Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 1451 - 1500 of 1749 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1452. Comment #68930 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 6:45 am
newatheist: By no means was your question of the sort I would ignore. Sorry I didn't identify it specifically.
I am indeed interested in the issue you raised. I think the beginnings of an answer will be arrived at by considering how the stars (and sand, and dust, in different ways also) are used as symbols in the Bible. The comparison between stars and faithful people of God, when they are at a future day raised out of the grave, appears in several places; two examples are Daniel 12:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 15:41-42.
Besides that, the Bible speaks of how the form of the original natural creation (as described in early Genesis, and other places too) was not random, but designed in anticipation of a later spiritual creation - of people - centred in, and made possible through, God's son Jesus. This is linked to my first point, but gives more of the rationale.
The above is a brief sketch only - I've not studied this theme in depth (but really should do so, sometime).
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1453. Comment #68933 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 7:00 am
Besides that, the Bible speaks of how the form of the original natural creation (as described in early Genesis, and other places too) was not random, but designed in anticipation of a later spiritual creation - of people.
The problem is that we now know for sure that the original creation (if you want to call it that) was indeed random. We have unquestionable evidence for that in the cosmic radiation background. The fluctuations we see there (from around 400,000 years after the Big Bang) are as would be expected from random fluctuations followed by inflation. And everything we know about the universe indicates that from that point on what happened is subject to the rules of quantum mechanics and chaos, and so even if an original plan had been 'built in', it would have been lost beyond retrieval....
Other Comments by steve99
1454. Comment #68954 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 8:54 am
Steve99 (comment 1607):You say all that with confidence, but it doesn't seem quite so clear to me.
From what I read (in NewSci and similar publications, I am certainly not a specialist), there is significant debate in parts of the cosmology community, over things like the apparent non-random structure in the shape of the CMB (from WMAP results) - the so-called "axis of evil", for which no obvious cause is currently known.
At a different scale, questions have been raised from analysis of galaxy survey data, suggesting another example of non-randomness, as a possible bias in orientation of the galaxies, despite lack of any known grounds for why that should be. The galaxy zoo website has as one of its aims the verification (or disqualification) of this suggestion. Again, if it is established to be true, it was not expected, and certainly there is no agreed explanation for it.
In your comment you mention inflation, as if it were an entirely uncontroversial concept, evidenced and established, with all theorists agreeing. But again what comes across, at least in reports I see, is that this subject is very much in flux, with a diverse range of views about it. From my limited perspective, though indeed I think the theory is very interesting and may even connect with some descriptions in the Bible (I've mentioned that before in this thread, and could restate if you care to know), there's surely a long way to go before the dust settles on the arguments.
Please note that I don't say from any of these things that I have proved your view wrong, and validated the Bible in relation to it. You may say I'm just picking on "gaps", and that my God will be squeezed out as those gaps are filled. But I do wish to illustrate that the degree of certainty apparent in your comment (and in many similar comments by others here) doesn't seem entirely justified by the current state of scientific knowledge, at least as I perceive it.
Finally, but on a less serious note...
A comment by David Deutsch - the Oxford quantum computing specialist - on his website at www.qubit.org (site is presently unresponsive, so I can't cite the exact link, sorry), notes a similarity that was observed, betwen the large-scale variations in the CMB, and the outline of the continents on the surface of Earth. As I recall, he adds a little musing about the ease with which common assumptions about the universe and its origin might be swept away. I don't put any weight on this, myself: clearly, careful analysis would be needed to establish whether there is any statistical significance in the observation. But would any respected scientist dare take that thought seriously enough, to try performing it? More to the point, if they (privately) found the answer was "yes", would they be so brave as to tell the world?
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1455. Comment #68965 by Geraint on September 9, 2007 at 10:03 am
A comment by David Deutsch - the Oxford quantum computing specialist - on his website at www.qubit.org (site is presently unresponsive, so I can't cite the exact link, sorry), notes a similarity that was observed, betwen the large-scale variations in the CMB, and the outline of the continents on the surface of Earth.
Continents? That's nothing. In the ILC map from the one year WMAP data, one can clearly see Stephen Hawking's initials; who's in charge now, eh?
In case you don't believe me, it's the topmost of the three images on this page:
CMB maps link.
You can see SH to the left of centre, just above the middle.
Your brain strains to make out familiar structure in random fields.
The 'axis of evil' is something of a curiosity. Even if it turns out not to be an effect of galactic foregrounds, as statistical flukes go the alignment isn't desperately unlikely. Certainly not likely enough to justify publishing the results under normal circumstances, but in this case collecting more data won't help (the statistical error is limited by the fact we only get to see one sky, not by the quality or quantity of the data), and there had already been some curious features of the low-l CMB noted (basically lower power than expected, leading people to wonder about non-trivial topology; again, the power deficit isn't that statistically significant).
I definitely wouldn't worry about those particular galaxy survey results yet either. As things stand, Steve's comments are essentially justified. One could argue that the mechanism of inflation, or whatever process does the same job, isn't yet known. The CMB results are consistent with inflation, but the current generation of results doesn't constrain the various inflation models particularly well, hence the continuing debate. It's somewhat like the case a few years ago with a proliferation of different cosmological models, most of which were eliminated by new data. A healthy situation.
Other Comments by Geraint
1456. Comment #68968 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 10:32 am
You say all that with confidence, but it doesn't seem quite so clear to me.
You talk about the details of the cosmic microwave background, which is fair enough. Inflation is also hardly controversial. We can discuss these in more detail if you like, but you are missing the main point .... I'll come on to this in a minute :)
The real flaw in your reasoning is to assume that because there are uncertainties in the models (and there are!), this is any reason whatsoever to bring a biblical God into things.
Suppose you were asked to solve a crime - a mystery. You discovered some evidence, pointing a certain way... there were witnesses, but there is no proof that they are reliable and they all give a different version of events. The evidence says something quite different. If there was some problems with the evidence would you wait for more, and see what else experts could bring to the matter, or would you throw it all away and claim someone was killed by invisible fairies? The latter seems to me to be a fair parallel to the situation when people invoke a biblical God.
Now, for the huge point you are missing. The Universe is not deterministic. It would not have mattered if the creation had been nice and planned - things would have got out of control very soon, and the plans lost in the heat of the Big Bang. Quantum theory erases any attempt at fine long-term prediction.
Even if the Universe were fully deterministic, there are so many interactions and there is so much chaos that it is unpredictable. The only way to know what happens is to wait and see. So, unless you can imagine God starting up Universe after Universe, and waiting billions of years to see what turns up before giving up and saying 'back to the drawing board'....
But that is hardly 'design'.
Any attempt to invoke an initial designer is simply incorrect science. To get deliberately from the Big Bang to mankind would involve an extremely interventionist God.
Other Comments by steve99
1457. Comment #69027 by SRWB on September 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Mark,Thank you for pointing out the error of my comments in regards to the Christadelphians and my assumption that they also believe in a Trinitarian god – you learn something everyday! Nevertheless, while you may not believe in the trinity, many Christians do. I am also aware that such an approach is just argumentum ad numerum, and is thus no more likely to be true than your own specific beliefs. After all, why would your interpretation be correct, when the Pope feels just as strongly that his is the right approach (not to mention that of countless rabbis and imams, etc)?
