Support NeoGAF

[rdrr gnr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4

That debate is slightly off-topic. I've seen it a few times and it essentially only focuses on the actions of the Catholic church, not so much as the truth of the Bible. Still a damn good debate though.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

i was wrong about that then
explain the she-bear killing

I wonder how many of these I'm going to have to explain before you actually decide to do your own research instead of...you know...relying solely on some random passage or some random dude on the internet.

 

[Mgoblue201]

i was wrong about that then
explain the she-bear killing

The typical explanation is that they were actually a dangerous gang of teens. Because everything that god does must by definition be just, and everybody who god kills must harbor some enmity against him and deserve death. It's all interpreted through that worldview. Even the horrible death of Achan's family, which any rational person would never defend, is somehow reinterpreted to be a holy act (some deny altogether that they were killed). That argument might hold some validity if there definitely was a god who could do no wrong. But even that basic fact hasn't yet been established after all this time.

 

[MrHicks]

The typical explanation is that they were actually a dangerous gang of teens. Because everything that god does must by definition be just, and everybody who god kills must harbor some enmity against him and deserve death. It's all interpreted through that worldview. Even the horrible death of Achan's family, which any rational person would never defend, is somehow reinterpreted to be a holy act (some deny altogether that they were killed). That argument might hold some validity if there definitely was a god who could do no wrong. But even that basic fact hasn't yet been established after all this time.

yea this whole "god did it therefore it is just/he works in mysterious ways lulz" mentality is sickening

 

[params7]

The Bible was hardly revolutionary by stating: "don't kill, don't steal, don't hurt your neighbor".

I think it did its part by making people scared of hell and giving state the control. We've made a lot of progress scientifically since church and religions were seperated from state though.

 

[TurboLibre]

yea this whole "god did it therefore it is just/he works in mysterious ways lulz" mentality is sickening

The "Here's a crazy passage, the whole Bible is invalid" mentality is equally annoying.

 

[VanMardigan]

I wonder how many of these I'm going to have to explain before you actually decide to do your own research instead of...you know...relying solely on some random passage or some random dude on the internet.

I wouldn't bother, but I would hope most of GAF is skeptical enough to not happily assume that the Bible says that people who smash kids against a rock are blessed. I'm an optimist, I think that idiot is in the small minority who just tosses shit out without actually verifying.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

The "Here's a crazy passage, the whole Bible is invalid" mentality is equally annoying.

Especially when it's painfully obvious they have no idea what they're doing.

 

[bengraven]

I think it did its part by making people scared of hell and giving state the control. We've made a lot of progress scientifically since church and religions were seperated from state though.

Maybe the people in power grew scared and stopped mistreating their dependants.

But before Christianity people were scared of...the people in power and laws. Now people are just scared that every action is going to have a negative reaction in a cloudy paradise.

 

[MrHicks]

The "Here's a crazy passage, the whole Bible is invalid" mentality is equally annoying.

the whole book in crazy (to me) my friend
i'm not picking crazy passages im picking god=asshole passages

despite being as an asshole people still worship/love god
thats the crazy part

 

[rdrr gnr]

The "Here's a crazy passage, the whole Bible is invalid" mentality is equally annoying.

What do you attribute those passages to then? Is it not in some form the will of God?

Edit: Just finished the last part. That was a poor debate. Dawkins is a biologist, his expertise is evidence and science, not the literature of the Bible. I know Hitchens is ill, but he would have destroyed that bishop, especially on the India/Africa issues. But, most importantly, DAT FRANCESCA.

 

[Monocle]

It's relevant as literature, but obviously not as a moral guide.

Confucius' Golden Rule speaks to basic human empathy and distills most of the Bible's wholesome lessons about how to treat others in a single line ("treat others as you want to be treated"). Its variation, "treat others as they want to be treated" may be even better. The Golden Rule doesn't help you deal with sociopaths or sort out complex moral quandaries, but it can carry you pretty far, and secular philosophy can help you take care of the rest.

If you like civilization and democracy and personal freedom, it's pretty clear that things like murder, torture, child abuse, rape, theft, and perjury are no-nos. You don't need a book to tell you that.

