God is impossible.. Long read but good!!

[MajikMyst]

First Si--

the arguement I made was not for or against a God, but against the purpose of the Religion given the definition of a God that Defies logic.

That is a significant difference than "Proving god exists or not" which is what you are suggesting.

The God could exist. Just that the religion that purposes it is unnecessary or bogus. I was pointing out that an arguement using the Abrahamic God to show that God is an impossibility is a waste of time. The question of an Abramic God based on the religious claims leads to absurdities because the justification of the religion is absurd. There is no way to make a case for or against the GOD using the religions claims. Thus the question of a Abrahamic God existance becomes unverifiable. There is no measurement nor claim that can justify or deny it.

Actually, you said, "For Faith, logic is thrown out to save it!!"

You said nothing about religion in that to qualify it in any manner.

Anyway, atheists who use logic as an argument that a deity does not exist, make me laugh because there is no logic in that argument, as I said.

Well, if you believe in a God that defies logic, then that is up to you Si.

The only problem with this is that the Faith, in order to justify itself, has to throw out logic to save itself. Maybe I am confusing Faith and Religion. OH WAIT--FAITH IS RELIGION, there is no need to quallify it!

The demand to qualify comes from Christians demand to qualify beliefs that disagree with theirs.. The demand to prove he doesn't exist.. The arguement of 'Well? What if your wrong?' If faith is all you need then why can't Christians let others have their faith.. Even if it differs from theirs?? Why is there this struggle to determine who is part of the religion of truth?? Or the 'There is only one true religion.' statement Christians love to make.. Actually all religions make that claim.. But that is where the demand for qualification comes from.. You think your religion is the only true religion?? Prove it!!

Personally, I would be content if all religions could simply accept eachother and the fact that not all people have faith in the same things.. It is truly mind blowing how many arguements that we have in society and on these forums that pit the religious against the nonreligious..

 

[Diuretic]

Try being an agnostic - we get contempt from everyone!

 

[MajikMyst]

I'll stick with the church of the Flying spaghetti monster!!

A god you can prove and see for yourself in every bowl or plate of spaghetti..

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Christians are so jealous!!

 

[Diuretic]

I'll stick with the church of the Flying spaghetti monster!!

A god you can prove and see for yourself in every bowl or plate of spaghetti..

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Christians are so jealous!!

Pah, carbohydrate worship

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Whatever you need to tell yourself is fine by me.

I don't need to tell myself anything.. But the point stands.. Christians constantly demand that others prove that god does not exist.. Never do they make the same effort to prove he does..

So? Here is their chance.. Prove he exists..

How would you explain the Bible, which was written roughly 2000 to 3000 years ago, being scientifically accurate? You can find statements that are consistent with known scientific facts and I'll list some and the chapter and verse where the statements can be found. Statements about paleontology (Job 40: 15, 41:1), astronomy (Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22), meteorology (Ecclesiastes 1:6, Job 28:25), biology (Leviticus 17:11), biogenesis (Genesis 1:11,12), anthropology (Job 30:5,6), hydrology (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13), geology (Jeremiah 31:37) and physics (2 Peter 3:10).

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical in Isaiah 40:22. How many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago? Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science. (Genesis 7:11, Job 38:16)

Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called “Christus,” which means “The Messiah”) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

 

[Diuretic]

What's that got to do with the proof of the existence of God?

The Bible is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces lifted from elsewhere and dropped in place hundreds of years after an event. It was never written 2000 years ago, it has been compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The KJV is a lift from Tyndale's Bible and it was Tyndale who tore it from the hands of the clergy and the King and gave it to the common person, even though it cost him his life.

Anyway it would be interesting to read those bits you pointed out. And don't tell me to get stuffed and find them myself. Just pick a couple and all of us can have a look.

 

[MajikMyst]

Job 40: 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

You are claiming that supports the scientific accuracy of the bible?? That??

Job 41:1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Did you actually look these up before writing your post? Or where you hoping I wouldn't??