I'm not sure that you are on firm ground in attacking RD's "unscientific" approach to characterizing Christian denominations as all the same or all as bunk. You suggest that Dawkins doesn't give religious belief enough attention and weight. I think his intent was (is) to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in any and all religious beliefs, regardless of denomination, Christian or otherwise. By it's very nature religion is unscientific, so should not be entitled to be treated in accordance with such precise methodologies. To pretend that (any) theology is worthy of reverence and respect, just out of faith, and without any evidence, is anathema to any accepted scientific practices. By way of analogy, it is not much different than submitting The Lord of the Rings trilogy to scientific scrutiny. What would be the point?
In regard to God's visits to the denizens of the OT, I used the term "regular" as a relative term compared to the dearth of visits in the last few thousand years. But I wish to pick you up on your comment with regard to God's supposed conversations with Adam and Eve. What proof can you provide? After all, Genesis is not written in the first person, so who recorded these conversations for posterity? The way I see it, we have a huge evidence gap here. You see, the Bible is a retrospective account of one religion's history, and it has been added to, amended, translated, much like a game of Chinese whispers. How can you honestly vouch for its accuracy and inerrancy?
Other Comments by SRWB
1458. Comment #69043 by Goldy on September 9, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Mark, I'm a touch disappointed but not surprised - it is hard to answer everything at once! However, if you could tell me why Mohammed is not a prophet of God (the final, final, no more after him, ever and ever, the others are all false) as believed by billions, I'd be grateful. You see, there's no reason why the Koran cannot be a continuation of the Bible, to me at least, and you are very sure of your assertionThus it is of no surprise to me that there are no inspired prophets and apostles today, receiving revelation from God and communicating it to humanity. That last happened when first John the Baptist, then Jesus, and latterly the early disciples, preached and recorded the gospel accounts and associated writings, over a mere 40 years or so
Can all those Muslims be wrong?? And if so, why aren't Christians wrong?
I read a couple of Ian Ranking books during my holidayas. The parts of Edinburgh described are uncannily correct. Of course, I don't believe there is an Inspector Rebus....but who am I to say?
Fatuous, I know, but reading the pamphlet, who's to say the same didn't occur in the Bible?
Other Comments by Goldy
1459. Comment #69048 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Geraint, Steve99: Thanks for your comments. I did have a laugh at "SH". My wife claims that her own initials are visible too, including multiple instances of the first letter.
I don't intend to pursue this topic much further, apart from responding briefly to:
The real flaw in your reasoning is to assume that because there are uncertainties in the models (and there are!), this is any reason whatsoever to bring a biblical God into things.
...
Any attempt to invoke an initial designer is simply incorrect science.
You seem to misunderstand what I am trying to do; I am sorry if you came to that notion from what I've said recently in this sub-thread, since I didn't intend to convey it. I don't infer the existence and character of God solely from specific scientific observations, nor would I suppose I could persuade you of it from the same source of information. I am persuaded that Yahweh is real for other reasons I will briefly summarise, and thus I am only seeking to make sense of those observations (whose details I do not doubt, but whose interpretation is the crucial point at issue), in relation to my belief in the God of the Bible.
What are my reasons for that belief? They are based on far more directly observable things than the specialised data being sent to earth from expensive and complex pieces of technology out in space. They are concerned with what the Bible says, and how that relates, even after the passage of 2000 and more years, to the present state of the planet we live on. This in multiple respects:
+ Firstly, the existence of life itself, in all its vast variety, very beautifully but delicately balanced in relation to the physical environment, strikes me as demanding far more careful consideration than (e.g.) RD gives it in TGD. He calmly appeals to one version of the anthropic principle, layering it with a handy factor of arbitrary myriads of universes, coming and going, either simultaneously (which I think is somewhat to reinterpret the "multiverse" notion, at least in how it is normally applied in quantum-level models), or sequentially, implying effectively infinite time (whereas cosmologists seem rather unclear about time and a "beginning" for it: could time even exist "before" the Big Bang?). This he does without batting an eyelid at the sheer scale of the unprovable assumptions he needs for that approach, whereas if a believer in creation posits instead a God of supreme power and understanding, he is waved away with the complaint that such a God is infinitely complex, hence infinitely improbable, and hence can't possibly exist.
+ Secondly, as I discussed a little in response to newatheist recently, the question of consciousness and mind. OK, again you would say I getting into "Gaps", but it seems to me that evolutionary theory doesn't have any obvious place even to begin to discuss how or why we possess minds at all, far less minds capable of the staggeringly complex tasks we do without apparent effort, yet take so much for granted. By contrast, Genesis 1 says that humankind was made "in the image of God", implying that we are given some (albeit limited) measure of the capabilities of the creator; I see the mind, and more particularly, human intellectual capabilities, as part of what that description is about.
+ Thirdly, the utterly unique nature of the Bible text (NB, I am not referring to mystical numerology, or coded messages). I've not said much about it on this thread before, and it would take a while to lay out the various aspects of this factor in my thinking, but I wanted to mention it here, for completeness.
+ My last class of reason, and in my view the most directly confirmable one, concerns Biblical prophecies, particularly in relation to (not just ancient, but ongoing current) developments in international politics, centrally over the Middle East. At some point I'd like to get back on to this topic. If Quetz is reading this, I have always intended to develop this aspect of Bible prophecy in one of the instalments I promised him, and began to deliver (but did not finish) long ago, in answer to his request.
To get deliberately from the Big Bang to mankind would involve an extremely interventionist God.But that is exactly the nature of the God of the Bible! Though objectionable and frustrating to anyone seeking to model a simple smooth progression in the state of things, to reach the level of complexity in structure we observe around us (though cosmologists seem now to accept the need for rather violent acceleration at one point, i.e. inflation), the Bible describes a God who exercises power in ways that imply total and immediate control of the very fabric of the universe we are part of. Though this is principally focused at the time of creation, it records plenty of other disruptive events that cannot be consistently explained through only natural processes (despite liberal Christians' desire to remove miracles from its pages). So you and I agree in a way on this point!
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1460. Comment #69052 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Lee: you are still owed a response from me. I intend it to be the next comment I post here.Everyone else: sorry, you'll have to wait...
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1461. Comment #69085 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Firstly, the existence of life itself, in all its vast variety, very beautifully but delicately balanced in relation to the physical environment, strikes me as demanding far more careful consideration than (e.g.) RD gives it in TGD. He calmly appeals to one version of the anthropic principle, layering it with a handy factor of arbitrary myriads of universes, coming and going, either simultaneously (which I think is somewhat to reinterpret the "multiverse" notion, at least in how it is normally applied in quantum-level models), or sequentially, implying effectively infinite time (whereas cosmologists seem rather unclear about time and a "beginning" for it: could time even exist "before" the Big Bang?). This he does without batting an eyelid at the sheer scale of the unprovable assumptions he needs for that approach, whereas if a believer in creation posits instead a God of supreme power and understanding, he is waved away with the complaint that such a God is infinitely complex, hence infinitely improbable, and hence can't possibly exist.
Wow! Such a lot of misunderstandings. Hard to know where to begin.
Firstly, multiverse ideas are anything but arbitrary. The different ideas of multiverses are very well defined, as would be the distributions and types of multiverse. Also, your idea of 'time' is seriously off. Our understanding of what time is has changed beyond recognition in the past century. Ideas of 'a time of creation' or 'eternity' are naive and simplistic. We know of situations where time can arise spontaneously, with no need for a creator, and we know how time can be stretched or shrunk. We can also describe the properties of Universes with more than one time dimension. And contrary to what you say, the existence or otherwise of these parallel universe is indeed subject to experiment, including future studies of particle physics and the cosmic microwave background.