 

[Dude Abides]

the whole book in crazy (to me) my friend
i'm not picking crazy passages im picking god=asshole passages

despite being as an asshole people still worship/love god
thats the crazy part

No, no, you have to read thousands of strained rationalizations developed over centuries explaining why it's cool to slaughter first-borns or ask a guy to kill his son for no apparent reason before you can come to any conclusions about such actions.

It's like how you can't say OJ was guilty unless you read everything his lawyers wrote on his behalf.

 

[TurboLibre]

the whole book in crazy (to me) my friend
i'm not picking crazy passages im picking god=asshole passages

despite being as an asshole people still worship/love god
thats the crazy part

I'm just saying you're trolling so hard you're likely to pull a muscle. There's a million legitimate ways to debate the Bible, this way isn't effective.

What do you attribute those passages to then? Is it not in some form the will of God?

Differences in translation? People misinterpreting the original intent? Edited in to instill fear in the people? It could be anything. The Bible wasn't dropped from the heavens, so any number of things could have altered it. It could also just be full of crazy, it still doesn't invalidate the whole book.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I don't care. Even as a teen I would argue against a class of 30+ when they would start to teach lessons that were damaging to society. Sometimes you need to be that voice to knock some reason into the discussion.

Reason and religion doesn't belong in the same discussion. Magical fruit, talking snakes, etc.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I think it did its part by making people scared of hell and giving state the control. We've made a lot of progress scientifically since church and religions were seperated from state though.

Dante's Inferno made people scared of hell, not the Bible

 

[TurboLibre]

Reason and religion doesn't belong in the same discussion. Magical fruit, talking snakes, etc.

Metaphors are a funny thing. Problem is both sides of the fence refuse to interpret it that way.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

the whole book in crazy (to me) my friend
i'm not picking crazy passages im picking god=asshole passages

despite being as an asshole people still worship/love god
thats the crazy part

Since I don't feel like typing and it's way too long of a discussion, this is the interpretation that was always common where I'm from:

http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

What do you attribute those passages to then? Is it not in some form the will of God?

I can't speak for the other guy but again, that's the descriptive nature of the Bible. It leaves in many of the failings of even supposedly righteous men. Everyone knows of David (who ironically the Messiah/Jesus is told to have his lineage traced to) and the whole adultery/murder thing, but most other scriptures tell the story of people doing things that humans do: Killing, stealing, destroying, robbing etc. Again a lot of it is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

Many times people do things in the Bible that are out of his will. But what kind of book would only keep the perfect lives of perfect people in it and expect to resonate with the human condition?

 

[rdrr gnr]

Dante's Inferno made people scared of hell, not the Bible

That game did suck ass.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I can't speak for the other guy but again, that's the descriptive nature of the Bible. It leaves in many of the failings of even supposedly righteous men. Everyone knows of David (who ironically the Messiah/Jesus is told to have his lineage traced to) and the whole adultery/murder thing, but most other scriptures tell the story of people doing things that humans do: Killing, stealing, destroying, robbing etc. Again a lot of it is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

Many times people do things in the Bible that are out of his will. But what kind of book would only keep the perfect lives of perfect people in it and expect to resonate with the human condition?

You say it's the descriptive nature, I say it's the transparency of being wholly man-made, no?

Metaphors are a funny thing. Problem is both sides of the fence refuse to interpret it that way.

Creation stories are in no way metaphorical. They are pre-science attempts at cosmology.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I'm just saying you're trolling so hard you're likely to pull a muscle. There's a million legitimate ways to debate the Bible, this way isn't effective.



Differences in translation? People misinterpreting the original intent? Edited in to instill fear in the people? It could be anything. The Bible wasn't dropped from the heavens, so any number of things could have altered it. It could also just be full of crazy, it still doesn't invalidate the whole book.

When Christians claim the Bible to be the inherent, infallible word of God, yes it does. The book is held to be ultimate truth, ultimate morality, the deciding factor between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. If you're belief is that part was mistranslated and erroneously edited, then the question is what else received the same treatment? Was it Adam and Steve and not Adam and Eve? Was Eve originally the first person created and not Adam (making Adam inherently inferior)? Was there multiple god's and not just one god as Christians believe? Was Jesus just a good man and not the Messiah?

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Metaphors are a funny thing. Problem is both sides of the fence refuse to interpret it that way.

