Results 1 - 20 of 36
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: ateo Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why does Jesus have 2 genealogies? | Not Specified | ateo | 67236 | ||
Does anyone have an explanation for Jesus' two genealogies, other than one being Joseph's line and the other Mary's? | ||||||
2 | Was Sept 11 an atrocity? | Josh 6:21 | ateo | 63430 | ||
Before I go on, let me unequivocally state that, in my opinion, the attacks on the World Trade Centers were reprehensible and completely inexcusable. I want to make it clear that I'm not downplaying what happened on 9/11. That said, 9/11 was a smack on the wrist compared to some of the slaughters that God called for in the Old Testament. Here I'm using the attack on Jericho as my example, but there are many others. My question, as cynical as it may be, is this: How can one justify demonizing the terrorists' attacks on the WTC while defending the genocides carried out in the OT? RSVP ateo |
||||||
3 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67116 | ||
PK, Read I Kings 7:23. The Sea was circular in shape. It had a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. This means that the circumference divided by the diameter was 3. However, it should've been pi, which is 3.14159265... So, the answer to your question, "Is anything in the bible proven untrue," is yes. ateo |
||||||
4 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67235 | ||
Joe, Quite the opposite. Estimations by their very nature are not equal to the true value and are, therefore, untrue. Now, I'm not saying this should be shattering to a Xian's faith, but don't deny that the Bible gives a bad approximation for pi. ateo |
||||||
5 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67275 | ||
Joe, I'll take your questions one at a time. "How are you certain that it is not the diameter of the sea that is being approximated, or the cirumference, or both?" B/C to assume something like that is pure speculation. To the best of my ability, I try not to add to Scripture, I take it as it comes. "How precise does a recorded measurement of a circumference have to be to its diameter times an irrational number in order for it to meet the great atheist's standard of precision?" Assuming the diameter is 10 cubits, the circumference should be 31.4159265... Thus, I wouldn't have a beef if the circumference was given as 31.5 cubits. "Do you really think that something pitiful like this proves the Bible to be unreliable?" No. As I said before, it's not that big of a deal. "I suppose that if I said that I lived 400 miles away from my parents, but actually lived 412 miles away, then I suppose I couldn't be trusted to give an accurate representation of the facts." This argument looks good on paper, but you are a human being, so I expect you to roundoff a little. I don't expect God to give an approximation that was worse than ones already found by mathematicians at the time. Being a graduate student in math, I suppose I take this a little too personally. :-) As I said before, it's not earth-shattering. There's really nothing there to debate. ateo |
||||||
6 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67287 | ||
Rextar, Thanks for your response! "The circumference of the bowl would almost have to be taken from the inside..." If this is how you interpret the verse, then your explanation is certainly plausible. However, the verse says that it took a measure of 30 cubits AROUND. (emphasis mine) So I see it as being 10 cubits from outside rim to outside rim and 30 cubits along the exterior. ateo |
||||||
7 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67290 | ||
Joe, What makes you think I don't believe in God? ateo P.S. Your sarcasm is childish and unbecoming. |
||||||
8 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67509 | ||
Retxar, Again, if that is how you interpret this passage, then more power to you. I just don't see it that way. ateo PS By the way, how do you pronounce "Retxar"? |
||||||
9 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67512 | ||
Joe, "Because you say so every time you sign your 'name'" Bueno. I was just curious what gave it away. "Well, I find it dishonest to impersonate a Christian on a forum specifically designed for Christians to study the Bible." You're right. It was extremely dishonest on my part not to be upfront about who I really am. I hope you'll accept my sincerest apology. :-( "Ever time that you send a post, you agree to the following terms:..." Who reads the fine print, anyway! :) I checked out both of the sites you mentioned. I went ahead and set up an account at beliefnet.com using the name jlhuff. So maybe I'll talk with you some there. However, I personally didn't like the site as much as this one, so I may not post at all. That being said, my e-mail address is jl_huff2002@yahoo.com. If you want to discuss anything 1-on-1, you're more than welcome to shoot me an e-mail anytime. "...declaring that the Bible is false..." I really wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never said the Bible is false b/c of this verse. I simply gave an honest answer to the question asked. As I've mentioned several times before, this verse is not proof that the Bible is a fraud. One more time let me say how terribly sorry I am for "impersonating" a Xian. I think since I never said I was one, I didn't see it as being dishonest. However, I see now that that's no excuse. ateo |
||||||
10 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67514 | ||
Hank, "...I infer that you prize the academe..." You inferred correctly. I do prize knowledge above all else. I'd like to tell you why, but unfortunately, as Reformer Joe has pointed out, I'm not allowed to on this forum. Therefore, I'll tell you the same thing I told him. If you'd like to discuss anything 1-on-1, then feel free to send me an e-mail anytime. (jl_huff2002@yahoo.com) I really wasn't trying to fool anyone. I was referred to this website by a Xian friend of mine. My hope was that I could engage in some thought-provoking discussions with Xians. I'm very sorry that you think I was trying to deceive anyone. Again, that was never my intention. Please, accept my sincere apology ateo |
||||||
11 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67523 | ||
Makarios, "It cannot be derived (or proved) that pi was used (or even consulted) in the measurements that are recorded in 1 Kings 7:23." Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus, if the Sea was truly circular, as the Scripture says, pi had to be involved. Just b/c the Bible never explicitly uses the word "pi," doesn't mean that it wasn't there. "Also considering that every copy of the Bible that exists today is a 'copy of a copy'..." Are you trying to imply that parts of the Bible don't say what the authors originally intended? If that's the case, how much of it can we consider to be genuine? My point is this, we have to take the Bible for what it says. We can't run around speculating that maybe the Bible we have today doesn't represent what the authors said. ateo |