I find it really sad when people reject scientific options through seriously incomplete knowledge of them - when many religious people talk of physics, it can be positively painful - the equivalent of listening to someone claim that the flatness of the Earth can only be explained by God.
Secondly, you are confusing the complexity of life with the supposed complexity of the universe. We know full well how complexity can arise from simplicity, and it is entirely reasonable to reject out of hand a hypothetical complex being that is far more complex than a universe which, when left alone, could produce what we see unaided.
but it seems to me that evolutionary theory doesn't have any obvious place even to begin to discuss how or why we possess minds at all, far less minds capable of the staggeringly complex tasks we do without apparent effort, yet take so much for granted
Don't trust any argument that starts 'it seems to me' :) Evolutionary theory can explain in great detail why we have minds, and why we can do what we do. We can see all the stages of mind development reflected in creatures alive today, from the simple reactions of flatworms, to the largely instinctive behaviour of amphibians and reptiles, through to the ability to plan and predict the thoughts of others seen in mammals, apes, and even some birds. It is a beautiful story. I am sad for you if you can't or won't see it.
Other Comments by steve99
1462. Comment #69191 by Mark Taunton on September 9, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Lee:First up, a brief comment on your post 1562 about stars, from my earlier comment to newatheist. I'm sorry, I shouldn't really have put the (f) in front of that last part of the paragraph in which I asked the questions, since it did not have the form of a question and wasn't intended as one, just as an observation. So you spent a lot of time working on something you needn't have, all because I typed 3 characters without thinking carefully enough about them. Again, sorry!
However, I'd like to just clarify one thing:
I really did mean "interact with us", and "day-to-day"; I wasn't thinking about origins or such-like, and even navigational use is a rather specialised form of "interaction" (in the sense I was thinking of that word), and is certainly not, nor has it ever been, "day-to-day" for the majority of us. What I was trying to convey, but evidently failed to, can be captured by the following silly scenario: if tomorrow the distant stars (not the sun) and starlight, as observed on earth or in its vicinity, were simply to disappear, normal human life and activity, in practical terms, would be almost totally unaffected – life could continue pretty much as it does today. Of course, a certain frenzy amongst astronomers and those connected with that subject, rapidly spreading to the rest of the population, would soon engulf our global society - how could such a thing happen? - what does it mean?! But that simply highlights what I am getting at – the stars, day-to-day, matter much more to our minds than to any physical aspect of our activities as human beings.
But enough on that subject. My next post will deal with your comments about the Tyre prophecy, though I won't promise exactly when it will appear.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1463. Comment #69215 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 3:12 am
Hi Mark, You are getting a real workout here. Theo is back not a moment too soon.I just want to comment some points here
Firstly, the existence of life itself, in all its vast variety, very beautifully but delicately balanced in relation to the physical environment, strikes me as demanding far more careful consideration than (e.g.) RD gives it in TGD
One problem here is that environments change and species go extinct (although change can drive speciation) Natural selection accounts for adaptation. Before we pick this up, it would be helpful if you could tell us your understanding of the way natural selection works, and how important it's role is in shaping organisms - that should make sure we know where each other stands on the subject.
Also, what is your view on the idea that all animals were vegetarian before the fall? How do you fit adaptation into this, when T rex or Carcharinus megaladon were clearly adapted to predation, as are lions today. What about parasites that can live in no other way than on or in the bodies of other animals?
What about soft water fish, such as the Discus? These would not survive a global flood - they can be hard enough to keep alive in well maintained aquaria. How could they have adapted to soft water and survive the flood?
but it seems to me that evolutionary theory doesn't have any obvious place even to begin to discuss how or why we possess minds at all, far less minds capable of the staggeringly complex tasks we do without apparent effort, yet take so much for granted. By contrast, Genesis 1 says that humankind was made "in the image of God", implying that we are given some (albeit limited) measure of the capabilities of the creator; I see the mind, and more particularly, human intellectual capabilities, as part of what that description is about.
This seems somewhat circular, in that you are using thebible to define reality. However, we have given you some reasons why our mind gives us an advantage. As has also been pointed out, other animals can solve problems too. It seems that you decide - without giving justification - that humans are the cut off point of what constitutes being made in the image of god (again circular). You claim that we are given some limited capabilities, but so then are octopi abd squirrels. Would you claim that they are made in the image of god too?
Again, we come to the who created the creator argument. It is circular reasoning to say that he always existed, because you have decided that he exists. Moreover, without the bible, you cant argue against a created creator. I personally thing the fact we dont know does not provide a reason to believe in god. I could be anything and our current knowlegde is so limited. To me, it is a god of the gaps arguement.
Other Comments by BillySands
1464. Comment #69221 by LeeC on September 10, 2007 at 3:32 am
Hi Mark,I'm sorry, I shouldn't really have put the (f) in front of that last part of the paragraph in which I asked the questions, since it did not have the form of a question and wasn't intended as one, just as an observation. So you spent a lot of time working on something you needn't have, all because I typed 3 characters without thinking carefully enough about them. Again, sorry!
No problems – I had time on my hands then at work and I enjoy thinking and writing about astrophysics, so it was a pleasure really – even if a waste of time.
if tomorrow the distant stars (not the sun) and starlight, as observed on earth or in its vicinity, were simply to disappear, normal human life and activity, in practical terms, would be almost totally unaffected – life could continue pretty much as it does today.
Not so sure – I think I would be signing up to which ever religion predicted it… this would be a miracle worth writing about. So there will be a lot less atheists in the world.
Of course, a certain frenzy amongst astronomers and those connected with that subject, rapidly spreading to the rest of the population, would soon engulf our global society - how could such a thing happen? - what does it mean?!
The return of Jesus! That what it could mean!!! As signs go – this would be a BIG ONE!!!
Where do I signed up? A family ticket to heaven please!
the stars, day-to-day, matter much more to our minds than to any physical aspect of our activities as human beings.
I agreed to that in my first reply… if for whatever reason we could not see the stars (a dense dust cloud somehow surrounding us a lightyear away (erm?) then the animals (including man) would have used a different method to navigate at night.
However, the stars ARE required for our existence (if you follow my science based logic) and so stars will always be seen when advanced lifeforms lookup into night sky (could bore you with the details of winds from supernovas and stars if you like?)
So, the stars are present, and life on Earth can find a rather good use for them.
I pointed out though in my first reply that the observations we see in the universe puts more questions on religion than it does science.
So many WHY questions created BY religion that are unanswered – unless of course you believe in God and do not question His reasons.
Lets not dwell on it now as you say… so many posts. Lets try and finish this "Tyre prophecy"
Cheers
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1465. Comment #69225 by LeeC on September 10, 2007 at 4:10 am
Hi Billy,Yep - I to hope Theo comes back soon, for one it will help Mark out a little, plus Theo was more into the debate on life forming and all that. (Although Theo says we have to wait until February – it is getting as bad as waiting for Jesus himself returning!)
As for the Noah Flood - I think I remember Mark saying that the animals were vegetarian; this is why the lion did not make the zebra extinct after a midnight snack...
It does cause a bit of a problem though… even if the lion was a veggie. What plants can they eat? Under 3 or 4 miles of water for 6 months all plant life will be dead.