Neither of those passages has anything to do with paleontology which is the study of fossils.. Unless you are making the assumptiong that behemoth and the leviathan were dinosaurs?? For all I know one could have been an elephant and the other a whale.. It is doubtful they were dinosaurs as they didn't have the knowlege of fossils yet to even know what one is.. And I would expect from a biblical stand point that the bible would have a name for such a creature other than behemoth and Leviathan.. Besides, knowlege of dinosaurs would have been mentioned in genisis during creation.. There is certianly no scientific accuracy there.. If you really want me to, I can look up the others. I am affraid to at this point cause the first one was so laughable..

Speaking of Genisis..

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.

Shall I continue or do you get the point??

The bible is anything BUT scientifically accurate..

Rabbits don't chew there cud and bats are not birds.. Both claims made in the bible..

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What's that got to do with the proof of the existence of God?

The Bible is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces lifted from elsewhere and dropped in place hundreds of years after an event. It was never written 2000 years ago, it has been compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The KJV is a lift from Tyndale's Bible and it was Tyndale who tore it from the hands of the clergy and the King and gave it to the common person, even though it cost him his life.

Anyway it would be interesting to read those bits you pointed out. And don't tell me to get stuffed and find them myself. Just pick a couple and all of us can have a look.

When was the Bible written? And please provide evidence and a link if possible.

When the bible written and who wrote it.

Do you have evidence that refutes any of this?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Job 40: 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

You are claiming that supports the scientific accuracy of the bible?? That??

Job 41:1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Did you actually look these up before writing your post? Or where you hoping I wouldn't??

Neither of those passages has anything to do with paleontology which is the study of fossils.. Unless you are making the assumptiong that behemoth and the leviathan were dinosaurs?? For all I know one could have been an elephant and the other a whale.. It is doubtful they were dinosaurs as they didn't have the knowlege of fossils yet to even know what one is.. And I would expect from a biblical stand point that the bible would have a name for such a creature other than behemoth and Leviathan.. Besides, knowlege of dinosaurs would have been mentioned in genisis during creation.. There is certianly no scientific accuracy there.. If you really want me to, I can look up the others. I am affraid to at this point cause the first one was so laughable..

Speaking of Genisis..

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.

Shall I continue or do you get the point??

The bible is anything BUT scientifically accurate..

Rabbits don't chew there cud and bats are not birds.. Both claims made in the bible..

Yes both of those are in fact dinosaurs. Another fact is camels do not have hooves, but if you insist it they do then it would be of interest to note that the "hoof" is not completely divided. Rabbits and hares practice "refection", which is essentially the same principle as "rumination", and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.

 

[Diuretic]

What's that got to do with the proof of the existence of God?

The Bible is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces lifted from elsewhere and dropped in place hundreds of years after an event. It was never written 2000 years ago, it has been compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The KJV is a lift from Tyndale's Bible and it was Tyndale who tore it from the hands of the clergy and the King and gave it to the common person, even though it cost him his life.

Anyway it would be interesting to read those bits you pointed out. And don't tell me to get stuffed and find them myself. Just pick a couple and all of us can have a look.

When was the Bible written? And please provide evidence and a link if possible.

When the bible written and who wrote it.

Do you have evidence that refutes any of this?

Did you see where I said it was a "compilation"?

There was the Hebrew Bible, which I assume is that collection authored by Moses, Joshua, Samuel et al. Then there's the Greek Bible, the one authored by the Apostles. All translated from the original languages into Latin by scholars. Then translated into English (which since it's my mother tongue is the one I'm concerned with) by Tyndale. Tyndale gave the Bible its tone that we know today, he translated it and in doing so put his own stamp on its language and because of that it's meanings and interpretations. The language in the KJV is full of Tyndale's phrases.

No need for a refutation, your link just clarifies my point, which is good.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What's that got to do with the proof of the existence of God?

The Bible is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces lifted from elsewhere and dropped in place hundreds of years after an event. It was never written 2000 years ago, it has been compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The KJV is a lift from Tyndale's Bible and it was Tyndale who tore it from the hands of the clergy and the King and gave it to the common person, even though it cost him his life.

