Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

Jassy no not shifting my argument, I'm supporting it. What I'm saying is that being a nominal anything doesn't mean you actually follow it.

Being a staunch catholic country doesn't stop them following the assumptions of atheistic scientific viewpoints because they are not following the bible themselves anyway!

You can be sure that if they had opened themselves to God He would have revealed Himself to them.

They did. God sent them the Duke of Edinburgh.

My common sense tells me that your God can no more be a deity than the DoE.

I'll come back to you with a reading list - no doubt you have a spin sheet somewhere that tells you why people who were around when the biblical texts were living languages are more rubbish at translation than you.

Out of interest - why does your God make it so much harder for some people to accept him than others? Why does he make the consequence death in some places and social approbation in others? In particular, what does he feel non-white people must have an almost invariably more difficult path?

Pickled - who do you actually consider Christians? Clearly Catholics and Protestants don't count in your book.

You were talking about culture mKing it more difficult to speak out. Unfortunately, were that true, you would see different rates of speaking out in countries based on their levels of cultural and establishment secularism. Sadly for your theory, it isn't supported by evidence or logic. Try another?

This is an impossible debate. Whatever anyone says, Pickled just says "Ah, but you can't prove that the opposite isn't the case!" So "There are Christian theologians that think x" "Ah, but how do you know they are actually Christians- they could be atheists pretending" "This Christian scientist is openly angry with Young Earthers twisting her words" "Ah, but how do you know that she isn't only saying that because she thinks she will lose her job if she doesn't?" "People tend to stay with the faith of their parents unless someone like a missionary turns unto change their minds" "Ah, but how do you know that God didn't send the missionary because they were yearning for a truth they knew to to be out there?" I am going to name it the Ahbut fallacy- unless it already has a name.

I asked before - which compilation of the bible do you take as the true scripture?

I like it, Hak - and I'll take it one further. Ah, but how do we know that Pickled is really a Christian, not an atheist looking to persuade people of faith that there cannot be a god?

PickledInAJar the reason you've had to keep skipping over the question is that there is no answer that fits your beliefs and claims.

It was easy to show that there is no 'born with the knowledge of god' and no equal access to god.

We can't prove that no gods exist, but we can easily show that the claims for the one you are describing are full of holes and fall apart if looked at closely.

JassyRadlett Out of interest - why does your God make it so much harder for some people to accept him than others?

Um… He doesn’t. You’re forgetting that Christianity started in the Middle East!

The predominantly white western world has Christian beliefs in decline but churches in China are growing like never seen before.

Sin entered the human race by one man, no black or white preferences. And so does redemption come by one Man, Jesus Christ. Forgiveness of sin, the essence of Christianity, is offered to all races, colours, creeds, and genders, to all “those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness” through Him (Romans 5:18). In giving His life as a substitute for sin, Jesus Christ purchased for God with His blood "men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9).

Christianity is not a white man’s religion. Christianity is not a black, brown, red, or yellow religion either. The truth of the Christian faith is universally applicable to all people.

Pickled - who do you actually consider Christians? Clearly Catholics and Protestants don't count in your book

Anyone, catholic or protestant alike, who “believes in Him”. Sadly the main teachings of Catholicism for example, is to pay your way rather than accept the free gift God offers, with no strings attached. I don’t doubt the possibility that some of the congregation could read for themselves and find that earning your own way to God is a false gospel (clearly described in the bible)

You were talking about culture mKing it more difficult to speak out. Unfortunately, were that true, you would see different rates of speaking out in countries based on their levels of cultural and establishment secularism

First off, I said no one likes to swim against the tide, and that’s true. Everyone knows that! Also the problem of unbelief is a global one and not specific to certain areas particularly. So it’s really not surprising that people the world over will turn away from God and the bible and follow anything else instead. It’s an age-old human condition! There really is nothing new under the sun when it comes to mankind.

Hakluyt Tue 28-Oct-14 09:16:16
This is an impossible debate. Whatever anyone says, Pickled just says "Ah, but you can't prove that the opposite isn't the case!"