The problem isn't both sides of the fence. The problem is one side of the fence says "You don't really believe and old man built a boat and placed every living animal, insect, and plant in the world on it because God was gonna destroy the world do you?" and the other side says absolutely.

At that point it's not about figurative language, it's about fairy tales as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Monocle]

That game did suck ass.

It certainly did.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

You say it's the descriptive nature, I say it's the transparency of being wholly man-made, no?

I really don't understand how you've made that leap, but I think you're saying the Bible should be perfectly perfect with perfect stories of righteous people being perfect.

Yes. That would definitely be divinely tailored just for us.

 

[TurboLibre]

When Christians claim the Bible to be the inherent, infallible word of God, yes it does. The book is held to be ultimate truth, ultimate morality, the deciding factor between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. If you're belief is that part was mistranslated and erroneously edited, then the question is what else received the same treatment? Was it Adam and Steve and not Adam and Eve? Was Eve originally the first person created and not Adam (making Adam inherently inferior)? Was there multiple god's and not just one god as Christians believe? Was Jesus just a good man and not the Messiah?

And that is what's wrong with the Church. Some of those are valid questions that could be discussed. Not told to you by a guy behind a podium and accepted at face value.

The problem isn't both sides of the fence. The problem is one side of the fence says "You don't really believe and old man built a boat and placed every living animal, insect, and plant in the world on it because God was gonna destroy the world do you?" and the other side says absolutely.

Both sides feel a literal interpretation strengths their argument. Christians take it literally so they can be convinced God created everything and the Bible is 100% fact. Those who oppose the idea interpret it literally so they can highlight how ridiculous it is.

Creation stories are in no way metaphorical. They are pre-science attempts at cosmology.

Do you accept Revelations at face value as well?

BTW: This is a fun discussion. I hope it doesn't go off the deep end.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Do you accept Revelations at face value as well?

All I know is that Revelations has some awesome passages.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I really don't understand how you've made that leap, but I think you're saying the Bible should be perfectly perfect with perfect stories of righteous people being perfect.

Yes. That would definitely be divinely tailored just for us.

No, it doesn't have to be only about righteous people being perfect, but the work itself shouldn't open to such extremes of interpretation -- it should be perfectly timeless and show no signs of its origins (human). To me, no statement or story or teaching in the Bible necessitates some form of omniscience, as believers claim; this is my biggest problem. Wouldn't the word of God need not have such florid allegory or narrative? Is that not simply a consequence of it being conceived amongst mostly illiterate superstitious desert-dwellers who would need such tales? I expect a book which claims to have true knowledge of the universe and the Creator to be fucking spot-on. EVERY. WORD.

 

[Always-honest]

Oh make no mistake, if somebody is capable of cherry-picking the Bible for what to live by, they already have a good understanding of a right and wrong, so help isn't needed here.

I don't think the majority are fundamentally bad people, in need of the teachings of the Bible to be a good person, which your statement may imply. Good parenting is a billions times better than the Bible for this purpose. Good science a billion times better for understanding the world, and good medicine a billion times better for healing and health. Progress has given us much better alternatives since our first and worst attempts at these fields.

I agree. I always say that empathy and kindness were not invented by religions. Far from it.
I certainly don't need it to be kind and understanding. I think we can do completely without religion. If all religions would be gone tomorrow, nothing would change for me.

I do think it was the start of making some groundrules. And i think we still are influenced by them in our daily life.

I'm obviously biased as a Christian, but I think the Bible is the most relevant book in human history.

but is it the actual quote?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

No, it doesn't have to be only about righteous people being perfect, but the work itself shouldn't open to such extremes of interpretation -- it should be perfectly timeless and show no signs of its origins (human). To me, no statement or story or teaching in the Bible necessitates some form of omniscience, as believers claim; this is my biggest problem. Wouldn't the word of God need not have such florid allegory or narrative? Is that not simply a consequence of it being conceived amongst mostly illiterate superstitious desert-dwellers who would need such tales? I expect a book which claims to have true knowledge of the universe and the Creator to be fucking spot-on. EVERY. WORD.

We believe what we want to. And I realize that that's a two way street.

But you expect too little of man. Not too much of God. But too little of man.

