Problems with the Bible

The error in using 3, or 3.14, or 3.1428,... or any closer number to the actual value of pi is significant in regard to you saying the Bibke was wrong.
The point is that NO number would be/is correct.

So why complain about such an early reference to this idea of Pi while most of mankind was still trying to square their circles?


The reason I did not mentiontghe pigeons is because that method worked for many remissions as do the placebos used today which give many people a measure of relief and allows faith and positive thinking to accomplish those few successes that still mystify the medical professions even today.

I believe that the mind can be induced to cause the secretion of Interferon into the body and like the hypnotism used by Jesus, actual effect some few amazing cures.

The water into wine story informs us that a mass hypnosis by Jesus amazed the people of his time, as it ought, since we did not learn of this medical technique until Mesmer in the 1850's of this era.

 

Medicine (as a field of study) is a sub branch of Science. Science is not supposed to be dependent upon myths and especially not things mentioned in the Bible. That is the irony and to me it is getting to be even more hilarious after each of your postings with an apparent intent to defend by rationalizing the irony.

 

Give me a source of pigeon blood curing someone of Leprosy.

 

How does using a symbol make is "dependent upon myths" or "things mentioned in the Bible"?

Since you are typing this in English and English is derived from the Anglo-Saxons, are you dependent upon Anglo-Saxon myths and beliefs?

 

Go back and read the information that I posted which you to become confounded.

Nope! It makes me dependent upon the language derived from the Anglo-Saxons and the language of the English speaking people.

 

Right. So you agree that it only makes you dependent on the thing and not the culture that originally created the thing.

So you agree that sceince can use the symbol without being dependent on the mythology that originally created the system, yes?

 

Where did I say anything about the 'culture'? I didn't? Oh My! All I spoke about was the 'thing'... it was you who brought up the subject of Greek mythology. Also, you receive a 'no' vote on your presumption that I am agreeing "that science can use the symbol without being dependent on the mythology that originally created the system." There are at least two variations in theory relating to the origin of that symbolism. You might want to check your facts a little closer.

 

duplicate post.

 

Why exactly does the origin of the symbol have any bearing on the person using it? For example, I have an ankh tattoo on my arm. Does that mean that I am required to believe in Egyptian mythology or that I just like the ankh because it is a symbol of immortality?

And are you saying that religion isn't part of culture?

 

It's so nice to see you admit you have a problem with the Bible. Believe me. It's obvious.

 

And once again, Incorporeal manages to bog down another thread with semantic bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Your choice of and placement of a tatoo on your person would indicate to me that you, at the very least, have a desire t.hat favors the teachings behind the Ankh. As for the first question: Allow me to reciprocate with yet another question: Would you allow your body to receive a vaccination without knowing where it came from?

What came first: the chicken or the egg? In direst answer: No! Religion is independent of culture. Example. Adam. It is said that he worshiped God prior to any 'culture' was established.

 

You guys question the Bible in regard to the snake on the stick, which 1390 years later was connected to the "medicine" of the hypnotism used by jesus.
You get informed but act superior...?
Go figure.

The rational, reasonable, logical answers to you thoughtless and often, because of poor reading comprehension need answers that did not occur to you, while you take the high and mighty road of a continuing ridicule as if that really works once I have answered you.

Certainly even a lurking non partisan reader can see that you have no reason, so far, to ridicule the bible.

But I ask you, how do you explain that the Bible writers knew about the Big Bang beginning when we didn't know for sure until 1940?
...Pangea/Rodinia when we only found out about in 1920?
... about the Cosmic Dark Age that last for 400 million years?
... about the fact that the Plant Kingdom appeared by Spontaneous Generation before the Animal Kingdom?


etc, etc, etc....?

 

Vaccinations =/= symbols.

And no, I don't favor the teachings behind the Ankh. I don't believe in mummifying my dead, worshipping the pharoah, or treating the Nile as sacred.

One can like or use a symbol for only its meaning without being forced to follow or dependent upon the ideas behind its origin.

Using the Bible as evidence that religion isn't a part of culture is probably a bad idea, especially an obviously false part of it like the existence of Adam.

 

Again the Caduceus is a symbol from GREEK mythology.

You have yet to prove that the Bible is actually talking about any of these.

 

Here is an ancisnt eye witness report record by the earliests of Christian historians:

Matthew 8:3
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

 

Two problems with this:

#1. NONE of the Gospels are eye witness reports. They were not written by the Apostles and are most likely 2nd or 3rd hand reports.

#2. Where exactly did he use the pigeon blood remedy?

 

Lame, weak, and really poor sportsmanship, too.


1) The greeks wrote down the Hebrew Old Testament in 350BC, and they appropriated the idea symbolized as the Caduceus.


2) Genesis literally says all these things.

A universe that has a beginning is what scientists call the Big Bang Theory.
That Theory replaced the other two HYPOTHESES (Steady State, Pulsating Universe) that had existed up and until Hubble' extrodinary evidence support the Bible.

 

Source? Evidence?

No. You have asserted that it says those things without proving it.

For example your "gathered all the waters in one place" evidence for Pangea is bunk because all of the waters are still gathered in one place today.

 

I don't know. Much of the bulk of this thread was taken up with you and Wolverine asking me a question, not liking the answer, accusing me of not answering it, and then pestering me to answer it again. Considering who's wasting time on this thread, you're about the last person to criticize.

 

"If you believe then you'll understand" is not an answer. It's a copout.

 

A tired old tactic. You think to set the premise that nothing is proven until you say it is. I see through your game. What are the odds that the continents, by random distribution, just happened to be shaped in such manner as to fit together like a puzzle? I'm guessing your answer will indicate you suck at math too.

 

That wasn't my answer to you. You ignored the answer. It won't be repeated.

 

You're putting the cart before the horse.

It's like seeing a pothole filled with water and assuming that the pothole was created with that exact shape and depth to fit that exact amount of water instead of realizing that the water conformed to the pothole.

If the continents broke apart, of course they would be shaped in such a way that they would fit back together.

 

You said that it doesn't work now. Then when I pointed out that the cure doesn't have a time stamp or end date on it and is a blanket future cure for leprosy, you stopped saying anything.

So why doesn't it work now?