The bible stories just cause problem after problem for the theist to explain. Which was the main point of my last post (and post 1562). "Religion creates more questions than answers."
Another example of the question raising bible is one verse I posted before… it is another of my favourites (I have a lot now due to all this reading of the bible and this thread)
Can anyone else spot the physical issues if God actually did this?
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Joshua 10:13
(New International Version)
I can list a few… but of course a true theist would tell me God could do whatever He likes, and this would be true… however a theist cannot explain why nobody else in the WHOLE world noticed it and through to write it done.
A brief list of issues and I see them?
Stopping the Earth spinning – (Not easy to stop a planet spinning at around 1000 mph, just try hitting your breaks while driving at 70mph and "feel" what happens)
Toastie burnt Earth one side… cold Earth the other.
This also will have a great affect on the weather – it is the temp difference that causes all those nice strong winds!!!
However, even if God "fixed it" so all was good on the Earth – why didn't the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese or whoever NOT notice the Sun and the Moon were not moving for a WHOLE 24 hours and write it down?
Maybe I just don't understand the passage.
Mark, can you help briefly on this one when you have time? (Not that important)
Have I just misunderstood this passage as I normally do by reading it out of context?
Cheers
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1466. Comment #69228 by Philip1978 on September 10, 2007 at 5:07 am
Lee, That has got me thinking, I hear all these stories about how the earth stopped, how the dead rise from graves, how it goes dark when it shouldn't, how the world suddenly floods because The Lord Thy God is not best pleased with something. My question is why isn't it happening now?
It seems to me from my Bible readings that God was involved with the earthly goings on in a more "hands" on way ( Does God actually have hands?) than he is these days. Can anyone remember the last time the Earth stood still or people being charged with His work actually parting rapidly flowing water to escape the nasty people or bringing back people from the dead etc.
Nothing happens on a Biblical scale any more, life would be a lot more exciting, you know, having the LORD THY GOD pitch up in the most dramatic fashion of His choosing, telling you its time to raise folk from the dead or something like it.
Then again, my Tea does taste better now that I worship The Mighty Quetz. Plus He did charge his Prophet Billy to go forth and do great things with His one and only Lab Coat...ahhh all is not lost! Praise be to Quetz!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1467. Comment #69230 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 10, 2007 at 5:32 am
Phillip, I suppose it depends on who you listen to. Some say that the floods in England this year are down to the decline in morality of the country, Katrina was God's vengance against a Lesbian, the little tykes that managed to survive the christmas tsunami were attributed to god (so long as we ignore all those people god couldn't be arsed to save) and best of all is 9/11, with both sides (muslim and evangelical) declaring that it was an act of god.That last one has me wondering why evangelicals can be pissed off with the muslims for 9/11. Surely if it was gods divine punishment for the lack of morality in America, then the muslims were only carrying out gods intended plan. So the evangelicals should actualy be thanking the muslims for their efforts. Wierd, no?
Of course, there is a perfectly good explanation for why it would appear that god no longer has that much to do in the world, but there's no religite in the world that would accept it for a moment.
Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy
1468. Comment #69242 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 6:20 am
Hi Lee,The whole sun stopping thing would have made sense to the Hebrews. To them the universe was geocentric. The sun was though to have 3 winows that allowed it to enter the sky and three that allowed it to exit. The position of these accounted for the seasons. If you have time, read 1Enoch. That goes into more details about Hebrew cosmology. In fact, Jude quotes from this book as though it were inspired. How wrong could god have been?
Here is one of my favorite strange verses:
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
— Judges 1:19
Think what they could have done to god if they had Panzer VIs or Daleks
Other Comments by BillySands
1469. Comment #69248 by pewkatchoo on September 10, 2007 at 6:57 am
So, rather than being omnipotent, god is actually impotent against chariots of iron. Nice one god, you can cause floods and all sorts but you can't spike the odd chariot. Sorry but I am not impressed! Next please. Ah, Mr Zues isn't it! So what is your speciality? Other Comments by pewkatchoo
1470. Comment #69255 by Philip1978 on September 10, 2007 at 7:43 am
Pewkatchoo, dont bother with Zeus, he like Mohamed, was a paedophile and was more interested in shagging around with the other female goddesses and fathering many offspring, Hera had a lot on her plate after marrying him I tell you!His favourite punishment I think was sticking old Prometheus to the cliff to have his liver eaten out by an eagle every day until Heracles kindly saved him! ( I personally think Terry Pratchet wrote a better story about how he really got saved!!)
Stick with Quetz, he is the best of all the gods by far!
Cheers, Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1471. Comment #69258 by epeeist on September 10, 2007 at 7:55 am
Comment #69242 by BillySand
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
— Judges 1:19
Seems eminently reasonable to me, these were presumably bronze age people who may have come across others with iron weapons.
There are a number of cultures (think Celtic) that have similar sorts of legend.
Cold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."
Other Comments by epeeist
1472. Comment #69259 by pewkatchoo on September 10, 2007 at 7:56 am
Fair enuff Philip, I bow to your superior knowledge on Zues. Now, how is Mr Quetz on dealing with iron chariots? I guess the feathers could gum up the works! Other Comments by pewkatchoo
1473. Comment #69263 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 8:17 am
Philip,Good old Zeus, he used to like shooting his bolt and getting virgins pregnant. One such child was Dionysis who could turn water into wine and returned from the dead.
As Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." (First Apology, ch. Xxiv)
Anyone else thinking ripoff? (and I'm not referring to a cheap circumsicion here :-) )
Other Comments by BillySands
1474. Comment #69264 by Philip1978 on September 10, 2007 at 8:27 am
Chariots vs the Cloned army of Quetz? No contest, the lasers mounted on the Falcons alone would melt the Iron! Epeeist, good point, they were using iron in the Middle East by about 1200 BC, would that have been in time for the Old Testament? Sorry, my history on the OT is a little hazy
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1475. Comment #69265 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 8:28 am
Seems eminently reasonable to me, these were presumably bronze age people who may have come across others with iron weapons.
Actually, that is another problem, not only is God not then omnipotent*, this all supposedly happened in the middle bronze age. Probably what was happening was the Jewish propaganda machine were saying that they were going to wipe out their enemies, then they failed. I believe later they put it down to idol worship or something, but god did clearly say that he would give them the promised land. I think something similar happened to gods promise to make solomon's desendents sit for ever on the throne of David. There has been no such king since Zedekiah's reign ended in 587/6 BCE. Again the bible writers had to make excuses for gods unequivocal promise being broken. Will need to look into this more.
* Something struck me recently. Is it possible for god to make square circles or make 2+2=71 while keeping the values the same? Therefore, there are somethings he cant do.
Other Comments by BillySands
1476. Comment #69392 by LeeC on September 11, 2007 at 4:57 am
Hi Billy,Something struck me recently. Is it possible for god to make square circles or make 2+2=71 while keeping the values the same? Therefore, there are somethings he cant do.
Could God tell us the last digit for Pi?
The best I've found is
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...
Better still God could make Pi equal just 3?
It would make Maths a lot easier... (erm, probably mess up a lot of physics, but it would be fun)
And thanks for the bible quote... I'm adding it to my list.
I guess it is a bit like Superman and his kryptonite... our hero has to have their limits otherwise there will be no cliffhanger story.
For God it appears to be Iron?