Anyway it would be interesting to read those bits you pointed out. And don't tell me to get stuffed and find them myself. Just pick a couple and all of us can have a look.

When was the Bible written? And please provide evidence and a link if possible.

When the bible written and who wrote it.

Do you have evidence that refutes any of this?

Did you see where I said it was a "compilation"?

There was the Hebrew Bible, which I assume is that collection authored by Moses, Joshua, Samuel et al. Then there's the Greek Bible, the one authored by the Apostles. All translated from the original languages into Latin by scholars. Then translated into English (which since it's my mother tongue is the one I'm concerned with) by Tyndale. Tyndale gave the Bible its tone that we know today, he translated it and in doing so put his own stamp on its language and because of that it's meanings and interpretations. The language in the KJV is full of Tyndale's phrases.

No need for a refutation, your link just clarifies my point, which is good.

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

 

[Avatar4321]

When was the Bible written? And please provide evidence and a link if possible.

When the bible written and who wrote it.

Do you have evidence that refutes any of this?

First, I wouldnt trust Matt Slick farther than I could throw him.

Second, I do have evidence that calls into question the Book of Deuteronomy for one. I find it difficult to believe that Moses wrote the part saying he died. Likewise, i think one can logically question who wrote the Gospel of John based on the last few verses there (though personally I do believe he wrote most of it).

The history of the Bible is not as clear cut as youd like to think. Thankfully Christ is perfect. I, for one, am glad that we are supposed to put our faith in Him rather than put our faith in the Bible. Some people seem to forget that the Bible is just a tool to help us come closer to Christ. It isn't God. It isnt infalliable. it doesn't claim to be. It claims to be the witnesses of a few choice people who wrote testimonies according to their own experiences with God.

Unfortunately alot of people have a problem just trusting God. They would rather trust their own understanding of God. which is exactly why the Bible gets exalted the way it does, rather than be seen as the tool its supposed to be

 

[Avatar4321]

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

You seem to be talking past one another. He was right. The Bible wasnt written 2000 years ago. As you yourself have said, some of it was written 3000 years ago.

In fact, the Bible was never intended by the original authors to be one single volume. It was just compiled later on by the Church. Each Book/Epistle was intended to stand on its own.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

You seem to be talking past one another. He was right. The Bible wasnt written 2000 years ago. As you yourself have said, some of it was written 3000 years ago.

In fact, the Bible was never intended by the original authors to be one single volume. It was just compiled later on by the Church. Each Book/Epistle was intended to stand on its own.

I took his/her statement to mean that the bible was written more recently than 2000 years ago. I used two to three thousand years as an approximation and not as an exact date. (See post #45) There are books are as you call them epistles that haven't been included in what we now know as the Bible, one book in particular that I found to be interesting was the Book of Enoch. If I'm not mistaken Enoch was Noahs grandfather.

 

[Diuretic]

When was the Bible written? And please provide evidence and a link if possible.

When the bible written and who wrote it.

Do you have evidence that refutes any of this?

Did you see where I said it was a "compilation"?

There was the Hebrew Bible, which I assume is that collection authored by Moses, Joshua, Samuel et al. Then there's the Greek Bible, the one authored by the Apostles. All translated from the original languages into Latin by scholars. Then translated into English (which since it's my mother tongue is the one I'm concerned with) by Tyndale. Tyndale gave the Bible its tone that we know today, he translated it and in doing so put his own stamp on its language and because of that it's meanings and interpretations. The language in the KJV is full of Tyndale's phrases.

No need for a refutation, your link just clarifies my point, which is good.

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

No it wasn't written, it was compiled. That was my point. The spread of dates you provided shows that process.

 

[JW Frogen]

In fact, the Bible was never intended by the original authors to be one single volume. It was just compiled later on by the Church. Each Book/Epistle was intended to stand on its own.

