• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: “Science has proven” and “God says”

Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other?

  • I see problems with “Science says ...” that I don’t see with “God says ...” (Please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I see problems with “God says ...” that I don’t see with “Science says ...” (Please explain)

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • I see most or all of the same problems with both ways of thinking

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

Jim

Nets of Wonder
OK, some churches have moved in order to survive. But the 'scriptures' remain the same. Just adapted the way they are interpreted.
There are still many churches/faiths that have not moved on these issues. The Church of England is facing huge problems with the issues you list, especially with African elements of their church.
How may female Catholic priests are there? How many female Imams?

No one has said. "Actually, the Bible is rubbish, we need a re-write"
My topic in this thread is not about the actual words in scriptures. It’s about what people say that their scriptures are saying, whenever they are not quoting the exact words.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
OK, some churches have moved in order to survive. But the 'scriptures' remain the same. Just adapted the way they are interpreted.
There are still many churches/faiths that have not moved on these issues. The Church of England is facing huge problems with the issues you list, especially with African elements of their church.
How may female Catholic priests are there? How many female Imams?

No one has said. "Actually, the Bible is rubbish, we need a re-write"

Over the millennia they have sort of done a lot rewriting, translation, editing, and various interpretations to make things fit what people want to believe. Square pegs do not fit round holes without leaving a lot splinters on the ground.

The Bible is worth reading as well as all the scriptures and other writings of the religions and philosophies of the world. Both the actual scripture and the various interpretations are worthwhile studying they represent the evolving spiritual and philosophical heritage of humanity..
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

Science is about corporate proofs of physical things.
Religious is about private proofs of spiritual things.
The two exist in different realms.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Science is about corporate proofs of physical things.
Science does not prove anything, and there is little or no corporate funding for evolution and abiogenesis.

Religious is about private proofs of spiritual things.

There is no proof of spiritual things.


The two exist in different realms.

True, science is based the falsification of objective verifiable evidence. Religions are based on the belief of subjective things.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Over the millennia they have sort of done a lot rewriting, translation, editing, and various interpretations to make things fit what people want to believe. Square pegs do not fit round holes without leaving a lot splinters on the ground.

The Bible is worth reading as well as all the scriptures and other writings of the religions and philosophies of the world. Both the actual scripture and the various interpretations are worthwhile studying they represent the evolving spiritual and philosophical heritage of humanity..

There are some fallacies with this argument. The main one being that the scripture
has been changed to fit beliefs. I don't see that, particularly with the New Testament.
Certainly the Jewish Old Testament was condemning of the Jewish people - they didn't
change this scripture, just worked around it.
Saying the bible is "no different" is a kind of moral equivalence. Picking out how the bible
resembles other books doesn't do it justice - it's where it differs that says a lot more.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Science does not prove anything, and there is little or no corporate funding for evolution and abiogenesis.
There is no proof of spiritual things.
True, science is based the falsification of objective verifiable evidence. Religions are based on the belief of subjective things.

By "corporate" I mean "a company or group"
Science must be proven at this level.
Religion is about private experience and inner reflection.

As a side note - says everywhere in the bible that if you
just believe in God because others do then you haven't
learned anything and your faith is vain. You have to prove
it for yourself.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
By "corporate" I mean "a company or group"

Corporate is not defined as above.

Science must be proven at this level.

No science does not prove anything.

Religion is about private experience and inner reflection.

This would not prove anything, It only leads to circular reasoning to justify what one believes is true.

As a side note - says everywhere in the bible that if you
just believe in God because others do then you haven't
learned anything and your faith is vain. You have to prove
it for yourself.

. . . again circular reasoning to prove something for yourself.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There are some fallacies with this argument. The main one being that the scripture
has been changed to fit beliefs. I don't see that, particularly with the New Testament.
Certainly the Jewish Old Testament was condemning of the Jewish people - they didn't
change this scripture, just worked around it.
Saying the bible is "no different" is a kind of moral equivalence. Picking out how the bible
resembles other books doesn't do it justice - it's where it differs that says a lot more.

Excuse me, but all the New Testament writing do, is trying to justify a new religion by reinterpreting the Old Testament passages (signs, prophecies), as well as adapting foreign religious beliefs.

The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, a mortal woman conceiving a child via a god, and giving birth to a demigod, is a foreign concept, not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

Gilgamesh being the son of Lugalbanda and goddess Ninsun, Heracles (Hercules) was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, were just some of examples of demigods.

Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpreted Isaiah’s sign as the sign of messiah, except that when you read the whole chapter, the child to be born, Immanuel, has nothing to do with messiah, because Isaiah 7:14 was never messianic prophecy, not unless Tiglath-pileser III was the messiah?

