EPT
Bible Required Curriculum - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water. While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface. Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through. 1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. The world does not move. why doesn't it move? Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses. Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this. I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this: ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44ev6Q8AhCw/RlDzZJz_ZJI/AAAAAAAAAug/Wk9Qh0ayqdM/s400/Cosmology2.jpg) There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown. Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was? | ||
|
Lebesgue
4542 Posts
On August 19 2009 07:25 shidonu wrote: The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant. Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics? | ||
|
shidonu
United States50 Posts
On August 19 2009 07:45 Lebesgue wrote: Can you tell me what you understand by Keynesian economics? I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject and describe in any great detail Keynes' theories. However I can look at certain aspects of the theory and see that those ideas are still quite popular. The most obvious of which is of course government intervention. The idea that at a time of economic downturn the government should step in and spend money was introduced by Keynes. I don't know if Keynesian theory exists any more in academia(although I find it hard to believe that it doesn't) but to say that it has not been used since the 70s is absurd. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 18 2009 14:58 benjammin wrote: so wait, you are saying that information presented to you with the claim of making you a better, more sensitive doctor may have had underhanded intentions of (hell, i don't know) turning you gay? is that what you're saying? I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors. Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc. (....and makes medical students watch gay sex) | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 19 2009 07:44 Mindcrime wrote: So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water. While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface. There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through. The world does not move. why doesn't it move? It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses. There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this. I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this: Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was? I am an agnostic atheist. The translation for circle is any round geometric shape and it used in ancient Hebrew as a round object either in 2 dimensions or 3. I guess there's no water in the sky, hm? I guess clouds are made of cotton candy and rain is gumdrops? Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26 : 7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.". "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up. I honestly think you're blindly following people who have no other purpose than to disprove the Bible and so pick it apart using only the portions that, when taken out of context, disprove it. It's the same as blindly following a religion that picks the Bible apart to use just the parts they can explain. But the Bible is cohesive despite both sides. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:26 Savio wrote: I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors. Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc. (....and makes medical students watch gay sex) But you liked it, right? :D Also, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:26 Savio wrote: I'm pretty sure the thought was that watching gay sex would somehow make us better doctors. Or perhaps she just wanted a highly educated, influential group of people to be exposed to it in hopes that watching gay sex would make us support gay marriage. I'm not sure as to her reasons. All I know is she is the type that gets all vehement in a political discussion, is very liberal, and attends protests, etc. (....and makes medical students watch gay sex) so is your argument then that information presented with the aim of improving the education of a student in some capacity could be used for an ulterior ideological purpose? gee, where have i heard that argument before... | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:39 NExUS1g wrote: I am an agnostic atheist. The translation for circle is any round geometric shape and it used in ancient Hebrew as a round object either in 2 dimensions or 3. This is the word used and sphere is not included in any definition of the word. As I understand it, there was not a word for sphere in old Hebrew, but they had a word for ball. I guess there's no water in the sky, hm? I guess clouds are made of cotton candy and rain is gumdrops? There's no water above a dome over us. Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26:7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.". Same book: Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up. A canopy is a rooflike structure and that is not what the universe is. The universe is not our roof; it surrounds us and we a part of it. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
The Bible CANNOT be perfect due to multiple layers of translations and figures of speech that existed in ancient cultures/languages we do not have now but tried to translate anyway. Not being perfect, however does not mean it is not scripture inspired from God. So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:51 Jibba wrote: But you liked it, right? :D Also, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? lol, its been a long time. I started my clinical rotations and was working WAY too much to post anything worthwhile. I am on 2 week break now followed by 2 months of family practice which is only 5 "half-days" a week, so I should be posting a lot more. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
