The debate "The bible as well as the other religonal text are not realn" was started by
July 30, 2018, 1:23 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 47 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
tenyiyi posted 5 arguments, SaffronSHAM3 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Aaronr12 posted 13 arguments, SaffronSHAM3 posted 1 argument, SilentArg posted 1 argument, Najam1 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Jasleen, tina2101, TheNewHuman and 34 visitors agree.
neveralone, maulik, PhrozenKeyy, Aaronr12, SaffronSHAM3, SilentArg, TheCommunist, WhiteCaller, Najam1, Debater1127, lucafer, logical_bomb, InfinityMachine and 34 visitors disagree.
They are seem vague in English, but you must remember that it is written in Hebrew and Greek. If you see these verses in the Hebrew you will see more specifics.
Argeed lets close the debate
I would like to see the quote in the bible referencing surgeries.
I do not wish to keep appearing to attack the belief of another. I will leave this at:
whatever details found in the bible, even if true, are vague and do not replace the need for physical and intellectual exploration of our universe with mundane means. I am glad scientists of the past and present are not content simply reading a few lines in a book and assuming that is all the details that exist. the world is rich and complex, and there is no way all the information would fit in a handful of books and would be understood by people just figuring out the basics of civilization
Also there is the idea in the Bible about washing hands before surgeries.
All those things mentioned were not lnown until the Reformation at the earliest and the 19th century at the latest (such as life is in the blood). None of the science I mentioned can be descritited.
I'm not sure how to respond to most of those. they seem more like poetry open to as much interpretation as the prophecies of nostradamus ("fountains of the deep"? that could be obviously seen volcanoes. that's alot of interpretation and no ancient believed in plate tectonics even with the bible)
innumerable stars are obvious, but I'd love to hear the details of circulation and see how useful its description is. anyone whose been in a battlefield knows blood flows. did the bible predict its path? its purpose? and I hope it's not something vague like "blood caries life". show me something about nutrition, instructions (hormones), waste disposal, temperature regulation, anything concrete.
the prophecies of nostradamus have been interpreted to mean the world wars, 9/11, the cold war. it always sounds right because it's so vague... and so useless. because of its vagueness I will never be able to call it false, but I am hardly convinced that it's true.
science gave us technology and medicine within a few centuries. bible has been around for several millenia and its followers only sought to slow the progression of knowledge. (once again, not necessarily God, but man's flawed interpretation)
I'm well aware it isnt a science or a history book. it's not surprising that it would throw in names of real people and events, but at best it's as accurate as a "based on true events" movie and is so lacking in details that it's useless for those purposes. the bible isn't big enough to contain substantial details on all subjects. history and science was never its purpose (imo). it's a guide on behavior and morality.
I have never seen evidence of world wide floods. perhaps something local and short term, but most fossils were buried slowly with no flood, often in tar pits or similar areas with minimal erosion (unlike fast moving water)
the beliefs of old were hardly science. the *assumptions* like earth is surrounded by aether, spontaneous life, and everlasting universe were never ever proven or even tested scientifically. they were philosophy at best. the details of the time frame is important, although the vagueness of the bible can include it. it also never defined what kind is or how they were created. perhaps his molding of the "kinds" was the slow process of evolution, much like his 6 days may have been many billions of years.
everyone knows animals reproduce within their own kinds. that says nothing about how those kinds differentiated and doesnt say that their differentiation is complete. the vagueness leaves ALOT of room for interpretation, then again history and science was likely never its purpose.
Water cycle. Sea currents. ?Fountains of the deep broken up? (tectonic plates).
Stars are innumerable. Stars differ in glory. Stars follow a predictable pattern. Earth is round, not flat. Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars)
The Bible claims that God created animals after their kind. Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.
The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.
The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).
The Bible is not a science text book, but the scientific claims it makes are true. Here are some:
what science is mentioned in the bible? I saw no systematic gathering of knowledge. no claims about the order of celestial bodies, galaxies, planets. no mention that our sun is a star.
nothing regarding cell theory, atom theory. no description of gravity? what science are you referring to? following instructions blindly as the bible demands is the *opposite* of science
However all the science mentioned in the Bible and all the historical accounts are true.
I meant didnt
People who cannot write a book, refuse to write a book, too incompetent to write a book, are just jealous punks and haters on books that others write.
the lesson of Noah's arc wouldnt be effective without the divine flood that defined the tale. every tale, true or false, needs a setting, characters, and plot.
it might be what you said, it can be a guide but if it is a guide why are the events needed?
rather than truth, I see morals and guidance. I do not believe the holy texts were ever meant to be history or science books. just a guide on how to live your life and treat others.
we will never know,we can only dicuss the what might be ture
That could be the case. However ,we will never know for sure.
no contradictions in teachings,but there are contradictions in the context .prephaps it is like an adapted story form the same events with diffrent interprations and has lost some of the truth as time past by.the are still truth in it though.
1 god and many gods is a contradiction, but i think that he is trying to say that there is no contradiction in the spirituality of their teachings
1 God and many gods isnt a contradiction?
Because there are no contradictions and it is truth.
if your saying that they all have the same purpose or the similar lessons, I can accept that.
but the "historic" events, garden of eden, god stopping the sun, or the moon, or an eclipse are all different in each religion, contradict each other, and make no logical sense.
If we agree that the texts are meant to simply teach how to live and not a literal history, then yes, I can agree with that. but if you read them literally, then all religious texts are incompatible with each other. theres no way to reconcile the 1 God of the west with the many gods of the east in any literal way.
maybe some parts are real but I don't think everything is real. good point though and it is also true that I don't like a specific text.
Mr Aaronr12 is completely wrong mr. Tenyiyi.
His statement is equivalent of saying"My mother is human and the rest mothers aren't";
In my opinion the religious texts are real, their teachings are real. The only unreal thing possible here is the context in which they were created.
The teachings in all religious texts are real and are essentially the same in allof them. They are not exactly the same. They do have variations. But their core purpose is all the same and that
is to provide people with faith and belief. Nothing in them is unreal.
It may be that some part of a particular text may not appeal to you and you may choose to disagree with it, but that should not raise a question mark on the realism of the religious text
can you tell my why.
The Bible is true and the others are not.