[re: whether Jesus' instant healing power contradicts the theory of relativity]
Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would Isaac Newton and most great scientists.
As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful
48 comments
Oh my God, the amount of fail in those two lines is staggering.
Your Conservative Bible nonsense isn't a "translation," it's just you and your crock of idiots replacing words with other ones that you prefer.
Oh, and Hume's religion or lack thereof is irrelevant to his credibility.
The Bible is 100% more powerful than the theory of relativity. Just ask anyone who has had an infestation of short-leg demons. If you've got a short-leg demon, Heridgipafk is the well known one, I challenge you to ask a relativityist to get rid of it. The relativityist might strap a mini atom bomb to your short leg perhaps, or may try sending your socks through the light barrier, but it just won't work. On the other hand go and visit a fundamental cultist, get the fundie to organize an exorcism and the fundies will soon have your short leg growing to match your other leg. You might be covered in spittle, bruises, broken bones, cuts, drool, dribble and cum etc, but at least your legs will be matching.
(who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity)
And Schlafly is supposed to be a Harvard-educated attourney?
Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists.
That's completely ass-backwards. The Bible should be validated against science not the other way around. The Bible is a book meanwhile science is observed reality. If we did things your way, we'd reject reality on the basis that it doesn't have elves like the Lord of the Rings does.
If so, I completely disagree. And so would Isaac Newton and most great scientists.
Actually, most scientists don't try to validate observed reality against scripture. Some may believe that sometimes the two coincide, but that's different from what you're suggesting.
As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing
Well my translation project reveals that Jesus is a giraffe. Don't blame me, it's the translation that reveals this.
Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs.
He's breaking the laws of physics. That goes way beyond mere signs.
Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs.
Making a blind man see by rubbing mud on his eyes, turning water into wine, and raising someone from the dead would be miracles. But since I don't believe they ever really happened, it's just a fairy tale.
And so just how is the re-writing of the bible going?
Read the gospel of Mark - Jesus won't perform many miracles, and he's rather cagey about his reasons not to. But by the time you get to John, a much later gospel, he's become a master magician. Prescribed reading: Any of Bart Ehrman's books or The Evolution of God.
Yeah, Andy, if you don't like what it says, just "retranslate" it or redefine the words. If you don't like what a person says, call him an atheist. If you can't win the fight - CHEAT.
@TGRwulf
Revelation 22:18-19 warns about adding or removing things from "this book of prophecy."
You could take that to mean the entire Bible, however Revelation wasn't written with the knowledge that it would be included as part of a larger book, called the Bible. It was meant to be a stand-alone book.
I'm not sure of the chapter and verse, but I'm dead certain that the Bible expresly forbids things like the Conservative Bible Translation; essentially altering it's 'unchanging, immutable truth' to better fit a secular political ideology. Hell, the LOLcat bible would be more accurate a translation than this thing.
So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful
Yeah, and Hitler believed the sky was blue, so we shouldn't believe that, either!
Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
"As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing..."
The moment you utter those words, the rest of your point is mook.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