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1477. Comment #69398 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 5:47 am
Better still God could make Pi equal just 3?
Strange you should mention that Lee, according to the word od god, Pi does indeed = 3 http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html#pi
Praize Quetz for he put this question in your mind. Lets have some Assam
Other Comments by BillySands
1478. Comment #69450 by Philip1978 on September 11, 2007 at 9:36 am
Ok, I might rant a bit here, so be warned this might be a long one!This Anthropic Principle business, ok, I am going to be hideously wrong at this but bugger it, I want to give it a go! So, at one point in the history of the universe there happens to be events that were perfect for creating not only the Universe but later on, in the unfashionable end of the spiral arm of the galaxy, the Earth. Gas mixed with gas, chemicals tumbled into each other, the temperature was right etc It fell into place from simple beginnings into more complex beginnings as time wondered on. Had all this happened without lets say the right gas or star blowing up or something to that effect, this could have all gone tits up and no Planet Earth, right?
Now this is based on stuff from the 5% of the Everything that Lee was talking about earlier, yes?
Right, so here we have a universe kaboomed (my technical term!) into existence because the settings were just right if the universe was going to go about doing this sort of thing. We even have have a planet that was plonked( getting good at this!) in the path of a nuclear fireball some 93,000,000 odd miles away that is the right length for helping all the wonderful things that happened to get life up and running, yes?
Evolution also strides in and helps back up the origin of life from simple things to more complex as time wonders on, stop me if I am barking up the wrong tree here!
This has all been worked out, a sort of best guess we have now until a better one arrives that is more workable, by what was OBSERVABLE already. By putting observable in capitals, I am talking about that 5% stuff I mentioned earlier.
Right, so how on Earth does God get top billing for all this?
God has not been observed any more than the Loch Ness Monster or Russell's Tea pot and there is not a single conceivable way that she/it/he can be observed by the means we have today or ever as some theologians would have it. The only way to observe THE LORD THY GOD is to simply have "faith". The only possible and conceivable way God can exist at all is because Humans can make him do so by imagining He does.
It has been observable throughout human history that not just one God has popped up claiming property rights to the Universe, especially planet Earth, and how they went going about making it. Theories ranging from Odin creating the world out of his newly carved up dad with his two brothers to this one from the Greeks, a classic if ever I heard it
"In the beginning there was only the infinite space known as Chaos. Inside this void was a single creature, Nyx, the bird with black wings. She laid a golden egg and for ages sat upon it. When it finally hatched, out came Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose up to become the sky, and the other half became the Earth. He named the Earth Gaia and the sky Uranus. Eros then made them fall in love."
You have to admit these are pretty wild statements and I think we can all see why this stuff eventually became legend and myth because it was simply very silly. Humans learned things about their environment, started working out how things that happened were not actually the Gods they had made up but simply common sense shoved out all the fantasy involved in it. Bloody great stories though, I will give them that, keeps me entertained for hours on end.
So from that observable evidence, it is possible to see humans can make up some wild assertions without having any evidence, which is later explained by humans who have tested the wild assertions and come up with better and more logical solutions to problems.
Therefore the Anthropic principle makes sense to me because it is based on all the available evidence, it could jolly well be wrong, but there it is, its a good starting block. One day we might be lucky to actually figure it out better with more observed evidence and Gods will be moved further back into the legend area. Gods are great, magnificent figures, very good for literature and anthropological studies etc. How then are they great for explaining how the universe works?
I rather hope, through all this waffle I have made my point that at least science is making its wild and probably inaccurate for now statements in the hope that we can learn something cool about the universe! Gods do not, cannot, will not be anything other than fiction, I hope I gave good enough examples of just how wild things can get. Claiming and basing all evidence on the origins of life because a book, finally completed after much argument near the end of the 2nd century says so does not make sense to me. (Of course after the 2nd century it was then edited, re-translated, lost, found, hidden in jars and found again so many times before it even enters the English language and then gets meddled with again throughout the middle ages and so on...!) Doesn't that sound just a tad dodgy? You see humans from all over the place, with this book and that book, claiming they have been hearing the voice of a deity and that they wrote down his words into a book for all to read and adhere to. Look at Mormons, how the hell they feel for that one I really can't fathom!
Mark you say the bible is the inspired word of God but can't you see that other people have also been inspired to write books about gods that are so similar to yours its untrue. Don't you think that the story about the Earth stopping in its diurnal course just so some humans can smack the crap out the enemy is a bit like having a huge bird lay an egg in space to create the universe? Why is it I can laugh tons when thinking about how Douglas Adams wrote a story about a group of people who believed the universe was sneezed out of the nostril of a being called the Great Green Arklesiezure and that the day of judgement is referred to as the "coming of the great white handkerchief"? How is that any different from Jesus pitching up one day on his fiery chariot and telling me off for being a naughty heathen? Surely basing the evidence on something at least tangible and workable is better than using the more unknown and impossible to explain it all, isnt it?
Sorry, I have wiffled on for far too long, truth be told I got bored at work doing overtime!
If this makes any sense to anyone, cheers, tons for reading it, but I just needed to get that off my chest and get back to that lovely cup of Assaam that Billy and Quetz just inspired me to drink!
Cheeeeeeers!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1479. Comment #69464 by Quetzalcoatl on September 11, 2007 at 10:52 am
Tried to comment last night but it wouldn't let me! But no mere Internet glitch can stop the Word of Quetzalcoatl! If only I had something to say...Mark (1613)-
glad that you still remember your promise! In a debate, things have a habit of getting side-tracked, so I'd half forgotten about it as well. I look forward to reading it.
Philip-
I would not even use the falcons on the chariots. Firstly, the chariots would be wrecked by divine fire, also known as space-based weaponry that I've been working on lately. Then my army of human-crab hybrids would harvest the metal and use it to build more machines unto my Purpose. Recycling is important.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
1480. Comment #69516 by Goldy on September 11, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Philip, I once tried to use the other creation myths as an example of biblical cribbing - I was told I was wrong because they cribbed off the Bible - it IS the word of God, after all. Bah! Oppenheimer in his Eden in the East suggests he came across the same.Mark, please, just answer one question. Why is Mohammed not a prophet of God? Why stop at the NT? You said there were too many questions to answer, I understand that, but surely this can count as an easy one....interesting though having found a city that didn't really disappear might be....
Other Comments by Goldy
1481. Comment #69619 by Philip1978 on September 12, 2007 at 12:33 am
Goldy,That cant be true if you and Oppenheimer were told others were cribbing off the bible, the Greek and Egyptian legends alone are centuries behind the bible. Plus how then do you explain all the other religions that popped up because they had never heard of Christianity, that's why the Norse mythology worked so well its because Jesus and God hadn't got that far yet. Unless God was seeing how different guises worked out I still can't see Christian God of the Bible being any more real than Ossiris or Jupiter, looking at the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the story of Ossiris alone convinces me some sort of cribbing went on.
Quetz, my apologies oh mighty one, I just thought it would be cool seeing the Falcons in action but your Divine Fire sounds way better, I like the recycling part as well!
