controversial new Bible translation
-
As for this bible business, what exactly are they rewriting? Is it just the allah thing? I don't really know why i'm slightly annoyed by that cause I find neither the quran nor the bible relevant to my life even "slightly". But I doubt we'll be seeing muslims altering the quran anytime soon to appease Christian so it's a little obnoxious.
-
I believe we are living in the end times. All the signs are there. Jesus said there would be a falling away right before He returned. There are some churches today that ordain homosexual ministers, are pro abortion and are anti Israel so it does not surprise me about this new translation of the bible. On the gay issue you will soon see more churches going against clear teaching of the wrongness of homosexuality and accepting it as they try to stay relevant. Although churches have decreased in membership in recent years the evangelical Christian branch that believes in the authority of the scriptures continues to grow showing that you don't have to compromise. My guess is there will be even more new versions of the bible that will be changed to fit the version of events on the ground today such as making homosexuality out not to be a sinful lifestyle. Every-time I see something like Gay pride week I think why don't we have Adultery pride week as well?
As the schools have taught the theory of evolution as a fact instead of a theory it has done nothing but destroy faith. It has helped nobody but destroyed the faith of millions. It is not surprising that many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
I believe we are living in the end times. All the signs are there. Jesus said there would be a falling away right before He returned. There are some churches today that ordain homosexual ministers, are pro abortion and are anti Israel so it does not surprise me about this new translation of the bible. On the gay issue you will soon see more churches going against clear teaching of the wrongness of homosexuality and accepting it as they try to stay relevant. Although churches have decreased in membership in recent years the evangelical Christian branch that believes in the authority of the scriptures continues to grow showing that you don't have to compromise. My guess is there will be even more new versions of the bible that will be changed to fit the version of events on the ground today such as making homosexuality out not to be a sinful lifestyle. Every-time I see something like Gay pride week I think why don't we have Adultery pride week as well?
As the schools have taught the theory of evolution as a fact instead of a theory it has done nothing but destroy faith. It has helped nobody but destroyed the faith of millions. It is not surprising that many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
I think as information has become more readily available, people are less likely to rely on religion to try to explain things that they can just google now and get a logical explanation. So yes, religion is losing out to science and common sense.
Load up the bunker and get the family prepared for the coming of the sky wizard.
-
I believe we are living in the end times. All the signs are there. Jesus said there would be a falling away right before He returned. There are some churches today that ordain homosexual ministers, are pro abortion and are anti Israel so it does not surprise me about this new translation of the bible. On the gay issue you will soon see more churches going against clear teaching of the wrongness of homosexuality and accepting it as they try to stay relevant. Although churches have decreased in membership in recent years the evangelical Christian branch that believes in the authority of the scriptures continues to grow showing that you don't have to compromise. My guess is there will be even more new versions of the bible that will be changed to fit the version of events on the ground today such as making homosexuality out not to be a sinful lifestyle. Every-time I see something like Gay pride week I think why don't we have Adultery pride week as well?
As the schools have taught the theory of evolution as a fact instead of a theory it has done nothing but destroy faith. It has helped nobody but destroyed the faith of millions. It is not surprising that many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
I think as information has become more readily available, people are less likely to rely on religion to try to explain things that they can just google now and get a logical explanation. So yes, religion is losing out to science and common sense.
Load up the bunker and get the family prepared for the coming of the sky wizard.
I think as information has become more readily available, people are less likely to rely on religion to try to explain things that they can just google now and get a logical explanation. So yes, religion is losing out to science and common sense.
Load up the bunker and get the family prepared for the coming of the sky wizard.
Amen
-
I love the difference between Sad's post and OBF's post.
"This is nothing new because... [reasonable response]"
Vs
"We're in the end times! Gay people are bad! Evolution is a lie!"
-
As the schools have taught the theory of evolution as a fact instead of a theory it has done nothing but destroy faith. It has helped nobody but destroyed the faith of millions. It is not surprising that many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
As the schools have taught the theory of evolution as a fact instead of a theory it has done nothing but destroy faith. It has helped nobody but destroyed the faith of millions. It is not surprising that many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
+
I shouldn't really even be surprised anymore...
-
We go through this every month or two, the difference between 'theory' in common parlance, and 'theory' in the scientific world. Do I really need to explain it again?