I want some of the drugs John of Patmos was on. Book of Revelations was really the first rock n roll.

 

[Diuretic]

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

You seem to be talking past one another. He was right. The Bible wasnt written 2000 years ago. As you yourself have said, some of it was written 3000 years ago.

In fact, the Bible was never intended by the original authors to be one single volume. It was just compiled later on by the Church. Each Book/Epistle was intended to stand on its own.

I took his/her statement to mean that the bible was written more recently than 2000 years ago. I used two to three thousand years as an approximation and not as an exact date. (See post #45) There are books are as you call them epistles that haven't been included in what we now know as the Bible, one book in particular that I found to be interesting was the Book of Enoch. If I'm not mistaken Enoch was Noahs grandfather.

I'm a "he". My previous post was written before I had a chance to read Avatar's posts, which I have to say were illuminating, and yours here. One thing I don't want to do is contradict people who know more than I do about the topic at hand. So, my previous point about "compilation" should not be seen as having the tone of rebuke about it, it was just a clarification of my own point. I should have realised the date issue was important but I was focused on "compilation".

Personally I think the Bible's history is very interesting.

Unfortunately I know little about it except that Tyndale was executed for producing an English Bible, one that could be read by "ploughmen" (those who were literate in English anyway). The clergy and the King wanted the knowledge of the Bible to stay with them, in Latin, once it was translated by Tyndale it became available to everyone who could read English. Anyway that says more about the English clergy and the King than it does about the Bible.

 

[froggy]

Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

Remainder HERE

The rules of fair use require links to, and prohibit the posting of, another's original material in entirety.

~Dude

you ask what did god do before this. he had a world of animals, known to you as DINOSAURS.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Did you see where I said it was a "compilation"?

There was the Hebrew Bible, which I assume is that collection authored by Moses, Joshua, Samuel et al. Then there's the Greek Bible, the one authored by the Apostles. All translated from the original languages into Latin by scholars. Then translated into English (which since it's my mother tongue is the one I'm concerned with) by Tyndale. Tyndale gave the Bible its tone that we know today, he translated it and in doing so put his own stamp on its language and because of that it's meanings and interpretations. The language in the KJV is full of Tyndale's phrases.

No need for a refutation, your link just clarifies my point, which is good.

You stated it the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago. Fact is and my link shows that all of the Old Testament was written well over 2000 years ago. The Torah is over 3000 years old and this can be proven by tracing its existence back through history and seeing that it existed in the time of Moses and Joshua. Parts of he New Testament was written as early as 40 A.D. which again is over 2000 years.

So since you refute the facts then please provide evidence that shows the bible "was never written 2000 years ago".

No it wasn't written, it was compiled. That was my point. The spread of dates you provided shows that process.

You are an idiot.

Tell me what exactly was compiled? Hmm.....books? And were these books "written? You seem to want to play word games instead of having an honest discussion. Fact is the Bible contains information that was written over 3000 years ago that scientist have just discovered in the 20th century.

Case in point:

If you’ve ever read the story of Job in the Bible, you are probably aware of the fact that Job was extremely wealthy and had a great family. But, tragedy struck and he lost his wealth, his children and his wife. To make matters worse, Job was reduced to excruciating pain, and was eventually covered with sores from head to toe. All this was too much for Job, and he eventually accused the Lord of being unjust. God didn’t answer Job’s accusation directly. Instead, He began to ask Job a series of questions and one of these questions demonstrate perhaps the most amazing scientific truth in all of scripture:

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31-32)

Now God makes a statement about three stellar constellations, and as we examine these, we’ll see that science has only recently confirmed something that God told us a long time ago. First let’s take a look at what God says about Orion: 'Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?' God is talking specifically about the three stars that form the belt on the Orion constellation. These three stars appeared to be fixed on our sky, rigidly aligned to form a relatively straight line. Yet God asks Job, “Hey do you think YOU can loosen this band?” It’s as if he is saying, “Well, I can buddy!” It may seem as though the band of stars is fixed, but Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of Orion in his book “Curiosities of the Sky”. Today, this band consists of an almost perfectly straight line of second-magnitude stars that are equally spaced and very beautiful. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist. In other words, one star is traveling in a certain direction at a certain speed, a second one is traveling in a different direction at a second speed, and the third one is going in a third direction and at a still different speed. As a matter of fact, every star in Orion is traveling its own course, independent of all the others. As time passes, this band of stars will indeed be loosened, just as God told Job.

