Broken bones of god

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

when nail passes through the feet and comes in other side

bone cracks
8
100%
it doesnt crack
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
sin_is_fun
Sage
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Eden

Broken bones of god

Post #1

Post by sin_is_fun »

One of the claims of Bible is that the bones of jesus werent broken.But nails were passed through his feet and wrists(or palm).

Scientifically it is impossible to drive a nail in somebodys feet and make it to come to the other side without the nail passing through the bone.When it is done so, it is impossible not to have atleast a hairline fracture.In fact a nail piercing one side of the feet bone and coming on the otherside itself is fracture.

when nail passes through bone, the bone cracks.It doesnt make an exact hole and passes through the other side.And the nail used on jesus must have been a big one, so the bigger the nail the higher the probablity of fracture.

so how was this prophecy fulfilled?

User avatar
sin_is_fun
Sage
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Eden

Post #11

Post by sin_is_fun »

sofyst wrote:Has it been scientifically proven not that it is probably unlikely, or improbable, for a nail to pass through the foot without breaking a bone, but that no nail has ever passed through any foot bone without breaking?

What I am asking is if you have scientific evidence that a nail has never passed through any foot bone without it breaking. It matters not whether it is proven that it most likely could not happen; rather it only matters if it has been proven that it has never happened, ever.
well see the xrays posted in this thread.The gaps between bones are very small.Only a needle can pass through those gaps.A powerful nail which should suspend the weight of a man can never pass through those gaps.

As far as I know nobody has experimented by passing nails on feet for this research purpose. :D It need not be done also.It is statistical impossibility.Just put your two feet one upon the other and try to see if a huge nail can anyway pass through it without piercing or breaking a single bone.

Unless jesus bones were entirely different from us,unless he had huge gaps in bones,,,its impossible.But if thats the case he could have never walked properly.But if you say he walked by magic,then i cannot reply anything.By magic anything is possible. #-o

User avatar
sofyst
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post #12

Post by sofyst »

Sir, you keep making absolute statements, allthough completely avoiding my question.
Only a needle can pass through those gaps.
A powerful nail which should suspend the weight of a man can never pass through those gaps.
I ask again, has it been scientifically proven, not that it is improbable, or that it has never happened in research, but that it has never happened EVER that a nail has passed through the foot and not broken completely the bones within?

For your entire theory to be correct you must have proof that a nail has NEVER passed through a human foot and not broken a bone completely. That you must admit.

I can sit here all day and give you scientific theories which prove things to be improbable, only to be shown that while they were improbable they were not impossible. Unless one can give scientific evidence that something can never ever happen, then one is merely speaking about what can probably not happen.

Take that instance with Guage, was that not his name? The man who had the spike drove through his head. Was it not improbable at the time that one could not live after having such happen, yet he proved that although it was improbable it was not impossible.

Besides, the photos I provided show a significantly larger gap than one where only a pin can pass through. On my very own person I can place my thumb between the metatarsal bones. Unless of course you were speaking of the Cuneiform bones and there I would concede that only a needle could pass through.

So if this statement is true:
Scientifically it is impossible to drive a nail in somebodys feet and make it to come to the other side without the nail passing through the bone.When it is done so, it is impossible not to have atleast a hairline fracture.In fact a nail piercing one side of the feet bone and coming on the otherside itself is fracture.
You have to provide the scientific evidence that a nail has never been driven through a foot and made it through the other side without passing through a bone, thus making it an impossibility on the part of the Scriptural account.

You likewise have to prove that a hairline fracture is the definition of 'broken' that was being referred to within Scripture.

If you are unwilling, if not unable, to provide these evidences then you must concede that you have spoken out of hasty irrationality and withdraw your statements.

User avatar
sofyst
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post #13

Post by sofyst »

sin is fun wrote:Your only hope is to say that hairline fracture isnt a fracture at all.Well then you guys have to redefine medical texts then.
I do not think anyone is arguing that a hairline fracture is not a fracture, but that it is not considered broken by the first definition of "To cause to separate into pieces suddenly or violently; smash."