-
Well, woodyPECKERHEAD, read on. BTW, are you and Chris going to always
agree? Let me know so I can decide whether or not Chris is a freakin birdbrain like you are.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
-
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but inscience
the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.""Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. "
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. "
"The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease
.Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association. "
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
I'd be interested to hear what your suspicions were.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
I'd be interested to hear what your suspicions were.
I'd be interested to hear what your suspicions were.
meh too convoluted. Some of it's based on gut spiritual instincts of mine that I've had since I was a little kid. Would be hard to follow is what i'm saying.
-
Therefore, we can draw a few conclusions:
A. mmgw is not a valid collection of all data that is pertinent. Some of it has been ignored in the
race to say we have to act dramatically on a "crisis".
B. Liberals love to refer, bassackwardsly, to mmgw as a "law". But as we keep saying, it
is a THEORY - a hypothesis that has facts to back it up. However, there is concern
that there are facts that also do NOT back it up. There you have controvsery, even within
the scientific community.
C. mmgw is no absolute truth. Liberals WANT it to be, and DEMAND that it be accepted as such,
but the truth is, when you use mmgw as an abolute truth.."law", then you have to change that
when you see that CO2 levels have been rising over ten years that the temp has not been climbing.
D. So, liberals change definitions of words to try to justify their emotional nonsense. They use "theory"
as "hypothesis",,,,, and then they use mmgw as a "law". But it has been proven to not be always true.
So, just once, the Chrises and and woodpeckerheads can drop the act. It is only a theory, which means
it is NOT A FREAKING LAW, as in "ABSOLUTE TRUTH".
-
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
-
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
E. So, clearly, when something is a theory in the scientific method, it
is clearly NOT a FACT, or "LAW". And, it is NOT the end of the scientific method.
It has facts to justify it, but the question is, what about the evidence that
it is not true?
What about the "enough evidence" part? There has been concocted evidence, mistaken
evidence, and ignored evidence.
That is the scientific method Chris and woodypeckerhead want to go with? really?
And we are suppose to dramatically give liberals the power to tax and fee and rule because of it?
Not buyin it at all.
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method?
-
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Where is the justification for dramatic ACTION, sacrifices, and UN admitted global redistribution of wealth...
when all it is ...is a freakin THEORY? Sure, not a hypothesis, but NOT a law.
Chris and woody and others, and those in the political arena, and the UN, keep demanding
that it be acceptance as being a LAW, which it most certainly is not.
The mmgw theory hasn't been proven to be a law, and there is conflicting evidence to prove
that the mmgw observation has serious flaws.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
-
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Where is the justification for dramatic ACTION, sacrifices, and UN admitted global redistribution of wealth...
when all it is ...is a freakin THEORY? Sure, not a hypothesis, but NOT a law.
Chris and woody and others, and those in the political arena, and the UN, keep demanding
that it be acceptance as being a LAW, which it most certainly is not.
The mmgw theory hasn't been proven to be a law, and there is conflicting evidence to prove
that the mmgw observation has serious flaws.
Who or what would you go with cal? What is your alternative to the the scientific method Sad
**********************************************************
Never said I had any alternative to the scientific method. I'm saying that the
scientific method does not end with the observation about selected facts, as is
the case with mmgw.
So, how can the observation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is directly causing mmgw?
When CO2 has been climbing, and the global temp hasn't for over ten years?
Wait what? The Global Temps are currently the highest in history and we have not had a below average year in decades......You or a scientist could argue the level of effect that one aspect has on the the rise in temperatures(such as man made vs natural) but temps are on the raise.
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Who decides which creationism myth should be taught?
-
If the theory of evolution destroys your faith, than you didn't have particularly strong faith to begin with. I myself even though not religious have suspicions about having been evolved from monkeys but for reasons other than Christians that I'm not going to get into. If it were infact true that genetically our species evolved from some other previous form or another, yeah I don't care...wouldn't give two fucks over it. Has zero impact on my plans when I leave this dump.
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
Not my faith. I am speaking of students who have been indoctrinated in our government schools with a theory they teach like a fact. Why can't creationism be taught side by side if neither side can be proved?
So you are saying there is equal evidence for creationism as there is for evolution?
-
Why am I even asking? You believe that a guy lived a whale.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login