What if the Bible was true?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, just for the halibut I ran a quick cspline interpolation of the population figures given in wikipedia, and at 4350 there would have been on the order of 18.5 million people.

And there where a "birth control": sickness, starvation, accidents, animals, wars, natural disasters, etc killed of a lot of people. They didn't live like we do, don't forget that.

He was asking a perfectly valid question which you did not address. Natural death and competition for resources are factored into the logistic growth model for population growth, which has as iamnotaparakeet said a sigmoid shape. Current population growth for the time being is more or less exponential, which would be seen in the early phases of the logistic growth model. This fact points to instead, as ruveyn pointed out, that the advent of the neolithic revolution and subsequent advances changed the picture in terms of resources, allowing for once again an exponential growth.

I have no idea what you just said. Please remember that a lot of people here don't speak english as their first language.

The Bible is a book of stories and it is not nearly as good as Tolikien's -The Silmarillion-.

ruveyn

then it would almost stop a bullet.

Summary: your point is irrelevant. After some amount of time, any population should stop growing exponentially.

No. If the bible was really true it would not need to dodge bullets.

(Matrix reference )

If the bible is true then virtually all modern scientific understanding are wrong. Personally I will trust modern science over a collection of writings from people who were trying to make sense of their world using flawed logic.

BTW was searching for Gopher wood and I came across this on a YEC sight

Has the Garden of Eden ever been found?
Many Christians naively assume that the Garden of Eden was located near the modern Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Shouldnt this read 'Many Christians naively assume the Garden of Eden existed.

Or more properly reduced to 'Many Christians naively assume'

Scientific theories are corroberated by observation and measurement. It repeated and crosschecked observations contradicts the Bible then the Bible is wrong. According to the Bible the land mass of the world is flat and has four corners, like a blanket or a piece of paper. If you infer from the Bible in a literal way you must conclude that the earth is about 6000 years old, as did Bishop Usher. But tens of thousands of observations indicate the earth is billions of years old. Hence the Bible is wrong, in the factual sense. It is a book of stories. It is no more factual than Tolkien's -Silmarillion- which is better written than the Bible.

ruveyn

Where is slowmutant when we need him?

Good question, his last post was 22 Feb and Last visit 24 Feb.

To jump again in this thread:

How really was Luke?

We do not have outside the bible any historical prove in respect of the existence of such a person. If he really lived he had obviously not a clue how Roman Justice worked: "And they began to accuse him, saying, We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king. So Pilate asked Jesus, Are you the king of the Jews? Yes, it is as you say, Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, I find no basis for a charge against this man" (Luke, 23, 3/4). Someone he claim to be king in a Roman province and a Roman Prefect did not see this a sufficient for a sentence ... there were people crucified for lesser charges.

And some lines later Luke supposedly wrote "The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, Surely this was a righteous man." - praised god? Which one? The century was certainly not a monotheist. And why he shall praise god for executing a "righteous man"? And why he should dare to criticize the judgement of his boss in public?

It is quite clear that Luke had no clue about the working of the Roman state machinery. Quite amazing for well educated person, he supposed to be.

I will not doubt that religion has a function in keeping societies of uneducated people together. Insofar the Spanish Inquisition, the religious settlement of Queen Elizabeth I or the state cults of antique Rome makes a lot of sense.

But we - at least my hope - passed this phase of human development. Our societies do not need any longer the glue of religion to keep running to impose a minimum discipline on people to uphold order.

Sadly, no we haven't. We(/they) are still the same humans with the same needs, what I've learned from a lot of people is that they don't care who or what controls their lives as long as they aren't directly affected by it. Therefor they still need a belief system to keep them in line, otherwise they would end up in the "we-and-them" metality too easy, the truth is that we need more of those conecting systems so more people can relate to each others. I think that would decrease a lot of prejudicm.


Ahh, now I understand, I missread a previous post.

bibles are true. i have seen them and felt them with my own hands. they had the words "the bible" printed on their front cover. they were definitely bibles.
if bibles were fired at me from a cannon, i would be seriously injured no doubt. they have substance and moment and therefore reality.
bibles are as real as any other book of similar thickness when it comes to clout.