I say that because it’s true. We are all following what we believe to be right. However, the evidence is out there and you know whether you are open to God or not. If you are, of course He will reveal Himself further to you.

So "There are Christian theologians that think x" "Ah, but how do you know they are actually Christians- they could be atheists pretending"
I have never said anyone is an atheist pretending. Please cut and paste where I have said these words.

"This Christian scientist is openly angry with Young Earthers twisting her words" "Ah, but how do you know that she isn't only saying that because she thinks she will lose her job if she doesn't?"
You can chose to believe scientists aren’t under fear of stepping out of line where evolution is concerned. But I have supplied a few links to real live case studies where this has actually happened. Whether you chose to believe that or believe something different is up to you. What you can’t legitimately say is that your choices aren’t based on what you believe to be true. Just like a Christian.

"People tend to stay with the faith of their parents unless someone like a missionary turns unto change their minds"

I didn’t say a missionary changes anyone’s mind. God responds to an open heart is what I said.

"Ah, but how do you know that God didn't send the missionary because they were yearning for a truth they knew to to be out there?"

You don’t know that to be wrong though do you? You can’t prove it either way. The point I was making to Jassy was that if a person even in the tribe or believing DOE is God is open to God He will respond. He hasn’t ditched them altogether as we know missionaries have brought the message of the bible to them.

JassyRadlett Tue 28-Oct-14 09:17:39
I asked before - which compilation of the bible do you take as the true scripture?

Some translations are better than others, for example, the King James version is known not to be the most accurate yet was traditionally the most widely used in C/E in Britain. However we’re talking slight differences, the main text is the same in all of them.

This website might help you make an informed choice www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/five-tips-for-picking-the-best-bible-translation/

BackOnlyBriefly Tue 28-Oct-14 09:43:14
PickledInAJar the reason you've had to keep skipping over the question is that there is no answer that fits your beliefs and claims.??

What question do you think I’ve skipped over? I think I’ve spent a lot of time single-handedly replying to a lot of questions, some of which are you personally, whilst also maintaining my very busy job in real life! I think you might have noticed on Mumsnet, and in real life conversations for that matter, the conversation can chase so many different rabbits that some ends don't get tied up neatly and you have to bring it back to your point: "as I was saying..."

If I have missed one of your questions Back, do please give it to me again. However, as far as I’m concerned I answered a question which you posed with the promise of an answer to one of my own, and I am the one still waiting!

PickledInAJar This was the question.

if (as you claimed) everyone is born with the knowledge of god and a free choice then why is it that most children of Muslims choose to be Muslim and not Christian.

We're not talking about slight variations here that can be dismissed.

Pickled, you're dodging. I am asking you which version of the biblical texts you take as the 'inspired' ones - ie those you follow? I'm not asking you to guide me in my choice - indeed, again you are demonstrating your arrogance.

And so you can't say I'm avoiding your question about my experience, here it is again.

I came from a family that was culturally Christian. They didn't do anything especially religious, but acted and spoke as though it were obviously true. I naturally assumed that what my family and neighbours said in passing about god must be true. This is how religion works and why children will most often follow the religion of their parents. Nothing supernatural about it at all.

We were sent to sunday school more as a way of getting us out of the house on sundays. I didn't mind, I thought it was interesting and I liked the singing (I still do)

But I was given a present of a bible for being a good student and I read it. I quite liked the old stories, but I kept seeing bits that didn't seem to make sense. I wasn't trying to prove it wrong. I was trying to see how I was misunderstanding it.

So I read it all from start to finish making notes and then went back and forth comparing. Even a child could see that it didn't add up. Being atheist is inevitable if you examine the claims with an open mind.

Right, bear with me I will have to do one at a time as I'm on the terrible phone app for a moment!