Hurrah!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1482. Comment #69626 by Goldy on September 12, 2007 at 1:23 am
One would have thought so, Philip, one would have thought so. Ah well, who says any of this makes any sense. Our lack of faith is incomprehensible to the deluded and we can't understand this faith in what's not there. Odd, odd, odd!Trying this tea thing - have to drink less beer and gin. T'was indigestion and maybe a bit of spinal lurgy brought about by flying 20000 km in Emirates economy class but I thought it was a heart attack - my left arm became all tingly adn numb! So, tea. Japanese green tea with roasted rice. Not too sure about it - should have stuck to bamboo shoot tea. Like an amputee, I have an itch I can't scratch :-( Oh for a wee slurp of gin....
Other Comments by Goldy
1483. Comment #69627 by hungarianelephant on September 12, 2007 at 1:32 am
Billy - You don't need God to make 2+2=71. The church can do that for you.Since the Trinity exists, 1+1+1=1, right? Which means, by a few simple substitutions, that 2+2 can equal 71, or indeed any natural number.
Possibly.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
1484. Comment #69628 by Goldy on September 12, 2007 at 1:34 am
Yep - all you need is faith :-DOther Comments by Goldy
1485. Comment #69651 by LeeC on September 12, 2007 at 3:38 am
Thanks Billy,Wow… God is better than I thought, he can make the universe look 13.7 billion years old, yet only be 6,000 years plus change the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter… What a guy?
This verse is being added to my list.
Hi Philip,
Glad to see your interest in Physics is taking hold… like it.
Now this is based on stuff from the 5% of the Everything that Lee was talking about earlier, yes?
WOW, am I making a difference? Physics is fun.
This has all been worked out, a sort of best guess we have now until a better one arrives that is more workable, by what was OBSERVABLE already. By putting observable in capitals, I am talking about that 5% stuff I mentioned earlier.
I will add as well, but you are doing very well on your own that "we" also think the 25% dark matter of the universe had a big help with the formation of galaxies… (It certainly holds them together and so it can be inferred by its interactions via gravity on light and matter) - sod knows about the dark energy stuff, but this has only started to make an influence "recently" on the universe and not on the galaxy scales.
Right, so how on Earth does God get top billing for all this?
Maybe "Earth" is a clue – God is a man-made invention to help "explain" the unknown, give purpose to life and create order in the community. Why doesn't the bible discuss the wonder of the universe – it seems pretty poor to lump all the amazing sights seen via the Hubble space telescope under "and the heavens"
Don't you think that the story about the Earth stopping in its diurnal course just so some humans can smack the crap out the enemy is a bit like having a huge bird lay an egg in space to create the universe?
All makes sense to me - I think I like the egg creation story better though… just as much evidence for it remember (i.e. none) and of course the same evidence against it (science)- so they are equal.
Egg creation WINS!!! Just because it sounds better…
Must go..
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1486. Comment #69910 by newatheist on September 13, 2007 at 6:39 am
Hi all - While the wait continues for MT to return with his answers for earlier posts, I thought I'd help him out by doing some research about my question for him. I went to BibleGateway.com and searched up "stars". An explanation for the scale of the universe? Well it did mention stars and sand!
Genesis 22:17
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies."
Psalm 147:4
"He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name."
Nice. 10^23? This one is Fred, this one is Kenneth…
But check this out from the big G. Love? Oh yeah! By the way, spot the "stars"…. [Dodgy cut and paste warning]
Isaiah 34 2 The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy [a] them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
3 Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.
6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in Edom.
7 And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.
8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
9 Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
Ezekiel 32:6-8 6 I will drench the land with your flowing blood
all the way to the mountains,
and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.
7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens
and darken their stars;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon will not give its light.
....mummy!
Other Comments by newatheist
1487. Comment #70060 by Mark Taunton on September 14, 2007 at 12:19 am
Lee: As promised, here's my response to your most recent post on the Tyre prophecy (1524).
(Just by the way, do you doubt that I am actually posting this in fulfilment of my earlier promise, despite deliberately not specifying a time and date when I would do so? If you do, please explain why. If not, then please do not raise the complaint that "God didn't say when the fulfilment of Ezekiel's prophecy would happen"!)
Anyway, down to business…
Shall we bullet point some bits and see how it matches reality?Certainly…
make you a desolate city… no longer inhabitedYes it is. As I believe I can show, it's also true.
So no one should be living in Tyre any more – this is very clear.
It says Tyre just before this verse – not the piece of land currently known as Tyre, or the town that looks like Tyre… Nope, it is talking about Tyre.Indeed it is; therefore we must make sure that in reading the prophecy and working out what it's about, we identify Tyre as exactly the Tyre Ezekiel meant. How can we do that? A name by itself may not, and in this case definitely does not, uniquely identify a place (there's a couple of "Tyre"s in the USA and he certainly didn't mean those, but you couldn't tell from the name alone!). So how can we be clear about it?
Identifying "Tyre" in Ezekiel 26
Whatever and wherever Tyre was, it logically must have matched the description Ezekiel gave of it, which is quite detailed. At time of issuing the prophecy, Tyre was clearly a standing, occupied, well-defended, wealthy city. Ezekiel speaks of various elements of its physical make-up: walls, towers, soil (= dust, can also mean plaster used in houses); it had fields where Tyre's "daughters" were (though whether that means actual women working in agriculture, or possibly associated rural settlements, is not 100% certain). He mentions that Tyre had gates and streets, there were of course people living in it, and it had various standing images of religious significance (KJV: "garrisons"). Lastly (v12) we are told of its wealth: its riches and its merchandise, and its "pleasant houses". All in all, Tyre was clearly a significant place: prosperous, strong, evidently in an agricultural setting. (Of course the following prophecies by Ezekiel add a lot more information about it, but we'll not concern ourselves with those for the moment.)
So far so good, but we still don't really know where it was, apart from the mention of fields, which says a little about its geography, but doesn't give an actual location. However, note that that detail does tend to preclude the idea that by "Tyre" Ezekiel meant the nearby island which later went under that name. Plenty of other aspects do too. The main reason to reject the possibility that "Tyre" as Ezekiel describes it is the island, is in how Nebuchadrezzar is predicted to lay siege to it. This includes a number of specific means: in the words of the KJV: "mount" (earth-ramp), "fort" (probably a siege tower), "buckler" (?), and "engines of war" (battering rams or other mechanical means to attack the walls). I'm not knowledgeable about the specific details, but without doubt it was to be a seriously heavy assault. However, the key point is that all these military techniques were regularly used against cities on land, where the military engineers could bring their technology up to the walls. They were all totally unusable for an attack against a fortified island half a mile offshore! E.g. you clearly can't build an earth-ramp at sea, it will just get washed away. So for sure, the Tyre Ezekiel is prophesying about was on the mainland.
To be clear about this distinction in respect of the remaining phase of the prophecy (verse 12 in particular), we need only turn to the historical accounts of what happened in 332 BC when Alexander the great arrived. It is reported by more than one ancient writer exactly how he conquered the island of Tyre. To do so, they say, he demolished Palaetyros ("old Tyre"), and used the rubble from it to make his causeway to get to the island, which was by that era counted as ("new") Tyre. Until that was accomplished, he hadn't laid a finger on the then-current Tyre – the one on the island – but he certainly had a drastic effect on old, i.e. original "Tyre", the one on the mainland, the one Ezekiel was talking about, by physically deleting it!
