As I promised...

**Ristaron** · 02-12-2007, 08:56 PM

I made a comment a few days ago about how the Bible contradicts the Laws of Physics. I was questioned on it, and I found I couldn't recall how I had come to the conclusion. Nonetheless, I promised to answer the question... so here it goes, hopefully I remembered all the points:

We'll use the example of someone standing in the same place (and time) as a moving train.
I still occasionally find I don't understand everything about it, but I came to the same conclusion with my anthropology professor...
According to deconstructionism (the challenge to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in scripture), there is no reality to science because it is a cultural construct -- specifically, a Western construct that is capitalistic, patriarchal, anti-nature, et cetera.
One way for a deconstructionalist to test the culturally subjective nature of science would be to test the physical principle that two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

I can't recall exactly why it's one test, but the fact that it's used means it refutes (in some way or another) some Biblical aspect (I believe it has something to do with the book of Deuteronomy... Moses being in two places at once (he does record his own death...)). Thus, if the Bible is correct, you can stand in the same place (at the same time) as a moving train.

This is the best I could do for not being in the right mindset (I am sick and falling asleep as I type this...), and I wasn't going to let my promise go unfulfilled much longer...

Anyways, there you go. Shit all over it if you want, I've got better stuff.

Keena · 02-12-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

I made a comment a few days ago about how the Bible contradicts the Laws of Physics.

According to deconstructionism (the challenge to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in scripture), there is no reality to science because it is a cultural construct -- specifically, a Western construct that is capitalistic, patriarchal, anti-nature, et cetera.

Anyways, there you go. Shit all over it if you want, I've got better stuff.

Ok, I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but I've never heard this before, so I need a little help. Before I can even get into the whole test thing I need you to explain the above part. Why can there be no "reality" to science? Why is it being considered a social construct here?

**Ristaron** · 02-13-2007, 10:25 AM

For the purpose of proving a science correct.

The best analogy I can make is Rene Descartes' method of doubt, where he disregarded evidence of everything except for his existence (which you cannot refute... saying "I do not exist" is a contradiction). From this fundamental level he worked up.
As such, deconstructionists go back to a basic physical law: two objects cannot exist in the same place at the same time.

Keena · 02-13-2007, 10:46 AM

ok, so you're saying that in order to prove something, we start by discounting everything and working our way up. And that for whatever reason, this particular test has been found effective in testing the laws of physics? And that because this particular test is disputed in some (@ least one that you mentioned) area of the Bible, that either 1) the Bible is wrong, or 2) We've really screwed up physics since we should be able to be in the exact same place at the exact same time as a moving train.

Did I get that right?
And could you tell me why this is the test thats so important? as opposed to something else, i mean.

**Ristaron** · 02-13-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keena

ok, so you're saying that in order to prove something, we start by discounting everything and working our way up. And that for whatever reason, this particular test has been found effective in testing the laws of physics? And that because this particular test is disputed in some (@ least one that you mentioned) area of the Bible, that either 1) the Bible is wrong, or 2) We've really screwed up physics since we should be able to be in the exact same place at the exact same time as a moving train.

Did I get that right?
And could you tell me why this is the test thats so important? as opposed to something else, i mean.

I'm saying that deconstructionists use a tests of non-cultural origin (such as two things existing at the same time in the same place) to discern what is real and what isn't.
This test is one of the tests used to prove the laws of physics, and that I cannot recall exactly how/where the Bible failed it, but it did.

Connor · 02-13-2007, 05:13 PM

The books of the Law are attributed to Moses, but it's not unlikely that, I don't know, someone else wrote that he died.

And the Bible is not in contradiction to science. Your example is not a good one, I would like to see a more concrete one, where the principal of two things being in the same place at the same time disproves the Bible.

Livin_lyfe · 02-13-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

The books of the Law are attributed to Moses, but it's not unlikely that, I don't know, someone else wrote that he died.

And the Bible is not in contradiction to science. Your example is not a good one, I would like to see a more concrete one, where the principal of two things being in the same place at the same time disproves the Bible.

I do not think it really matters... the bible contradicts it's self more than once in it's own scriptures...

**Ristaron** · 02-13-2007, 06:33 PM

Not to mention the discontinuity between the 4 gospels.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 02-14-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

I made a comment a few days ago about how the Bible contradicts the Laws of Physics. I was questioned on it, and I found I couldn't recall how I had come to the conclusion. Nonetheless, I promised to answer the question... so here it goes, hopefully I remembered all the points:

We'll use the example of someone standing in the same place (and time) as a moving train.
I still occasionally find I don't understand everything about it, but I came to the same conclusion with my anthropology professor...
According to deconstructionism (the challenge to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in scripture), there is no reality to science because it is a cultural construct -- specifically, a Western construct that is capitalistic, patriarchal, anti-nature, et cetera.
One way for a deconstructionalist to test the culturally subjective nature of science would be to test the physical principle that two objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

I can't recall exactly why it's one test, but the fact that it's used means it refutes (in some way or another) some Biblical aspect (I believe it has something to do with the book of Deuteronomy... Moses being in two places at once (he does record his own death...)). Thus, if the Bible is correct, you can stand in the same place (at the same time) as a moving train.

This is the best I could do for not being in the right mindset (I am sick and falling asleep as I type this...), and I wasn't going to let my promise go unfulfilled much longer...

Anyways, there you go. Shit all over it if you want, I've got better stuff.

Many modern biblical scholars don't even believe Moses actually wrote the Torah, as sections of it (i.e. the creation story of adam and eve) were not written until well into an established nation of Israel. It was passed down orally for generations and eventually began to be written down as the Jews journeyed from Egypt to "the promised land". Some scholars even believe it may have not been written down until after Moses' death.

The most common theory is the JEDP theory which states there is one authoer that uses Yahweh/Jehovah when speaking of God and from a Judean perspective, one that uses Elohim when speaking of God from an Israeli persepective, D refers to Deuteronomy and that is generally thought to be instructional and legalistic documents. P refers to the "preistly" material. Basically, church law and church history and things that fall into the domain of "church."

That's one view. There are others, but this is the theory that I find the closest to being accurate.

Peace,
Craig

**Ristaron** · 02-14-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

Many modern biblical scholars don't even believe Moses actually wrote the Torah, as sections of it (i.e. the creation story of adam and eve) were not written until well into an established nation of Israel. It was passed down orally for generations and eventually began to be written down as the Jews journeyed from Egypt to "the promised land". Some scholars even believe it may have not been written down until after Moses' death.

The most common theory is the JEDP theory which states there is one authoer that uses Yahweh/Jehovah when speaking of God and from a Judean perspective, one that uses Elohim when speaking of God from an Israeli persepective, D refers to Deuteronomy and that is generally thought to be instructional and legalistic documents. P refers to the "preistly" material. Basically, church law and church history and things that fall into the domain of "church."

That's one view. There are others, but this is the theory that I find the closest to being accurate.

Peace,
Craig

All lend credence to the untrustworthy nature of the Bible.
Unless you can see the original copy, you're recieving an altered 'account', if one is to consider it a historical document as well as a guide to Christian-Judaism faith.