The picture depicted is Thalean cosmology, not Mosaic, probably established five centuries before cosmology began as a form of philosophy. From a perspective of textual analysis, the Torah said very little about cosmology. Anyhow the picture itself is nonsense: the pillars here depicted contradicts the biblical description, even if you took all hagiographical writings literally. Another problem. Chronicles is depicted as saying the earth stood motionless, yet in the same chapter, it depicted trees singing for the joy of God. A better depiction of OT cosmology, if you think it's really necessary to map a thing, is probably provided by late-medieval cosmology of nine spheres under the empyrean heaven, the last representing the "water" above the firmament. However, that cosmology was the heir to Greek/Arabic astronomical philosophy, and is merely an inferred depiction of OT cosmology. The ancient Hebrews may have believed something like it. They certainly did not have the same cosmology as ourselves, however by divine irony, their scripture can still be interpreted to coincide with the naturalistic description of the universe. God writes straight for crooked lines. The OT is less historical than the NT, and the Torah may even sit on the murky boundary between history and mythology. Its priciple values don't apply to the natural sciences. There will always be apologists for the precision of the scriptures, but precision is beside the point. Goethe once pointed out that the highest problem of all art is to produce by illusion the semblance of a higher reality. One might add that this problem is not limited to art, but to all human intellectual endeavour. It's in religious knowledge that we aspire to reach the highest reality of all. Much of the accessible is sacrificed to pursuit of the inaccessible in mythological and theoretical thinking. | ||
|
Lebesgue
4542 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:06 shidonu wrote: I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject and describe in any great detail Keynes' theories. However I can look at certain aspects of the theory and see that those ideas are still quite popular. The most obvious of which is of course government intervention. The idea that at a time of economic downturn the government should step in and spend money was introduced by Keynes. I don't know if Keynesian theory exists any more in academia(although I find it hard to believe that it doesn't) but to say that it has not been used since the 70s is absurd. Unfortunately current gov't spending is more the result of huge lobby groups than any economic theory behind it... The original idea to fight the crises was orientated on the money side of economy. Because of the turmoil in the financial markets the supply of broad money decreased substantially. In effect economy started shrinking. There was not enough money in circulation. Hence the idea to pump up the large quantities of money into the economy. For the same reason all the major banks received credit from FED. And for the same reason, it was suggested to buy all the bad loans from the banks which were currently holding it. So the initial action undertaken was very far from what Keynes and his followers would suggest to tackle the crises, i.e. mainly boost the demand for goods as Keynes believed it was the demand side of economy which is responsible for the economic recessions. The fact that government bails out now other companies and started lots of weird programs I would attribute to social pressure (car industry) and various lobby groups. Economists are largly against most of those programs as they perceive them (correctly) as a waste of tax-payers money. There is no evidence that those programs will make any difference. Going back to current stand of economics, I would stand by the claim that Keynesian economics as followed in the post-war period doesn't exists. It was based on three fundamentals, IS-LM model, AS-AD curves and Phillips curve. It was widely believed that government could use fiscal policy to prevent business cycles. As such those theories were abandoned in 1970s with an emergence of new economic phenomena called stagflation. Keynesian economics had pretty simple solution for the economic problems, if there is inflation cut government spending to decrease money supply growth and if there is unemployment increase government spending to boost demand and so create the demand for labour. However, in 1970s major economies experienced simultaneous inflation and unemployment sth that their main theoretic models could not explain. As a result, Keynesian economics was abandoned and the attention was shifted to the supply side. Note that these days the main instrument to fight the recessions is through monetary policy (interest rate, expanding monetary base) and not through fiscal stimulus. There is however a school of macroeconomic thought called New-Keynesian. They support Keynes views on the labour marker and pricing policies, do not however support his views on stabilization of economy. These economists believe that there are market failures in the economy and that they are responsible for the economic fluctuations, namely wage stickiness, menu costs and real rigidities (i.e. price stickiness). I asked you what you mean by Keynesian economics simply because different people have different definitions. For me Keynesian economics is the one that suggest using fiscal policy as a main tool to fight recession. Modern macroeconomists would suggest using monetary policy to fight recession with very modest fiscal stimulus from government at most. Also Keynesian economists suggested negative relationship between inflation and unemployment (this is not due to Keynes himself but it was developed and fully used by post-war Keynesian economists). Currently it is recognized that such relation may hold, if at all, only in a short run. There are modifications to the original Phillips curve, so-called New Keynesian Phillips curve but it focuses on the relation between inflation, expected inflation and output. So yes, Keynes ideas are still alive, Keynesian economics not so much. | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. So there was water on top of the sky on top of yet more water. While the NIV translation is "expanse," other translations, both old and modern, use the word "firmament," which is a solid surface. Genesis: 7:11-12 (NIV) 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. There