||||||
12 | Is anything in the bible proven untrue | Ps 119:160 | ateo | 67563 | ||
Justne, "You are very knowledgeable about the Bible." First of all, thanks for the compliment. However, I think there are those on this forum who would accuse me of being dumb as a stump. :-) "'Do you understand what you are reading?'" I like to think so. I spent the 1st 21 years of my life as a Christian. In that time I've read the Bible, particularly the NT, several times, studied the original Greek language of the NT, participated in countless Bible studies, etc. I'm not at liberty to discuss why I no longer believe in God on this forum. However, as I've told several others, I invite e-mails to discuss things 1-on-1. That said, please, send me an e-mail anytime at jl_huff2002@yahoo.com. ateo |
||||||
13 | Does "'almah" mean "virgin"? | Is 7:14 | ateo | 66892 | ||
We could argue all day long about whether "alma" should be translated as "virgin" or not. Personally, I think a more interesting topic of debate is whether or not Isaiah 7:14 is even referring to the messiah. If you read the preceeding verses and the ones that follow, it seems as though Isaiah is talking about a sign to King Ahaz. In other words, this verse doesn't appear to be a prophecy that would be fulfilled 700 years hence, but rather one that would be fulfilled in the very near future. ateo |
||||||
14 | What does the statue symbolize? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60174 | ||
It's more believable that the 4 empires are Babylon, Lydia, Media-Persia, and Greece. Why, you ask? Daniel was probably not written until the 2nd century BCE-the time when the Greeks controlled the area today known as the Middle East. Therefore, it seems the writer was trying to encourage his people during their time of persecution from the Greeks. | ||||||
15 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60216 | ||
I trust you've read EdB's remarks, so I won't waste my time "proving" that Lydia existed. However, I believe a book entitled Who Wrote the Gospels was the 1st place where I ran across this concept. It was written by a professor of theology at Arizona State Univ. His main purpose was to give his thoughts on who wrote the gospels. However, he spent some time discussing Daniel in relation to Mark. The problem I have with saying Media-Persia follows Babylon in this vision is that Daniel 2:39 states that the next empire would be inferior. Actually, the Medo-Persian empire was 3 or 4 times larger and lasted much longer than the Babylonian empire. How could it be inferior? I'd like to add that I'm not claiming to know everything about Daniel's visions. These are simply my opinions. In fact the reason I joined this discussion was so that I could learn more about it! | ||||||
16 | What does the statue symbolize? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60325 | ||
Reformer Joe, To be perfectly honest, I'm really not interested in discussing when Daniel was written. The reason I answered Aspilos' question was to talk about the image in chapter 2. If I had known that it would generate such a response, I would never have brought it up. But, to be intellectually honest, I'll try to give an answer to your question. The short answer is none. The Bible never tells us EXACTLY when it was written. There are, however, a number of reasons why some scholars late-date Daniel-some they agree on and others they don't. Nonetheless, the most important reason-the one that all such scholars agree on-is bad history. They argue that Daniel has a plethora of knowledge of the 2nd century BCE, but he seems to be-dare I say-ignorant of the the 6th century. For example, he claims that Darius the Mede captured Babylon (5:31) instead of Cyrus the Great. Furthermore, he says repeatedly in chapter 5 that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzer. It's now clear from the Babylonian records that this is not true. I realize that I've probably just opened up a big fat can of worms! :) Feel free to give a rebuttal if you'd like, but don't get your feelings hurt if I don't give you a response. As I said before, I'm more interested in learning about the image in chapter 2. Personally, I really don't care if Daniel was written 26 centuries ago or 26 months ago. ateo |
||||||
17 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60326 | ||
EdB, As I have told Reformer Joe, I'm really more interested in learning about the image in chapter 2. However, I couldn't sit idly by and let this response go uncontested. (I assume you're referring to chapter 9.) Daniel's 70 weeks is not a messianic prophecy. Notice that in verse 25 "the ruler" is the appositive for "the Anointed One", meaning they are the same person. In verse 26 we see that the people of the ruler (anointed one) will destroy the city. I hope this doesn't refer to Jesus! It seems clear to your humble amigo that the ruler is not the "good guy". That said, feel free to offer a rebuttal if you'd like. However, I probably won't reply, since, as I have already stated, I'm really only interested in discussing chapter 2. Daniel's 70 "sevens" is another debate, another day. ateo By the way, I checked that book out from the library, so no money wasted! :-) However, I should say that it's an excellent read, and you should give it a try. |
||||||
18 | From where is the KIngdom Lydia? | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60330 | ||
EdB, That's an interesting view, but I'm still not convinced. Everything I've read about this time period seems to suggest that "might is right". That being said, it seems more natural to assume that the writer is referring to military inferiority. In that case, I think it would be hard to consider Media-Persia as inferior to Babylon. Regardless, I think we can both agree that the real emphasis of this vision is on the last empire. After all, it's the only one that the writer discusses in any real detail. On that note, it seems plausible to assume the last nation is Greece. Daniel 2:41 claims that the empire will be divided. Alexander the Great died at a very early age. His empire was then divided up among his 4 generals. And, needless to say, there was a great deal of fighting that went on between them, which, in my opinion, is the topic of a later chapter. I look forward to your response. ateo |
||||||
19 | Aspilos,How was Rome divided?ateo | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60359 | ||
Aspilos, How was Rome divided? ateo |
||||||
20 | Aspilos,How was Rome divided?ateo | Dan 2:31 | ateo | 60372 | ||
Keith, No. I know the empire split into the east and the west, but I thought you believed it was divided in another way. Maybe I was wrong. hasta luego ateo |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |