mememe

不 能 推 翻 的 挪 亞 方 舟
....is irrefutable.

這是聖經上最有力的証據
....is the strongest evidence for Biblical truth.

这段片确实未能证明方舟的存在，但起码有了一个可研究的方向
....unable to prove/verify.
....a direction for research.

一段未能证明任何嘢﹐只係能夠用作為指出研究方向既影片竟然被認為"不能推翻"同埋係"聖經上最有力既証據"。

得罪講句﹐聖經0的証據都真係幾弱0下噃。。。

mememe

silverxing兄,

我諗﹐如果係同一個人講呢幾句說話既話﹐我大概會講:

"又話影片未能证明同只係能夠指出研究方向﹐又話呢樣証據"不能推翻"同埋係"聖經上最有力既"﹐你前後都好矛盾噃!"

如果係同一個人講呢幾句說話既話﹐我大概冇可能用"被認為"呢個字眼。

其實我係認同justin_lun兄既言論﹐而用之嚟到評擊bobbywu兄首帖既說話。乜你冇睇清楚咩?

mememe

你呢句都多餘既 - 就算係同一個人講既說話﹐都唔見得支持“聖經D證據都幾弱”呢個結論噃 - 究竟關係唔係同一個人講呢0的說話咩事?

如果你由bobbywu既觀點去睇我既帖﹐你就可能明白 - 我係由justin_lun兄既說話帶出"其實套電影既內容冇證明到任何嘢"呢點﹐再諷刺有0的人竟然覺得呢0的"證據"係"不能推翻"既。

如果"冇證明到任何嘢"既片段都算得上係"聖經上最有力既"證據﹐0甘聖經既證據咪好弱咯?!

你依家明0的未? 仲有冇嘢問? 我已經拆到冇晒含意0架喇!!

mememe

Siverxing 兄﹐你真係極品。

你批評一編唔係attn你既帖﹐話我講錯嘢。我解釋完我個帖既內容之後﹐你冇嘢好講就話我唔應該點樣點樣寫﹐應該點樣點樣寫﹐雖然除0左你之外其他人都1) 明我講乜﹐或者2)至少唔會乜都唔明就聲大夾狼0甘話我錯。

大放完一論自暴其短既厥詞之後唔道歉仲係0甘吠。

你要明白﹐如果大部份人唔使我親自解剖我篇帖同explain都明我講乜而唯獨得你一個唔明﹐我係冇義務一定要解釋清楚0西俾你聽先至唔使聽你吠0架。下次請喺你話人錯之前睇清楚﹐問清楚﹐同諗清楚係人哋講錯定係你理解能力差。

mememe

silverxing兄,

喺睇完你既回覆之後﹐我決定涉取你既意見去睇睇版規。我諗你所講既版規應該係呢0的吧:

規則:
1)        本版歡迎所有具備任何關於靈幻神秘的事件(色情除外)
2)        真人真事請註明[真事] ,轉貼請註明[轉貼],有圖片的請註名[圖片]
3)        回覆是發題者的動力, 希望各版友多加鼓勵, 利已利人
4)        每人每日最多發出四個主題, 以免版友負荷過重
5)        請不要無理批評他人之文章

本版賞罰分明, 加分寬鬆, 扣分亦嚴謹

[取自http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=38061&fpage=1]

我點睇都睇唔出究竟我犯0左邊條﹐要麻煩你自出0添。

如果你對"吠"呢個字眼心存介蒂﹐我道歉又何妨呢? 我喺呢度鄭重0甘向silverxing兄道歉﹐並更正我之前既帖中所有"吠"字而用"無理取鬧"代替。0甘樣寫我諗會文雅0的﹐希望你接納。

我驚你睇唔到上邊版規既第五條﹐我特別為你highlight0左in bold。當然﹐我唔會奢望你會為你既言行道歉﹐我亦都唔犧罕。如果你睇完之後可以反省而有所得著﹐繼而唔再無理取鬧﹐我諗你認唔認錯以經唔再重要。

mememe

冷兄,

唔知你近排有冇睇到美國Dover單case.