were floodgates through which the previously mentioned "water above" could flow through. Because rain's exactly like pouring water? Or do you think it's more figurative? If I say it's pouring outside, I don't mean it's literally being poured out of a bucket. I couldn't imagine if someone says, "It's raining cats and dogs" in front of you. 1 Chronicles 16:30 (NIV) Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. The world does not move. why doesn't it move? Psalms 104:5 (NIV) He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. It can't move because its stuck on its foundations or "pillars" in other verses. Isaiah 40:22 (NIV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. There are people that are sure that the Bible is inerrant and that the word "circle" there must therefore be a mistranslation. But circle is indeed the correct translation. The earth according to the Bible is a flat circle that rests upon a foundation and the "waters below" and is covered, as by a tent, by the heavens, and there are waters above this. I'm going to stop there, but there are many, many more verses that say these things. Psalms in particular contains a large number of them. The picture that they paint of the world is one that looks like this: The only reason you can take those quotes literally is if you completely ignore the quote I made that said God hung the Earth on nothing. Given the absence of evidence, how likely do you think it is that the united kingdom that David and Solomon ruled over was as great as the Bible says it was? If there is no evidence, I can't make an educated determination. This is the word used and sphere is not included in any definition of the word. As I understand it, there was not a word for sphere in old Hebrew, but they had a word for ball. The ancient Hebrew language did not have a word for sphere. Ball =/= sphere. "Duwr" is an object, "chuwg" is a geometric term. There's no water above a dome over us. No, there isn't. It doesn't say that either. You seem to think that translation is a linear process. Same book: Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Your assumption that the Earth is somehow on a pillar is discounted by the second part of Job 26 : 7 NIV, "...he suspends the earth over nothing.". You can't just disregard lines that do not agree with your theories. "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I suppose we don't live in the Universe? I'm not sure why you bring this up. A canopy is a rooflike structure and that is not what the universe is. The universe is not our roof; it surrounds us and we a part of it. Yes, it surrounds us and we live in it. Kind of like a tent, wouldn't you say? It's all around and we live in it. Ancient Hebrew did not have a term for infinite space. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 10:10 NExUS1g wrote: If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess". Are you going to blame semantics again when you reread this and realize how laughable this statement is? You have serious fucking problems with understanding inductive reasoning. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 19 2009 10:10 NExUS1g wrote: I am an agnostic atheist. If there is no evidence, there's a lack of information to make an educated decision or even a "best guess". You're retarded. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:54 Savio wrote: The religious debate here trying prove/disprove the bible is ridiculous. The Bible CANNOT be perfect due to multiple layers of translations and figures of speech that existed in ancient cultures/languages we do not have now but tried to translate anyway. Not being perfect, however does not mean it is not scripture inspired from God. So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something. You're missing the point. The only record of the events in the Bible is the Bible itself. This is hardly evidence. Claiming that the authors, whomever they were, to have been inspired by God begs the question, as it assumes God's existence, the very question we're debating by assessing the legitimacy of the Bible. If there is no way to independently, objectively verify the claims made in the Bible, then it is presumed to be unreliable, and thus not satisfactory evidence for use in a debate. And again, the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. Prove your God is real and I will not only "believe", but I will KNOW it to be true. You can present evidence, which I can attempt to disprove or discredit, but I cannot prove the negative. And it doesn't matter, because I don't have to. The burden is on you to prove that there is a God. Apply the Scientific Method to proving there is a God. I'll do this from the perspective of a 15th century peasant. Observation - Huge bolts of light come out of the sky when the weather is bad. Where do they come from? Theory - God is doing it. Evidence - My only evidence is my observation of the light coming from the sky, and what it does when it hits something - it blows stuff up and burns stuff. Does this evidence prove the theory? Certainly not. No more than the Bible proves there is a God, or that JK Rowling proved the existence of Hogwart's school. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 19 2009 08:54 Savio wrote: So if someone is thinking that finding some little inconsistency (like arguing the meaning of the word "firmament"...its just retarded since the original author did NOT use that word and the text has been translated many times so arguing it is pointless) is going to disprove the existence of God, they need to....learn to think or something. Disproving the existence of "God"? Is that what you think I was writing about? You need to learn to think or something. | ||
|
afg-warrior
Afghanistan328 Posts
On August 17 2009 15:46 motbob wrote: That's not the issue here. Even if there were lessons like that, it would technically still be discriminatory against all the various other religions. If you say teaching about only 1 religion is bad, you can't say that teaching about the "big three" is any better. although i'd agree, i'm assuming you meant big three in terms of population. judaism isn't in the top 3 when it comes to the number of people following it. | ||
| ||
