On 2012-06-15 10:40, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a tough question to answer.

On 2012-06-14 23:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

To get a bit back on topic, though, do you agree or disagree with the following statement. I'd really like to know:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

On 2012-06-14 23:42, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-14 23:16, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-14 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Until the showdown, when he loses the pot. Reality doesn't care what anyone believes.

I don't think you are a poker player or you would have asked what the cards actually were before saying he lost the hand. Let me just give you a hint. A lot of hands beat a flush.

Think ouside the box. Come on you are smarter than that. So his "believe what you want" could very well be a come on. Just like me saying believe what YOU want it does not matter, only the truth matters. All is well that ends well. So believe what you want it is definitely your decision to gather the information and decide what you will, or as I said...believe what you want. Just like the saying goes. You cannot see the forest because of the trees. No flush, BUT. No scientific proof BUT.

In the end no one knows for sure do they? There are some who claim to know one way or the other. There are some who know they are right they are the devout believers. But for the most part I believe like my buddy says. Believe what you want...it does not matter to him what you believe. He knows the truth, he knows what he is holding and all you are doing is guessing and taking into acount his statement saying I have a flush. A simple analogy here would be the two cards inhishand are the bible and that holds al lthe answers to the hand, because he is holding the nuts. Hope you undersand poker terms.

Mate I hope you answer the question above from Bob....

"For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness." - Baha'u'llah

Kam

On 2012-06-15 10:52, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-14 23:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

To get a bit back on topic, though, do you agree or disagree with the following statement. I'd really like to know:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

Yes.

However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man.

On 2012-06-15 08:04, Woland wrote:
Hi Payne,

Quote:

Kind of difficult to compute the actual value of Pi in roman numerals and without a decimal point. It'd look something like III.XIV So in Biblical times I suppose Pi was three and a little extra. It can't be exactly ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. The math doesn't work that way. So if the Bible was going to be literally accurate it should have said "Thirty Cubits and a little bit more".

There are a couple of problems with this objection, which I hope you will forgive me as characterizing as architypical of the "village atheist" school of Bible criticism.

First, such a reader is assuming that the Bible wants to teach you mathematics. Rather than trying to understand what the Bible is communicating, such a reader arbitrarily demand that the Bible communicate whatever it is that such a reader may from time to time think should be communicated.

The Bible is not a mathematical textbook, but a set of moral instructions that are conveyed in various ways, including through histories and allegories. For the purpose of describing the Temple and its appurtenances, the figures given are perfectly adequate.

Second of all, the measurements may in fact be entirely accurate. As was pointed out and published about 1850 years ago, if the diameter of 10 cubits was measured from outer edge to outer edge, and the thickness of the vessel was about one hand's breadth, the circumference of the inner surface, which is relevant to the actual volume of water, would be very close to 30 cubits.

Thirdly, there is an anomalous spelling in the verse you cite. The word for measuring line is spelled (in transliteration) QWH rather than QH. As I am sure you know, the ancient Hebrews used their alphabet as numerals as well, so that there is a numerical value that can be determined for every word. If you take the ratio of the unusual spelling to the usual spelling (QWH/QH or 111/106) you get a figure that is closer to the true value of pi than the 22/7 - and within 1/10,000 of the true value. For an irrational number that can only be approximated, that is pretty good.

The first point is the most important. The Bible was written in the language of human beings, was intended to be studied and used by human beings, and is not a substitute for mathematics.

Unlike the Caliph Omar, we don't assume that every other book in the world either repeats what is already in one book, or contradicts what is already in that one book, and hence superfluous.

On 2012-06-15 08:04, Woland wrote:

The Bible is not a mathematical textbook, but a set of moral instructions that are conveyed in various ways, including through histories and allegories. For the purpose of describing the Temple and its appurtenances, the figures given are perfectly adequate.

On 2012-06-15 12:04, Slide wrote:
"However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man. "

In order for that to happen there would have to be evidence of that, not conjecture based on a lack of understanding. If I don't understand how a TV works, I can't just say Unicorns built it. I need to base scientfic explaination on evidence.

On 2012-06-15 10:37, stoneunhinged wrote:
what's this thread about?

On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.

On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.

On 2012-06-15 19:55, Steve_Mollett wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-15 10:37, stoneunhinged wrote:
what's this thread about?

It's about 14 pages too long.

On 2012-06-15 20:03, kambiz wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.

Bob, I've noticed you say this multiple times now but where in the Bible does it talk about the big bang theory?

Kam

On 2012-06-15 12:04, Slide wrote:
"However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man. "

In order for that to happen there would have to be evidence of that, not conjecture based on a lack of understanding. If I don't understand how a TV works, I can't just say Unicorns built it. I need to base scientfic explaination on evidence.