"Intelligent Design" - 繼"挪亞方舟"後又一佳作!

前者混淆歷史﹐後者蒙蔽科學 - 唔知幾時會嘗試推翻地理同天體學﹐話地球係平既呢?

mememe

justin_lun兄,

挪亞方舟電影中採取既行動(即親身去山上尋找歷史證據)係研究既方向(direction of research) - 因為之前冇人俾上山去0的政治敏感既地方去視察。

挪亞方舟呢個聖經既故事若然喺毫無證據下被認為係實史就係混淆歷史。

唔該你喺出帖話我之前﹐諗諗先﹐好唔好? 你既少少思考省卻我既多多解釋﹐當係幫幫忙。

mememe

justin_lun兄,

基督徒本身如此相信，但从未有强迫他人去认同，也没有歪曲事实或抹煞其他可能，最多只是提出自己的信仰而已，又如何会变成混淆歷史？

我想知道﹐若然基督徒本身只係相信,請問點解要去Mount Arafat探索呢?
若然只係單純既相信﹐又何需證據呢? 有0左證據就係知道而唔係相信啦!

基督教根本就希望用證據(註:冇)去支持佢哋既信仰﹐然後將佢哋既信仰粉飾成事實。

你要證據嗎? 現代既Young Earth Creationism好嗎? 往時既Geocentrism又如何? 你可唔可以解釋一下點解淨係本身如此相信既基督徒需要用聖經作基礎既假科學理論去解釋呢個世界呢? 乜呢0的係只是提出自己的信仰咩?

雖然證明不到挪亞方舟存在﹐但同樣證明不到不存在。那麼根據mememe的
推論﹐“若然在毫無證據下被認為係實史就係混淆歷史。”在無證據下就認為“挪
亞方舟是混淆歷史”是事實﹐又算是甚麼﹖

呢句簡直經典。
冇證據證明既嘢客觀上根本就唔需要考慮。
如: 獨角獸﹐美人魚﹐飛馬。

歷史係客觀既。

在無證據下就認為“獨角獸不存在”又算是甚麼呢﹖

mememe

Juntin_lun兄﹐

從你所提既論點﹐睇得出你既無知。

第一點
唔使我講﹐DXneo兄好簡潔0甘指出0左你既死穴:
滅絕恐龍最大可能是環境變化,隕石只是科學家推斷出引致環境變化的“其中一個可能性”
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005824/extinction.html
"隕石滅恐龍"根本無被認為係史實﹐點樣混淆歷史呢?

第二點
如果真係"沒有足夠證據證明秦始皇墓的存在",0甘秦始皇墓咪未必係史實咯! 冇問題0架噃!
同樣冇證據支持下,你無法接受挪亞方舟唔係史實﹐但係我可以接受秦始皇墓唔係史實。
你有你既主觀偏見﹐我有我既客觀理性。

第三點
你太孤漏寡聞喇!月球上有laser reflector去證明登陸既痕跡.
http://news.space-explorers.com/display.asp?v=3&i=5&a=3

第四點
呢點我又唔使出聲﹐DXneo兄一矢中的。
釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生,-----這不是歷史,是民間傳說,只有信徒會叫歷史
舊約既神,耶穌同槃古﹐女媧無乜唔同0架咋﹐爭在一個係西方神話﹐另一個係東方傳說。

第五點
乜你都知道"沒有足夠證據證明釋迦成佛/耶穌復活曾經發生"0架咩? 我仲使講乜? ^_^ 你鐘意既話咪話係混淆歷史咯!

