. We are headed right for Andromeda.

[LATruth]

Also, can't they still "hear the cosmic rumbling" as hiss produced by the big bang?

[torchbearer]

Also, can't they still "hear the cosmic rumbling" as hiss produced by the big bang?

???


Discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation

In 1965 Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories were testing a sensitive horn antenna which was designed for detecting low levels of microwave radiation. They discovered a low level of microwave background "noise", like the low level of electrical noise which might produce "snow" on a television screen. After unsuccessful attempts to eliminate it, they pointed their antenna to another part of the sky to check whether the "noise" was coming from space, and got the same kind of signal. Being persuaded that the noise was in their instrument, they took other, more sophisticated steps to eliminate the noise, such as cooling their detector to low temperatures.

Finding no explanations for the origin of the noise, they finally concluded that it was indeed coming from space, but that it was the same from all directions. It was a distribution of microwave radiation which matched a blackbody curve for a radiator at about 2.7 Kelvins.

After all their efforts to eliminate the "noise" signal, they found that a group at Princeton had predicted that there would be a residual microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang and were planning an experiment to try to detect it. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their discovery.

Talking about this?

[LATruth]

Bingo. Sry for the rudimentary terminology, I didn't feel like search engining anything at that time. ;)

[torchbearer]

Bingo. Sry for the rudimentary terminology, I didn't feel like search engining anything at that time. ;)

I think you will fall in love with this online channel: http://www.spacerip.com/
They have a segment on everything we've talked about and more.

I watch it from http://www.joost.com
but i think you can find it on hulu too

[torchbearer]

this is the direct link for the channel on joost: http://www.joost.com/246000i/t/SpaceRip-Space-Science-Adventure

[LATruth]

Amazing, thanks.

http://www.hulu.com/embed/3xyY8mR6K92MGhhczHNVnw

[TortoiseDream]

I didn't mean it in a philosophical sense.
I mean- when scientist try to put their theories to the test with pen and paper- and it doesn't add up, they just make shit up like Dark Matter.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist- but no one has proven that it does.
They just assume it exist because then their big bang theory would work.
To me, that is just plain laziness and dishonesty.
If things don't add up- then something is wrong.
You should be able to take the motions of the galaxies and play them in reverse to see their origins- or something close to it.
For instance- the moon is slowly getting further away from the earth. Playing the motion in reverse you can see the moon came from a collision with the earth.
And not every galaxy is speeding away from the others. We are headed right for Andromeda.

Actually, you have hit on something that I have pondered over quite a lot. What you're saying is pretty close to the truth, I agree with you - but I would say it in a different way, and I would not call it laziness or dishonesty.

When you say "scientists make up shit", that IS the essence of science (lol ;)). Let me give you the example that I learned in my mechanics class. We learned that a system, say a ball rolling down a hill, will take the path that minimizes the time integral of the kinetic minus the potential energy. That is a bunch of math, and I do not know your knowledge of math, but it is called Hamilton's Principle, and you can look that up on wikipedia for more info. I have asked again and again from my professors, how did we derive Hamilton's Principle? The answer is that we did not, because to do so you would need to start with first principles, and this IS our first principle.

Hamilton's Principle, basically, is a restatement of Newton's Second Law but in terms of energy. We use Hamilton's principle because it is easier to work with (scalars, rather than vectors, if this makes sense to you). And so where did we get Hamilton's principle? Well, we noticed that nature tends to minimize things, an after a long history of trying to figure out what it minimizes, today we believe its the integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy.

To me, it really shows how as scientists we are just blindly stumbling around in the world trying to make sense of it, and the only reason we have our theories is because we accidentally stumbled upon something that seems to hold up.

Science has nothing to do with absolute truth. Science is just a practice in model building, and seeing if those models are consistent with what we observe - that's it. You build a model, test it, see if it works. Right now in cosmology, physicists, for whatever reasons (I haven't studied dark matter/energy), believe that adding these things to the model will make predictions consistent with what we see.

People tend to paint science as dry and boring and the furthest thing from art, but it is actually one of the most creative arts you can indulge yourself in, if you see it that way. Science is an art in which we create ways to understand the universe. The fact that Newton's Second Law can be restated as Hamilton's Principle (they are identical) is great evidence of this fact; I'm sure with much effort one could find a 3rd way to state this first principle.

[torchbearer]

Amazing, thanks.

http://www.hulu.com/embed/3xyY8mR6K92MGhhczHNVnw

I think the clip that talks about the cosmic background radiation is called: Science Bulletin: The New Cosmology

But I recommend watching all of them.

[torchbearer]

"Einstein's Messengers" is about a facility near New Orleans that is made to detect gravitational waves.

[LATruth]

http://www.geocities.com/stimpysvideotrading/bandb.jpg

Hubble can detect the changes on the surface of Uranus.

[torchbearer]

http://www.geocities.com/stimpysvideotrading/bandb.jpg

Hubble can detect the changes on the surface of Uranus.

You are going to Love Space RIP.
I learned tons from watching it.

[LATruth]

While we're sharing links:

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/513

I love MIT and their online resources.

[revolutionisnow]

No its not the literal word, it has been translated multiple times and there are many mistranslations.

[anaconda]

God, no.

[CCTelander]

No more than, say, a McDonald's commercial.

[Objectivist]

I hear tell that King James was busy in England in the early 1600s. My friend Guy Fawkes paid him a visit.

[Zippyjuan]

No its not the literal word, it has been translated multiple times and there are many mistranslations.

Including the height of Golliath- the Dead Sea Scrolls version (the oldest known) has him at a bit over six feet tall- by the King James version he is over nine feet tall. Minor point I agree. Several translations of the Bible went through committees which had to aprove the translations and had a say in what they wanted the text to be.

[Indy Vidual]

eh, i've been told by quite a few pastors now that much of the new testament was written 40+ years after the witnessing was actually... Witnessed.

I have trouble remembering conversations from a day ago.

+1776


I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but in the end, was penned by men. Many of their own politics, beliefs, and agendas are now part of a book that many take as hard fact. I also believe some of the stories are lessions and fables and are not ment to be taken literally, the story of creation, for instance.

Well said, thank you.