 

[Angry Fork]

The Bible is an Atheist's best friend for the amount of ammo it provides while in a religious debate. It's also a great door stopper/holder and would work well if you need to burn something to continue a fire. That's about it though, i'd say we're better off without it.

 

[TurboLibre]

Wouldn't the word of God need not have such florid allegory or narrative?

Not really. Just look at the parables from Jesus. Maybe the point is to get an idea across, not to get hung up on the details.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Do you accept Revelations at face value as well?

BTW: This is a fun discussion. I hope it doesn't go off the deep end.

I cannot say for sure what the original intent of the authors was. I believe they wanted people to take it as fact. I, however, do not believe it in any way represents true historical events, nor should any believer. But, most importantly, as with the rest of the Bible and all other texts, it lacks true prescience.

Is that what you were asking?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

The Bible was able to predict the rise of 7 world powers (and the fall of 6 world powers as of now) before gods kingdom arrives. The Anglo-american world power is the 7th and final world power the world will see (when it will come to an end no one knows). No other text contains the amount of predictions and their fulfillment as much as the bible do (bible said the world was round, scientist said it was flat. bible says that humans are created, scientist says humans evolved. Bible says that a being created the earth, scientist say we sprouted from nothing. the bible listed the signs of the last days, each of those signs is occurring)

 

[rdrr gnr]

The Bible was able to predict the rise of 7 world powers (and the fall of 6 world powers as of now) before gods kingdom arrives. The Anglo-american world power is the 7th and final world power the world will see (when it will come to an end no one knows). No other text contains the amount of predictions and their fulfillment as much as the bible do (bible said the world was round, scientist said it was flat. bible says that humans are created, scientist says humans evolved. Bible says that a being created the earth, scientist say we sprouted from nothing. the bible listed the signs of the last days, each of those signs is occurring)

That is a lot of misinformation. If you would like to list specific scientific claims you believe the Bible makes, or predicts, I would gladly debunk them for you. Plus, you have an infinite regress in your comparison of creationism.

 

[madara]

Relevant that humans still need a fantasy of happiness and forever life? Yes
Outside that we dont need it to tell us how to be moral and decent. With so many laughable parts especially the old testament anyone with logical thought processes usually realize as they get older no god any human should be interested in would okay the crap written in it. Does not matter what era or any apologetic covering one does it ends right near stuff like Leviticus.

 

[TurboLibre]

I cannot say for sure what the original intent of the authors was. I believe they wanted people to take it as fact. I, however, do not believe it in any way represents true historical events, nor should any believer. But, most importantly, as with the rest of the Bible and all other texts, it lacks true prescience.

Is that what you were asking?

Revelations is theorized to be the reign (or return) of Nero Caesar. It is not intended to be taken literally. My point is if that book can be an allegory and filled with metaphors, why can't Genesis?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

The "Here's a crazy passage, the whole Bible is invalid" mentality is equally annoying.

Right. It seems like a lot of atheists- and I used to be one of these- get hung up on a literalist fundamentalist reading of the Bible as if it were the only way one could possibly be Christian. Mock those people all you wish, but that's not the only way to take the Bible, even as a committed Christian. It's a hermeneutic that would have been unfamiliar to Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, or really any of the theologians before Luther came along with "sola scriptura." The particularly virulent form of biblical literalism most of us like to slag has even less of a pedigree, not showing up until fundamentalist reactions to modernity in 20th century.

I mean, consider someone who says, "I trust the Bible's claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead, and therefore accept him as the son of God and my savior, but I don't believe it is infallible or inspired by God." This is a perfectly reasonable position that is undeniably Christian, and allows one to thoughtfully and consistently determine which portions of scripture are important to the faith and which are retrograde verses best chalked up to the historical context in which their writers lived. Yet to hear most atheists on GAF tell it, you can either be a fundamentalist Christian or a hypocritical Christian, your choice.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

That is a lot of misinformation. If you would like to list specific scientific claims you believe the Bible makes, or predicts, I would gladly debunk them for you. Plus, you have an infinite regress in your comparison of creationism.

Explain to me in detail what these misinformation are.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Explain to me in detail what these misinformation are.

It's difficult to know where to start. And it's impossible to prove a negative. Still, here's a start:

1.) Cite me chapter and verse where the bible predicts seven world powers. Then list out the seven world powers. Then explain to me why X, Y, and Z civilizations were left out of the list. Then explain to me why the coincidence that we have just now reached seven world powers proves anything.