第六點
只能靠部份人的憶述或催眠﹐證明前世今生﹑天堂地獄的存在。
0下?! 我冇聽錯嘛? 部份人的憶述或催眠都"靠"得住? 仲可以證明前世今生﹑天堂地獄的存在?! 你既gullibleness令我嘆為觀止。

mememe

justin_lun兄,

好一句"挪亞方舟亦只是研究方向﹐更加未被認為是史實﹐又如何混淆歷史﹖"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

Although biblical skeptics often dismiss this account as pure mythology, Christians should accept the word of God Who was there rather than the opinions of fallible men who were not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_ark

Liberal Biblical scholarship concludes that the Biblical account was based upon Mesopotamian models. A majority of Christian Fundamentalists believe that the prevalence of the story points to its origin in an actual, historical event. They argue that the high level of detail given in Genesis makes it an inherently reliable account, and that the other stories are accounts of the same historical event which were distorted into mythology over time. They claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh is merely a corrupted retelling of Genesis (though this is rejected by liberal biblical historians and archaeologists, who regard Genesis as having been written considerably later than Gilgamesh).

未被認為是史實?

乜嘢"研究方向"會叫人晌作出研究之前接受"研究結論"?

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day5pmsession.pdf
(page 94-96)

Q. What about Adam as the first man?
A. Even the Hebrew Bible uses the notion of Adam in the universal sense for mankind.
Q. Does the church believe that Adam was actually the first man?
A. The church believes in these ideas only in connection with the doctrine of original sin, and that means simply that all of us are born into a world that's pretty messed up and we are all contaminated by that and we need redemption from. The key point of the whole virgin birth idea, Adam and Eve, is to emphasize, to make a place cognitionally to understand the meaning of what we call the Savior or theme of redemption.
Q. So they're just --
A. Everything is focussed in that way. So to ask atomistically questions like, do you believe in the virgin birth, do you believe in Adam and Eve, is to miss the whole point theologically.
Q. But the church believes that, does it not?
A. The church is primarily interested in communicating to people the salvific significance of the man Jesus. And throughout the ages it does this in many different ways, and sometimes it has to revive and revise catechisms in order to make that mission something that can be accomplished.
Q. What about Eve, do you believe there was a woman named Eve?
A. That's the same sort of question.
Q. So Adam and Eve to you are not individuals?
A. I don't look for scientific information. I don't look for scientifically factual information in a text which, by genre, fits in the category of what all biblical scholars today call myth rather than history.
Q. I didn't ask you for a scientific explanation. You're a theologian. As a matter of faith, do you believe --
A. You're asking a historical question, and the whole concept of history, as we understand it today,was in many ways fashioned by the scientific revolution with its concern for factual evidence. So history is not able to be disassociated from the whole scientific movement.

聖經係神話﹐基督徒相信 - 0甘本身並無問題。

但係唔知點解﹐基督徒唔安份於"相信" - 佢哋需要證實﹐需要用證據去證明聖經唔單止係神話﹐而係事實。

用舊約既字眼製造成無稽既Heliocentrism推翻天文學說。
用YEC既半咸淡理論去推翻考古學﹐地質學﹐同生物學既理論。

Flood geology, a doctrine advanced by young-earth creationists, holds that the global flood of Genesis actually occurred and that many geological formations of today are best explained in terms of a global flood in the recent past. This includes phenomena such as submarine river canyon extensions, layered fossil fuel deposits, fossil layers, and layered sedimentary strata.

Biology as understood by creationists holds that the animals on the ark were representatives of the created kinds, not representative of every species known to modern taxonomy. These 'kinds' had significantly more genetic information and a significantly superior genetic structure than the animals of today, and that speciation from these 'kinds' followed the flood as a result of reproductive isolation and loss of genetic information. Although it is unknown exactly how animal 'kinds' relate to modern taxonomic classifications, the creation narrative in Genesis indicates that a 'kind' is a category that was reproductively isolated from other 'kinds'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_ark

你既所謂"現時考古隊尚未有足夠科技開發挪亞方舟所在的亞拉獵山﹐只能發掘表面的碎木﹐證明與方舟建造時間吻合。"係謊言。

In 2004, yet another expedition went to Mount Ararat in Turkey to try to locate the Ark (formerly in Armenia)- see Ararat anomaly. Samples from Turkey tested by Geological and Nuclear Sciences, a New Zealand government research institute, were found to be volcanic rock rather than petrified wood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_ark

呢0的係基督教既一貫作風 - 假裝研究﹐實質暪騙。