Orion

But now let’s take a look at the Pleiades Constellation. Look at what God says: 'Canst thou bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades . . . ?' God seems to be challenging Job in exactly the opposite manner from what he said about Orion! It’s as if He is saying, “Hey Job, you think you can keep Pleiades together? Well, I can!” As it turns out, the seven stars of the Pleiades are in reality a grouping of 250 suns. And photographs now reveal that 250 blazing suns in this group are all traveling together in one common direction. Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory (quoted in Phillip L. Knox’, “Wonder Worlds”) tells us that astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction. Lewis says they are 'journeying onward together through the immensity of space.' Dr. Robert J. Trumpler (quoted in the same book) says that over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, And these measurements confirm that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars are kind of like a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. Sounds a lot like what God described in the Book of Job! “Hey Job, can you bind Pleiades together? I did!”

Pleiades

Finally, let’s take a look at Arcturus. Remember what God said about this constellation: 'Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?' Once again, God seems to be challenging Job here. “Hey Job, you think you can direct Arcturus anywhere you want? Well, I can!” Arcturus may look like it is fixed in the sky, but Garrett P. Serviss wrote that Arcturus is one of the greatest suns in the universe, and it is a runaway star whose speed of flight is about 257 miles per second. Arcturus, according to astronomers, is thousands of times more massive than our sun, which is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second! Charles Burckhalter, of the Chabot Observatory, (again quoted in “Wonder Worlds”) says that Arcturus’ high velocity places it that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. Arcturus is a runaway. The combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.

Arcturus

When Mr. Burckhalter was directed to the Book of Job, he studied it in the light of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention: “The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.”

These scientific facts recorded in the book of Job concerning the Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus constellations anticipated scientific discovery by nearly 3,000 years. Scientists only discovered these startling facts in the Twentieth Century, yet they were recorded in the book of Job nearly 3000 years ago. Twentieth Century science has proven God’s Word, the Bible, is true.

Source

 

[MajikMyst]

Job 40: 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

You are claiming that supports the scientific accuracy of the bible?? That??

Job 41:1: Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Did you actually look these up before writing your post? Or where you hoping I wouldn't??

Neither of those passages has anything to do with paleontology which is the study of fossils.. Unless you are making the assumptiong that behemoth and the leviathan were dinosaurs?? For all I know one could have been an elephant and the other a whale.. It is doubtful they were dinosaurs as they didn't have the knowlege of fossils yet to even know what one is.. And I would expect from a biblical stand point that the bible would have a name for such a creature other than behemoth and Leviathan.. Besides, knowlege of dinosaurs would have been mentioned in genisis during creation.. There is certianly no scientific accuracy there.. If you really want me to, I can look up the others. I am affraid to at this point cause the first one was so laughable..

Speaking of Genisis..

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.

Shall I continue or do you get the point??

The bible is anything BUT scientifically accurate..

Rabbits don't chew there cud and bats are not birds.. Both claims made in the bible..

Yes both of those are in fact dinosaurs. Another fact is camels do not have hooves, but if you insist it they do then it would be of interest to note that the "hoof" is not completely divided. Rabbits and hares practice "refection", which is essentially the same principle as "rumination", and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers.

Damn your an idiot!!

Leviticus 11:4: Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

I never called it a hoof!! The Bible did!! But thanks for making my point!!

And the biblicall scripture to back all that up is where exactly??

It is impossible that they were dinosaurs as they existed millions of years before man.. Unless you are actually going to make the attemtp to say that man and dinosaurs co-existed.. That has been scientifically proven false in so many ways it isn't even funny..