BackOnlyBriefly, I don't doubt that to some extent children follow their parents to begin with, albeit with reservation in some case (like your own). However as an adult everyone decided for themselves. Some continue to appear as through they follow their parents cultural religion but don't relive it internally, others embrace and believe it completely. That goes for Muslim or Christian. What you can't say for sure is what is going on inside a person's head, no one but that individual and God knows.

You're perhaps forgetting that the religion Muslims follow came quite a long time after Christianity, so at some point people turned from the available message from the bible and began to follow the alternative (Islam). As I keep saying, it's not a new problem.

Jassy, no I'm not dodging anything. I read the nasb and niv to compliment it but mostly for reliability interpretation-wise I opt for nasb.

This website helps explain rationale for this:

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. When translating from those languages into English, different styles of translation can be used. Some Bible translators attempt to produce as literal a translation as possible. Others try to carry the meaning from the original into English. However, because the original languages are so different from English, a direct translation sometimes sounds a bit "wooden" and not as smooth as native English might sound. Also, certain phrases in the original language just don’t make sense in the English, so an equivalent phrase is used to carry the meaning.

Translators are aware of these issues, and most try to keep the original intent and the original wording as accurate as possible. So, they try to make it smooth and accurate. For the most part this is easy to do and relatively few passages present any real translating challenge.

Okay, so which Bible translations are the best? That depends on what you are looking for. If you want a more literal translation, then go with the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the King James Version (KJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV). A more “flowing” translation is the New International Version (NIV) and even more loose is the Phillips Translation and the Living Bible.

I suggest that you get one of each--a literal-leaning translation as well as a meaning-leaning translation. Between the two of them you'll do fine.

Back - I'm quite impressed that you decided to study it out as a child. A huge amount of adults don't even try, so for a child it's an enormous task. I'd love to see your notes

However I would say if I placed a medical journal before you then your understanding would be limited. That's why children aren't allowed to train to be doctors until they are adults and would understand what they're reading and being taught.

I'm not saying children can't have some level of understanding but it is limited naturally.

I wonder if you can remember any of the stuff that didn't seem to match up when you read it as a child? If you can remember any please share. I won't ridicule. It's much better than spouting off website stuff that a person haven't actually looked at properly themselves, like some people (not saying you) often do.

The other thing is say to your last post about being an atheist being inevitable is that I was once an atheist too, but not because of studying. It was because I had been told false stuff about God and the bible, and I was legitimately rejecting it. I was really let down by the people who did that to me too; so for a long time I really hated anyone who professes to be "one of them" even if I didn't know them.

But then many moons later I studied and found it was completely right that I had rejected what I had been presented with as a child. It was not found in the bible and had been taken horribly out of context. When I studied and found the correct context I was amazed to be reading an entirely different book with new eyes.

It's very kind of you to offer to help me understand the bits I saw as contradictions, but I continued to think about it for the next four decades.
Some of it must have sunk in as I'm asking the question that you are desperately trying to dodge. :)

But that's ok I don't expect you to admit anything out loud and it's not you that needs to convinced anyway.

Your claim that people are born with the knowledge and a free choice can be shown to be nonsense. That's why you are dancing around it.

If it were true then roughly the same number of children born to Muslim parents would become Christian as those of Christian parents. Since that's out by 100s of millions that is laughable.

Most gods (and yours from what you have said is no exception) introduce a downside (hell of some kind or simply death) to not believing in them.

Since most people didn't get a fair chance to learn about that god (And have no way to distinguish one from another) that is clearly unjust.

Since the claim is that god is fair and just, then you have a simple contradiction and that religion can be dismissed.

So that wraps it up for your god and all the others that include those claims.

Children are taught to be believers and it's easy at that age. You can do it to an adult, but that's much harder and generally you need to immerse them in religion and keep them away from their usual friends and family for a bit.

This is why it's vitally important that all children be made to worship god in school. It's not just about the child doing the worship, but about them seeing others doing it and treating it as normal. They have to see religion all around them to have any chance to get them believing before they are old enough to question it.

