Old or New testament.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 16, 2017.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Sorry to butt in so to speak

    I can't speak to the references you requested here

    From my memory I recall books I have read saying in the middle ages medical students were taught men had one less rib

    This despite disection disproving such statement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wik...one_les_rib_&_Nerve_man_Wellcome_L0029308.jpg

    Thanks Wikimedia

    There is also the idea rib was a miss translation

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/1...-rib-but-from-a-very-different-body-part/amp/

    Hope this helps

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Yes, you are, pad...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Not paddy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The point that seems to escape, many, is connected to the age of the Old and New Testament. There is a tendency by the critics to do a revisionist history interpretation of the bible where past is judged by today. For example, if you read an encyclopedia of science, from 200 years ago, what was thought to be truth about nature, 200 years ago, is not relevant today. There are a few things that remain but for the most part it was stepping stones up ladder of understanding.

    Parts of the Old Testament are 5000 years old, while New Testament is about 2000 years old, but they still have relevancy today. Do you think the science of today will still be called truth 1000 years from now? The problem is connected to revisionist history. Because the bible is very old and is still widely used today, it is being compared with things of today, as though both were published at the same time. It is sort of like giving George Washington an i-phone and comparing his skills at texting to that of Trump. Then you conclude that Washington was a dunce due to his compete lack of technology expertise.

    The bible is about human nature, which is inherent within our human genetics and does not change. Wisdom of old can still be still relevant since the ancient people were closer to when the foundation of human nature was more conscious and less repressed or distorted by culture. The problem for the critics, is they don't know how to interpret the bible to make it relevant, since the 5000 year old human mind did not have the same knowledge base we have today. They would explain things but in the light of the data that was available back then. They also spoke in symbolism which is the language of the unconscious mind, which is the source of human nature.

    Today psychology and psychiatry (drugs) has replaced the role of religion for many people. How is that working out? For example, when I young, children were taught the mantra that, "sticks and stones can break your bones but names can never hurt you". In terms of religion, names were considered words/sounds and not gods. One was not to worship magic words like a golden calf. T

    today with religion on the decline, in universities, young adult can't even cope with sounds and noises. When the golden calf is paraded around they bow, run or fight. Religion allowed children to have the emotional maturity of the young adults of today, because it was close to the truth and not as close to making money. You tell the health of the tree (belief system) by the fruit it bears; output.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Both parts of the bible can be judged by the standards of today

    When it first came out

    it was Cowpat but

    was pushed by the church

    as the word of god

    and worshipped

    Today it remains Cowpat

    still pushed by the church

    still touted as the word of god

    still worshipped

    Same same nothing changed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    So a science book of 200 years ago can disgarded through lack of relevance and yet we retain one book that is 5000 years old and another 2000 years old both not being relevant to today strikes me as strange but if you were to select one or the other which do you find more credible or would you reject both as not relevant to today and if not why not.
    What do you mean?
    Why do you draw such a conclusion given that there are many aspects in both books that would seem not to be close to the truth.
    What has the health of a tree got to do with anything are you saying that because the bible contains errors that it an unhealthy tree and as such is not capable of being of use in today's world or just as an unhealthy tree becomes unproductive it is best to cut it down and replace it with a new tree that promises better production.
    I think you could avoid confusing readers by being specific and factual.
    Thanks for contributing and sharing your input.
    Alex
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    The ideas within the book may not be correct in the light of today's knowledge

    However if you trace the thought processes from the knowledge held then to the knowledge held now

    we find insights and inspiration how to expand knowledge further

    ' Standing on the shoulders of giants ' and all that

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

    The bible may have risen by the height of an ant

    A small ant

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Bullshit.
    A very large amount of the science that was known in the early 1800's is still taught today and is applicable. Of course there are more accurate theories not to mention more discoveries have been made.

    The bible has changed quite a bit too. The words are still in the bible but they are ignored by most christians.
    Such as:
    We no longer kill children that are disrespectful.
    Women are now permitted to speak in church.
    Slavery is now considered immoral.
    Women no longer are required to cover there heads in church.
    Protestants no longer believe that a man who is remarried after divorce is committing adultery
    We no longer believe that rich people just go to hell. Heck, there are evangelist that preach that Jesus wants you be be rich (just send the preacher money and Jesus will make you rich).
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Currently, in real life, males are not missing a rib. They have the same number as females.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Two thought bubbles

    Why are the words (such guidence words) still in the bible if they are widely ignored?

    Don't know where in the bible it stipulates jesus wants you to be rich but agree con artist are out there sprouting sermons staying exactly that

    Say it with conviction waving a bible and you can buy your first Rolls Royce in 1 year

    And

    I contend society would have reached our current moral status earlier had the bible not been around

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Good question. I sure don't know.

    He said rich people won't go to heaven.
     
  15. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252

    As I mentioned in other posts The story of Adam and Eva could be metaphor on how sin got into man by disobedience of the Law don't do that otherwise you will get busted.

    There is nothing saying the woman have to have less ribs than man and vice versa,
    The program in the DNA is to have same number of ribs. If the rib was extracted and the DNA was taken out of the rib , it does not have to go though mutation to man from woman to have different number of ribs.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    If the bible is a bunch of metaphors then there's really nothing for any one to argue about here.

    Don't quote me on this but, I am pretty sure that the Old Testament came before Watson and Crick's isolation of DNA in 1953.

    I'm going to go out on a limb that, since it the OT also doesn't mention time travel, it probably doesn't include much in the way of references to DNA.

    Can someone verify my logic, in case I missed something?
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    The God of the Hebrews certainly seems to. think very highly of himself.

    I think that the ethics displayed in 1Samuel, Leviticus and Deuteronomy is crude and savage at best.

    "The Lord" ordering that the Hebrews commit genocide against their neighbors, killing men, women and children, even their animals, so as to totally erase neighboring ethnic groups from the earth. That same "Lord" ordering that daughters that have premarital sex be killed, that blasphemers or those who convert to a different religion be killed as well.

    One of the reasons why modern Western people find Islamic Shariah so backward is that it sticks very closely to O.T. Jewish Law and still takes these kind of commandments very seriously.

    Even if we disregard all the supernatural stuff, the moral defects of the O.T. are enough to make me reject its message as the proclamation of something not worthy of human worship.

    I'm inclined to favor the N.T. since it seems to acknowledge these kind of moral defects in the O.T. and portrays Jesus as delivering a new Law.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Indeed. I always had the image of God of the OT looking down on humans and rolling his eyes and saying

    "No, no no, you idiots. Not like THAT! Is that what you call worshipping me??

    Oh for Pete's sake. Do I have to spell it out for you? Here. This is Jesus. He's a dude, just like you. Be like Jesus. That's how ya worship a god fercryin'outloud."
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    But other than that it seems OK right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page