2.) Show me where the Bible claims the world is round, then prove that myth that the natural philosophers of any era really did believe the earth was flat. Western civilization has known it was round since at least Ptolemy and likely before.

3.) Prove the signs of the end times without falling prey to confirmation bias.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Revelations is theorized to be the reign (or return) of Nero Caesar. It is not intended to be taken literally. My point is if that book can be an allegory and filled with metaphors, why can't Genesis?

Saying it is not intended to be true does nothing. There are people out there who do. It is again, open to interpretation, thus my problem. They'd be labeled as futurists.
There are those, like you, who call it allegory, thus you'd be an idealist. But, that's not the point here.

Genesis is a different beast all together. It's not about morals, or the will of God, or the words of his prophet son. It is a pre-scientific hypothesis of how the world came to be. It's wholly falsifiable. But, could you clarify what you mean when you say that you believe the creation narrative to be metaphorical?

EDIT: We'll have to pick this up in another thread at another time.

1.) Cite me chapter and verse where the bible predicts seven world powers. Then list out the seven world powers. Then explain to me why X, Y, and Z civilizations were left out of the list. Then explain to me why the coincidence that we have just now reached seven world powers proves anything.

2.) Show me where the Bible claims the world is round, then prove that myth that the natural philosophers of any era really did believe the earth was flat. Western civilization has known it was round since at least Ptolemy and likely before.

3.) Prove the signs of the end times without falling prey to confirmation bias.

Exactly.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It's difficult to know where to start. And it's impossible to prove a negative. Still, here's a start:

1.) Cite me chapter and verse where the bible predicts seven world powers. Then list out the seven world powers. Then explain to me why X, Y, and Z civilizations were left out of the list. Then explain to me why the coincidence that we have just now reached seven world powers proves anything.

2.) Show me where the Bible claims the world is round, then prove that myth that the natural philosophers of any era really did believe the earth was flat. Western civilization has known it was round since at least Ptolemy and likely before.

3.) Prove the signs of the end times without falling prey to confirmation bias.

Give me an hour or two hours (i don't want you thinking i ran away lol)

 

[Mgoblue201]

Since I don't feel like typing and it's way too long of a discussion, this is the interpretation that was always common where I'm from:

http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

If I am not mistaken, the original text describes the "gang" as little or small, which, combined with the word naar, would seem to indicate children, as the KJV explicitly renders it. Either way, it's a feeble defense. Even if they were dangerous, the act of mauling is a cruel and disproportionate punishment, unless god enjoyed their torture. As it is, we simply have to take the Bible's word for it that they deserved to die in this way, but it doesn't give us a good reason to trust it.

And the method is absurd. If a gang of boys/men who mock a prophet of god is suddenly mauled by a bear, then it would, regardless of its morality, be powerful evidence for god, but it takes particular dissonance for anyone in the modern world, with the ability to verify just about any story, to believe that such a thing ever occurs.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Believing in God/Jesus is like believing there's a monster under your bed. Both are the product of a child-like mentality.

I cannot respect anyone who entertains such nonsense.

 

[Meadows]

The bible is nowhere near as relevant to me than my personal relationship with God and Jesus, in the way that I pray to them and try and do good in the world like Jesus "did". Whether his actions were true, or metaphorical, is a big question for academia, but not for me. I like having faith that there is a higher being looking over me and protecting me and being an Anglican gives me that.

You wanna be gay? Be my guest, I'm a firm believer that LGBT people should have equal rights in the sense that gender, and sexual orientation should not be binary.

Atheist? Cool, lets have a pint and talk about sport? Don't think there is a God? Whatever, I won't like you any less.

Hindu? Mormon? Whatevs, believe whatever you want, as long as you are as open to people's beliefs as I am, whether they be Christian or not, then I'll be nice to you.

I find that many evangelical, fundamentalist Christians tend to forget parts of the bible in favour of the more damning parts. In the new testament, there is extensive reference to "loving thy neighbour". The fact that this is a forgotten aspect of Christianity in 2011 kills me, the whole religion has been hijacked by bible belt, gun toting, redneck truthers who give a bad name to the religion.