Matthew 1:23 left out the rest of the sign 7:14-17.

“Isaiah 7:14-17“ said:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The sign had nothing to do with virgin birth or the messiah, but had everything to with the Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, and with Tiglath-pileser’s intervention.

The sign was about Assyria coming to Ahaz’s aid.

A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, and given the similarities of the two signs in relation to Assyria, it is revealed that the pregnant woman was Isaiah’s own wife, and that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

“Isaiah 8:1-4” said:
8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

The sign had nothing to do Mary and Jesus, but the author of Matthew wanted the readers to view it that way.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Excuse me, but all the New Testament writing do, is trying to justify a new religion by reinterpreting the Old Testament passages (signs, prophecies), as well as adapting foreign religious beliefs.

The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, a mortal woman conceiving a child via a god, and giving birth to a demigod, is a foreign concept, not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

Gilgamesh being the son of Lugalbanda and goddess Ninsun, Heracles (Hercules) was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, were just some of examples of demigods.

Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpreted Isaiah’s sign as the sign of messiah, except that when you read the whole chapter, the child to be born, Immanuel, has nothing to do with messiah, because Isaiah 7:14 was never messianic prophecy, not unless Tiglath-pileser III was the messiah?

Matthew 1:23 left out the rest of the sign 7:14-17.



The sign had nothing to do with virgin birth or the messiah, but had everything to with the Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, and with Tiglath-pileser’s intervention.

The sign was about Assyria coming to Ahaz’s aid.

A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, and given the similarities of the two signs in relation to Assyria, it is revealed that the pregnant woman was Isaiah’s own wife, and that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.



The sign had nothing to do Mary and Jesus, but the author of Matthew wanted the readers to view it that way.

The men who gave up their livelihoods, their homes and families and ultimately even their own lives
to preach the Gospel saw in Jesus the fulfillment of scripture - particularly Isaiah (but also Jacob, Moses
David, Malachi, Zechariah etc..)
But what Isaiah said is of note.
A “sign” would be given through a special child born. To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish
people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and
“justice” was “forever.”
He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” A “great light” to Galilee of the Gentiles. God gave Him no
attractiveness and no children of His own. He would be the healer to “the eyes of the blind” and “the ears of the
deaf” and even to restore the dead to life.
Yet He would be “despised and rejected” and a “man of sorrows.” He would be taken from prison and judgment
and like a lamb He would be “pierced” and “crushed.” Yet He will see life again and be “satisfied” for “suffering of
His soul.”
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The men who gave up their livelihoods, their homes and families and ultimately even their own lives
to preach the Gospel saw in Jesus the fulfillment of scripture - particularly Isaiah (but also Jacob, Moses
David, Malachi, Zechariah etc..)
But what Isaiah said is of note.
A “sign” would be given through a special child born. To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish
people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and
“justice” was “forever.”
He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” A “great light” to Galilee of the Gentiles. God gave Him no
attractiveness and no children of His own. He would be the healer to “the eyes of the blind” and “the ears of the
deaf” and even to restore the dead to life.
Yet He would be “despised and rejected” and a “man of sorrows.” He would be taken from prison and judgment
and like a lamb He would be “pierced” and “crushed.” Yet He will see life again and be “satisfied” for “suffering of
His soul.”

You are cherry-picking Isaiah’s sign, ignoring the whole sign, just as the author to the gospel of Matthew have done.

The sign isn’t about the birth of the boy, but when Assyria one to Ahaz in the war against Israel and Aram. When the boy reach a certain, Assyria will attack Aram and Israel.

Did you even bother to read verses 14 to 17?

A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, which was also the Assyrian intervention in the war.

In fact, the name Immanuel reappeared in chapter 8, again in association with Assyria:

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

That’s the complete sign.

Matthew’s interpretation is nothing more than a propaganda, where only verse 14 is quoted. Any Jew reading would noticed that the gospel author omitted the complete signs.

Try reading the whole 2 chapters - Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8 - from the first verse to the last, without this biased Christian preconceptions.

Did you know one of the reason why I became agnostic in the 1st place, back in 2000?

It is because of Matthew 1:22-23 have dishonestly quoted Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) with reinterpretation that didn’t match the original; the 3 missing verses (7:15, 16, 17) that gospel didn’t use, was meant to be read together with verse 14 as 1 sign.

I came to realisation that NT authors to be not trustworthy and reliable.

The other signs (about Bethlehem and Egypt) used in Matthew 2 were also misused and mangled by this NT author.
 
Top