"A desolate city ... no longer inhabited"
The curious thing is that those reports also say Alexander used tens of thousands of soldiers and local people to implement his enormous civic-demolition/haulage/causeway-construction project. At the start of it, old Tyre was evidently still standing, but there is not a whisper of any complaint about it being knocked down – the locals just do the work. But if they (or at least some of them) were destroying their own houses and city, would it all have gone so smoothly? Would there not have been something of an industrial dispute or civil war to deal with? There is no word of such a thing. The clear implication (which academic historians have also made in analysing this, it's by no means my own idea) is that Palaetyros was by that time abandoned, uninhabited, and therefore the entirely obvious source for a large (very large!) volume of solid materials with which to make a 200-feet wide causeway, over half a mile long and varying from 3 to 20 feet in depth. While once it had been a populous city, something must have changed since the time Nebuchadrezzar first arrived to besiege it. What had happened? As other students of these events have independently concluded, old Tyre had by Alexander's day become desolate and uninhabited; and that was exactly what Ezekiel predicted!
(As an extra detail, the word for "desolate" in the verse you cite is the same word originally used by Tyre in gloating against Jerusalem (verse 2 "she is laid waste"). So God is bringing a fitting judgement on Tyre: as she delighted in Jerusalem's woes, she would be treated in that same way herself. Jerusalem was latterly attacked by Nebuchadrezzar, and lost its population – though only for a finite period. Old Tyre evidently suffered similarly, but without the prospect of a subsequent return of its people and its life.)
Why did that happen? We don't have any direct testimony that I know of. But presumably the Tyrians, after Nebuchadrezzar finally left, abandoned their original city site, and re-established themselves and their defences on the island instead (despite significant inconvenience: – they were very cramped, for one thing, and water was a big issue – the island has none of its own). I reason that the physical scale and severity of the 13-year Babylonian attack on the former Tyre had left it beyond viability as a defensible home. They must have lacked the resources or the will power to undo all that he had done in order to finally break in. After all, his conquest showed any future attacker that that Tyre could be defeated, despite its previous apparent strength. So the island must have seemed a better bet in that regard, and by all accounts they did all they could to increase its defences: one ancient writer says that in the time of Alexander, the eastern (land-facing) walls on the island fortress were 150 feet high!
Anything else requires interpretation – therefore not clear – therefore someone has to bend reality to fit the document – much easier to say it is just wrong.No reality bending is needed. The evidence of the later historical events fits the prophecy precisely.
bring the ocean depths over you…vast waters cover youCertainly! Firstly, where did the substance of old Tyre end up? In the Mediterranean, in the sea channel between former island and mainland. That's exactly where the material of the city still is, some 2,338 years later. The waters indeed covered what was left of the Tyre Ezekiel spoke of, as its broken walls and buildings were deposited, stone by stone, into the sea. And it's never come up again, either, else Tyre would once more be an island, but of course it isn't. A secondary sense of these words, also applicable, is that the "many nations" who would perform the destruction of the city are described as being "brought up" by God "as the sea causes its waves to come up" (verse 3), so they themselves are explicitly compared to the "great waters" as they washed up over the abandoned ruins of Tyre, and swept her and all her substance clean away.
A flooded city? – Vast waters!!! Very clear – any evidence for this, or his this part of the prophecy just been ignored? It also seems to mean Tyre should still be under water, any evidence?
bring you down with those who go down to the pitNot at all. The area is indeed known for both earthquakes and consequent tsunamis – evidence for that has been found quite recently. But actually in terms of Ezekiel's language here, he is using a very common form of expression in the Bible for death – going down to the pit, i.e. the grave. That's certainly the direction Tyre went in, downwards. And she was certainly dead, in the sense of ceasing to have any existence as a city, just as death and the grave are the cessation of life for individual human beings.
Now this is just plain weird, and seems to go against the earlier statement of flooding – maybe this area is known to flood and to have earthquakes, so the writer is just saying both, in the hope one turns out true? Edging his bets so to speak.
make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pitAgain a common Biblical way of speaking – Ezekiel uses this sort of description in other places too, speaking of the end of various foreign powers. It comes particularly in contexts of poetic judgement against kings destined to lose their throne and die ignominiously. Also again it is physically apt for a city that was to sink into the mud of the sea-floor as its pieces were dropped in by the labourers toiling on the mole.
Wow… the city actually goes under ground… below the Earth… cool. Very clear – any evidence – or just another interpretation?
you will not return or take your place in the land of the livingBut it does! Where is old Tyre today? Nowhere! I did a lot of research on its whereabouts, and even eminent modern historians just give up on the question – they simply don't know for sure where it stood, so effective was the work done in removing it. Various tentative suggestions of particular sites are made, but one way or another none of those I looked at fits the case. Old Tyre, the city this prophecy was made against, simply does not exist anymore, nor will it ever exist again, I believe. Nebuchadrezzar began the job, and Alexander's myriads of sweating labourers saw it through to the end, all those years ago.
So sounds like the city will never been seen by any living soul after this battle of battles… excellent… shame it does not match history.
bring you to a horrible end and you will be no moreYou're keen to assert vagueness when discussing Bible prophecy, but that's not the character of this prophecy at all! You say "almost any battle", but it's not: the prophecy is specific to the stark future for Tyre, a particular and well-known city in Ezekiel's day, with particular characteristics, then standing in a specific location. That grim prognosis involved firstly onslaught by siege by a specific king (Nebuchadrezzar) of a specific nation (Babylon), and hence within a specific limited time-period (his reign). This was to be followed by a final and permanent demolition job, to be performed by the collective action of several different nations, in which the city, in an utterly unprecedented event, is completely and utterly removed, never thereafter to be restored. As I've shown, that is exactly what happened. The original city, which became known as "old Tyre" (to distinguish it from "new Tyre" on the island), suffered exactly the doom prescribed by Yahweh's prophet, Ezekiel.
Well, any end would be horrible – so this is just words, like most of the prophecy. It could be talking about almost any battle if you ask me.
(And by the way, though one or two have mentioned it, the destruction of Carthage is not a precedent, since it occurred considerably later still, long after Ezekiel uttered this prophecy. Moreover, the nature of that latter city's ruin seems almost to have been modelled on Alexander's treatment of Palaetyros. If that was intentional (or even if not), it would of course be most fitting, since Carthage was itself an offshoot from old Tyre; it is recorded that Carthaginian representatives were present on the island during Alexander's siege, though apparently he let them live when he finally conquered it.)
You will be sought, but you will never again be foundI dealt with that one already – the point is simple. What I found is not a city, just a location where I believe there once was a city. The original Tyre, Palaetyros, was wiped off not just the map but the surface of the earth. It has gone and will indeed never be found again. Even its substance is no longer readily locatable; the original causeway is now submerged under much silt and sand, such that it's not known exactly where it began and ended. Although geoarchaeologists have taken cores there, they don't seem to have pinned down the original path of Alexander's great mole. The only thing we can say is that it's sunk into the bottom, below sea level, and of course below ground level. "Six feet under" would seem most apt (but it may well be deeper)!
Now this is the important bit on our current debate. "never again be found". However Mark found it… Excellent.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
1488. Comment #70062 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 12:32 am
As promised, here's my response to your most recent post on the Tyre prophecy (1524).
Does anyone else remember the 'ancient astronaut' craze in the 70s fueled by authors such as Von Daniken? When all sorts of random facts were carefully massaged into the story that people wanted to hear?
If so, does anyone else get the same kind of feeling about the amazing creativity of the human mind reading this prophesy stuff?