In all, religious belief shouldn't be shaped by a church, or even a book, but the personal connection you have with the trinity (in the case of Christianity).

Is the Bible relevant? Yes. Of course, lots of people read, and live by it, so yes, it is.

 

[Blair]

Hell yes its relevant. When dealing with morality and also perceiving truths, the bible is undeniably the big one.


But truth is not measured in mass appeal and a static morality is detrimental to society. Sorry bible, ya blew it.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It's difficult to know where to start. And it's impossible to prove a negative. Still, here's a start:

1.) Cite me chapter and verse where the bible predicts seven world powers. Then list out the seven world powers. Then explain to me why X, Y, and Z civilizations were left out of the list. Then explain to me why the coincidence that we have just now reached seven world powers proves anything.

2.) Show me where the Bible claims the world is round, then prove that myth that the natural philosophers of any era really did believe the earth was flat. Western civilization has known it was round since at least Ptolemy and likely before.

3.) Prove the signs of the end times without falling prey to confirmation bias.

Give me an hour or two hours (i don't want you thinking i ran away lol)

1) Reveletion 17:9-15 (If you have a bible read it, if you don't i will gladly type it out for you)

a) The seven world powers are as follows: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the Anglo-American dual world power.

b) X, Y, and Z civilizations might have been powerful but they were not nearly as powerful as the one's mentioned above, neither did they posses wealth and region(landmass, territory) as much as the the civilizations above.

2) During the early Middle-ages philosophers had no clear indication how big or what shape the earth was, now by the Middle-ages ONLY the most highly educated philosophers had a rough idea of what shape the earth was. Columbus knew the earth was not flat, but he received strong opposition before his journey because the general consensus was that he would fall out from the side of the earth. Now i should have said general public, but those who were considered "Highly educated philosopher" were only 0.000011111% percent of the earth's population in there day. So really their findings never left their realms (No one outside of those highly educated men knew what their findings were, there were no phones talk less of mail service)

3) Luke 21: 10 and 11 {} 1st John 3:1 {} 2 Timothy 3:1-5 {} 1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 {} 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and 9.

 

[TurboLibre]

Genesis is a different beast all together. It's not about morals, or the will of God.

You don't see how the Adam and Eve story can be about morals or the will of God?

But, could you clarify what you mean when you say that you believe the creation narrative to be metaphorical?

The creation is the story of man being created from the elements of the Earth and gaining knowledge/self awareness. They were separated from the blissful ignorance the other animals share and because they are now conscious of their actions, they are held responsible. It's using character like Adam and Eve to represent a much larger picture to a group of people who would have no understanding of how man came to be. You think a step by step guide to evolution would have been easier for early humans to grasp?

EDIT: We'll have to pick this up in another thread at another time.

Why? Seems relevant to the thread. I'll stop if we're throwing this thread off.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Give me an hour or two hours (i don't want you thinking i ran away lol)

1) Reveletion 17:9-15 (If you have a bible read it, if you don't i will gladly type it out for you)

a) The seven world powers are as follows: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the Anglo-American dual world power.

b) X, Y, and Z civilizations might have been powerful but they were not nearly as powerful as the one's mentioned above, neither did they posses wealth and region(landmass, territory) as much as the the civilizations above.

So the secret to interpreting the Bible is to find a vague verse that probably was a metaphor for Rome, take it out of context, simplify history, condense two "empires" together in a particularly tortured way to make it fit into your paradigm and ignore everything else. I'm sure that if China reaches superpower status you'll find a way to ignore that too (actually, at one point China probably was a greater superpower than many of the ones that you listed, and in many ways had technology that was beyond even Europe, but through the interpretations of the western world it always seems to be forgotten).

 

[CiSTM]

"The seven world powers are as follows: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the Anglo-American dual world power."

Didn't the mighty greece fall before christ was born ? Or maybe i'm thinking something else here. Also why isn't france listed as one of the great world powers or Russian empire. Both were hung back in the data especially france.There has been many world powers before and after bible was written so it's really easy to predict that there will be new world powers and they will also fall some day.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Give me an hour or two hours (i don't want you thinking i ran away lol)

1) Reveletion 17:9-15 (If you have a bible read it, if you don't i will gladly type it out for you)

a) The seven world powers are as follows: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and the Anglo-American dual world power.

b) X, Y, and Z civilizations might have been powerful but they were not nearly as powerful as the one's mentioned above, neither did they posses wealth and region(landmass, territory) as much as the the civilizations above.