Even if we were to concede that perhaps the bones within Jesus' feet were fractured we would not have to concede that they were broken as they were not seperated into pieces.

User avatar
sin_is_fun
Sage
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Eden

Post #14

Post by sin_is_fun »

sofyst wrote: I ask again, has it been scientifically proven, not that it is improbable, or that it has never happened in research, but that it has never happened EVER that a nail has passed through the foot and not broken completely the bones within?For your entire theory to be correct you must have proof that a nail has NEVER passed through a human foot and not broken a bone completely. That you must admit.
How do I prove that a thing never happened?Nobody can prove that. How do you prove statements like "no man has ever had 3 legs?"The proof for such obvious statements is "as long as it is scinetifically proved that man can have 3 legs we assume that statement to be correct".

To say "5 legged horses and 10 legged dogs exist" we need to show proof.
To say "5 legged horses and 10 legged dogs do not exist" no need to show the proof.



sofyst wrote:I can sit here all day and give you scientific theories which prove things to be improbable, only to be shown that while they were improbable they were not impossible. Unless one can give scientific evidence that something can never ever happen, then one is merely speaking about what can probably not happen.
You must have misunderstood the concept of science.In science nobody can ever give any proof for nonhappening of an event.If you make a statement like "my great grandson will have 6 fingers.If you doubt it prove that he wont have 6 fingers..." nobody can prove such a claim.Be practical.Those who claim a scientific impossibility happened should prove it.If they cannot prove it atleast they should explain how it is possible.Atleast describe the methodology.If you even cannot do that then that claim is worthless.
sofytst wrote:Take that instance with Guage, was that not his name? The man who had the spike drove through his head. Was it not improbable at the time that one could not live after having such happen, yet he proved that although it was improbable it was not impossible.
You should understand the difference between "highly improbable" and "totally impossible". Consider two statements.

Highly improbable: Jack won billion dollars in lottery 500 times.

Totally impossible: john ran at the speed of 400 miles per hour.

If you ask which of these events has a theoritical chance of happening jack's event atleast has a theoritical chance while johns event will never happen.In case jacks event happens, he does win billion dollars 500 times,it still isnt a proof for john's event to happen. unless you say "john had a genetical reengineering done in his body" it isnt possible.Or you have to claim "john had magical powers".

living after a spike piercing his head is improbable.But isnt impossible.It is a proof of nothing.


sofyst wrote:Besides, the photos I provided show a significantly larger gap than one where only a pin can pass through. On my very own person I can place my thumb between the metatarsal bones. Unless of course you were speaking of the Cuneiform bones and there I would concede that only a needle could pass through.
I leave it to your conscience whether the gap you showed in your x ray is big enough to hold a nail which was big enough to pierce the hand of jesus and cross the wooden cross and go to the other side of the cross and keep him suspended in cross for 2 days.

But what about legs.Did he have 2 gaps in his legs too?were they big enough for a nail to pierce two feet of his and the wooden cross and come to the other side of the cross?
sofyst wrote:You have to provide the scientific evidence that a nail has never been driven through a foot and made it through the other side without passing through a bone, thus making it an impossibility on the part of the Scriptural account.

You likewise have to prove that a hairline fracture is the definition of 'broken' that was being referred to within Scripture.

If you are unwilling, if not unable, to provide these evidences then you must concede that you have spoken out of hasty irrationality and withdraw your statements.
First a person who makes a scientifically impossible claim should prove it and not vice versa.If i say "nobody can run at 500 miles per hour" i need not prove it.Because unless it is proved that atleast one person ran like that my statement is correct.

And next I am tired of interpreting the scriptures.people now have changed the definition of 6 days of genesis creation to 15 billion years.In genesis its said that man was created in the 6th day.But when now science says man came into existence 15 billion years after earth was created now people say those 6 days were days of god and were equal to 15 billion years.So now after sometime people will say fracture means not crack in bone but total destruction of bone.

fracture means even cracking of bones.if a small split occurs in bone we call it a fracture.