Other Comments by steve99
1489. Comment #70068 by Philip1978 on September 14, 2007 at 1:16 am
I get a very weird feeling when reading bits form the bible, and not just the prophesiesI quite liked Psalm 147:4, I rather think thats an honourable way to pass one's time as a God but as for the Issiah and Ezekiel, well really, thats a bit off in my opinion! THE LORD THY GOD has said nothing about clearing up the mess or turning the lights back on afterwards! What is it with big G and his son when it comes to animals, they seem to get in the way all the time when wrath or justice is being dealt out. Oxen seems to be big G's target, big J is all into sending pigs off on marathons to go jump off cliffs. Ok , I am no vegetarian but even I find that a bit wasteful!!
Mark, heres my question for you...when you have time you poor boy, actually, I throw this one out to the others who used to believe as well, as a Christian reading the Bible, how does/did this make you feel?
I dont just go looking for the bad bits in the bible but some of it strikes me as utter madness. I think this is one of the reasons I can't quite grasp the idea of this being a God inspired book. Obviously this is a little like quote mining and possibly taken as a whole book rather than just sentences it might be better, I really don't know.
All that gumph (another technical word!) in the Old Testament makes me positively ill, for example Genesis 22 Abraham nearly bbqing his son then going on to live an extraordinarily long, and lets face it naughty, life with his wife. Or Moses's second job as Gods ombudsman and estate agent in Deuteronomy 9. Even Jesus has his odd moments whilst saying to his disciples, if you are going to follow me, sell all you have, Mark 10:21, or the even more weird Luke 14:26, where in order to be His disciple hating your family and your life is the way forward.
I would then start to get worried if people really started following passages like Matthew 5:29 and actually gouging their eyes out or cutting off any other limb that "causes you to sin"!
I mean flipping heck, this is not right surely or am I really looking at this in completely the wrong manner. I read books like The God Delusion and I do what I can to infer its meaning, I have done the same with the Bible and if this really what the author intended I am sorry but it is all shades shapes and sizes of wrong. My most studied subjects in life were English and History, being able to look at something and see if I could ascertain the author's motives etc. I cant cope with all this "because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes" Deuteronomy 13:18. Or "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him" Luke 12:5. Its all so harsh! Faith seems more like an inflicted punishment rather than a life fulfilling joy!
Oh shit, I have been ranting again, apologies all, I will get back to learning about physics, its safer and less scary!
cheers,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1490. Comment #70073 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 1:48 am
Philip I too have been swotting up on science - so that I don't only get to play in the arty debates. Plus I hate it when I can't understand what people are saying :-(
You might enjoy John Gribben's Science: A History. Doesn't just lay out scientific arguments, you also get lot of fun anecdotes about famous scientist's escapades.
Barking mad most of them....
[Ducks and runs off]
Other Comments by Corylus
1491. Comment #70076 by Goldy on September 14, 2007 at 2:28 am
Well, gosh and golly. Almost Danikenesque, as Steve has it. Of course, we are assuming that it is Tyre, all of Tyre and not parts of Tyre that were totally gone and that they would not have gone without development or natural decay (Bath springs to mind...but then it isn't Aquae Sulis anymore, as you'll point out. Then again, London isn't Londinium, Eboracum also changed it's name and I didn't go to Ratea University...). Only thing to someone like me is....Tyre is still there. Not Tyre, US or Tyre, some other place, but Tyre with the island and the causeway and the suburbs surrounding it. As for old Tyre being demolished without complaint by the locals for Alexander....hellooooo, who were they to argue? "Nah, sorry, Alex old chum, but I still live here!"Now, about that last part of the prophesy...
I dealt with that one already – the point is simple. What I found is not a city, just a location where I believe there once was a city
I do believe you said it would never be found again. Well, if it's all destroyed no one would ever find it. Hell, even if it was still there no one would ever find it as strangely enough cities change over millenia. Hell, cities change over decades! Look at Shanghai. You can't tell me Leicester isn't Leicester because the developers have been busy over the last 40-50 years and gotten rid of all traces of old Leicester. If that were the case, then I was not at Leicester University but merely at the site of Leicester. Given how much the unversity had been changed since becoming an institute of higher education, I was not even at Leicester University! If you found the site of old Tyre, then you found old Tyre.
You will be sought, but you will never again be found
In short, I believe I have found the site of the original city of Tyre, based on satellite imagery.
So, if it was never to be found - and from this I am assuming city, remains, site - everything about old Tyre is erased TOTALLY - then how did satellite imagery help? Obviously something of olf Tyre was there to be seen adn you found it. That, despite your protestations, means the prophesy is broken. Bend words and meanings as you will, I will not be convinced (as I'm not convinced Tyre is gone even today)
Now, while I have your attention, you mentioned earlier how prophets and God's favoured mouthpieces stopped at the NT. Not so, I said, what about Mo in sunny Arabia? God spoke to him (indeed, the Koran is the inerrant word of God, as I'm told). Why your reluctance at accepting this (seeing as you readily believe one tome is the word of God). I had a trawl through all the posts and found this
Comment #12425 by Mark Taunton on December 12, 2006 at 1:01 am
I've not looked at the Quran (though I'd be very interested to), nor any Hindu texts
Hmmmm. Mind you, you did say you read the book of Mormon - another farcical piece of literature designed for gullible minds. So, back to my question - you believe in the word of God, yet deny the more recent words of God. Why? Not reading it is not really an excuse - you, by your silence, suggest to me that you deny it is the word of God.
Other Comments by Goldy
1492. Comment #70077 by Goldy on September 14, 2007 at 2:32 am
Speaking of Erich von Daniken, I loved his interpretaion of the first chapter of Ezekiel. Mind you, how does one interpret this?Ezekiel 1
1Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
2In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,
3The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
4And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
11Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.
12And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went.
13As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.
14And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.
15Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
20Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
21When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
22And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
23And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
25And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
27And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
Other Comments by Goldy
1493. Comment #70078 by Philip1978 on September 14, 2007 at 2:39 am
What the hell is that???The moral of this story is, don't take hallucinogenic substances as it alters the chemistry of your brain, sometimes irretrievably!
Here endeth the lesson!
I think I will bounce off and learn about mad science and its history, cheers Corylus!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
1494. Comment #70098 by Mark Taunton on September 14, 2007 at 4:31 am
Goldy: A city has walls, houses and other buildings; people, activity, etc. - does it not? The location I have found lacks all of those things. Therefore it cannot rationally be considered a city now, any more than (to repeat my previous direct analogy) a carpet, or the flattened marks in it that show where a piece of furniture previously stood, are actually the piece of furniture. But in view of the evidence from the satellite photo, I claim that Palaetyros did indeed once occupy that site, though unquestionably it is not there today. The fact of and reason for that are well-docu
1451. Comment #68926 by newatheist on September 9, 2007 at 6:24 am
Why did God make stars "more numerous than the all grains of sand on earth" just so he could have one tiny flyspeck planet on which to "set up his kingdom"? My theory, by the way, is it's because people didn't know how big the universe was 2000 years ago when they wrote this stuff, and they thought the earth was freaking huge.
Why is the Bible so short on true post biblical prophecy about the threats to belief from science, rationalism and secularism? Where is it foretold that science would encroach upon belief in God? Never mind the divergence and corruption of the faith: why didn't God warn the believers to watch out for Dawkins?
Anyway like I said, just ignore me if you want. I'll read on.
Other Comments by newatheist