However I would say if I placed a medical journal before you then your understanding would be limited. That's why children aren't allowed to train to be doctors until they are adults and would understand what they're reading and being taught.

You claim to be impressed by study and then make the case that it should not be allowed until children are adult (but in the meantime you're allowed to tell them it's all true)

You are right to oppose study though. People who read the bible are destroying your religion.

No back, I don't claim to oppose study, I'm the one who keeps saying the bible should be studied.

As for your claim that Muslims don't get a fair chance to access God, you're assuming you know who believes what to their dying day. I'm saying you can't do that because people often follow without thinking, or follow the cultural religion but not the belief.

There is Christianity in Islamic countries, so access to alternatives is entirely possible for people. As I said, God responds to any slight openness to Him. Sadly people globally close themselves and harden, or follow false gods instead. Like the god of evolution

Oh and you're still trying to say in dodging something - didn't I answer? I thought I did, several times. Perhaps it is more a case that you refuse to accept my answer so you're trying to dodge the fact that I've already replied?

So, essentially you use the post-Reformation bible, and reject the deutorcanonical books - that's fine (though again for me draws really interesting question about who's right on what are 'inspired' texts and what aren't). It also makes you wonder why mainstream global Christianity, as guided by god, followed the 'wrong' version for 1500 years until the Reformation when the Protestant churches rejected the non-Hebraic books of the Old Testament.

It's worth remembering that Martin Luther tried to go much further in his changes to the bible by going into the New Testament, but this wasn't acceptable to his followers, who kept Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. It was basically an approach of editing for consistency to enable a sola scriptura approach.

But then you are into some relatively significant differences based on the manuscript traditions used - which really matters if you are taking a sola scriptura rather than a prima scriptura approach. Do you accept the Trinitarian version of 1 John, with no evidence in manuscript before the 10th century AD? Which version of the battle of David and Goliath do you accept, or do you try to reconcile the differences between the manusript to form a coherent story?

The trouble for me with sola scriptura is the logical extension issues - scripture is infallible, but the interpretation is fallible unless you have an infallible interpreter, which you do not. It also assumes that the decisions made on what consitututes the bible - both old and new testaments - where infallible when in fact those decisions were made by fallible people (eg the Councils of Carthage). And if those decisions were divinely inspired, were the (fallible) Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century incorrect when they reverted to a different version of the Old Testament?

Who gets to decide who's infallible?

common sense tells you he is no god

So they don't have common sense? How is them thinking that the DofE is god showing a lack of common sense?

common sense tells you he is no god

So they don't have common sense? How is them thinking that the DofE is god showing a lack of common sense?

Pickled- you linked to a. Our of people who lost their jobs or who didn't get tenure because they were not able to do the whole of the job they had signed up to. And to news stories of people who took their employers to tribunals (or the American equivalents). But no judgements, or anything like that. I presume this is because the judiciary are part of the conspiracy?

Ah I see. We'll explain away the 100s of millions of Muslims by saying they might not really be Muslims forever.

I love it.

I did like the common sense tells you he is no god too.

Ah, c'mon back. Pickled's common sense is clearly superior to the common sense of the people who were seeking to accept a deity and god sent the DoE.

Because their common sense is obviously not as finely honed. Because... they aren't from the West? Didn't have a good bible? Are inherently thick?

And I already explained that you’re getting obsessed with one tiny point I made, that if you put together the potential for an open system rather than a closed system, with all the other assumptions made, you’d get a much younger earth.

You could technically argue that no rock is a completely closed system as it is not completely isolated from its environment, but the reality is that for all practical purposes the rocks selected for dating act as closed systems - any contamination or loss of some types of isotope have a minute effect on the result. We know this because multiple samples are taken from different parts of the rock and from surrounding rocks and tested at a variety of labs using several different dating techniques - they are usually within a few % of each other.

I am not 'obsessed' but i am having to repeat myself, so here's an article that i think pretty much covers most of the arguments if anyone is interested.

You still haven't given any explanation as to why the world would not have been a radioactive inferno 6000 years ago.