User avatar
sin_is_fun
Sage
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Eden

Post #15

Post by sin_is_fun »

sofyst wrote:
sin is fun wrote:Your only hope is to say that hairline fracture isnt a fracture at all.Well then you guys have to redefine medical texts then.
I do not think anyone is arguing that a hairline fracture is not a fracture, but that it is not considered broken by the first definition of "To cause to separate into pieces suddenly or violently; smash."

Even if we were to concede that perhaps the bones within Jesus' feet were fractured we would not have to concede that they were broken as they were not seperated into pieces.
"fractured bone is not broken bone?"

Please ask a doctor as of whether a fracture means bones broken into pieces or just a hairline fracture.He will term both as fractures.He might call breaking into pieces as "severe fracture" and hairline fracture as "hairline fracture". But still both are fractures.

User avatar
sofyst
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post #16

Post by sofyst »

"fractured bone is not broken bone?"

Please ask a doctor as of whether a fracture means bones broken into pieces or just a hairline fracture.He will term both as fractures.He might call breaking into pieces as "severe fracture" and hairline fracture as "hairline fracture". But still both are fractures.
Now I'm confused. Are you debating whether Jesus' bones were fractured or whether they were broken? There is a difference and switching between words in mid-argument is highly dishonest. You began by rightly claiming that the Scriptures claim Jesus' bones never to be broken. You then say that if a nail were able to pass through the foot of a person without breaking any bones in two then it would have at least caused a hairline fracture. You then say that since both a hairline fracture and a sever fracture (breaking in two) are called fracture, then Jesus' bones were fractured and the Scripture is untrue. Yet if the Scriptures claim that Jesus' bones were never broken (seperated in two) it matters not whether a hairline fracture or a sever fracture are both called fracture it only matters if a hairline fracture is a broken bone (as in seperated in two; as in definition number one; as in how a Jewish person 1000's of years ago would have called it, not modern medical terminology).
How do I prove that a thing never happened?Nobody can prove that. How do you prove statements like "no man has ever had 3 legs?"The proof for such obvious statements is "as long as it is scinetifically proved that man can have 3 legs we assume that statement to be correct".
How convenient. You make a statement 'no nail can pass through a foot without breaking a bone' and are simply left without any necessity to defend your case? It has not been scientifically proven that a nail cannot pass through the foot without breaking a bone, only that it cannot pass through without at least fracturing it (and might I add you have never provided that evidence, you have simply claimed it is so).

IF you cannot provide the evidence that no nail has ever passed through a human foot without breaking the bone then at least provide the evidence that no nail has ever passed through a human foot without breaking a bone in two. Not simply fracturing, that is not a breaking (by definition number one).

And do not claim you do not need evidence. It has not been provided that it is impossible for a nail to pass through without breaking the bone in two. This was your claim, provide the evidence.
You must have misunderstood the concept of science.In science nobody can ever give any proof for nonhappening of an event.If you make a statement like "my great grandson will have 6 fingers.If you doubt it prove that he wont have 6 fingers..." nobody can prove such a claim.Be practical.Those who claim a scientific impossibility happened should prove it.If they cannot prove it atleast they should explain how it is possible.Atleast describe the methodology.If you even cannot do that then that claim is worthless.
See this is just it. It has not been proven a scientific impossibility that a nail can pass through a human foot without breaking a bone within into two. Only that it cannot pass through without at least fracturing the bone. Which is not a breaking by the definition of breaking.