This is the only way prophecy ever actually works: by retroactively prodding and pulling at events until it matches the description. In this case, if asked to make a list of the seven most powerful civilizations on earth (or even if asked to make a list of the five most powerful before Revelations was written, the one current with Jesus, and one after), no one would group the British Empire and American power into one single civilization, because they are not one civilization. If you're gonna lump those together, you may as well make a Graeco-Roman civilization before Christ.

The list is also notably eurocentric (well, eurocentric and pre-Islam middle east-centric). India, China, and any one of the caliphates are at least in the same league as Medo-Persia., Assyria, and Babylon. I'd hazard that it's pretty unlikely for a historian to spit out exactly these seven civilizations as the seven most powerful in history, largely because it's so high on the pre-Roman civilizations and so low on the post-Roman civilizations (this, of course, is because it has to fit awkwardly into the "5 before now, one current, one after" part of the prophecy)

Further, even supposing that the list were not eurocentric, it is again trivially easy to mold facts into proving that the prophecy was correct. All we'd have to do is get an accurate ranking of empires by power, and claim that anyone below the top 5 before Jesus' birth don't count as "major world powers." It's trivially easy to mold our definitions to the point where the prophecy becomes true. But this hardly means that the words themselves were prophetic. It rather means that the writers were rather gifted at making seemingly meaningful statements that would be fulfilled no matter what actually happened in the future.

I could be at pretty much any point in world history and find proof that this prophecy had been "fulfilled." A 7th-century Frank would be convinced that the final power referred to the Carolingian Empire. A 13th-century Italian would be convinced the Umayyad Caliphate's days were numbered and the end times were upon him. Any time there's a major world power, this prophecy is substantially correct. Call me crazy, but I don't think predicting the rise of more world powers qualifies one as Nostradamus.

As with all of Revelation's so-called prophecies, this one is so contentless as to be meaningless.

2) During the early Middle-ages philosophers had no clear indication how big or what shape the earth was, now by the Middle-ages ONLY the most highly educated philosophers had a rough idea of what shape the earth was. Columbus knew the earth was not flat, but he received strong opposition before his journey because the general consensus was that he would fall out from the side of the earth. Now i should have said general public, but those who were considered "Highly educated philosopher" were only 0.000011111% percent of the earth's population in there day. So really their findings never left their realms (No one outside of those highly educated men knew what their findings were, there were no phones talk less of mail service)

Your original contention was that the Bible was at one point in possession of the truth that scientists were not. By your own words here, that's plainly not true. That education systems only recently became good enough to ferret out much of superstition doesn't really bear on the point.

3) Luke 21: 10 and 11 {} 1st John 3:1 {} 2 Timothy 3:1-5 {} 1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 {} 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and 9.

These are more overly broad statements that would be fulfilled at nearly any time in world history. Luke 21:10-11 predicts that there will come a time when there are wars and natural disasters. Since these have always existed, I don't think that's too impressive of a prophecy, and I can't fathom a time when they would be untrue. Interestingly, if it were ever untrue, it's probably less true today than it has been at any point in the recent past. War is on the decline since the end of the Cold War, both in terms of absolute number of conflicts and in terms of yearly casualties of war.

I may be having your citation on 1st John 3:1, wrong? This is what I get when I search for it: "See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him." Doesn't really look like a prophecy for me.

2 Timothy 3: 1-5 predicts the existence of vice- hardly a prophecy, particularly by the lights of a Christianity that believes in original sin and the fall of man. I suppose the prophecy in fact predicts a marked increase in the amount of vice, but if this be so, it's certainly not a slam dunk that vice has in fact increased in recent years. Thanks to nostalgia, there's usually a significant portion of people that believe it to be so. Again, this is a prophecy that pretty much anyone from Jesus' time until the Jetsons' would have reason to believe was fulfilled.

1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 claims some people will feel safe, then they'll be struck with calamity. There's no point in rehashing the above arguments; I trust you know my response to this by now.

2nd Peter 3:3-7 and 9 predicts the existence of skeptics to the second coming. This isn't particularly surprising.