Therefore if we make a claim (nail passed through without breaking) perhaps you needn't prove that this did not happen, but you must prove that it is impossible to happen (according to your theory) and therefore prove that it probably did not happen. Yet you have not proven that it is scientifically impossible to pass a nail through a foot without breaking, only that it is scientifically impossible to pass a nail through without at least fracturing.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20923
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 379 times
Contact:

Re: bones and shroud

Post #17

Post by otseng »

sin_is_fun wrote:I am happy about the Xrays posted by the faithful.But the gaps you guys point out inbetween the bones are very small.Only a very tiny nail can pass through them.In the movie passion of christ,enormous nails were shown.And logic also suggests that to hang a person only by the support of nails huge nails have to be used.
I have no medical experience, but I would guess that the carpal bones can move. I do not believe that the spaces between the carpal bones are so rigid that only a tiny nail could pass through it. I would suspect that the spaces between the bones would be flexible enough to allow for a large nail to go between them.

Gaunt
Apprentice
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:46 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Post #18

Post by Gaunt »

Sorry to jump in here a bit late, I just have a few comments to make.

I find it odd, sofyst, that you would choose to fixate on the first definition of "break" when the fourth definition (from the same source) defines it as "A) To fracture a bone of: I broke my leg." or
"B) To fracture (a bone): I broke my femur." That you would not choose the definition that specifically refers to bones, and coincidentally uses the term "fracture", rather than a more general term that is less applicable seems to be taking advantage of the ambiguous nature of the word.
sofyst wrote:as in how a Jewish person 1000's of years ago would have called it, not modern medical terminology
Are you saying that a broken bone now does not mean the same thing as it meant thousands of years ago? Or, to put it another way, if I were to "only" have a hairline fracture in my arm thousands of years ago in Israel, they would not consider it broken, because the bone pieces are not completely separated from each other? This seems rather odd.

User avatar
potwalloper.
Scholar
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Broken bones of god

Post #19

Post by potwalloper. »

sin_is_fun wrote:One of the claims of Bible is that the bones of jesus werent broken.But nails were passed through his feet and wrists(or palm).

Scientifically it is impossible to drive a nail in somebodys feet and make it to come to the other side without the nail passing through the bone.When it is done so, it is impossible not to have atleast a hairline fracture.In fact a nail piercing one side of the feet bone and coming on the otherside itself is fracture.

when nail passes through bone, the bone cracks.It doesnt make an exact hole and passes through the other side.And the nail used on jesus must have been a big one, so the bigger the nail the higher the probablity of fracture.

so how was this prophecy fulfilled?
Well - you need to bear in mind that Jesus was supposed to be the son of god and as such had supernatural powers.

He could have made the bones in his feet become bendy when the nails were put through them;

or could have been born with holes already there (bearing in mind he knew he would be nailed up)

or he could have moved the nails into another dimension such that the tip was in the cross, the end was showing but the middle part was not touching his bones having been shifted into another space-time continuum;

he could have had super bones that do not crack;

or could have turned the nail into a pork pie - pork pies being softer than bone would be unlikely to crack one;

or perhaps he simply hung on the cross by suspending gravity and presented a hologram of a nail sticking out of his feet :shock:

The point is that myths can be interpreted in any way you wish to preserve the myth. Even if human feet were made of a single solid bone you would still have Christians finding some sort of explanation for why the single solid bone did not break. ;)

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #20

Post by RevJP »

By all means! Let us use a theatrical depiction of an event on which to base our claims of the impossibility of the event.

Osteng provided some good evidence on the reality of crucifixtion. There are archeological finds which demonstrate that the nails were placed in the wrists to support the weight (couple that with anthropological and linguistic evidence that wrist and hand were considered the same in reference) and we understand that when scriptures state that He was nailed though the hand it is understood that the wrist was part of said hand.

As far as support for the weight by the feet, the design of crucifixtion was to induce suffocation (along with suffering and shame), the foot nailings were necessary only to provide minimal and fleeting support so that the crucified could raise up a bit (extremely painfully I might add) to catch a slight breath, thus prolonging the tortuous pain.

A large nail, or spike even, could easily have been driven between the bones of the feet without breaking any and serve the purpose they were designed to serve. Remembering of course the nails in the wrists (hands) supported the weight hanging on them and the nails in the feet supported the weight briefly placed on TOP of them, thus not tearing the foot away from the nail but pushing the foot down onto the nail.

Post Reply